are part of the Depositum of Christianity of the Analogy of faith and for this we are by the Apostle commanded to contend earnestly and therefore Controversies may become necessary but because they are not often so but oftentimes useless and always troublesom 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 murmuring 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 damn 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 Antient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd are apt to separate from God I instance in their super addition of Articles and Propositions derived only 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 woe that is destin'd to them that detract or add to it S. Basil says Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign 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 〈◊〉 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 slame 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 expresly forbidden by the second Commandment as Irenaeus 〈◊〉 Tertullian Cyprian and S. Augustine and therefore is it not great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should contend sor that Faith which 〈◊〉 all worship of 〈◊〉 and oppose the superstition of such Guides who do teach their 〈◊〉 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 practices 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 other ways 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 evil Guides into the sentence of Excommunication These matters are not trisling and when we see these errors frequently taught 〈◊〉 own'd as the only true Religion and 〈◊〉 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 ways and to walk in the ways 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 vicious 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 Oaths and manners of swearing thinking themselves more oblig'd by swearing on the Mass-book than the four Gospels and S. Patrick's 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 only that now they are old and never did or their Country-men do not or their Fathers or Grand-fathers 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 only they believe as
a number of Fathers that their doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alleged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then matter of faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerors but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure WE do easily acknowledge that to dispute these questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable 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 sind 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 good 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 〈◊〉 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 shadows 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 find 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 Saint 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 no 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 vero dementes vesanosque judicantes 〈◊〉 dogmatis infamiam 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 summ 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 〈◊〉 basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge 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 have 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 or 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 determin'd in any of the four first General Councils 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 heavy burdens on Mens consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower
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 Other instances of new Doctrines and practices in the Roman Church It is easier to shew where our Religion was before Luther than where theirs was before the Council of Trent Great and Excellent persons have complained heavily of the corrupt State of that Church but without redress The Reformation preferred a New cure before an Old sore THERE are very many more things in which the Church of Rome hath greatly turn'd aside from the Doctrines of Scripture and the practice 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 penances 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 Nine-pences 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 pleases 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 Lord's Supper without Communion which is against the doctrine and practice of the Antient Church of Rome it self and contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles if we may believe Pope Calixtus and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication Peractâ consecratione omnes communicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic autem etiam Apostoli statuerunt sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia When the Consecration is finished let all Communicate that will not be thrust from the bounds of the Church for so the Apostles appointed and so the holy Church of Rome does hold The same also was 〈◊〉 by Pope Soter and Pope 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 〈◊〉 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 practice 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 〈◊〉 slept and the 〈◊〉 had sown tares and they had choak'd the wheat and almost destroyed it when the world complain'd of the 〈◊〉 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 Joachim Petrarch Savanarola Valla Erasmus Mantuan Gerson Ferus Cassander Andreas Fricius 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 Wiclef Hus Jerom of Prague the Bohemians and the poor men of Lions whom they call'd 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 temporis odit Praeteritos foedis cum religionibus 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 of riot and de-ordination But we cannot deserve blame who return to our antient and first health by preferring a New cure before an Old sore CHAP. II. The Church of Rome as it is at this day disordered teaches Doctrines and uses Practices which are in themselves or in their true and immediate Consequences direct Impieties and give warranty to a wicked Life SECT 1. Repentance according to the Romish Doctors not of obligation as soon as we sin by Gods Law but only before we die The Church requiring it once a Year at Easter is satisfied with a ritual repentance The Objection answered that this is not the Doctrine of the Church but the Opinion of some private Doctors Contrition with them not available without confession to a Priest but Attrition with it is And one act of Contrition will make all sure OUR First instance is in their Doctrines of Repentance For the Roman Doctors teach that unless it be by accident or in respect of some other obligation a sinner is not bound presently to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it Some time or other he must do it and if he take care so to order his affairs that it be not wholly omitted but so that it be done one time or other he is not by the precept or grace of Repentance bound to do more Scotus and his Scholars say that a sinner is bound viz. by the precept of the Church to repent on Holy days especially the great ones But this is thought too severe by Soto and Medina who teach that a sinner is bound to repent but once a year that is against Easter These Doctors indeed do differ concerning the Churches sense which according to the best of them is bad enough
