Roman Church not to be grounded on the belief of the Primitive Church neither on the Authority of the Holy Fathers INTRODUCTION The Reading of the Books concerning the Perpetuity of Faith in the Eucharist was an occasion to me to examin in particular the belief of Rome about that matter THus the affairs of my Conversion depended when Providence that watched after the means to work out my safety brought forth an Occasion that did contribute very much to reduce all my Difficulties to the Question of the Authority of the Church of Rome to the end that this Authority being proved false the Doctrin of Rome which is grounded upon it might be presently destroyed It was in the Time when the Dispute of the Perpetuity of Faith concerning the Eucharist made a great Rumor in the World among learned Men. I read with as much application as I was capable of the Books and the Replies both of Mr. Claude and of Mr. Arnaud the Triumph of the Eucharist by Mr. Pavillon the Book of Father Noüet and the Book of the Testimony of our Senses in the Eucharist I do not intend to make my self an arbitrator to judge those rare men who are accounted without contradiction the most Witty and Learned of France Since I do but tell the History of my Conversion I do only rehearse the effects the Reading of those Books wrought in my Soul and I am not so unjust as to hinder the rest of the World to think what they please of those learned Mens writings and to judge them at liberty The reading of those Books brought me abundance of light in the Question of the Holy Sacrament I did consider the Argument of Perpetuity as an Argument which being not Metaphysical was to be reduced at last to a multitude of Probabilities from which one could never conclude any thing with necessity though he would suppose as true with Mr. Arnauld the Principle whereupon it is grounded to wit the Belief of all the Churches in the point of * Which in the Sence of the Roman Church is Transubstantiation reality All the Christian Churches saith Mr. Arnauld believe the real Presence therefore it was the belief of the Primitive Church for in a matter of so great Importance it is impossible there should have been made any alteration in Doctrin This Argument found I know not what repugnancy to be received in my mind for though I supposed the first Proposition to be true which since by the Study of the Histories and Relations of several Countries I acknowledge to be false yet I could not consent to the consequence because the proof of it was not true to my thinking and what endeavour soever of Rhetorick Mr. Arnauld Used to expound and sustain his Thought yet I did ever conceive that it was very likely some alteration had been made in the Doctrin of the Eucharist as well as in other Articles in which every body acknowledges there has been On the contrary I found Mr. Claude's Answer very reasonable This alteration has been made saith he therefore it is not impossible and his proof the Church of Rome doth believe the real Presence with Transubstantiation but they did not believe so in the Primitive Church therefore there has been made an alteration and afterwards he proves in his Book by the Authority of Authors who lived in that time that truly in the Primitive Church they did not believe the real Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament This Argument seemed to me very natural sincere and true the proof of it easie and well grounded But for that of Mr. Arnauld's it seemed to me rough uneasie intricate the proofs of it grounded upon suppositions in the Air which could not be reduced at last but to some appearances of truth proving nothing necessarily These Reasons incited me to judge in favour of Mr. Claude against Mr. Arnauld's Argument But though I was perswaded his Argument was not good yet I would not confess the Opinion he was for was not true May be said I Mr. Arnauld hath proceeded a little too far in a false proof and afterwards he hath been engaged for his honour sake to hold it earnestly But in fine Mr. Arnauld is but a private man the Church of Rome may disclaime his Argument and not hold with him So Mr. Arnauld's Reasons being false it doth not follow from thence that the belief of his Church is false since it could have other Proofs and other Reasons That was the cause why I resolved to examin the Question of the Eucharist for my own clearing and here is very near the Method I observed in it Division of the Errors of the Roman Church concerning the Matters of the Eucharist I supposed first as a principle which I received without examination that the Primitive Church was to be our Rule since that Church nearer to the Apostles and our Saviour Jesus Christ had the advantage to suck Truths out of their Source That being supposed I divided all that is to be said of the Eucharist in two parts First The Belief concerning the Sacrament Secondly The form of the Administration of it Since then said I the belief of the Council of (a) Consil Trid. sessi 33. Item sess 13. cap. 4. can 2. Trent touching the Eucharist is not to be found in the Scripture since the Form of Administrating the Sacrament in the Roman Church is so much different from that which is related by St. Paul in the First to the Corinthians chap. 11. and by the Evangelists we are to examin whether the Belief of Rome had not been the Belief of the Primitive Church and whether the Mass which is the Roman Form of Administring the Sacrament had not been instituted by the first Christians And whereas the Church of Rome believes the (b) Consil Trid. sess 33. sess 13. real Presence with (c) sess 13. cap. 4. can 2. Transubstantiation believes that the Mass is a propitiatory (d) Sess 22. cap. 1 2. can 1 2 3. Sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead believes that the Mass as it is now ordained by the Pope is the ancient Form of Celebrating the Eucharist I examined every one of those Questions Ch. 2. §. 1. and I found 1. That the Belief of Rome about Real Presence with Transubstantiation is a new Doctrin in the Church 2. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is contrary to the belief of the Primitive Church 3. That the manner of Celebrating the Eucharist is very much different and quite opposed to that which Christians were used to in the first Ages of the Church From whence I concluded that the Articles of Faith of Rome are not grounded upon the belief of the Primitive Church SECT I. The Belief of Rome about the real Presence with Transubstantiation is a new Doctrin in the Church I. First proof drawn out of the reasons wherewith the Fathers of the Church were used to dispute against the Heathens SEveral
