things whatsoever I have commanded you We see hence how express our Saviours words are that all Nations should be taught to observe whatever he commanded his Disciples who would think if he saw it not before his eyes that any Society of Christians that will needs be called the Catholick Church should avowedly trample under foot this manifest Command of God They are so far from teaching all Nations to observe what Christ commanded his Disciples that they professedly teach the quite contrary Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it No says the Church of Rome all shall not drink of it but a few shall that is consecrating Priests One would imagine that these Texts of holy Scripture above mentioned should make a deep impression upon all men that pretend to have any regard for the Laws of God and they did so till 1200 years after Christ when the practice of detaining the Cup from the people began first to be introduced by a corrupt custom and was long afterwards established by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance So new and late is this Point of Popery that it was not conciliarly decreed till about 272 years ago And yet nothing is more usual with the Roman Catholicks than to brag of the Antiquity of their Religion I shall have an opportunity hereafter of considering this late Decree of Pope Martin when I come to produce the ancient Canon of Pope Gelasius made near 1200 years ago expresly repugnant and contary to this late Decree of Martin For Gelasius declares receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious At present I shall proceed to alledge the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers to shew that they understood our Saviours words Drink ye all of this agreeably to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England that is so as to account all Christians without exception obliged to partake of the Cup. But by the way I cannot but observe that Paschasius Corbeiensis a man of great credit in the Church of Rome for his Invention of Christs corporeal Presence in the Host about the year 830. did expound the words above mentioned contrary to the Sense of the present Church of Rome and in favour of the Protestants His expressions are these It is Christ that breaks this Bread Christus est qui frangit hunc Panem per manus Ministrorum tribuit credentibus Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui Credentes Paschas be Coena Domini cap. 14. and by the hands of the Ministers delivers it to the Believers Likewise he gives them the Cup saying take and drink ye all of this both the Ministers and other Believes Here we see Paschasius makes the Command to extend to all without any difference and it is a wonder to me why the Roman Catholicks do follow this man so zealously in his Invention of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharistical Bread and will not admit of his Interpretation of this Command of Christ that all Believers should drink of the Cup. But there are much more ancient and authentick Authors who understood our Saviours words according to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England whose Testimonies hereafter follow and that in reference of proving that the Members thereof do not expound Scripture according to their own private Judgment as it is falsely imputed to them by the wretched Author of Pax Vobis Mr. Manby and others who as I plainly find never understood any thing of the Doctrine of this Church concerning the Interpretation of Scripture The first ancient Writer whose Authority I intend to make use of is S. Justin Martyr one that lived not long after the Apostolick age and lost his Life for the Profession of the Christian Faith. He in his second Apology gives an account to the Emperor of the method and manner of Divine Service amongst the Christians and coming to give an account of the Lords Supper he does it thus They that are called Deacons among us do distribute to every one present Qai apud nos vocantur Diaconi distribuunt unicuique priesentium ut participent de Pane Vino Aquâ benedictis Justin Apol 2. that they may partake of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water It is remarkable that he says the Deacons gave both kinds to every one present and a little after he tells us they did so because our Saviour in the Gospel commanded them to do so For says he the Apostles in the Books written by them Nam Apostoli in Commentariis à se scriptis quae Evangelia vocantur ita sibi praecepisse Jesum tradiderunt Justin Apol. 2. ubi supra which are called the Gospels have taught us that Jesus commanded them to do so Bellarmin pretends that this last expression of S. Justin concerning the Command of Christ hath only relation to the Gonsecration not to the Administration of the Sacrament But any man by reading the place will sind the Cardinals words to be groundless For the Command of Christ is offered by S. Justin as the reason of the whole procedure in celebrating the Sacrament and not as particularly respecting the Consecration of the Elements The second anâ—ient Author whose Testimony I shall produce as an uncontroulable Evidence in this behall is St. Cyprian who flourished principally about the Yeat 250. and not many Years after was put to death for his Religion This Holy Martyr in his Epistle to Caecilius reprehends the Aquarians that were Hereticks so called because in the Consecration and Administration of this Holy Sacrament of our Lords Supper they made no use of Wine but used Water in stead of it Now Sr. Gyprian reproves these Aquarians upon two accounts First in that they offered to Consecrate without Wine and secondly in that they gave no Wine to the People and in both respects he taxes them with a very great tranfgression of the command and appointment of our Saviour The former miscarriage and irrogularity of the Aquarians doth not concern the Roman Catholicks because they use Wine when they Consecrate But in the second point they are like the Aquarians and therefore do fall under the same censure with them Let us hear what St. Cyprian says concerning this whole affair He begins the Epistle by telling Caecilius That although many Reverend Bishops did exactly observe our Lords Tradition for so calls he the Command or Institution of Christ yet says he because some out of Ignorance or simplicity in consecrating the Cup of our Lord Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in Calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Jesus Christas Dominus Deus noster hujus Sacrificii Auctor Doctor fecit docuit religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere at siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspectâ ad radicem