Church which is but the private opinion of one or more yet because we are now speaking of the infinite danger of souls in that communion and the horrid Propositions by which their Disciples are conducted to the disparagement of good life it is sufficient to allege the publick and allowed sayings of their Doctors because these sayings are their Rule of living and because the particular Rules of Conscience use not to be decreed in Councils we must derive them from the places where they grow and where they are to be found BUT besides you will say That this is but the private opinion of some Doctors and what then Therefore it is not to be called the Doctrine of the Roman Church True we do not say It is an Article of their Faith but a rule of manners This is not indeed in any publick Decree but we say that although it be not yet neither is the contrary And if it be but a private opinion yet is it safe to follow it or is it not safe For that 's the question and therein is the danger If it be safe then this is their rule A private opinion of any one grave Doctor may be safely followed in the questions of Vertue and Vice But if it be not safe to follow it and that this does not make an opinion probable or the practice safe Who says so Does the Church No Does Dr. Cajus or Dr. Sempronius say so Yes But these are not safe to follow for they are but private Doctors Or if it be safe to follow them though they be no more and the opinion no more but probable then I may take the other side and choose which I will and do what I list in most cases and yet be safe by the Doctrine of the Roman Casuists which is the great line and general measure of most mens lives and that is it which we complain of And we have reason for they suffer their Casuists to determine all cases severely and gently strictly and loosly that so they may entertain all spirits and please all dispositions and govern them by their own inclinations and as they list to be governed by what may please them not by that which profits them that none may go away scandaliz'd or 〈◊〉 from their penitential chairs BUT upon this account it is a sad reckoning which can be made concerning souls in the Church of Rome Suppose one great Doctor amongst them as many of them do shall say it is lawful to kill a King whom the Pope declares Heretick By the Doctrine of probability here is his warranty And though the Church do not declare that Doctrine that is the Church doth not make it certain in Speculation yet it may be safely done in practice Here is enough to give peace of conscience to him that does it Nay if the contrary be more safe yet if the other be but probable by reason or Authority you may do the less safe and refuse what is more For that also is the opinion of some grave Doctors If one Doctor says it is safe to swear a thing as of our knowledge which we do not know but believe it is so it is therefore probable that it is lawful to swear it because a grave Doctor says it and then it is safe enough to do so AND upon this account who could find fault with Pope Constantine the IV. who when he was accus'd in the Lateran Council for holding the See Apostolick when he was not in Orders justified himself by the example of Sergius Bishop of Ravenna and Stephen Bishop of Naples Here was exemplum bonorum honest men had done so before him and therefore he was innocent When it is observ'd by Cardinal Campegius and Albertus Pighius did teach That a Priest lives more holily and chastely that keeps a Concubine than he that hath a married Wife and then shall find in the Pope's Law That a Priest is not to be removed for fornication who will not or may not practically conclude that since by the Law of God marriage is holy and yet to some men fornication is more lawful and does not make a Priest irregular that therefore to keep a Concubine is very lawful especially since abstracting from the consideration of a man's being in Orders or not fornication it self is probably no sin at all For so says Durandus Simple fornication of it self is not a deadly sin according to the Natural Law and excluding all positive Law and Martinus de Magistris says to believe simple fornication to be no deadly sin is not heretical because the testimonies of Scripture are not express These are grave Doctors and therefore the opinion is probable and the practice safe When the good people of the Church of Rome hear it read That P. Clement 8. in the Index of Prohibited books says That the Bible publish'd in vulgar Tongues ought not to be read and retain'd no not so much as a compend of the History of the Bible and Bellarmine says that it is not necessary to salvation to believe that there are any Scriptures at all written and that Cardinal Hosius saith Perhaps it had been better for the Church if no Scriptures had been written They cannot but say that this Doctrine is probable and think themselves safe when they walk without the light of Gods Word and rely wholly upon the Pope or their Priest in what he is pleas'd to tell them and that they are no way oblig'd to keep that Commandment of Christ Search the Scriptures Cardinal Tolet says That if a Nobleman be set upon and may escape by going away he is not tied to it but may kill him that intends to strike him with a stick That if a man be in a great passion and so transported that he considers not what be says if in that case he does blaspheme he does not always sin That if a man be beastly drunk and then commit fornication that fornication is no sin That if a man desires carnal pollution that he may be eas'd of his carnal temptations or for his health it were no sin That it is lawful for a man to expose his bastards to the Hospital to conceal his own shame He says it out of Soto and he from Thomas Aquinas That if the times be hard or the Judge unequal a man that cannot sell his wine at a due price may lawfully make his Measures less than is appointed or mingle water with his wine and sell it for pure so he do not lie and yet if he does it is no mortal sin nor obliges him to restitution Emanuel Sà affirms That if a man lie with his intended wife before Marriage it is no sin or a light one nay quinetiam expedit si multum illa differatur it is good to do so if the benediction or publication of Marriage be much deferr'd That Infants in their cradles may be made Priests is the
