worshipped as did the Gentiles These things they did but against these things the Christians did zealously and piously declare We have no Image in the world said S. Clemens of Alexandria It is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceitful art For it is written Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Heaven above c. And Origen wrote a just Treatise against Celsus in which he not onely affirms That Christians did not make or use Images in Religion but that they ought not and were by God forbidden to do so To the same purpose also Lactantius discourses to the Emperor and confutes the pretences and little answers of the Heathen in that manner that he leaves no pretence for Christians under another cover to introduce the like abomination We are not ignorant that those who were converted from Gentilisme and those who lov'd to imitate the customs of the Roman Princes and people did soon introduce the Historical use of Images and according to the manner of the world did think it honorable to depict or make Images of those whom they had in great esteem and that this being done by an esteem relying on Religion did by the weakness of men and the importunity of the Tempter quickly pass into inconvenience and superstition yet even in the time of Iulian the Emperor S. Cyril denies that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the Cross it self which was one of the earliest temptations and S. Epiphanius it is a known story tells that when in the village of Bethel he saw a cloth picture as it were of Christ or some Saint in the Church against the Authority of Scripture He cut it in pieces and advis'd that some poor man should be buried in it affirmed that such Pictures are against Religion and unworthy of the Church of Christ. The Epistle was translated into Latine by S. Hierome by which we may guess at his opinion in the question The Council of Eliberis is very ancient and of great fame in which it is expresly forbidden that what is worshipped should be depicted on the walls and that therefore Pictures ought not to be in Churches S. Austin complaining that he knew of many in the Church who were Worshippers of Pictures calls them Superstitious and adds that the Church condems such customs and strives to correct them and S. Gregory writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia sayes he would not have had him to break the Pictures and Images which were there set for an historical use but commends him for prohibiting to any one to worship them and enjoyns him still to forbid it But Superstition by degrees creeping in the Worship of Images was decreed in the seventh Synod or the second Nicene But the decrees of this Synod being by Pope Adrian sent to Charls the Great he convocated a Synod of German and French Bishops at Francfurt who discussed the Acts pass'd at Nice and condemn'd them And the Acts of this Synod although they were diligently suppressed by the Popes arts yet Eginardus Hinâ—marus Aventinus Blondus Adon Amonius Regino famous Historians tell us That the Bishops of Francfurt condemn'd the Synod of Nice and commanded it should not be called a General Council and published a Book under the name of the Emperor confuting that unchristian Assembly and not long since this Book and the Acts of Francfurt were published by Bishop Tillius by which not only the infinite fraud of of the Roman Doctors is discover'd but the worship of Images is declar'd against and condemned A while after this Ludovicus the Son of Charlemain sent Claudius a famous Preacher to Taurinum in Italy where the Preached against the worshipping of Images and wrote an excellent Book to that purpose Against this Book Ionas Bishop of Orleans after the death of Ludovicus and Claudius did write In which he yet durst not assert the worship of them but confuted it out of Origen whose words he thus cites Images are neither to be esteemed by inward affection nor worshipped with outward shew and out of Lactantius these Nothing is to be worshipped that is seen with mortal eyes Let us adore let us worship nothing but the Name alone of our only Parent who is to be sought for in the Regions above not here below And to the same purpose he also alleges excellent words out of Fulgentius and S. Hierom and though he would have Images ratain'd and therefore was angry at Claudius who caus'd them to be taken down yet he himself expresly affirms that they ought not to be worshipped and withal addes that though they kept the Images in their Churches for History and Ornament yet that in France the worshipping of them was had in great detestation And though it is not to be denied but that in the sequel of Ionas his Book he does something praevaricate in this question yet it is evident that in France this Doctrine was not accounted Catholick for almost nine hundred years after Christ and in Germany it was condemned for almost MCC years as we find in Nicetas We are not unskill'd in the devices of the Roman Writers and with how much artifice they would excuse this whole matter and palliate the crime imputed to them and elude the Scriptures expresly condemning this Superstition But we know also that the arts of Sophistry are not the wayes of Salvation And therefore we exhort our people to follow the plain words of Scripture and the express Law of God in the second Commandment and add also the Exhortation of S. Iohn Little children keep your selves from Idols To conclude it is impossible but that it must be confessed that the worship of Images was a thing unknown to the Primitive Church in the purest times of which they would not allow the making of them as amongst divers others appears in the Writings of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen SECT IX AS an Appendage to this we greatly reprove the custom of the Church of Rome in picturing God the Father and the most Holy and Undivided Trinity which besides that it ministers infinite scandal to all sober minded men and gives the new Arrians in Polonia and Antitrinitarians great and ridiculous entertainment exposing that Sacred Mystery to derision and scandalous contempt It is also which at present we have undertaken particularly to remark against the Doctrine and practise of the Primitive Catholick Church S. Clemens of Alexandria sayes that in the Discipline of Moses God was not to be represented in the shape of a man or of any other thing and that Christians understood themselves to be bound by the same law we find it expresly taught by Origen Tertullian Eusebius Athanasius S. Hierom S. Austin Theodoret Damascen and the Synod of Constantinople as it is reported in the sixt Action of the second Nicene Council And certainly if there were not
revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter in it and we being there told that S. Peter was at Antioch but never that he was at Rome it being confessed by some of their own parties by Cardinal Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius that this succession was not addicted to any particular Church nor that Christs institution of this does any other way appear that it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church it being also certain that there was no such thing known in the primitive Church but that the Holy Fathers both of Africa and the East did oppose Pope Victor and Pope Stephen when they began to interpose with a presumptive authority in the affairs of other Churches and that the Bishops of the Church did treat with the Roman Bishop as with a brother not as their superior and that the General Council held at Chalcedon did give to the Bishops of C. P. equal rights and preheminence with the Bishops of Rome and that the Greek Churches are at this day and have been a long time great opponents of this pretension of the Bishops of Rome and after all this since it is certain that Christ who foreknowes all things did also know that there would be great disputes and challenges of this preheminence did indeed suppress it in his Apostles and said not it should be otherwise in succession and did not give any command to his Church to obey the Bishops of Rome as his Vicars more than what he commanded concerning all Bishops it must be certain that it cannot be necessary to salvation to do so but that it is more than probable that he never intended any such thing and that the Bishops of Rome have to the great prejudice of Christendom made a great Schism and usurp'd a title which is not their due and challeng'd an authority to which they have no right and have set themselves above others who are their equals and impose an Article of Faith of their own contriving and have made great preparation for Antichrist if he ever get into that Seat or be in already and made it necessary for all of the Roman Communion to believe and obey him in all things SECT XI THere are very many more things in which the Church of Rome hath greatly turn'd aside from the Doctrines of Scripture and the practise of the Catholick Apostolick and primitive Church Such are these The Invocation of Saints The Insufficiency of Scriptures without Traditions of Faith unto Salvation their absolving sinners before they have by canonical penences and the fruits of a good life testified their repentance their giving leave to simple Presbyters by Papal dispensation to give confirmation or chrism selling Masses for Ninepences Circumgestation of the Eucharist to be ador'd The dangerous Doctrine of the necessity of the Priests intention in collating Sacraments by which device they have put it into the power of the Priest to damn whom he please of his own parish their affirming that the Mass is a proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead Private Masses or the Lords Supper without Communion which is against the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church of Rome it self and contrary to the tradition of the Apostles if we may believe Pope Calixtus and is also forbiden under pain of Excommunication Peract à consecratione omnes communicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic autem etiam Apostoli statuerunt sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia When the consecration is finish'd let all communicate that will not be thrust from the bounds of the Church for so the Apostles appointed and so the H. Church of Rome does hold The same also was decreed by P. Soter and P. Martin in a Council of Bishops and most severely enjoyn'd by the Canons of the Apostles as they are cited in the Canon Law There are divers others but we suppose that those Innovations which we have already noted may be sufficient to verifie this charge of Novelty But we have done this the rather because the Roman Emissaries endeavour to prevail amongst the ignorant and prejudicate by boasting of Antiquity and calling their Religion the Old Religion and the Catholick so insnaring others by ignorant words in which is no truth their Religion as it distinguishes from the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland being neither the Old nor the Catholick Religion but New and superinduc'd by arts known to all who with sincerity and diligence have look'd into their pretences But they have taught every Priest that can scarce understand his Breviary of which in Ireland there are but too many and very many of the people to ask where our Religion was before Luther Whereas it appears by the premises that it is much more easie for us to shew our Religion before Luther than for them to shew theirs before Trent And although they can shew too much practise of their Religion in the degenerate ages of the Church yet we can and do clearly shew ours in the purest and first ages and can and do draw lines pointing to the times and places where the several rooms and stories of their Babel was builded and where polished and where furnished But when the keepers of the field slept and the Enemy had sown tares and they had choak'd the wheat and almost destroyed it when the world complain'd of the infinite errors in the Church and being oppressed by a violent power durst not complain so much as they had cause and when they who had cause to complain were yet themselves very much abused and did not complain in all they might when divers excellent persons S. Bernard Clemangis Grosthead Marsilius Ocham Alvarus Abbat Ioachim Petrarch Savanarola Valla Erasmus Mantuan Gerson Ferus Cassander Andreas Frisius Modrevius Hermannus Coloniensis Wasseburgius Archdeacon of Verdun Paulus Langius Staphilus Telesphorus de Cusentiâ Doctor Talheymius Francis Zabarel the Cardinal and Pope Adrian himself with many others not to reckon Wicklef Hus Hierome of Prague the Bohemians and the poor men of Lions whom they call'd Hereticks and confuted with fire and sword when almost all Christian Princes did complain heavily of the corrupt state of the Church and of Religion and no remedy could be had but the very intended remedy made things much worse then it was that divers Christian Kingdoms and particularly the Church of England Tum primùm senio docilis tua saecula Roma Erubuit pudet exacti jam temporis odit Praeteritos foedis cum relligionibus annos Being asham'd of the errors superstitions heresies and impieties which had deturpated the face of the Church look'd into the glass of Scripture and pure Antiquity and wash'd away those stains with which time and inadvertency and tyranny had besmear'd her and being thus cleans'd and wash'd is accus'd by the Roman parties of Novelty and condemn'd because she refuses to run into the same excess
helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every work and therefore the faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same faith we hope to be sav'd even as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadowes instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and choose this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to finde a better than the Word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity The first thing therefore we are to advertise is That the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good people of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard of in the first ages of the Christian Church For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of S. Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this faith they condemned to Man that did not condemn these they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infaemiam sustinere said the Emperors Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the summe of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils And what faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the firmer basis of a holy Life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledg to be the adaequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this faith entirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they haue innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick and Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages which were no part of their Faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determined in any of the four first General Councels rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical writings Of this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the people not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavie burdens on mens Consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a Dominion over our Faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the Faith of the Church of God and Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the wayes and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the Tenth against Martin Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates S. Iustin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserved but the souls of the just into Paradice where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels S. Ambrose saith That Death is a haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it findes every man so it reserves him to the judgement that is to come The same is affirm'd by S. Hilary S. Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgement of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of rest S. Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms that after this life there is no purgation For after Christs ascension into heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of darkness said Olimpiodorus And lastly we recite the words of S. Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or of any the precedent are reconcileable with the Roman Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it pass'd into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that dye in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we adde the saying of Christ and we relie upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgement but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgement of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgement or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow Sect. V. THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publiquely for an opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be pass'd into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not express'd 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 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 Pope Innocent the Third MCC years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Iohannes de Basselis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was 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 at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the primitive ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgement of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of faith as Bellarmine confesses and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a 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 confess'd He could not tell whether there
the real and spiritual presence of Christs body and blood which we all believe as certainly as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner The same thing is also fully explicated by the good S. Ephrem The body of Christ received by the faithful departs parts not from his sensible substance and is undivided from a spiritual grace For even baptism being wholly made spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of water saves and that which is born doth not perish S. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expresly in this Question as if he had undertaken on purpose to confute the Article of Trent Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper but still in figure though more clear than in the old Law For the legal Passover I will not be afraid to speak it was a more obscure figure of a figure S. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically that before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it And again As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest blood so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of Nature but according to the Grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith To these very many more might be added but instead of them the words of S. Austin may suffice as being an evident conviction what was the doctrine of the primitive Church in this question This great Doctor brings in Christ thus speaking as to his Disciples You are not to eat this body which you see or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you And again Christ brought them to a Banquet in which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood For he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the sign of his body and That which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrances But in this particular the Canon law it self and the Master of the Sentences are the best witnesses in both which collections there are divers testimonies brought especially from S. Ambrose and S. Austin which whosoever can reconcile with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may easily put the Hyaena and a Dog a Pigeon and a Kite into couples and make Fire and Water enter into Natural and Eternal Friendships Theodoret and P. Gelasius speak more emphatically even to the nature of things and the very Philosophy of this Question Christ honour'd the symbols and the signs saith Theodoret which are seen with the title of his body and bloud not changing the nature but to nature adding grace For neither do the mystical signs recede from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen and touch'd c. And for a testimony that shall be esteem'd infallible we alledge the words of Pope Gelasius Truly the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And truly an image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries Now from these premises we are not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Roman Church but we think it our duty to give our own people caution and admonition 1. That they be not abus'd by the rhetorical words and high expressions alledged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament The body or the 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 the flesh or after the manner of spiritual grace and sacramental consequence We with the H. Scriptures and the primitive Fathers affirm the later The Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the explication of Christ and the Doctrine of the primitive Church affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under a pretence of being Antient since although the Roman error hath been too long admitted and is antient 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. We 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 The flesh profiteth nothing but the words which he speaks are spirit and they are life 4. That if those antient 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 receiv'd and that Christs body and blood are onely present to faith and to the spirit that then whoever tempts them to give Divine honour to these symbols or elements as the Church of Rome does tempts them to give to a creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an error in the understanding for it carries them to a dangerous practise which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry To conclude This matter of it self is an errour so prodigiously great and dangerous that we need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous questions which are sometimes handled by them concerning this Divine Mystery As if a Priest going by a Bakers Shop and saying with intention Hoc est corpus meum whether all the Bakers bread be turned into the body of Christ Whether a Church Mouse does eat her Maker Whether a man by eating the consecrated symbols does break his fast For if it be not bread and wine he does not and if it be Christs body and blood naturally and properly it is not bread and wine Whether it may be said the Priest is in some sense 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 Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he say his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and the Creator of his body But against this
oftentimes useless and alwayes troublesome and as an ill diet makes an ill habit of body so does the frequent use of controversies baffle the understanding and makes it crafty to deceive others it self remaining instructed in nothing but useless notions and words of contingent signification and distinctions without difference which minister to pride and contention and teach men to be pertinacious troublesome and uncharitable therefore I love them not But because by the Apostolical Rule I am tyed to do all things without murmurings as well as without disputings I consider'd it over again and found my self reliev'd by the subject matter and the grand consequent of the present Questions For in the present affair the case is not so as in the others here the Questions are such that the Church of Rome declares them to reach as far as eternity and daâ—n all that are not of their opinions and the Protestants have much more reason to fear concerning the Papists such who are not excus'd by ignorance that their condition is very sad and deplorable and that it is charity to snatch them as a brand from the fire and indeed the Church of Rome maintains Propositions which if the Ancient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd are apt to separate from God I instance in their superaddition of Articles and Propositions derived onely from a pretended tradition and not contain'd in Scripture Now the doing of this is a great sin and a great danger Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus detrahentibus destinatum said Tertullian I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenus fear the wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it S. Basil sayes Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of Infidelity and a most certain signe of pride to introduce any thing that is not written in the Scriptures our blessed Saviour having said My sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not hear and to detract from Scriptures or add any thing to the Faith that is not there is most vehemently forbidden by the Apostle saying If it be but a mans Testament Nemo superordinat no man adds to it And says also This was the will of the Testator And Theophilus Alexandrinus says plainly It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the authority of the holy Scriptures and therefore S. Athanasius affirms That the Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being Immodestiae vaecordia an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty and a necessary work of charity and the proper Office of our Ministery to persuade our charges from the immodesty of an evil heart from having a Devilish spirit from doing that which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle from Infidelity and pride and lastly from that eternal wo which is denounc'd against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contain'd