MOTIVES OF CONVERSION TO THE CATHOLICK FAITH As it is PROFESSED IN THE REFORMED CHURCH OF ENGLAND By Neal Carolan formerly Parish-Priest of Slane and Stacallan c. in Meath Imprimatur Aug. 8. 1688. Rad. Rule R. R. in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Francisco Archiep. Dublin à sacr domest DVBLIN Printed by Jos Ray for William Norman in Dames-street and Eliphal Dobson at the Stationers Arms in Castle-street 1688. The Preface to the Reader IT is just and reasonable that every man that deserts the Communion of a Church in which he hath been educated and embraceth a Communion distinct from it should render some accompt to the world of the reasons of his change that so he might avoid the imputation of levity and rashness This hath been done by many of the Protestants that have embraced the Roman Faith namely by Dr. Vane Mr. Cressy Mr. Manby and others and by many Romanists that have embraced the Reformed Religion by the Learned Archbishop of Spalato and several others and being my self resolved to forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome and to embrace that of the Reformed Church of Ireland which I think more agreeable to the Word of God and to the Primitive Antiquity I look on my self to be under the same obligations of satisfying others in the Motives of my change As it was my great happiness to be Baptized into the Christian Faith so it was my misfortune to be educated in that which is far distant from it I mean the Roman Faith as it now stands since the determinations of the Council of Trent and I hope the Gentlemen of that Religion will not take it ill that I call it an infelicity since I can entertain no other apprehensions of it whilst I lie under the convictious that are at present upon my Spirit In the Communion of this Church I was admitted into the seven Holy Orders of the Church in a weeks time by Anthony Geoghegan Bishop of Meath in the Year 1662 and in the month of August in the same Year I was sent to Paris where I was instructed in Phylosophy in the College of Grassini and took the Degree of Master in Arts in the University of Paris aforesaid and after Writing my Speculative Divinity in the College of Navar in the said University under Dr. Vinot Dr. Saussoy and Dr. Ligny I finished my course and took up a resolution of returning to my Native Country where I landed about June 1667 and afterwards continued about some two years teaching a private School in the Borders of Meath till in the year 1669 I was instituted into the Parish of Slane and Stacallan by Oliver Desse then Vicar General of the Dioress of Meath where I continued as Parish Priest for four intire years to the no small content and satisfaction of my Parishioners from them in the year 1675 I was removed to the Parishes of Paâ—â—stown and Brownstown and in the year 79. commanded back again to my first charge in Slanâ— During this time I had the opportunity of reading two Bookes that were most especially recommended to the Clergy of the Province of Uâ—ster by the late Primate Oliver Plunket viz. Archdokins Theologia Tripartita and the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel The former of these he distributed amongst us at a certain price when the first imprâ—ssion of it came forth and the latter we were required to purchase as being very proper to confute Protestants out of their own Bibles I was no less forward in procuring the Books then industrious in reading them and for a long time I thought them unanswerable till at length discoursing with some of the Reverend Protestant Clergy of Meath I found by them that the Touchstone was only an old Book new vampt up with a new Title and some few Chapters added and that it had been long ago published under the Title of the Gag for the new Gospel and learnedly been answered by the Reverend Bishop Mountague Whereupon I procured the answer to it and upon perusal found that the Author of the Old Gag ro New Touchstone call it which you please had in many things basely misrepresented the Doctrine of the Protestants propounding it in such crude and indifinite terms as no sober Protestant doth acknowledge it for their sense as in his 2d Proposition he affirms that Protestants say that in matters of Faith We must not relye upon the judgment of the Church and of her Pastors but only on the written word In the 3d that the Scriptures are easily to be understood In the 4th that Apostolical Traditions and ancient customs of the Church not found in the written word are not to to be received nor oblige In the 5th that a man by his own understanding or private Spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture In the 7th that the Church can erre In the 32 that the Saints may not pray for us and so in others None of which Propositions are owned by Protestants as their Doctrines without many previous distinctions and limitations I found also that in other things he had hudled together many Propositions as the general sense of Protestants which if he had consulted their learned Writings he would have found to be no more then School Points and Problematical Questions nay which are still disputed as such by the best learned men in the Church of Rome Such are for Example The Doctrines of Freewill in the 19th Proposition The Impossibility of keeping the Commandements in the 20th Proposition The Inamissibility of Faith in the 23th The Doctrine of Election and Reprobation in the 24th The Doctrine of Assurance of Salvation in the 25th and The Doctrine of every mâ—n having his Guardian Angel in the 26th most of which Points are matter of Controversie between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants amongst the Protestants And between the Jansenists and Jesuits in the Church of Rome This unfair proceeding charging the Protestants with Doctrines which they either totally deny or do not acknowledge without previous distinctions bred a dislike in me to the Book and consequently put me upon an inquiry into those Doctrines of the Protestants which the Author of it had so fouly misrepresented and the more I read in their Writings the better I was reconciled to their Opinions and the worse I liked those of the Church of Rome some of whose Errors I shall briefly touch as the Motives of my Conversion and occasion of my deserting her Communion Motives of Conversion to the Catholick Faith as it is professed in the Reformed Church of England CHAP. I. Of the Vncharitableness of the Church of Rome THE first Motive thereof is her great Uncharitableness not only to Protestants but also to all other Societies of Christians this day in the World except themselves and that in two things First In confining the Catholick Church to themselves Secondly In excluding all others from hope of Salvation that are not in their own Communion It will be unnecessary to prove that these