cy-devant est tombée dans la Corruption et dans l Erreur § 1. Corruption horrible dans ses Moeurs p. 80. § 2. Erreurs extremement grossieres dans sa Doctrine pag. 88. Conclusion Generale Que j'estois engagé de sortir de l'Eglise de Rome aprés que Dieu m'en eut fait connoître les Erreurs par les degrés que j'ay marqués dans les deux Parties de ce Discours pag. 88. § 1. L'Occasion d'un Sermon que je préchay sur le sujet du Sacrement me rappella dans l'Esprit toutes les idées que j'avois des Erreurs de Rome pag. 91. § 2. Les repugnances que je souffris et les difficultés qu'il me falut surmonter pag. 94. § 3. Les raisons que je meditay dans mon esprit pour differer ma Conversion pag. 96. § 4. Dieu par sa misericorde me fait vivement comprendre le grand peché que c'est que de s'opposer au saint Esprit et ainsi acheve ma Conversion en me faisant genereusement abandonner la Communion de Rome pag. 101. TABLE INTRODUCTION § 1. The Reasons wherefore I have been engaged to write these Memoires Pag. 1. § 2. That the Conversion of a man who did live in the Errors of the Roman Church is a very great Miracle pag. 5. § 3. After what manner and by what degrees the Spirit of God made me understand my Errors pag. 9. FIRST PART That the Doctrin of the Roman Church is not grounded neither upon the belief of the Primitive Church or the Authority of the Holy Fathers CHAP. I. How I understood that the Doctrin of the Roman Church is not grounded upon the Scripture § 1. The Reading of the Scripture disposes me to acknowledge the Errors of Rome pag. 11. § 2. The Errors of the Roman Church whereof I was perswaded made me find in the Scripture many Difficulties many Insufficiencies and many Contradictions pap 16. § 3. Circumstances which did contribute to hasten my Conversion pag. 22. § 4. Conclusion of this Chapter That the Articles of Faith of the Roman Church cannot be proved by Scripture pag. 26. CHAP. II. How I understood that the Articles of Faith of the Roman Church are not grounded upon the Belief of the Primitive Church nor upon the Authority of the Holy Fathers INTRODUCTION The reading of the Books concerning The Perpetuity of Faith in the Eucharist was an occasion to me to examin in particular the Belief of the Roman Church about that matter pag. 30. Division of the Errors of Rome concerning the Eucharist pag. 34. Section I. That the belief of Rome about the real Presence in the sense of Transubstantiation is a new Doctrin in the Church I. First Proof drawn out of the Arguments wherewith the Fathers of the Church had wont to Dispute against the Heathens pag. 36. II. Second Proof drawn out of the Reasons wherewith the same Fathers had wont to Dispute against the Hereticks pag. 41. III. Third Proof drawn out of the manner whereafter the Fathers had wont to speak of the Holy Saerament pag. 44. IV. Fourth Proof drawn out of the novelty of the Doctrin teaching Transubstantiation pag. 48 Section II. That that which is taught of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Church of Rome is a Doctrin contrary to the belief of the Primitive Church I. In what sense it is true to say that the Holy Sacrament is a Sacrifice pag. 50. II. That the pretended Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Roman Church is contrary to the Scripture pag. 53. III. What has given occasion to that Error and the degrees of Corruption which brought forth that belief pag. 56. IV. That the horrid abuse which is slid in the Roman Church to offer their Sacrifices in the honour of Saints is a practice contrary to that of the Primitive Church pag. 59. Section III. That the manner of Administring the Sacrament in the Roman Church is quite different and very much opposed to that to which they were used in the first Ages of the Church I. That in the time of the Apostles and in the first ages of the Church they gave the Communion to all the People under both kinds they worshipped not the Host and celebrated not the Holy Mysteries in an unknown Tongue pag. 64. II. The beginning of all the Errors of the Roman Church in the Administration of the Sacrament pag. 70. 1. The beginning of the Abridgement of the Cup. pag. 71. 2. The beginning of the Worship of the Host pag. 74. 3. The beginning of the celebration of the Eucharist in an unknown Tongue pag. 78. Conclusion of the First Part. That the Articles of Faith of the Roman Church cannot be proved by the practice of the Primitive Church nor by the authority of the ancient Fathers pag. 80. Second Part. That the Church of Rome is not the true Church that it's Authority is not Infallible and that it is full of Corruptions and Errors INTRODUCTION The Divine Providence brought forth some occasions which made me resolve to examin the very first grounds of the Question concerning the Authority of the Roman Church pag. 1. 1. The occasion that I had to examin a-new all the Articles of Faith of the Roman Church all which I reduced to the Authority of the same Church pag. 3. 2. The occasion that I had to doubt of the Infallibility of the Pope made me resolve to examin again and without passion upon which is grounded that Authority which the Church of Rome boasts so much pag. 6. 3. Circumstances wherewith I began to examin the Authority of the Roman Church and what I do design in the Rehearsal of them pag. 12. CHAP. I. Of the pretended grounds of the Authority of the Roman Church pag. 16. Section I. That Antiquity Multitude and Succession are not priviledges which ever the Roman Church had enjoyed above all other Churches pag. 20. § 1. That the Roman Church is not the Eldest of all the Churches pag. 21 § 2. That the Multitude is not on the Roman Churches side pag. 25. § 3. That other Churches as well as the Roman have their Succession from Bishop to Bishop from the very Apostles pag. 29. Section II. That neither Antiquity neither Multitude neither Succession are not Infallible marks of the true Church and consequently that a Church may have them all and with them all be an Heretical Church pag. 32. § 1. That Antiquity is not an Infallible mark of the true Church pag. 33. § 2. That the Multitude is not an Infallible mark of the true Church pag. 39. § 3. That the Succession is not an Infallible mark of the true Church pag. 45. Conclusion That it is the Succession of the true Doctrin from the Apostles which is an Infallible mark of the true Church and that the Church of Rome which hath not the Succession of the Doctrin has no reason to boast neither of its Antiquity neither of the Multitude neither
be found in the Roman Church who durst prove against them as did Tertullian against Marcion that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Figure of Christs Body and that consequently Christ was not a Ghost On the contrary a Protestant would be able to bring against those Heresies the same Arguments which the first Christians used and he would be warranted therein by all his Church From whence comes that difference if not from that that a Protestant believes nothing concerning the Sacrament but what they believed in the Primitive Church whereas a Divine of the Church of Rome acknowledges several articlesof Faith which were unknown among the First Christians and which consequently are the cause he cannot speak the same Language nor use the same Arguments they used These two Reasons seemed to me so much the stronger because I looked upon them not as the opinion of a single man who may be deceived or some place of a Book which may be corrupted and drawn into an ill sense but I looked upon these Reasons as the Reasons of all the Church and publick Weapons both of Learned Men and of the People to fight the Heathens and the Hereticks with all III. Third Proof drawn out of the manner whereafter the Fathers were wont to speak of this Holy Sacrament THat which confirmed me that in the Primitive Church they did not believe the Real Presence with Transubstantiation was the manner wherewith the Fathers both Greek and Latin were wont to speak of those Mysteries Theodoret (a) In 55 Quaestiosuper genesim says It is an extreme foclishness and extravagancy to Worship what one Eats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the same in (b) Dialog 1. Intitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another place The LORD says he did the honour to the visible Signs to call them his BLOOD and his BODY not having changed their Nature but having added Grace to Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is there any appearance that the Fathers believed what the Council of Trent teaches A Divine of the Church of Rome who should say that it is an extreme extravagancy to Worship what one Eats That Christ hath not changed the Nature of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament would he not presently be sent to the Inquisition and condemned as an Heretick to be burnt a live The Eucharist say the Fathers of the Church (a) Cyprian de Caena cap. 6. is a visible Sacrament whereupon the Divine Essence imparts it self after an unutterable manner It (b) Idem cap. 2. is an Holy Nutriment capable of rendering us Immortal which is very much different from the ordinary Nutriments we are daily fed withal It keeps indeed the kind of a corporeal substance but it makes known by an invisible efficacy that it possesses the Presence of a Divine Vertue (c) Hilary de Trinit lib. 8. we are in Christ by his corporeal Birth and he is in us by the Mysteries of his Sacraments (d) August cap. 12. cont Adimant The Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body He (a) Idem in Psal 3. permitted Judas to be present at the Banquet wherein he committed and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood If a Roman Author should use these expressions which the Holy Fathers used would not a Bishop of the Roman Church zealous for the Interests of the Council of Trent say to him Sir 't is not enough to say with Cyprian tha tthe Divine Essence imparts it self in the Eucharist after an unutterable manner the Hereticks say all that You must say furthermore the Body and Soul of Christ are there really in the room of the substance of Bread 'T is not enough to say the Eucharist is an Holy Nutriment of a Divine Vertue the Hereticks do confess all that You must say moreover it contains the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood 'T is not enough to say that Christ is in us by the Mysteries of his Sacraments the Hereticks do believe the same thing but you must say he is in us really his Body his Soul his Divinity In fine you must have a very great care of saying the Sacrament is the Sign and the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood as St. Austin said you must say to the contrary that it is not the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood you must say that it is Christ's own Body and Blood into which the Bread and Wine of the Lord's Supper is Transubstantiated Certainly this Bishop would speak well according to the belief of the new Roman Church but he would be far from the Doctrin of the holy Fathers He would forsake the Faith of the Primitive Church he would bring forth propositions of which the first Christians have been wholly ignorant he would even condemn the Belief of 330 Bishops of a general Council held at Constantinople in the year 754. for those 330 Bishops condemning as Idolatry the Worshiping of Images among the Reasons they brought did exhort the People to be contented with the Images that Christ has instituted giving in the Holy Sacrament Bread and Wine as Images and Figures of his own Body and Blood and speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist Behold there is said those Fathers the Image of his life-giving Body and a little after The Lord say they has commanded us to put upon the Table this Image especially chosen to wit the substance of Bread least Idolatry should slip in among the Christians if he had been represented under an Human Figure IV. Fourth Proof drawn out of the Novelty of the Doctrin teaching Transubstantiation ALl those Reasons perswaded me not only that the belief of the Real Presence with Transubstantiation was not the belief of the Primitive Church but furthermore that they were Articles of Faith newly devised And I knew afterwards they were no older than the beginning of the thirteenth Age when Pope Innocent the Third in the (a) Scotus in 4. Sent. dist 11. quaest 3. Council of Lateran in the year â—214 set among the Articles of Faith the Belief of Transubstantiation since we see that in the end of the Ninth Age about the Year of our Lord 870. Bertram or John Scot one of the most learned Men of that time wrote a Book by the command of Charles the Bauld King of France touching the question of the Eucharist wherein he maintains openly the Belief of the Protestant Church since we (a) Biblioteca Patr. de Div. Offi. find a letter of the Emperour Charles Magne to his Teacher Alcuinus wherein these words are to be read Jesus christ supping with his Disciples broke the Bread and gave it to them likewise the Cup in figure of his Body and Blood In fine since even in the Canon of the Mass instead of these words which are to be found there now Ut nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui c. That it may become to us
Christian Congregations do not agree together to know which of them has the true Faith and the true Religion instituted by Christ that was the point of my difficulty In that part of Europe wherein I find my self by the chance of my birth see two Congregation two Christian Churches the Roman and the Reformed which both boast to have that true Faith excluding the other now how to resolve that difference and to know which of them has truth of it's side The Roman Church brags it self to be the eldest it reckoneth a multitude of people and nations who conform themselves to it's Communion and shews a long Catalogue of Popes who have been settle one after another in the Seat of Rome but if it be asked to set open to the light its Articles of Faith and to examine whether or no they be agreeable to the word of God to that true Faith which has been taught us by Jesus Christ our Lord it cryes out frets and is disturb'd it cannot abide to come to that examination and would be believed upon its own word On the contrary the Reformed Church brags of nothing she could say that it is she truly that is the eldest since the doctrine she teaches if conformable to that which Christ himself taught us she could shew in all ages and in all parts of the world whole nations which are conformable to the same doctrine which she has learnt from Christ she could show long Catalogues of Bishops and Patriarchs who have succeded one another in the Chairs which the Apostles themselves have established which are with her in Communion and upon all those accounts she could demand as well as the Roman Church to be believed upon her own word without coming to the examination of her doctrine but forasmuch as she knows that this manner of dealing is unjust and that she is sure she teaches nothing but what is agreeable to the word of God she desires nothing so much as to be examined by the rule of the Scripture and gives leave to all the world to compare the doctrine she teaches with that which they taught in the Primitive Church with that which the Apostles with that which Christ himself taught when he was upon the earth Now which of these two Churches acts more sincerely and which of them have we most reason to suspect of error and falsehood If fomebody should come to a payment with you and you could not know surely whether his mony were good or false coyn would not you use weights and a touch-stone