in the Scriptures and say Dominus dixit The Lord hath said it and he hath not said it If we had put these severe censures upon the Popish Doctrine of Tradition we should have been thought uncharitable but because the holy Fathers do so we ought to be charitable and snatch our charges from the ambient flame And thus it is in the Question of Images Dubium non est quin Religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est said Lactantius without all peradventure where ever an image is meaning for worship there is no Religion and that we ought rather to die than pollute our Faith with such impieties said Origen It is against the Law of Nature it being expresâ—y forbidden by the second Commandment as Irenaeus affirms Tertullian Cyprian and S. Austin and therefore is it not great reason we should contend for that faith which forbids all worship of Images and oppose the superstition of such guides who do teach their people to give them veneration to prevaricate the Moral Law and the very Law of Nature and do that which whosoever does has no Religion We know Idolatry is a damnable sin and we also know that the Roman Church with all the artifices she could use never can justifie her self or acquit the common practises from Idolatry and yet if it were but suspicious that it is Idolatry it were enough to awaken us for God is a jealous God and will not endure any such causes of suspicion and motives of jealousie I instance but once more The Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds and S. Ambrose says that he who receives the Mystery otherwayes than Christ appointed that is but in one kind when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord and he cannot have devotion Now this thing we ought not to suffer that our people by so doing should remain unworthy of the Lord and for ever be indevout or cozen'd with a false shew of devotion or fall by following exil guides into the Sentence of Excommunication These matters are not trifling and when we see these errors frequently taught and own'd as the only true Religion and yet are such evils which the Fathers say are the way of damnation we have reason to hope that all wise and good men lovers of souls will confess that we are within the circles of our duty when we teach our people to decline the crooked wayes and to walk in the wayes of Scripture and Christianity But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish such a declension of Christianity so great credulity to believe every superstitious story such confidence in vanity such groundless pertinacy such vitious lives so little sense of true Religion and the fear of God so much care to obey the Priests and so little to obey God such intolerable ignorance such fond Oathes and manners of swearing thinking themselves more obliged by swearing on the Mass-Book than the Four Gospels and S. Patricks Mass-Book more than any new one swearing by their Fathers Soul by their Godsips hand by other things which are the product of those many tales are told them their not knowing upon what account they refuse to come to Church but onely that now they are old and never did or their Country-men do not or their Fathers or Grandfathers never did or that their Ancestors were Priests and they will not alter from their Religion and after all can give no account of their Religion what it is onely they believe as their Priest bids them and go to Mass which they understand not and reckon their beads to tell the number and the tale of their prayers and abstain from eggs and flesh in Lent and visit S. Patricks Well and leave
it was laid by P. Clement VI. in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This constitution was published Fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from antiquity that we are to admonish our Charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hilary Hierom Austin speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that S. Gregory DC years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about 200 years since says He never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the writings of S. Gregory nor in any history of that age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any history pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reserv'd by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the antient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more antient Doctors we have already named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitensis Anselm or S. Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about MCC years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetane told Pope Adrian VI. that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now a dayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd add alter'd by commutations and the antient discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness an absolution without amends It became a trumpet and a leavy for the holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Saracens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new propositions as well as they can to make sense of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the World to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not onely so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive of the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practise that supposes a new bunch of Keys given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdome of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdome of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint can not but say with David Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practise that hath turn'd Penances into a Fayr and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labors of Love into the labors of pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a mere scarcrow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschetto Cibo bastard son of Pope Innocent VIII and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at dice and cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by gaming making their way to heaven easier Now although the H. Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their days it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach a repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon
him and this was first boldly maintain'd in the Council of Trent by the Jesuits and it is now the opinion of their Order but it is also that which the Pope challenges in practice when he pretends to a power over all Bishops and that this power is derived to him from Christ when he calls himself the Universal Bishop and the Vicarial head of the Church the Churches Monarch he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is deriv'd to whose sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject Now this is it which as it is productive of infinite mischiefs so it is an Innovation and an absolute deflection from the primitive catholick doctrine and yet is the great ground-work and foundation of their Church This we shall represent in these following Testimonies Pope Eleutherius in an Epistle to the Bishops of France says that Christ committed the universal Church to the Bishops and S. Ambrose saith that the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ and is his substitute But famous are the words of S. Cyprian The Church of Christ is one thorough the whole world divided by him into many members and the Bishoprick is but one diffused in the agreeing plurality of many Bishops And again To every Pastor a portion of the flock is given which let every one of them rule and govern By which words it is evident that the primitive Church understood no praelation of one and subordination of another commanded by Christ or by vertue of their ordination but onely what was for order sake introduc'd by Princes and consent of Prelates And it was to this purpose very full which was said by Pope Symmachus As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed none is before or after other none is greater or less than another so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their Successors Now these words being spoken against the invasion of the rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius and the question being in the exercise of Jurisdiction and about the Institution of Bishops does fully declare that the Bishops of Rome had no Superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop in the Catholick Church and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese And therefore all the Church of God when ever they reckon'd the several orders and degrees of Ministery in the Catholick Church reckon the Bishop as the last and supreme beyond whom there is no spiritual power but in Christ. For as the whole Hierachy ends in Iesus so does every particular one in its one Bishop Beyond the Bishop there is no step till you rest in the great Shepherd and Bishop of Souls Under him every Bishop is supreme in Spirituals and in all power which to any Bishop is given by Christ. S. Ignatius therefore exhorts that all should obey their Bishop and the Bishop obey Christ as Christ obeyed his Father There are no other intermedial degrees of Divine Institution But as Origen teaches The Apostles and they who after them are ordain'd by God that is the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church and the Prophets have the second place The same also is taught by P. Gelasius by S. Hierom and Fulgentius and indeed by all the Fathers who spake any thing in this matter Insomuch that when Bellarmine is in this question press'd out of the book of Nilus by the authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers Papam Patres non habere in Ecclesiâ sed filios omnes The Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his sons Now although we suppose this to be greatly sufficient to declare the Doctrine of the primitive Catholick Church concerning the equality of power in all Bishops by Divine right yet the Fathers have also expresly declar'd themselves that one Bishop is not Superior to another and ought not to judge another or force another to obedience They are the words of S. Cyprian to a Council of Bishops None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyranical power drives his collegues to a necessity of obedience since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power hath his own choice and cannot be judged by another nor yet himself judge another but let us all expect the judgment of our L. Iesus Christ who only and alone hath the power of setting us in the government of his Church and judging of what we do This was spoken and intended against P. Stephen who did then begin dominari in clero to lord it over Gods heritage and to excommunicate his brethren as Demetrius did in the time of the Apostles themselves but they both found their reprovers Demetrius was chastised by S. John for this usurpation and Stephen by S. Cyprian and this also was approv'd by S. Austin We conclude this particular with the words of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome who because the Patriarch of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said It was a proud title prophane sacrilegious and Antichristian and therefore he little thought that his Successors in the same See should so fiercely challenge that Antichristian title much less did the then Bishop of Rome in those ages challenge it as their own peculiar for they had no mind to be or to be esteemed Antichristian Romano Pontisici oblatum est sed nullus unquam eorum hoc singularitatis nomen assumpsit His Predecessors it seems had been tempted with an offer of that title but none of them ever assum'd that name of singularity as being against the law of the Gospel and the Canons of the Church Now this being a matter of which Christ spake not one word to S. Peter if it be a matter of faith and salvation as it is now pretended it is not imaginable he would have been so perfectly silent But though he was silent of any intention to do this yet S. Paul was not silent that Christ did otherwise for he hath set in his Church primùm Apostolos first of all Apostles not first S. Peter and secondarily Apostles but all the Apostles were first It is also evident that S. Peter did not carry himself so as to give the least overture or umbrage to make any one suspect he had any such preheminence but he was as S. Chrysostom truly sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he did all things with the common consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing by special authority or principality and if he had any such it is more than probable that the Apostles who survived him had succeeded him in it rather than the Bishop of Rome and it being certain as the Bishop of Canaries confesses That there is in Scripture no