France which makes the Bishop of Rome inferiour to a Council and decrees against his Priviledge of not erring in Faith and Manners and contrariwise adjudges it only to the Church and to a Council the Representative thereof Here we have seen this learned Sorbon Doctor directly opposite to the Italian Divines concerning this affair which is under debate It is likewise very well known that Richerius another Doctor of Sorbon and as good a Roman Catholick as the best of them has written his History of General Councils on set purpose therein to run down and demolish the Personal Infallibility and other pretended Priviledges of the Pope But above all Monsieur Maimbourg a most inveterate Enemy to the Protestant Religion has composed a Book designedly to confute the vain pretence of Papal Infallibility and in the sixth Chapter of that Book above-mentioned he alledges all manner of Authorities in order to convince mankind that the Pope is not infallible and he clearly makes out his Allegations i◠10 Chapters of the Book aforesaid concerning the Prerogatives of Rome and her Bishop That which is very pleasant is that Maimbourg finds several Popes who thought their Predecessors fallible and some though but a few who thought themselves so too Among these Adrian VI. like a modest and honest man when he was actually Pope continued to own in general and without exception that the Bishop of Rome might fall into Error Maimbourgs words are these Adrian VI. in his Commentaries upon the 4th of the Sentences says positively and in a most decisive manner That he is certain Cortum est quod Pontifex possit errare etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem Haeresin per suam determinationem aut Decretalem asserendo cap. 15. pag. 183. the Pope may err even in matters belonging to Faith teaching and establishing a Heresie by his Definition or by his Decretal Hence it manifestly appears that the French Catholicks are in this regard opposite to the Italian Papists Therefore Bellarmin will not let this French Doctrine pass it being very prejudicial to the Interest of the papal Chair at Rome but he contradicts it lib. 4. cap. 2. de Romano Pontifice and that very severely saying videtur erronea Haeresi proxima it seems to be wholly erroneous and next in the world to Heresie Here let the Reader consider how those Doctors of the Popish Perswasion disagree and contradict each other about their pretended infallible Judge or Guide in matters of Religion The French Divines and Pope Adrian VI hold that the Pope is not infallible and they say that the diffusive Church and a General Council is so Then comes Cardinal Bellarm with others like him and gives them the lye and then they of the other side not willing to dye in this debt do the like to him and his associates If it be said that both parties had more manners than to tax one another with the lye in express terms that is true indeed but yet they do the same in effect Finding this great discord amongst them I set aside the whole Italian Sect at once and could have been content if the French party had been able to advance a model of an infallible Guide with any concord amongst themselves and without contradicting one another But alas they also are full of Disputes and Dissentions and the best model they devise is liable to very great exceptions As for Disputes and Controversy the matter is thus Some hold that a General Council is the only infallible Guide and Judge in things appertaining to Religion but they allow the Pope many great priviledges in the Council For example a General Council say one party cannot be called but by the Popes Authority or by his Consent And the opinion of these men is to be found in Petrus de Marca the late famous Archbishop of Paris lib. 4. de Concordia Sacerdotii Imperii cap. 5. parag 4. Others affirm again that the Civil Magistrate may call an extraordinary Council which was the Judgment of the University of Paris publickly declared by the Command of King Charles VIII as may be seen in the 4th Book of the History of General Councils set forth by Richerius above mentioned C. 2. and the same was likewise the judgment of the late Famous Archbishop of Paris Lib. 6. C. 17.4 de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii A third sort hold it not to be absolutely necessary that the Pope should have any hand in constituting a General Council or in presiding in it or in ratifying the Decrees of it And this is the Opinion of Monsieur Maimbourg in his Book concerning the Prerogatives of Rome and her Bishop Chap. 16. Pag. 188 189. The same Opinion is likewise maintained by Richerius Historia Concil General lib. 1. c. 5. For in two General Councils that is the second and fifth the Pope neither presided by himself nor by his Delegates and the same Richerius disproves the colours and pretences found out by Baronius and Binius in order to make the World believe that the Pope had some presidency in the Councils above named Hitherto we find nothing in pursuit of this Infallible Guide but uncertainty and confusion everlasting Disputes and endless Quarrels This I considered and was exceedingly troubled to find my self so mightily deceived in my expectation But let us proceed farther and see whether any thing in the World be consistent and credible in this French Doctrin concerning their model of an Infallible Guide I am content to set aside the manifold Disputes concerning the nature and constitution of a Council on condition I may find them well agreed for the rest Notwithstanding if they were perfectly agreed and as harmonious as Musick yet there lies very many exceptions against their Opinion for if a General Council be the only thing incapable