question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of the slesh or after the manner of spiritual grace and sacramental consequence We with the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers affirm the latter 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 Ancient since although the Roman errour hath been too long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an innovation in Christianity and brought in by ignorance power and superstition very many Ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the doctrine of giving us his flesh for meat and his bloud for drink that he tells us The flesh profiteth nothing but the words which be speaks are spirit and they are life 4. THAT if those ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are receiv'd and that Christ's body and bloud are only 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 errour in the understanding for it carries them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry To conclude THIS matter of it self is an error 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 Baker's 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 Christ's body and bloud 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 blasphemy a book was written by John Huss about the time of the Council of Constance But these things are too bad and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy chanels but give only a general warning to all our Charges to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently do issue As the tree is such must be the fruit But we hope it may be sufficient * to say That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no faith can oblige us and no reason can endure For Christ's body being in heaven glorious spiritual and impassible cannot be broken And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken that is the colour the taste and other accidents of the elements yet if they could be broken since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christ's body and bloud it is certain that on the Altar Christ's body naturally and properly cannot be broken * And since they say that every consecrated Wafer is Christ's whole body and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christ's body or else Christ hath two bodies for there are two Wafers * But when Christ instituted the Sacrament and said This is my body which is broken because at that time Christ's body was not broken naturally and properly the very words of Institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not natural but spiritual that is truly sacramental * And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration * And after all the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reprov'd in the men of Capernaum and called them to a spiritual understanding the natural sense being not only unreasonable and impossible but also to no purpose of the spirit or any ways perfective of the soul as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article SECT VI. Half Communion tho' confessed to be otherwise in Christs institution and primitive practice required upon pain of Excommunication The Question now is not so much whether it be a new as a better practice than what Christ instituted Council of Constance Cassander Aquinas c. acknowledge the Novelty Pope Gelasius calls it sacrilege Greek Church communicates the people in the Chalice OUR next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us is that of the half Communion For they deprive the people of the Chalice and dismember the institution of Christ and praevaricate his 〈◊〉 law in this particular and recede from the practice of the Apostles and though they confess it was the practice of the primitive Church yet they lay it aside and cur so all them that say they do amiss in it that is they curse them who follow Christ and his Apostles and his Church while themselves deny to follow them Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Constance Whereas in certain parts of the word some temerariously presume to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine and do every where communicate the Laity not only in bread but in wine also ---- Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding ---- And although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds Here is the acknowledgment both of Christs institution in both kinds and Christs ministring it in both kinds and the practice of the primitive Church to give it in both kinds yet the conclusion from these premisses is We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine The
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 whenever they reckoned 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 Hierarchy ends in Jesus so does every particular one in its own 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 declared themselves that one Bishop is not superiour 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 tyramical 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 Lord Jesus 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 Pope Stephen who did then begin dominari in clero to lord it over God's 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 Saint 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 assumed 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 says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter in it and we being there told that S. Pet. 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 superiour and that the General Council held at Chalcedon did give to the Bishops of C. P. equal rights and preeminence 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 foreknows all things did also know that there would be great disputes and challenges of this preeminence 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 usurped a title which is not their due and challenged 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
than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law statuimus i. e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sense of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it hapned to the Pelagians in the beginning of their heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body The same is affirmed by Justin Martyr The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion Origen calls the bread and the chalice the images of the body and blood of Christ and again That bread which is sanctified by the word of God so far as belongs to the matter or substance of it goes into the belly and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural or glorified body of Christ were greatly blasphemous and therefore the body of Christ which the Communicants receive is not the body in a natural sense but in a spiritual which is not capable of any such accident as the Elements are Eusebius says that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Occonomy commanding the image and type of his own body to be made and that the Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the New Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood S. Macarius says that in the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explicated For when they affirm that in this Sacrament is offered the figure the image the antitype of Christ's body and bloud although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christ's body and bloud 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 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 bloud 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 St. 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 bloud 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 bloud 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 allege 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 alleged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament The body or the slesh of Christ. For we all believe it is so and rejoyce in it But the