the Authority of the Divine Scriptures But the Church of Rome does otherwise invents things of her own and imputes spiritual effects to and men are taught to go in wayes which Superstition hath invented and Interest does support But there is yet one great instance more of this irreligion Upon the Sacraments themselves they are taught to rely with so little of Moral and Vertuous Dispositions that the efficacy of one is made to lessen the necessity of the other and the Sacraments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent vertue that they are not so much made the instruments of Vertue as the Suppletory not so much to increase as to make amends for the want of Grace On which we shall not now insist because it is sufficiently remar'kd in our reproof of the Roman Doctrines in the matter of repentance SECT XII AFter all this if their Doctrines as they are explicated by their practice and the Commentaries of their greatest Doctors do make their Disciples guilty of Idolatry there is not any thing greater to deter men from them than that danger to their Souls which is imminent over them upon that account Their worshipping of Images we have already reprov'd upon the account of its novelty and innovation in Christian Religionâ— But that it is against good life a direct breach of the second Commandment an Act of Idolatry as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of in relation to the second Commandmant is but too evident by the Doctrines of their own Leaders For if to give Divine honour to a Creature be Idolatry then the Doctors of the Church of Rome teach their people to commit Idolatry For they affirm That the same worship which is given to the Prototype or Principal the same is to be given to the image of it As we worship the Holy Trinity and Christ so we may worship the Images of the Trinity and of Christ that isâ— with Latriâ— or Divine honour This is the constant sentence of the Divines The Image is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship with which we worship those whose Image it is said Azorius their great Master of Casuistical Theology And this is the Doctrine of their great S. Thomas of Alexander of Ales Bonaventure Albertus Richardus Capreolus Cajetan Coster Valentia Vasquez the Jesuits of Colein Triers and Meniz approving Costers opinion Neither can this be eluded by saying that though the same Worship be given to the Image of Christ as to Christ himself yet it is not done in the same way for it is terminatively to Christ or God but relatively to the Image that is to the Image for God's or Christ's sake For this is that we complain of that they give the same worship to an image which is due to God for what cause soever it be done it matters not save onely that the excuse makes it in some sense the worse for the Apology For to do a thing which God hath forbidden and to say it is done for God's sake is to say that for his sake we displease him for his sake we give that to a Creature which is God's own propriety But besides this we affirm and it is of it self evident that whoever Christian or Heathen worships the image of any thing cannot possibly worship that image terminatively for the very being of an image is relative and therefore if the man understands but common sense he must suppose and intend that worship to be relative and a Heathen could not worship an image with any other worship and the second Commandment forbidding to worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven and earth does onely forbid that thing which is in Heaven to be worshipped by an image that is it forbids onely a relative worship For it is a contradiction to say this is the image of God and yet this is God and therefore it must be also a contradiction to worship an image with Divine worship terminatively for then it must be that the image of a thing is that thing whose image it is And therefore these Doctors teach the same thing which they condemn in the Heathens But they go yet a little further The Image of the Cross they worship with Divine honour and therefore although this Divine worship is but relative yet consequently the Cross it self is worshipped terminatively by Divine adoration For the Image of the Cross hath it relatively and for the Crosses sake therefore the Cross it self is the proper and full object of the Divine adoration Now that they do and teach this we charge upon them by undeniable Records For in the very Pontifical published by the Authority of Pope Clement the VIII these words are found The Legats Cross must be on the right hand because Latria or Divine honour is due to it And if Divine honour relative be due to the Logates Cross which is but the Image of Christs Cross then this Divine worship is terminated on Christs Cross which is certainly but a meer Creature To this purpose are the words of Almaiâ— The Images of the Trinity and of Christ and of the Cross are to be adored with the worship of Latria that is Divine Now if the Image of the Cross be the intermedial then the Cross it self whose Image that is must be the last object of this Divine worship and if this be not Idolatry it can never be told what is the notion of the Word But this passes also into other real effects And well may the Cross it self be worshipped by Divine worship when the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross for so she does says Aquinas and makes one the argument of the other and proves that the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross that is on the instrument of Christs Passion by a hymn which she uses in her Offices but this thing we have remark'd above upon another occasion Now although things are brought to a very ill state when Christians are so probably and apparently charg'd with Idolatry and that the excuses are too fine to be understood by them that need them yet no excuse can acquit these things when the most that is or can be said is this that although that which is Gods due is given to a Creature yet it is given with some difference of intention and Metaphysical abstraction and separation especially since if there can be Idolatry in the worshipping of an Image it is certain that a relative Divine worship is this Idolatry for no mau that worships an Image in that consideration or formality can make the Image the last object Either therefore the Heathens were not Idolaters in the worshipping of an Image or else these mâ—n are The Heathens did indeed infinitely more violaâ—e the first Commandment but against the second precisely and separately from the first the transgression is alike The same also is the case in their worshipping the consecrated Bread and Wine Of which how far they will