of Error then it follows inevitably that there has been no visible Infallible Guide upon earth for these 120 years last past For it is so long since any thing pretending to be a General Council was in being Therefore when the French Papists falsly charge the Protestants for having no certain ground-work or foundation of their Faith they do not consider that the Protestants may return the charge and ask those Papists where their Infallible Directors is since the Council of Trent was dissolved above 120 years ago If it be said that althô there is no Council now sitting yet Records and Writings which contain the Canons and Decrees of Councils are yet extant and may be consulted This makes a Writing capable of being a Guide or Director of our Faith which is a thing the Romanists will not admit of For when the Protestants affirm the written Word of God is only the Infallible Director then they except against all Writings as incapable of being any certain Directors because they may be wrested by Interpretation to bear many Senses And upon this account they call the Holy Scripture a Leaden Rule and a Nose of Wax Now
for my part I cannot perceive but that the Canons and Decrees of dead Councils are liable to wresting and misinterpretation as well as the Holy Scripture Methinks the Bishop of Condom's Book is a very strong proof of this and many instances of the like I could give but I shall omit them because it is notorious that the sense of many Canons is exceedingly disputable Thus I plainly perceive upon the whole matter that either Records of Councils are no infallible or sufficient Guide or if they be so the Holy Scripture is much more such Whence it follows that the Protestants are in the right by relying mainly upon the Scripture Certainly if a Writing can afford infallible direction the written Word of God has the best pretence in the World to that office Therefore the Reformed Church hath reason in some respect to thank the French Papists for althô their pretended unerring Director is not sufficient yet it suggests to them where they may find out one that is very sufficient Such will be the consequence of that model of an Infallible Guide which is advanced and defended by the Gallican Church and by others that follow their method But there are yet farther Inconveniences in it enough to dissatisfie any considerative person whatsoever I was content as you have heard to pass by the great Controversie above mentioned between the Italian and French men I could have prevailed with my self to have connived at the many dissentions under which the Gallican Divines do labour concerning the nature and constitution of a General Council Yet after all I perceive it is impossible to get to an end of their Controversies in so much that I am affraid I shall incumber the Reader with a tedious and long account of them The thing that at present I shall consider is their dissention concerning the extent of that Infallibility which they attribute to General Councils For some extend the supposed Infallibility attending the Councils aforesaid to all sorts of Decrees whether they concern Faith or Practice and this was the current sense of the University of Paris 145 years ago as appears by their conclusions concerning this affair publickly agreed upon and declared Anno Dom. 1542. by the Theological Faculty of that University Articulo 22. It is certain say they that General Councils lawfully assembled Certum est Concilium Generale legitime Congregatam universalem representans Ecclesiam in Fidei Morum determinationibus errare non posse and representing the Universal Church cannot err in Decrees concerning Faith and the Church But of late the Gallican Doctors sing a new song they have departed from this Opinion of their Predecessors and restrained their imagined Infallibility of Councils only to matters of Faith. And an account of this one may find p. 9. of the Reflections made upon the first Answer given to the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Besides it is in every bodies mouth that has been educated in France that in matters of Practice Discipline or Government General Councils are not Infallible Thus at one stroke the French Doctors of these last ages have cut off at least in nine or ten parts from the extent of that Infallibility which their Predecessors 145 years ago did ascribe to the Decrees of Councils For most certain it is the Rules of Practice appertaining to Christianity are to speak within compass nine or ten times as many as the matters of Faith. So the modern French Clergy do hold a much less extended Infallibility then what was heretofore held and taught by the Theological Faculty of Paris above mentioned and according to the modern Position or Doctrin we are deserted by the unerring Guide in much the greater part of Christianity and may err and wander in all practical Points and scatter as much as any Hereticks whatever Hereupon some perhaps will say that although the Office of an infallible Conductor be reduced to a very small compass yet notwithstanding it is better to have his help and assistance as little as it is than to want it Truly there was a time when I thought so too but then I considered that most of those Points controverted between Protestants and Papists are matters of practice Therefore if the unerring direction of the Guide does not extend to practical Decrees it follows that most of the points aforesaid have not hitherto been infallibly determined in savour of the Church of Rome The Worship of Images the Adoration of the Gross the Worship of Angels and Saints the half Communion the Adoration of the Host and several other things are points of practice and not properly matters of Faith. If it be said that the Decrees made by the Council of Trent concerning those things do virtually and implicitly contain a point of Faith by obliging us to believe the lawfulness or expediency of doing them I answer that the case of other Decrees about matters of Practice Discipline or Government is just the same In so much that either all practical Decrees must for this reason be reducible to matters of Faith or else the Decrees concerning Image Worship half Communion and the rest abovementioned cannot be reduced to that kind but must be rank'd among matters of Practice and so are not capable of any infallible Determination if the Description of the Guide given by the French Divines be