to examine the mony And if the man should be angry and alledge to you that the mony which he pays you seems very acnient that there is in the world a great deal more such as that and that he has received it successively from his great great Grandfather Would you not say to his Sir there is great quantity of ancient mony which is false for all that if this mony be not good all the mony in the world which is alike to it is not good neither and if these pieces be false you may give them your Children succes sively to the end of the world but they would not grow better for all that but if notwithstanding the man would be believed upon his word and could by no means abide you should bring his mony to the trial would not you take occasion from thence to think not without cause that such a man intended to cheat you SECTION I. Antiquity Multitude and Succession are not Priviledges of the Roman Church above all other Churches Such is the manner of dealing in the Church of Rome which is a great argument that the doctrine she teaches is not agreeable to the word of God since it cannot abide by any means that it should be examined by that rule she brags that she has on her side Antiquity the greatest number and succession and in repeating often those fine principles which dazle the world in saying them over and over and boldly in causing them to be published every where by her controversial and Theological Writers she has made the World almost believe that she is the eldest of all the Christian Churches and that among all the Christian Congregations there are but few which are not submitted to the Church of Rome and in fine that the Pope is the only true Successor of St. Peter these are the three false principles upon which the Roman Church grounds it self but which have no other foundation than the boldness wherewith those of that Church have used to publish them § 1. The Roman Church is not the Eldest of all the Churches WE learn of the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors Origine Eusebius Hierome Isidore and others that the Apostles after they had received the Holy Ghost which an order to go to publish the Gospel in all the world were scattered abroad as so many flouds full of the Holy Ghost to preach the word of God in all the Nations St. Peter preached in Judea Galatia cappadocia pontus Bithynia and Rome St. James the son of Zebedee in Judea and Spain St. John in Judea and Asia the less St. Andrew in Scythia Europea in Eprius Thracia and Achaia St. James the brother of our Lord in Jerusalem St. Philip in Scythia and Phrygia St. Bartholomew in the Indies and Armenia the great St. Matthew in Ethyopia St. Thomas preached to the Parthians Medes Persians Brachmans Hyrcanians Bactrians and Indians St. Simon in Mesopotamia and Persia St. Judas in Egypt and Persia St. Matthias in the higher Ethyopia St. Paul and Barnabas in many Countries of Europe and Asia Now I would very fain know upon what ground the Church of Rome would be accounted the eldest of all those Churches which have been erected by the Apostles of Christ if one of them have the right to be accounted and called the eldest of the Sisters it seems in all reason that it must be the Church of Jerusalem for it was in Jerusalem that Christ himself preach't the greatest part of his Sermons there he exercised his Offices of Priest and Bishop 't was in that City he was sacrificed for our sins 't was there the Apostles first declared the word of God as it is to be seen in (a) Chap. 24. v. 47. St. Luke it was of that Church St. James was created the first Bishop in the world it is the Church of Jerusalem which is called by Theodoret (b) Hist Ecclesiast lib. 5. cap. 9. Mother of all Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. it is the Church of Jerusalem which is to be acknowledged as the first of all Churches according to the Testimony of all the Fathers who were present at the Council of Constantinople as Baronius himself testifies in the year of our Lord 382. If the right of Antiquity is to be given only to a Church instituted by St. Peter the Church of Antioch in Syria is to have in that the priviledge above the Church of Rome for
and must confess that they did wrong when they excommunicated it and that the Church of England is infallible and has the true Faith since in it they do conserve from Bishop to Bishop from the times of the Apostles a right Succession in all the Ecclesiastical powers But it is not upon Succession only that churches are to ground the Doctrines they profess the Reformed Churches are very willing to be examined after the very rule of the Gospel and do not defend a false principle by antiquity as those of the Roman Church do CONCLVSION That it is the Succession of the true Doctrine from the Apostles which is an Infallible mark of the true Church and that the Church of Rome which hath the Succession of Doctrine hath no reason to boast neither of its Antiquity nor of its Multitude nor Succession IT is true that the Fathers used the Argument of the Succession against the Hereticks Tertullian (a) De praescrip cap. 32. urged it against those of his time Optatus (b) Lib. 2 3. against the Donatists Augustin against the Manichees the Arians and the Pelagians but lest you should be mistaken do but read exactly those Fathers and you shall find that with the Succession of Churches and Bishops they required a Succession of Doctrine which Tertullian calls a Consanguinity and an affinity of Doctrine to prove they were the true Church which St. Augustin said it was impossible to prove throughly but by the Scripture Let them produce said Tertullian (c) De praescr cap. 32. the beginning of their Churches let them shew us the order and the succession of their Bishops from the beginning and at last bring forth some of the Apostles or some instructed by the Apostles who were Authors of their Churches c. But though they should have dispatched that step though they should have devised some Catalogue of Succession yet they should not have got very much by that for their Doctrines compared with that of the Apostles will make it appear by they diversity and the contrariety there is betwixt them that neither the Apostles nor those who have been instructed by them were the Authors of their Churches even saith he they shall be condemned by those Churches which though they have not for their Author neither one of the Apostles nor one instructed by them immediately as being erected after the time of the Apostles begun in our days are nevertheless Apostolical because of the Consanguinity of the Doctrine they teach which is the same with that which was taught by the Apostles And St. Gregory of Nazianze (d) In laud. Athan. shews that the succession is to be esteemed by Piety sooner than by Seat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he who professes the true faith is partaker of the same Seat he who doth the contrary though he doth sit in the same seat is an enemy directly opposed to that Chair which he sits on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Succession of the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be esteemed the true Succession for it hath the truth of it whereas the other hath but the appearance thereof Thus you see that even by the testimonies of the Fathers To be a true Church it is not enough to have the Succession of the same Chair and the Succession of the Bishops which the Roman Church