true But if any man will maintain that all practical Decrees are reducible to matters of Faith for the reason aforesaid then the deposing Canon of the Lateran Council is reducible to the same kind and is consequently established in the Roman Church by an infallible Decree which makes it an essential part of the Romish Church Now this is that great inconvenience which the French Clergy do endeavour to avoid by restraining the unerring priviledge of the Councils to matters of Faith alone They are sensible that several Constitutions and Decrees of Councils are prejudicial to Rights of Sovereign Princes and injurious to the Libertis of the Gallican Church they are aware of the great mischief which those Canons and Decrees made for deposing Kings might bring upon them if their potent Monarch should perceive that such Doctrines are judged essential to the Religion of Rome and for that reason they warily restrain the supposed Infallibility of Councils to matters of Faith alone and so give themselves room and scope enough to run down the deposing Canons Doctrines and yet to pretend that they have an infallible Guide still left in store But this design will be quite ruined if practical Decrees are therefore esteemed to be infallible because they include or suppose a speculative Doctrine concerning the lawfulness or expediency of things they enjoyn For if such Decrees and Constitutions are infallible then they are essential parts of the Roman Catholick Religion even the deposing Canons among the rest So that I plainly see the Frenchmen will be necessitated by trusting to the Conduct of their infallible Guide either to own that
Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam veteris quam novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum Literis ita praeponi ut de illà omninò dubitari an t disceptari non possit utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in eâ scriptum esse constiterit Aug. lib. 2. contra Donat. cap. 3. both of the old and new Testament is comprehended within its own determined limits and that it is so far preferred before the more modern Writings of Bishops as that it is unlawful to doubt or to dispute about it or to question whether any thing manifestly written in it be true or right But he then immediately after tells us that the case of Ecclesiastical Writers of National Synods and General Councils is quite otherwise Who knows not that the Writings of Bishops Quis autem nesciat Episcoporum Literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cujuslibet in eâ re peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem Authoritatem doctiorúmque Prudentiam per Concilia licere reprehendi si quid in eis forsan à veritate deviatum est ipsa Concilia quae per singulas Provincias vel Regiones fiant plenariorum Conciliorum Authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria priora saepe posterioribus emendani Aug. ubi supra which either heretofore have been written or are at present in composing since the Canon of Scripture is established may lawfully be reprehended by a more ingenious Discourse proceeding it may be from a person skilfuller in that affair or by the more grave Authority of other Bishops or the Prudence of the more learned or also by Councils Moreover who knows not that Provincial or National Synods do yield without delay to the Authority of General Councils which are gathered out of all the Christian world and that General Councils precedent in time are often corrected by them that are subsequent Here we see that according to St. Augustine nothing but the Word of God is esteemed incorrigible or infallible not so much as a General Council Therefore I am resolved to follow this Doctrine and to adhere to the Word of God as my only Rule And because I find that the Church of England in this particular agrees most exactly with St. Augustine for that reason I will henceforth embrace the Communion of that Church CHAP. III. Of Transubstantiation THE third Motive of my Conversion is my dislike to the modern Doctrine of Transubstantiation and I may well call it so because it was disliked by the antient Fathers and was full 1215 Years before it could obtain the credit to be defined as an Article of Faith for it was not defined such till the Council of Lateran held the above mentioned Year under Innocent III. and the Testimonies of the Fathers Councils as hereafter you shall see are so decretory against it that the learned Arch-Bishop of Paris doth ingeniously acknowledg it Petr. Mar. Tract de Eucharist And for the justification of it they have been forced to corrupt their Logick and their Natural Philosophy the better to season Young Novices for the reception of it in Divinity and maintain such Paradoxes in them both that if the Protestants had the ill Fate to take them up they long ago had been hissed out of the Schools for defending them Such are the proposition of accidents existing without a subject and the possibility of one Body being in divers places at the same time they have destroyed the nature of a Sacrament by taking away the Visible Sign and have stretched the words of Institution to a sense that many of their own Writers did not believe before it was defined and some have since been so candid as to confess that they could not see the meaning of Transubstantiation in the Text if it were not for the authority of the church They are forced to tell all men loudly to their faces that four of their Senses are mistaken about their proper Object when neither the Medium nor the Organ are indisposed That there is no Bread there at all thô they see feel smell and taste Bread. That the Senses of this or that man are not only mistaken which is somewhat pardonable but the Senses of all mankind at all times and in all places whensoever they receive the Eucharist nay that they are engaged so fatally in the mistake that they are never like to be retrieved out of it thô they use their utmost care to detect the fallacy They are forced to contradict the common reason of mankind and maintain Propositions that sound Reason doth abhor in all other instances Sound Reason tells us that one Body can be but in one place at one time that it must have partes extra partes distant in situation and impenetrable that it must have a quantity and extension that Accident cannot subsist without a Subject that conversion of one Substance into another cannot be without a change in the Accidents But in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation we are taught to disbelieve all these Principles The Body of Christ is at the same time in many places far distant from one another it is glorious in Heaven and on Earth subject to a thousand dishonours it occupies a certain place there but in the Host it takes up none but is in manner like a Spirit in an indivisible point it moves in one place and rests in another it is elevated in one place and depressed in another and all at the same time and season That the Body of Christ is without quantity and extension that there is length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad roundness and nothing round thickness and yet nothing thick That the Body of Christ doth exist without its accidents and essential properties and the accidents of Bread and Wine without a subject and yet these accidents shall do still the same seats and serve a man to as usuall purposes as if the substance were with them a man may seed upon them and be nourished with them and have his Spirit cheered and refreshed with the colour and smell of Wine thô he drink not a drop of it Lo these are the paradoxes which the defenders of Transubstantiation must be forced to take up for the justification of it and they must still seem so to me till I meet with a clear and satisfactory answer to them There was a time when I was content to swallow them as well as others the prejudice of Education and Authority of the Church had so great an influence upon me that I did not consider them as I ought but as by the blessing of God I have shaked off the prejudice of the one so I am still willing to pay a deference to the authority of the other if it can be made good that
the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it there was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be denyed by any sober person who considers that it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerate times and argued and unsettled almost 1300 years after Christ And that it was so will but too evidently appear by the stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law. For Berengarius was by Pope Nicholaus commanded to recant his Errors in these words and to affirm Cap. Ego Bereng consecr dist 2. Verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum in Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sâ—cerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in the Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before 115 Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet this day it is renounced by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded says the Gloss will-lead unto Heresie But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reproved but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their Hypothesis they spake more warily but yet differently from what they spake at first So it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not and 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 Advers Marqion l. 4. c. 40. 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 Contra Tryph. Judae The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion In Dialog contra Mar. Collectis ex Maximo tempore Commodi Severi Imper. 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 In Matt. 13. and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural and 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 Demonstr Evangel l. 1. c. 1 ult h. 2. that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Oeconomy commanding the Image and Type of his own Body to be made St. Macarius says that in the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood 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 Christs Body and Blood although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny 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 is also fully explicated by the good St. Ephrem The Body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from the sensible substance De sacris Anti och legibus a pud Photium l. 1. c. 229. 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 St. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expresly in this Question as if he had undertaken on pupose to consute the Article of Trent Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal Supper Orat. 2. in Pasch 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 an obscure Figure of a Figure St. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically Epist ad Caes contr Haeres Apollinarii cit per Damasc Colect Senten Pp. contr Severianos edit per Tunian h. 23. in 1 Cor. that be fore 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 is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it To these very many more might be added but instead of them the words of St. Augustin may suffice as being an evident conviction what was the Doctrine of the primitive Church in this Question In Psalm 98. This great Doctor brings in Christ speaking thus to his Disciples You are not to eat this Body which you see or 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 is by all men 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 Remembrance But in this particular the Canon Law it self and the Master of the Sentences are the best Witnesses De Consecrat dist 1. c. qui manducant c. prima quidem c. non hoc corpus c. quid paras in both which Chollections there are divers Testimonies brought especially from St. Ambrose and St. Augustin which whosoever can reconcile with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may easily put a Civet and Dog a Pidgeon and a Kite into couples and make Fire and Water enter into natural and eternal Friendships Theodoret and Pope Gelasius speak more emphatically even to the nature of things and the Philosophy of the Question Christ honoured the Symbols and Signs saith Theodoret not changing the Nature but to Nature