boast of upon all occasions since one may shew a long Catalogue of Succession and be an Heretick for all that as you see by Tertullian his Testimony since one may sit upon the same Chair which was Catholick heretofore and for all that be the sworn enemy of that Chair as it is manifest by the testimony of St. Gregory of Nazianze but a Church ought to have the Succession of the Faith the Succession of the Piety and shew as Tertullian speaks a Consanguinity of Doctrine Consanguinitatem Doctrinae and this the Church of Rome doth not boast of at all since it cannot abide that we should speak of examining its doctrine by the word of God and of comparing it with the Faith of the Primitive Church with the belief of the Apostles Let not therefore the Church of Rome boast that it hath possessed almost all the finest Churches in the world the Arians have possessed them as well as they and St. Hierome for all that calls them Hereticks The Church saith that Father (a) In Psal 133. consisteth not in walls and buildings but in the truth of the Doctrine the Church is where the true Faith is 't is not above 15 or 20 years past since the Hereticks possessed all these buildings even all these glorious Churches but in that time the Church was there where the true Faith was Ecclesia autem ibi vera erat ubi fides erat Could not we have said the same in this Kingdom 'T is not above 120 or 160 years past before the time of Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth when the Papists possessed all these buildings even all these Churches but in that time the true Church was there where the true faith was Ecclesia autem ibi vera erat ubi fides erat Do not let them say that the Pope hath succeeded St. Peter for we will answer that Nero was Successor of Augustus and notwithstanding Nero was a Tyrant Augustus was a good Prince we will answer that the King Manasses succeeded Ezechias and yet for all that Manasses was a wicked King Ezechias was a Saint In fine we will say that the Arian Bishops had succeeded the Catholicks that the impious Nestorius was the right Successor of St. Andrew in the Chair of Constantinople that the famous Heretick Paul of Samosate was the right Successor of St. Peter in the Church of Antioch and that all those as well as the Popes have succeeded others who had ruled before them but as the night succedes the day sickness good health death life CHAPTER II. The true Grounds of the now Roman Church Chap. 2. AS soon as I had overthrown those three false imaginations of Antiquity Multitude and Succession wherewith they used to cloak the Errors of the Church of Rome it was very easie to know the true grounds and foundations whereupon it is built and those grounds being neither the Authority of the Scripture nor the Doctrine of the Primitive Church nor Antiquity nor the Concurrence of the Multitude nor the Succession of Churches or Bishops I knew aftere a diligent examination that they could not be other than the Ambition and Covetousness of those who govern it and it is from thence that all the corruptions and all the errors of that Church have proceeded SECTION I. The Ambition of the Popes §. 1. The Pope exalts himself above all Kings whereas by right he ought to be submitted to them POpe Gregory the 7th in a Synod held at Rome in the year 1076. established 27 Propositions upon which is grounded all the greatness of Rome which are called the Dictatorship of the
put his hand upon (a) Mar. 8.24 he did see truly but yet he was not able to distinguish Men from Tree the Word of God had restored my Eyes but they were but weak and subject to a great many dimnesses it was need to have some time to strengthen me in the Truth which I had but a glimpse of and to take away the Ignorance of Divinity under the pretences of which the Devil would cloak the Word of God Therefore the Divine Providence that took care for my Conduct disposed all things to hasten my Conversion it brought to pass several incidents which the Profane would call chance but the Saints stile The hand of the Lord. First I was destinated for the study of Divinity four years before all my Companions let the Flatterers and Profane say what they please those who judge holily of things that come to pass understand very well that the design of the Lord in that was no other but to take away as soon as it could be the fair Pretences wherewith Error would have offuscated Truth Secondly the Lord permitted I should come to an able man learned in Divinity both Scholastical and Positive perfect in Right Canon which is the Decrees of Fathers Councils and Popes in a word a man who was marvellous in Study of Controversies and in every thing which can contribute to make an absolute Divine But He permitted also that there might be in so excellent a man the fair Dealing and the Sincerity of a Child that was the reason that some Years after when he had known the Truth of God and the Errors of Rome because he knew not how to disguise Truth he published it every where he could not forbear to say that Indulgences Purgatory and the Obligations of Believing the Articles of Faith of the Pope and of keeping his Commandements upon â—ain of a mortal Sin were so many â—rafty Tricks of Rome to get Money He could not forbear to tell every Body the Mysteries the Factions the Impostures of the most part of those last Councils which are accounted General and Oecumenical by the Church of Rome he defended generously all the Truths which we profess in the Church of England wherefore he drew upon himself all the Persecutions he suffered for Truth so that afterward he died a Martyr for the Gospel by the severity of the Laws of Rome Oh! had he been in the time that I conversed with him as much lightned as he has been since he had saved me many troubles and perplexities he had doubtless delivered me out of that Suspension of Spirit whereunto I was reduced by the subtilty of his Answers and the height of his Resolutions But in that time the Lod did but begin his Conversion as well as mine and lighten us both by degrees yet with these two differences First the Lord destinated him to suffer all kinds of Persecutions to make him a Witness of his Holy Word a Martyr of the Gospel and he has not yet judged me worthy of Persecutions nor of Martyrdom Secondly he would have him raised up to the number of those great Saints whom the World afflicts and torments Ch. 1. §. 4. (a) Heb. 11.38 Of whom the World is not worthy Therefore the Lord ravished betimes that innocent Soul in the liveliness of his Years and speedily was he taken away (b) Wisd 4.11 as saith Solomon Lest Wickedness should alter his Understanding or deceit beguile his Soul Whereas the Divine Justice has looked upon me as a grievous Offendor who am suffered to live that I might Mourn and Weep longer for my Sons §. 4. The Conclusions of this Chapter How I came to know that the Articles of faith of Rome cannot be proved by Scripture IT was under the Conduct of that learned and holy Man that I began to give my self to the Study of Divinity I read what Authors do write concerning those Questions but specially and more exactly concerning the Questions which are controverted which are for the most part the Doctrines the Church of Rome hath received out of pride and covetousness without any ground in the Scripture I found in those Questions several difficulties I came to propound them to my Master there is said he what Bellarmin Answers there is for this matter the Exposition of Cardinal du Perron there is what Bonaventure what Thomas Aquinas what Scotus what Suarez what Valentia what Boivin what Herincx what others say touching that difficulty But when I asked him Tell me I beseech you freely what do you think He Answered me almost to every one of those Questions To tell you the truth said he the Doctrin of Purgatory of Indulgences of Worshiping Images and Reliques the Doctrin of Transubstantiation c. I do not find all these Doctrins very evident in the Scripture I do not see neither how they can be drawn very directly out of those places of the Bible th Authors of Rome are wont to produce to prove them by I give them you said he only to alledge to those who would have a place of the Bible he brought forth in every matter to have some pretence to say seasonably or unseasonably the Scripture speaks of that Matter and to content the Hereticks But to speak plainly I do sincerely confess it is not the Scripture which obliges or perswades me to believe all those Articles but the true and the only reason why I do hold them is because the Church teaches them so There are said I in self at once a great many difficulties abridged it is a great deal more just and more reasonable to deal after this manner than to consume all our brain to find in the Scripture with great pains of false discoursing what the Holy Ghost had never intention to teach therein Let us acknowledge then freely that all the Articles of the Faith of Rome are not in the Scripture nor grounded upon any thing else but upon the Authority of the Church After that all these difficulties may be very easily resolved All the business will be but to know whether or no I am obliged to believe as an Article of Faith what the Roman Church teaches without any ground from the Scripture This was the pass to which I was reduced to this I thought all the Theologie of Rome was to be reduced I did but loose my labour in consulting other Professors of Divinity in Conferring with those Friends of mine who were some Bachelors some Licentiates some Doctos of Sorbon and Curates of some chief Parishes in Paris They spoke but Gibbrish or some Latin words contrary to the good common Secne and Reason when they would have grounded the Doctrin of the Church of Rome upon the Scriptures and they never spake with reason but when at last they reduced themselves as to a Principle to the infallible definitive and final Judgement of the said Church in such matters CHAP. II. Chap. 2. How I understood the Articles of Faith of the
Reasons perswaded me that in the Primitive Church they did not believe the real Presence with Transubstantiation as the Roman Church Teaches it The first of all was the Argument which the Holy Fathers used to prove the Idols of the Heathens not to be Gods The Idols you Worship so earnestly said (a) Arnobi lib. 6. Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 2. they to the Heathens are not Gods If they fall to the ground they cannot raise up again by themselves therefore they need the help of Men they can neither open their Eyes nor stir out of the place where they have been set nor give the least sign of respiration They are subject to Rustiness Worms and Corruption Mice come to gnaw them and work their holes even in the Idols themselves In fine The Doors of your Temples must be shut up with good Locks least Theives should steal those Gods of yours It is to be believed that men who spoke thus would hold the Body Soul and Divinity of Christ to be Really Present in the Holy Sacrament Would not they have had reason to fear that the Heathens who were very able men would use against them the same Argument and tell them Your Host is not a God neither you are not to Worship it for it is subject to the same conveniencies and accidents as our Gods are Would a Divine of the Church of Rome have the boldness to dispute against the Heathens with the same reasons which the first Christians used The People of Paris said about five or six years ago They have stolen to day God Almighty out of St. Sulpitius's Church out of the Parish of Boulogne out of I do not know how many other Churches could that people say by right that the reason why the Idols are not Gods is because they cannot defend themselves against the Theives who come to take them away Those who have composed the Rubricks of the Missal wherein they Teach what is to be done in case the Host is fallen upon the Ground in case that that which is in the Chalice be spilt would they say that the reason why the Idols are not Gods is because when they are fallen they cannot rise up by themselves Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors of the Roman Church who do suppose the Host may grow mouldy that Worms may breed in it should they dare say as did the first Christians that the reason why we are not to Worship Idols is because they are subject to Rustiness Worms and Corruptions A Man of the Church of Rome who knows that the Pope (a) Platina in Victori Victorinus the Third was Poisoned in Drinking that which was in the Chalice That Henry the Seventh Emperour was Murthered with a Consecrated Host and that (b) Math. Paris an 1154. Henry Arch-bishop of York was used after the same manner in taking the Sacrament Durst One who knows all these Stories say the reason why the Idols are not Gods is because some of them falling out of their places have bruised and hurt those who usually walked about them Words are the Expressions of our Thoughts if the Church of Rome hath the same belief and the same Doctrin concerning the Eucharist as the first Christians Why doth it not dare to urge the same things which were maintained by the first Christians Or if the first Christians had the same Faith as the Church of Rome now how came they to urge Arguments which the Church of Rome now dares not maintain It is easie to know how great a prejudice this Argument is against the Belief of the Roman Church so did it work a mighty effect in my Soul And because I thought it very hard to have a resolution to it I proposed it in publick Disputes at Paris and first the Professor denied that ever any of the Fathers had used such Arguments But for as much as I could not abide to take a Lye before so many People I sent for Arnobius his Book and I read therein proofs enough to maintain the Propositions I stood for then the Professor who was as much able to give Distinction to no purpose as he was ignorant in reading the Fathers brought distinctions upon distinctions till at last in denying or distinguishing propositions clearer than the Sun it self he had reduced the Dispute to some Philosophical Question to avoid Answering my Argument I proposed it again to several Learned Men I looked for some Answer and Solution in the Books of Divines and I found nothing no where that could satisfie me in that Difficulty II. Second Proof drawn out of the Reasons wherewith the same Fathers were wont to dispute against the Hereticks THe second Reason that perswaded me that in the Primitive Church they did not believe the Real Presence with Transubstantiation was the Argument the first Christians used to prove against the Hereticks of their Age that Christ had a true Body and that he was not a Ghost Jesus Christ saith Tertullian (a) Lib. 4. Cap. 40. cont Marci Took the Bread and divided to his Apostles he made his Body of it saying This is my body that is to say The Figure of my body But it could not be the Figure of his Body if he had not had a true Body since a thing in the Air such as a Ghost is not capable of any Figure And (b) Lib. 5. Cap. 1. Irenaeus disputing against the Hereticks who said Christ had not taken the Human Nature If it be so says he the Lord has not Redeemed us with his Blood the Chalice of the Eucharist is not the Communication of his Blood and the Bread we break is not the Communication of his Body for the Blood cannot proceed but from Veins Flesh and the rest of the Substance of a Man If these Fathers had believed the Real Presence with Transubstantiation they had spoken thus Had not they said the Eucharist is Christ's own Flesh his own Soul his own Divinity therefore Christ was not a meer Ghost since we have his Flesh in the Sacrament Had not this Argument been stronger than the other wherein they proved that Christ had a true Body because the Sacrament is the Figure of his Body Irenaeus ought to have supposed in the Chalice of the Eucharist Christs own Blood to be and not as he doth that the Chalice of the Eucharist is the Communication of his Blood he should have said the Bread we break is Transubstantiated into Christ Body and not that it is the Communication of the Body of Christ In a word he should have said that the Sacrament was Christs own Flesh Christs own Substance And though those Arguments of the Fathers are admirable and most cogent yet they would have betrayed the Truths if being perswaded of the Articles of the Real Presence with Transubstantiation of the Roman Church they had forgotten to speak of it I am very sure if the Ancient Heresies should come again into the Church there would be never a Divine to
with more maturity the reasons whereupon I was perswaded to hold that the Pope was infallible Alas said I all the reason the Monks have to refuse to obey the Bishops is because the Pope has held them excused from their jurisdiction what then could the Pope release Children from obeying their Fathers could he release Servants from their duty to their Masters can he free men from obedience to their Superiours can he take away the Sheep out of the conduct of their Pastors without exposing the flock to the fierceness of the Monks from the natural jurisdiction of the Bishops so that all the order of the Church shall not be overthrown and disturb'd with inevitable confusion Doth not one see every day the effects of those dispensations which are altogether the effects of that mighty power which is attributed to the Pope If a Bishop comes to make his visitation in some Churches belonging to the Monks they shut the door against him to the scandal of all the people If the matter comes into some of the Monk's Churches to perform therein some Ecclesiastical Functions there must be a great fighting before as it happened about 6 years ago with the Priests of St. Roch by the Capucin Nun's Church at Paris at the Burials of Madame la Duchesse de Vandôme they use the handles of Crosses instead of Halberds they fight with Links and Candle-sticks they burn the Surplesses of the Priests they rent their Ornaments in fine the strongest beat down the others some lose there their square Caps some their Hats and of an action which should be to replenish all the assistants with thoughts of death of eternity of the judgments of God they make it a Buffoonry a Puppet's fighting an action so ridiculous that the most serious can hardly forbear to burst with laughing a jeasting which is the subject of I know not how many Satyres and mock Poems so far that they must make of each side some verbal reports and obtain from the King an express inhibition to hinder the people from making Ballads thereupon and enterludes to make the people laugh at it on the Theaters of the King 's or the Duke's Play-houses These tragical and scandalous consequences which are the effects of the power of the Pope in the Roman Church freeted me and went against my mind which was the cause that I resolved to examine again whether that Authority which is given to the Pope was grounded upon some reasonable principles and to examine it if it was possible without any prejudice for my own instruction and to establish solidly the grounds of my Religion but God Almighty whose judgments are impenetrable permitted that the resolution I took was crossed again for some while The Curates of the Diocess of Sens at that time were to meet every month in the Synod where in my Lord Archbishop presided and there give their answers and opinions upon the Canonical and Ecclesiastical questions which had been propounded in the precedent meeting many of those Gentlemen who thought I had a peculiar knowledge of the Ecclesiastial History and of the Canons of the Church came to me and desired me to explain the propositions to which they were to answer in the next Conference and give them the resolutions and the proofs of them and so whereas I gave them every month their Conferences in writing that employed me wholly and gave me no other leasure during six or seven months but to study hard the Holy Fathers writings the Pope's decretals and the other Books of the Canons which I could find in the Monastery that I lived in 3. Circumstances wherewith I began to examine the Authority of the Roman Church and what is my design in the rehearsal of them AT last the divine providence furnished me with an opportunity which set me in a condition to give my self to the inquiry I intended to make I went with the obedience of our General to live in a Monastery which is called Font-Evrald by the River of Loire about nine miles from Saumur there I had the leasure to examine throughly the question of the Authority of the Roman Church and of the infallibility of the Pope which was the only principle which kept me in the Roman Church every thing did contribute to my design the solitude and the commodity of a fine and great library which I had at hand gave me all the facility that could be to give my self to that examination and I was no great while before I had acquaintance with one of the most learned men of that province who is Mr. Prior Pavilion who among the Books he has written made an answer to Mr Claude Minister of Charanton concerning the matter of the Eucharist I took an extream delight to converse with him and he took the pains as to come almost every day from about a mile off to the place where I dwelt and there we passed all the day long in Conferences and disputes upon matters of Religion it was with all those advantages having the convenience to learn the thoughts and to weigh the reasons of the learned men both of the quick and the dead that I examined that question whereupon depended my Religion and consequently my Salvation It would be a very hard matter to rehearse here all the questions which I thought to have some connection with that that I had proposed to examine and which I thought were either the principles or the consequences thereof and I should be tedious if I should rehearse here the thoughts of all the Authors I read upon that matter the reasons I examined in their principles and in their sources and the difficulties which I unwrapped in fine what I read what I wrote and what I thought during the space of almost one year Since I do intend here but to tell the faithful the means which God Almighty has used to draw me out of the captivity of the Roman Church and to make me one of his Church which professes to follow the purity of his word I will relate here only the motives which made at that time a mighty impression in my mind which were like Celestial influences of grace which ruled my conversion and my design in all this discourse is no other but to entice the holy and faithful people to praise God and to give thanks to his majesty for the marvellous things he works inlightening with his divine lights those who walk in the wandering of the truth and in being merciful even to those who seek after pretences to remain in their errors CHAPTER I. Chapt. I. The pretended grounds of the Authority of the Roman Church I Did understand well that there was in the world a true manner of worshiping God and I supposed as a principle not to be contested received of all those to whom God has given reason to govern themselves that the true manner of worshipping God was that which had been instituted by Christ but forasmuch as all the
hands on all the Churches there will be no other proof of Christianity no other shelter for the Christians who shall desire to know the truth than the Holy Scriptures than the word of God and truly in that time as well as in all those which I have marked heretofore the Multitude will follow the part of error and the true Church shall be reduced to a little flock which shall be strengthened only with the word of God against all the Stratagems and the persecutions of Antichrist To make an end of that proof I will rehearse what happened in the Council of Nice according to that which Sophronius (d) lib. 1. cap. 8. relates all the Bishops thought to introduce into the Church a new Law which was that those who would be in the Sacred Orders should lead a single life the good Priest Paphnutius a venerable old man of a holiness and purity free from all slanders rose in the middle of that multitude of Bishops You must not saith he to them lay so heavy a burthen upon the shoulders of those who are in the Sacred Orders you are to consider what St. Paul (e) ad Hebr. 13.9 saith that Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled to that voice a numerous multitude of Bishops Priests and Deacons who were present there vouchsafing their attention considered that Holy old man as an Apostle who came to declare to them the word of God and changed their resolution so knowing by the Doctrine of St. Paul that Marriage is honourable in all they left all the Church-men free to live in the state of Marriage as they had us'd to do before Do but judge now if in that time the Multitude got the advantage over truth and if the Fathers of that Council were of the opinion of the Roman Church that the Multitude of those who hold one and the same Doctrine is a mark of the truth of that belief §. 3. Succession is not an Infallible mark of the true Church IF Succession could give the right of being Infallible there is no Church in the world which had more right to be esteemed such than the Church of Jerusalem it is of Jerusalem that it is said (f) 2 Chron. 33.4 7. in Jerusalem shall my name be for ever In this house and in Jerusalem which I have chosen before all the Tribes of Israel will I put my name for ever (g) 2 Chron. 7.16 I have chosen and sanctified this house that my name may be there for ever and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually (h) Psal 132.13 14. The Lord hath chosen Zion he hath desired it for his habitation this is my rest for ever here will I dwell for I have desired it c. and I will also clothe her Priests with Salvation it was upon all those fair promises the Priests proceeded in withstanding the truth which was preached to them by the Prophets it was for that reason they exclaimed so often upon all occasions (i) Jerem. 7.4 The Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord are these But hear what the Lord answers (k) v. 8 11 12 c. Behold ye trust in lying words that cannot profit Is this house which is called by my name become a Den of Robbers in your eyes behold even I have seen it saith the Lord but go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh where I set my name at the first and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel And now because you have done all these works saith the Lord Therefore will I do unto this house which is called by my name wherein ye trust and unto the place which I gave to you and to your Fathers as I have done to Shiloh and I will cast you out of my sight c. The same is to be seen in the other Prophets where Jerusalem after it had been established by the Lord as a Tabernacle which should never be removed it is said afterwards that for its abominations it is transported into Babylon If Shiloh hath ceased to be the house of God if Jerusalem be reduced into a Wilderness where nothing grows but Briers and Thorns where (a) Isaiah 5.6 God will command the Clouds that they rain no rain upon it hath the Church of Rome any reason to brag so much because it hath been in times past the Nurse of Martyrs the Seed-plot of Saints doth it follow from thence that it is still at this time in the same condition it was in the first Ages of the Church Hath not the present Church of Rome a great deal of reason to fear that after all the abominations it hath been filled withal by those who have had the government thereof it may be dealt with like Jerusalem that it may be made a Den of Robbers an horrible Babylon a dreadful Wilderness where grows nothing but Briers and Thorns and where God hath permitted that the Heaven of the Holy Scripture should be shut up and that there should not fall a drop of his word upon those who stubbornly persist in its abominations In fine could the Church of Rome be in hope of having more priviledges than many other Churches which have been built by the Apostles in the Eastern part which have conserved during long space of years their right succession preserved from Bishop to Bishop from Pastor to Pastor and which notwithstanding all that have been since by the Turks turned into several Mosquées where those Infidels have the exercise of their Religion If the Church of Rome would say that the Doctrine it teaches is to be followed because the Popes who do govern at this time have succeeded one another from Bishop to Bishop in St. Peter's Chair I answer that for the same reason in the time of Paul Samosatenus it was necessary for every body to be an Heretick because Paul of Samosate was right Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch that he had succeeded lawfully Demetrius Demetrius Fabius Fabius Babilas who succeeded Zebinus he Philetus he Asclepiades he Serapion he maximinus he Theophilus he Cornelius he Hero he Ignatius he Evodius who succeeded lawfully St. Peter I answer that in the Age wherein lived Nestorius every body was engaged to be a Nestorian because Nestorius was rightful Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople right successor to Sisinius to Atticus to Arsatius to John Chrysostomus to Nectarius to Gregory of Nazianze and so from Bishop to bishop the 36th according to the Chronicles of Nicephorus who had lawfully succeeded in that Chair the Apostle St. Andrew In fine to follow without partiality that principle of Rome and to give it the extent such a proposition ought to have which is always false if it is not universal and capable to be the first proposition of a Syllogism I answer the Popes are to revoke the Thunderbolts they have thrown against the Church of England