the Manichees would have gone undiscovered Hence I could not but conclude that Leo and all Orthodox believers of his time were of the same judgment in this point with the Reformed Church of England since that Reverend Bishop lookt upon receiving the Cup as a certain sign of an Orthodox and true Christian and esteemed the contrary practice an infallible marke of a detestable and sacrilegious Heretick And I am exceedingly confirmed in this Opinion because I find that Pope Gelasius one who sate in the Episcopal Chair of Rome about Thirty years after Leo's death hath in a most publick solemn and authentick manner declared the necessity of Receiving in both kinds and the contrary practice to be sacrilegious For he made a Canon against the corrupt custom of Receiving in one kind which some superstitious people were then endeavouring to introduce And this very Canon is to be found in Gratians Body of the Canon Law. De Consecrat dist 2. c. 12. It is in the Acts of the Councils It is also in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius ad annum 496. But in short there is no doubt of its being the true and genuine Canon of Gelasius and consequently no man can rationally deny this to be a very convincing proof that the judgment and practice of the ancient Bishops of Rome was directly contrary to that of the Modern Bishops and Church thereof I shall here produce the words of the Canon it self that the impertiall Reader may judge whether I had not reason to conclude that the present Roman Church is guilty of Novelties and that the Reformed Church of England does punctually follow the sense of Antiquity But we find says he that some who having received the portion of the Holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the Blood. Comperimus autem quod quidam-sumpta tantummodo Corpus sacri portione â Calice Cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceautur quia divisio vnius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. 12. Let these men without all controversy because they are informed against as persons possest with I know not what superstition either receive the whole Sacrament or abstaine from the whole for a division or parting of the one and the same mistery cannot come to passe without very great sacriledge This ancient Canon I find hath given very strange disturbance to the modern Church of Rome great stir hath been to avoid the force of it if it were possible to be done And because it cannot be denyed that this Canon or Decree was made by Gelasius almost 1200 years ago Therefore many interpretations have been devised to make it reconcilable and consistent with their present practice of detaining the Cup from the People The first device is to imagine and suppose without any manner of ground in the world that this Decree only respects the Priests consecrating the Host Thus we find the Author of the Annotations upon Gratian endeavouring to escape the difficulty But undoubtedly neither the Protestants nor any rational man hath any reason to regard this vain and idle supposition Especially when so eminent a man as Cardinal Baronius hath assured us that this is a senselesse and foolish solution He calls it frigidam solutionem ad annum 496 num 20. 21. And says he rejects it and hath no need of such foolery But there is another evasion which is commonly made use of by the Romanist in order to elude the force of this Canon and because this evasion is most in vogue amongst them therefore particularly I did consider it Many of their controvertists do pretend that the ancient Decree of Gelasius was only temporary and occasional built upon the condition of the times when it was made And therefore say they it might be abrogated without any violation of Divine law when the reason of it by the change of the times was removed Now it is pretended that the reason or cause of it was this In the age of Gelasius say they the Church was exceedingly pestered with a copious number of dissembling Manichees who had a mind to be accounted Catholicks yet out of a superstitious aversion to Wine abstained from the Cup in the Sacrament And this if we believe them was the cause and reason of the Decree against receiving in one kind and not any Divine Precept enjoyning both This I narrowly examined and found it to be more idle and insignificant than the former which Cardinal Baronius called senseless and foolish For whatever the condition of those times was the principal reason of the Canon is incorted into the Canon it self and it is this following Because a parting of one and the same mystery cannot come to pass without very great Sacriledge Now I must beg leave of my old Friends to tell them that this is no temporary or mutable reason certainly not to commit Sacriledge is a thing of unchangeable and perpetual obligation neither has it any dependence upon the condition of any Age or Time For let the Times change never so much it will never be lawsul to commit Sacriledge and such is communicating in one kind alone if Pope Gelasius may be believed Thus it is plain that this ancient Decree is directly contrary to the late constitutions of the Roman Church and these evasions invented in order to make it seem reconciliable have not any plausible colour of reason Therefore I doubt not but the judicious and impartial Reader will be satisfied that it is necessary for all Christians that come to the Lords Supper to partake of it in both kinds and that this necessity arises from the Command of our Saviour enjoining all to drink of the Cup. The ancient Fathers did so believe and teach as the Authorities already cited do clearly and satisfactorily manifest Herein I have Lindanus agreeing with me though he was a great Defender of Popery in these words when he had first shewn what the Opinion of the old Writers was said After this manner the ancient Fathers chiefly St. Leo Hunc igitur in modum illam ve tustissimam planéque Apostolicam utriusque speciei Communionem conservatam atque observatam populo Christiano cupiebant prisci Patres Divus Leo Gelasius Patres in Concilio Turonensi Gelasius and the Fathers in the Council of Tours did desire that that most ancient and altogether Apostolical Communion in both kinds might be preserved and observed by the Christian people Lastly That the Reader may the better compare this ancient Doctrine and Practice with the novel and late Rule set up by the Romanists it is necessary that I produce the Canon made by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance about 272 years ago which forbids administring the Cup to the people Because the Canon is long I shall only produce two clauses of it and any man
against Image worship The sact of Epiphanius rending the Veil that hung in the Church of Anablatha is effectual to demonstrate what an abomination it was in his days and in his opinion to worship Images which himself in his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem translated by St. Hierom out of Greek into Latin does thus explain I found there says he a Veil hanging at the door of the Church dyed Inveni ibi Velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens Imaginem quast Christi vel Sancti cujusdam non enim satis memini cujus Image fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra Auctoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imagi nem scidi idud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperom mortuum eo obvelverent efferrent Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym Tom. 2. Oper Hieron Ep. 60. and painted and having the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I do not well remember whose Image it was When therefore I saw this that contrary to the Athority of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged up in the Church of Christ I cut it and gave counsel to the Keepers of the place that they should wrap and bury some poor dead man in it And afterwards he intreated the Bishop of Jerusalem under whose Government this Church was To give charge thereafter Praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi Vela quae contra nostram Religionem veniunt non appendi Epist Epiphanii ubi supra that such Veils as these which are repugnant to our Religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ Had this holy Father now been arised from the dead and had seen the great number of Images not only hung in Churches and Oratories of them of the Communion of Rome but also worshiped and adored relatively as their Disputants term it how much Christian Reader think you would he be amazed and astonished hereat would he not rather judge them to be the Churches of Baal than of Christ And yet these people brag of Antiquity after this and pretend to rely on the Authority of ancient Writers in asserting the Lawfulness of Image-worship Let us hear in the next place what Lactantius says Imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines serviunt omni Sensu carent quia terra sunt Quis autem non intelligat nefas esse rectum animal curvari ut adoret torram quae ideo subjecta est ut calcanda à nobis non adoranda sit Quare non esse dubium quin Religio nulla fit ubicunque simulachrum est Divini autem nibil est nisi in caelestibus rebus carent ergo Religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse caeleste in ea re quae fit ex terrâ Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 17 18. Those consecrated Images says he which vain men do serve want all Sense because they are earth Now who is there that understands not that it is unfit for an upright creature to be bowed down that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feet that it may be trodden upon not worshiped by us Wherefore there is no doubt but that there is no Religion wherever there is an Image There is nothing that is godly but consists in heavenly things Therfore Images are things that have nothing to do with Religion or they are void of Religion because nothing that is heavenly can be in that thing which is made of earth St. Ambrose affirms that in his days the Church was an utter stranger to any thing like Images He tells us That the Church acknowledged no vain resemblances Ecclesia inanes ideas vanas nescit simulachrorum figuras sed veram novit Trinitatis substautiam Lib. de Jacob Vitâ beata nor any vain Figures of Images but that it acknowledged the true Substance of the Trinity When Adrian the Emperor had commanded that the Temples should be in all Cities rendred clear of Images it was immediately apprehended that he had provided these Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteth in the Life of Alexander Severus Which is a convincing Argument that it was not in use with Christians in those days to have any Images in their Churches This I suppose is enough to demonstrate that the ancient and primitive Church was as great a Stranger to Images and that it abhorr'd them as much as the Church of England does at present Many and large Collections have been made by Protestant Writers of the Sense and Opinions of antient Writers concerning this particular unto whom I must refer the Reader because the present occasion will not permit me to be prolix or tedious in reciting them I have examined several of these Collections and find them to be accurate and this is one principal motive of my Conversion We see by what has been already alledged of what account the use of Images was in the ancient and best times Christians then would by no means permit them to be brought into their Churches Nay some of them would not so much as admit the Art it self of making them so jealous were they of the danger and careful to prevent the deceit whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to adore them Now the Church of Rome does own that it is very abominable to worship an Image absolutely that is to make it the principal or sole object of Adoration But their evasion here in is that a relative Worship is not forbidden nor falleth under the compass of Idolatry that is to say to worship an Image in regard of him whose Image it is and by reason of the relation it has to him it is not against the Commandment To this I answer that the Worship of it after that manner doth not excuse the Worshippers from Idolatry since the Commandment is delivered in general expressions and has no limitation or restriction but it forbids without exception all bowing down to them and worshipping of them of what kind soever the Worship be Had a relative Worship of Images been accounted lawful in the primitive ages certainly the holy Fathers and Councils would not have omitted to acquaint us therewith But we find the quite contrary for when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no known Images they did not say we have Images to be relatively worshipped But Minutius Felix returned them this for answer Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam cùm ipse Homo si recte existimes sit Dei simulachrum Mi nut in Octav. What Image shall I make of God when Man himself if you rightly judge is Gods Image St. Augustine discoursing about the Duties that arise from the first Table of the Decalogue has this following passage It is forbidden that any similitude of God should be worshipped in things contrived by humane invention Prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominem