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
adding Grace Sentent lib. 4. dist 11. dialog 1. c. 8. which Symbols are seen with the title of his Body and Blood. Dialog 2. c. 24. For neither do the mystical Signs recede from their Nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen touched c. And for a Testimony that will be esteemed infallible I alledge the words of Pope Gelasius De Duabus Nat. contra Eutych Nestor videatur Picherel in Dissert de missa expositione verbo rum Institutionis coenae Domini Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature yet ceases not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine And truly an image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries If the Patrons of this novelty be not yet satisfied by what is already said in reference thereunto let them see and diligently mark these following Councils Ancyranum anno Domini 314. Can. 2. Neocaesariense anno eodem Can. 13. Nicenum 1. an 325. in act lib. 2. c. 3. Laodicenum ann 364. Can. 25. Carthagiense ann 397. Can. 24. Aurelianense ann 541. Can. 4. Toletanum 4. an 633. Can. 17. Bracarense ann 675 C. 2. Toletanum 16. ann 693. C. 6. Constantinopolitanum in Trullo ann 691. Can. 32. and if there be any shame in them they will never brag of Antiquity to patronize them therein for they are diametrically repugnant unto them in this behalf Now from these premises I am not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Church of Rome but I think my self bound in conscience to swerve from it and judge it my duty to give caution and admonition to all other well disposed Christians to do so likewise 1. That they be not abused by the Rhetorical words and high expressions alledged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament the Body or Flesh of Christ For we all believe it is so and rejoyce in it But the Question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of Flesh or after the manner of spiritual Grace or sacramental consequence I with the holy Scriptures Jo. 6.36 and primitive Fathers affirm the latter the Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the Explication of Christ affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under the pretence of being ancient since although the Roman Error had been so long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an Innovation in Christianity and brought in by Ignorance Power and Superstition very many ages after Christ 3. I exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the Doctrine of giving us his Flesh for Meat and his Blood for Drink that he tells us Ut supra the Flesh profiteth nothing but the Words which I speak are Spirit and they are Life 4. That if these ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the Symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are received and that Christs Body and Blood are only present to Faith and Spirit that then whoever attempts to give Divine Honour to these Symbols or Elements as the Church of Rome does attempts to give a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an error in the understanding for it carrys them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excused from the crime of Idolatry To conclude this matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that I need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous Questions which are sometimes handled by them of the Church of Rome concerning this divine mystery As if a Priest going by a Bakers Shop and saying with an Intention Hoc est Corpus meum whether all the Bakers Bread be turned to Christs Body whether a Church-mouse does eat her Maker whether a man by eating the consecrated Symbols does break his fast for if it be Bread and Wine he does not and if it be Christs Christs Body and Bloud naturally and properly it is not Bread and Wine Whether it may be said the Priest in some sense is the Creator of God himself whether his Power be greater than the Power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Gloria mundi 4. num 6. Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he says his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and Creator of his Body But these things are too bad and therefore I love not to rake in so filthy channels but give only general warning to all them whom I wish well to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their new sound Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such Doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propsitions frequently do issue As the Tree is such must be the Fruit. But I hope it may be sufficient to say that what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no Faith obligeth me and no Reason can endure CHAP. IV. Of the Half Communion THE fourth Motive of my Conversion is another piece of Novelty I was much dissatisfied with and that is the Half Communion And the more I inquired into the Word of God and the Sense of the primitive Church concerning it the more I found cause to dislike it Certainly the common Reason of all men that are Christians cannot but suggest unto them that every Command Order and Institution of Christ ought to be accounted extremely sacred and that whatever he has appointed should be observed most religiously without any deviation from the Rule which he hath delivered Now upon examination I found that the Church of Rome had made a very unwarrantable and a strange alteration in the Administration of the Sacrament by detaining the Cup from the people and therefore I hope no rational man can blame me for rejecting Communion with her and adhering to that Religion of the Reformed Church where I saw the Command of our Saviour carefully observed and his Institution most obsequiously followed And because I do here enter upon an Accusation of the Church of Rome it is reasonable I should in the first place set down what I apprehend to be the Doctrine of that party concerning this matter and then I will endeavour to demonstrate that both the Doctrine and Practice of it are repugnant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine and Practice of the primitive Church It is pretended by the Romanists that they have made no change in any thing material or essential to the Sacrament For they resolutely affirm
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
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
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
that pleases may consult the whole and judge whether I do any wrong I am sure I intend to deliver nothing but what is truth After a Preface containing the reasons of their proceedings it is said The holy General Council of Constance defines Concilium sacrum generale Constantiense definit quod licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub utraque Panis Vini specie venerabile hoc Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante c. Acta Conc. Constant edit Labb that altho' Christ did institute this venerable Sacrament after Supper and administer it under both kinds of Bread and Wine to his Disciples yet hoc non obstante notwithstanding this it is first decreed that the Sacrament should not be celebrated after Supper And then some things being brought in by way of Preamble to put a blind upon the matter It is also decreed that the custom of giving only one kind to the people tho' contrary to Christs Institution and the Practice of the primitive Church should thenceforth be accounted Law. In the latter part of the Canon there is a clause directly opposite to the Decree of Gelasius above mentioned For whereas that ancient Pope had declared that receiving in one kind could not be without Sacriledge the Canon of Constance contradicts him after this manner Therefore to say the observation of this custom or Law Quapropter dicere quod hanc consuetudinem vel legem observare sit sacrilegum censeri debet erroneum is sacrilegious ought to be judged erroneous Then it seems the Decree of Gelasius ought to be judged erroneus For that Decree affirms the custom or law about receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious as has heretofore been abundantly shewn Thus having found the Practice and Doctrine of the present Church of Rome contrary and repugnant to the Word of God and to the Judgment of ancient Authors of which some were Popes publickly enacting the direct opposite to what was lately decreed at Constance I could not but conclude that I was in no right way And therefore took up a resolution to adjoin my self to the Protestant Church where I saw the Command of Christ carefully observed and the Sacrament in both kinds given to the people according to his Institution CHAP. V. Of Image-Worship THe fifth Motive of my Conversion is the Use or rather the Abuse of Images There is none that pretends to the least knowledge of Antiquity but knows that the Worship of Graven Images is far from being either a Christian Apostolick Primitive or Catholick Practice and yet the Papists give to graven Images the Worship due to God to Christ and his Saints tho they pretend otherwise We need not enquire what actions they suppose fit to be used in their Image-Worship For these appear in their publick Processions their Incensings and Pilgrimages their Prayers and Vows made unto them Certainly the Worship of a graven Image is plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament as you may read in the Commandments uttered with Gods own Mouth with Thundring and Lightning on Mount Sinai viz. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them Which Thunder from Heaven the Guides of the Romish Church discerning to threaten vehemently their dreadful Idolatry which daily they commit thought fit in wisdom to conceal the knowledge of the second Commandment from the people by excluding it from the Decalogue and dividing the tenth into two And notwithstanding their Image-Worship is so infinite a Scandal to the Jews and Turks and a Reproach to Christianity it self among all strangers that live with them and observe their Rites and that it cannot in the least be pretended to be lawful but with the laborious artifices of many Airy and Metaphysical Distinctions which the people who most need them do least understand yet they use these and many other miserable shifts and silly evasions whereby they labour to darken the Light of the true Catholick Doctrine in this point as has been manifested by many of great capacity to the full in their Comments on Deut. 4.15 16. and other places of Scripture where you may see that the adoring of the very true God himself in or by an Image cometh within the compass of Idolatry which the Word of God condemneth and therefore that this whole Doctrine and Practice is contrary to the Law of God I need not tell you Let us hear what the primitive Christians held concerning Images first in their Councils secondly in the Writings of the primitive Fathers First then as to their Councils For keeping of Pictures out of the Churches the Canon of the Eliberine Council held in Spain about the time of Constantine the Great gives this direction It is our Will that Pictures ought not to be in the Church lest that which is worshiped or adored should be painted on the Walls Which words have so troubled the Wits of the late Church of Rome that Melchior Canus scrupleth not only to accuse the Council of Impudency but also of Impiety for making such a Law. In a Council of several Bishops in the year of our Lord 730. under Leo the Emperor titled Iconomachus Images were solemnly condemned And in another Council held at Constantinople ann 755. or thereabouts under the Reign of Constantine Copronymus with great solemnity they were also condemned Notwithstanding the several Decrees of these Councils enacted against the Idolatrous Worship of Images the second Council of Nice advanced Image-Worship And that indeed was very likely to be the product of a Council assembled by that most wicked Empress Irene who was bred and educated in Heathenism and probably continued a Heathen in her heart all the days of her life if we may judge of her Religion by her actions Certainly no person that had any sense of Christianity would ever do the things that she did Now by the Authority and Interest of this impious Woman and by the procurement of Pope Adrian I. this Decree for Image-worship was obtained But this Decree altho' it was not by many degrees so gross as what was afterwards invented by the Schoolmen of the Popish Communion yet was rejected as repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of God by the Princes and Bishops of England about the year 792. and afterwards by Charles the Great and the Bishops of Italy France and Germany which by his appointment were gathered together in the Council of Frankford in the year 794. Thus much I thought needful to be alledged against the Worship of Images from the Authority of Councils some of which have better pretences to be accounted General than either the second of Nice or that of Trent can pretend to But then in the second place if we consider the Testimonies of the Fathers we shall find them plain
Dei similitudo non quia non habet Imaginem Deus sed quia nulla ejus Image coli de bâ—t nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse Aug. Epist 119. ad Januarium not but that God has an Image but because no Image of him ought to be worshipped except that one meaning Christ which is the same thing with himself Here we see St. Augustin's Opinion concerning the Sense of the second Commandment he judges that worshiping any similitude of God by an invented Figure is herein prohibited and consequently relative Worship according to his Judgment is a transgression of a divine Precept St. Ambrose agrees most exactly with him He tells us that God would not have himself worshiped in Stones Non vult se Deus coli in Lapidibus Ambr. Ep. 31. ad Valentin That is in Images made of Stone and I suppose the case will be much the same if the Image be made of any other materials By these examples we see how far the ancient Writers of the Church differ'd in their Opinion concerning Image worship from the present Church of Rome The ancient Writers agree exactly with the Protestants and were altogether of the same Perswasion with them although the word or term of Protestant was not then known but is of later times invented to signifie them that protest against the Errors of the Church of Rome I shall add a few words more concerning the original of this wicked practice I find by St. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 23. contra Heraes and also by others that Simon Magus and his Disciples wore the first that brought Images into the Christian Religion If the Rominists will acknowledge these for their Patrons themselves can tell how much it will redound to their Glory It is true that this custom of Image worship was very ancient but very heretical also and abominable Simon Magus and his Sectaries were introducers thereof as I said before who had Images some painted in Colours others fram'd of Gold and of other matter which they said were Representations of Christ made under Pontius Pilate when Christ was here conversant among men Whence it came to pass that Corpoorates and his disciple Marcellina who brought this idolatrous practice to Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus having privily made Images of Jesus and Paul of Homer and Pythagoras did cense and worship them as Irenaeus above-mentioned does relate lib. 1. contra Heraes cap. 24. But against this wicked practice the ancient Christians did zealously and piously declare Here is the eldest instance of Image-worship in any person that ever pretended to be any thing of a Christian and we may see how severely it is censur'd and mark'd with the infamous brand of Heresie such then was the first rise of Images among Christians but there was another cause that much contributed to the advancement of their Worship and that was this Many simple Christians nowly converted from Paganism could not unlearn the customs of it as it is observed by Eusebius concerning the image of Christ erected by the Woman that was cur'd of the Bloody Issue Euseb l 7. Hist Ecclesiast c. 18. It is no marvel says he that those of the Heathen who of old were cured by our Saviour should do such things since we have seen the Images of the Apostles St. Paul and St. Peter yea and of Christ himself kept painted with colours in Tables For they that is converted Gentiles of old were wont by a Heathenish custom thus to honour them whom they accounted to be their Benefactors or Preservers But by whomsoever they were first brought in certain it is they proved a pernicious allurement to the simple people who soon went a whoring after them contrary to the Command of God and the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and Defenders of Christianity This I find to be the true state of the whole affair concerning Image worship and I am heartily sorry that I understood it not heretofore But I hope to obtain pardon because I labour'd under great prejudices of my Education and could not imagine that such grave and learned Doctors as have asserted the Lawfulness and Antiquity of Image-worship would have led me into so gross an Error We are told by some of these Doctors and particularly by the Archbishop of Spalate That the veneration of Images oven the most ancient Ecclesiam Christianam etiam antiquissimam totam ac universalem summo consensu absque ullâ oppositione aut contradictione statuas ac imaginas veneratam esse M. Anton de Domin de Consilio reditûs sect 23. the whole and universal Church did embrace as a Doctrine of Faith and that with unanimous consent and without any opposition or contradiction it did worship Statutes and Images Now for consutation of this shameless assertion I appeal to the aforegoing Councils and Holy Fathers certainly I had reason to grow dissatisfied with the Communion of Rome when I saw that their great sticklers endeavoured to defend their Doctrines by such notorious and manifest untruth Concerning the Adoration of the Cross I Think the worship of the material Cross of Christ to be somewhat like the worship of Images and that is the cause why I have rankt it under this general head which I assign for my fifth Motive But altho the Devotions paid by the Romanists to the Cross do in some respects resemble Image worship yet in many regards they are much worse For the Romanists do avowedly give Latria to the Cross and although some of them do pretend that this is only given to it relatively yet if one examine their Hymns and Prayers directed to the Wooden Cross it will manifestly appear that their excuses are trivial and their pretences vain None doubts but that our Saviours Sufferings which are often called the Cross of Christ do abundantly deserve our greatest regard but then to transfer this to the material and literal Cross is a wonderful thing and I am astonisht at my self in that for so many years I never considered it or weighted this matter as I ought to have done But I shall proceed to consider some of the pretences and excuses which Roman Catholicks make in order to defend the worship of the Cross Bellarmin sayes lib. 2. de Reliquiis Sanctis that the Cross ought to be adored by the fame worship with Christ because it was touched by Christs Sacred Body But if this be true then it follows that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be worshiped by the same worship also by reason she carried him nine months in her Womb she nourisht him c. and his contact with her was natural with the Cross violent But the Romanists deny such due to her therefore of necessity they ought to deny it to be due to the holy Cross If Latria or supreme Worship be due to the Cross for its contact with Christ it ought rather for that reason to be attributed unto the Ass whereon Christ rid with solemnity to
Jerusalem and to the several Beds whereon He lay and Ships wherein he wafted from Region to Region because his attingency in and with them was voluntary with the Cross coactive Nay they ought upon the same ground to adore Judas his lips the Officers hands that apprehended and bound Christ the Scourges whereby He was whipt for they were instruments of his passion as well as the Cross If they adore all other Crosses for their resemblance of the original Cross so they ought to adore all Mangers all Launces all Nails Thorns Spittles c. for these have the same resemblance to our Saviours Manger and to those Nails Thorns c. which were the instruments of his Passion They attribute more Honour unto Christs Cross than to his Resurrection by these words We adore thy Cross and commemorate thy Resurrection Crucem tuam adoramus resurrectionem tuam recolimus They ascribe then it seems Adoration to the Cross which is only proper unto the Divine Nature and to the Cross likewise that is to the Wood they attribute the redemption of the world and the reconcilation of mankind unto God the Father vide Bellarmin lib. 2. c. 23. sect Ac primum They also attribute forgiveness of Sins and increase of Righteousness to the Cross they repose their hopes and confidence in the dead Wood of the Cross and beg remission of Sins from it as may be seen in their Hymns extant in the Roman Breviary corrected and revised by the authority of the Council of Trent and set forth by several Popes as may be seen in several Editions of it especially in that Printed at Paris anno 1662 whence I draw this that follows O Crux ave spes unica In hoc Paschali gaudio Auge piis Justitiam Reisque dona veniam That is in English thus Hail O Cross our only hope In this our Paschal joy Increase the Righteousness of the pious And give pardon to the guilty Nothing doubtless can be more prodigious unless it be what follows O Crux splendidior cunctis astris Mundo celebris hominibus multum amabilis Sanctior universis Quae sola fuisse digna portare talentum mundi Dulce Lignum dulces clavos dulcia ferens pondera Salva praesentem catervam In tuis hodie laudibus congregatam Alleluja Alleluja That is in English thus O Cross more bright than all the Stars Famous through the world very lovely to mankind More holy than all other things Which wast alone worthy to carry the Ransom of the world Dear Wood that carriest the dear Nails and the dear Burden Save the present Assembly which is to day gathered together for thy Praise Alleluja Alleluja Great Complements upon my word for a liveless piece of Wood for that they mean the material Cross and not the Passion of our Saviour their words do abundantly declare We see here they repose their hope and considence in the Wood they beg increase of Grace from it and ascribe to it a Power to forgive Sins which Attribute appertaineth to the Godhead only The Humanity of Christ separated from his Divinity is not to be adored with divine Worship as St. Augustin teacheth Homil 38. de Verbis Domini Therefore much less his Cross or any other representative Image of his The Holy Ghost is present in the Sacrament of Baptism yet it is not to be adored with the same Worship due to the Holy Ghost Therefore that Wood whereon Christ suffered and other Blocks or Stumps of Trees resembling it are not to be adored with the same veneration due unto Christ Many consequences that may be inserr'd from the Worship of the Cross and of Images are so prodigiously absurd impious blasphemous and so numerous that if I endeavoured exactly to enumerate and prosecute them I should never come unto an end Therefore I leave them to the upholders of these abuses whence they are emergent and also these upholders to trust to their Images like to like for they that make them Psal 115.8 are like unto them and so is every one that trusteth in them CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue THe Sixth and last Motive or Cause of my Declension from the Church of Rome is its lack of Charity in robbing Christians not only of the superabundant effects of our Lords Supper by dismembring it but also of that other effectual Remedy which Christ left unto them as means whereby they might attain unto Salvation viz. the benefit of Publick Service or Common Prayers by hindring them to make use thereof in the vulgar tongue intended by God and Nature for all peoples edification This Common Service Prayers Liturgy or Mass which in effect are all one the Conventicle of Trent in the 22th Sess and 8th chap. denies plainly to be expedient to use in the vulgar Tongue or Idiom So Stapleton the Jesuit in his English Book written against Bishop Jewel Artic. 3. p. 75. says inconsiderately that Devotion is rather hindred by using it in a known Idiom than promoted Bellarmine in the second Book de Verbo Dei chap. 15. endeavours to prove that anciently Common Prayers were universally practised in the Latin tongue by all Nations and consequently now ought to be so This self-ended and fabulous Natration of Bellarmines I beg his leave for saying it is far from truth and as contrary to Christs Ordinance to the Apostolick Practice and the general Custom of the primitive Church as Fire and Water black and white cold and heat are one to another Which first I prove by the Testimonies of Scripture 2. By the undeniable Authorities of the holy Fathers 3. By the usual Practice of all other Christian Nations 4. I shall endeavour to prove that the Church of Rome hath borrowed this practice from such Authors as it is a shame for her to imitate The Testimonies of Scripture produced to this effect 1. What Christ commanded that ought religiously to be observed in his Church but Christ by the mouth of his Apostle St. Paul commanded Common Prayers to be used in the vulgar Idiom understood by the hearers 1 Cor. 14.9 So likewise you except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak unto the air v. 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful v. 16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at they giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And v. 19. Yea I had rather speak five words with my understanding in the Church that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 2. Whatever is done in the Church that ought to redound to the edification thereof 1 Cor. 14 v. 26. How is it then Brethren when ye come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a Doctrine hath a Tongue hath Revelation hath an Interpretation
let all things be done unto edifying But an unknown tongue edifies none Ibid. v. 6. Now Brethren if I come to you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or knowledge or by prophesying or Doctrine v. 9. as above cited 3. If the Minister prayeth in an unknown tongue he is a Barbarian to the people and also the people to him 1 Cor. 14. v. 11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh a Barbarian unto me 4. All things ought to be done in the Church with decency and due order 1 Cor. 14. v. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order But the use of Prayers in an unknown tongue is directly against this Rule because when the Minister so prayeth the hearers understand not what he says nor consequently pray nor say Amen to any effect nay the Minister only who understandeth the Divine Service prayeth and so the Prayers which ought to be publick by this means are become private which is as opposite to the Decency and right Order of the Church as Whoremongering to the seventh Commandment 5. As the Prophets Christ the Apostles and their true Successors have solemnly ministred the Rites and publick Office of the Church even so now and perpetually they ought as far as is possible in the same form manner and method without alteration to be ministred But they ministred them in the vulgar Language according to the capacity of their Hearers as St. Paul abundantly witnesseth in the aforegoing 1 Cor. 14. And besides many of the Papists themselves own that Prayers understood are far better and more available as Lyranus on the first Epistle to the Corinthians 14. and Cardinal Cajetan in Comment on the same chap. Therefore the practice of praying in a known tongue being better and more effectual for edifying the people ought still to be retained in the Church whereas she is always to ediâ—ie and not destroy Though the whole stream of all the holy Fathers cannot more convincingly prove the certainty of this truth than St. Paul hath done already yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I will produce a few Testimonies to the same purpose so pregnant as not to be avoided Basil the Great in Epist 63 has these following words By the dawning of the day says he the Congregation of the Faithful altogether with one voice Illucescente jam die pariter unâ— ore ac corde omnes fideles Confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt ac suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam profitetur Quae consuetudines omnibus Dei Ecclesis consentientes sunt and one mind offereth a Psalm of Thanksgiving unto the Lord and every one in his own proper speech acknowledgeth his amendment of life Which practices are consented unto in all the Churches of God. How could this custom of using Common Prayers with one voice or language in Basil the Great 's time in all Christian Churches be plausible amongst the faithful if their Liturgies as Bellarmine feigns had been customarily used in Latin For it cannot be properly said that they offered unâ voce Thanksgiving unto the Lord if they practised diversity of Languages Saint Augustine affirms the same l. 2. in Gen. c. 8. in these words None can be edified by hearing that which he understands not Nemo inquit aedificatur audiendo quod non intelligit And on Psalm 99. he says again Blessed be they who understand the magnificient Praise of the Lord Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem curramus ad hanc Beatitudinem intelligamus jubilationem non eam sine intellectu sundamus let us hasten to this Blessedness let us understand it let us not pour it out unless we understand it Hence follows that few in the Church of Rome can attain unto this blessedness of understanding the Lords Praise because it cannot be compassed without perfect knowledge of the Latine tongue which cannot be acquired without a tedious progress in the study of it which progress is morally impossble for the Commonalty who make up the greatest number in that Communion Yet they are uncharitably and that contrary to S. Augustines Admonition excluded from this Blessedness by a new Commandment and Article of Faith lately sabricated in the Conventicle of Trent to their utter destruction For what profit can they receive that hear a sound and are strangers to the meaning of it it were as good that they were absent as present and therefore Solomon calls this doting kind of serving God Sacrificium stultorum a Sacrifice of Fools and so really it is For they that hear it are no further benefited thereby than they have capacity to apprehend it as Azorius learnedly affirms in these words Devotion springs from understanding Affectus consequitur intellectum ubi autem earum rerum quae petuntur aut dicuntur nullus habetur intellectus ibi exiguus assurgit affectus consequenter valdè exiguus fructus when there is no understanding of things that are sought or said there is but little Devotion and consequently very little benefit reapt by the hearer Indeed according to this grave Doctors opinion it were as advantagious to them that are not Latinists to have a speechless Priest so say Mass mentally as one that hath the freedom of speaking to say it loudly for he that cannot speak and hath no speech and he that hath none to be understood is all alike unto the ignorant in regard of profiting them which is a thing rarely well confirmed by St. Augustine in the 4th Book of his Christian Doctrine the 10th chap. exciting the people with a great deal of vehemency to refrain from the perverse custom of praying in an unknown Language which in no way says he tends to edification There is no cause says he why a man should speak at all if they for whose sake he speaks understand him not Quid prodest locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis Cum loquendi nulla causa si quod loquimur non intelligunt propter quos ut intelligant loquimur For God hears the Priests thoughts when he speaks not as well as when he speaks he hears the Prayers of the Heart and sees the Word of the Mind and a speechless Priest can do all the Ceremonies and make the Signs and he that speaks aloud to them that understand him not does no more So the Author of the Exposition upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians by some thought to be St. Ambrose chap. 14. says If ye be convened to edifie the Church Si ad Ecclesiam aedificandam convenitis ea dici debent quae intelligunt auditores things ought to be spoken which the hearers understand Which Doctrine is plainly seconded by Cassiodore upon Psal 46. in these words We ought not only says he to sing Non solum inquit cantantes sed
intelligentes psallere debemus nemo enim quidquam facit sapienter quod non intelligit but also to know and understand the sense meaning of our singing for none can do any thing rationally except he knoweth the meaning of it And likewise by Jacobus Faber Stapul in his Comment on 1 Cor. 14. who affirms rebuking the people for their Lewdness touch-this particular That a great part of the world now a days prayeth Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat nescio si Spiritu scio tamen quod non mente orat nam linguâ orat quam non intelligit but whether their Prayers proceed from the Spirit of God I know not but I know they pray not from the heart nor to any effect because they pray in an unknown tongue If the aforegoing incontroulable Authorities of these holy Fathers be not sufficient to confute Bellarmines groundless Surmise and imaginary Comment by saying that in the former ages of the primitive Church Common Prayers were generally practised in Latin amongst the Faithful and Professors of Christianity for his and his Sticklers Disgrace and Shame I add Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 14. Lyra ibid. and Cassander Liturg. cap. 28. who siding with St. Paul do frequently tell us that Divine Service or publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue do not edifie and consequently were forbidden as I have shewn evidently already To this effect I might produce the torrent of the holy Fathers who flourished in the succeeding ages of the Church but that I am willing to shun prolixity And so I go on to the proof of the third part of my Assertion which is That the Practical Custom of all Christian Nations anciently was to pray in their own native Languages and it is to this very day Here Origen in his 8th Book against Celsus may come in as an impartial Witness testifying that the Grecians in their Prayers use Greek and the Romans the Roman Language and so every Nation according to his Idiom prayeth to God and praiseth him as they were able And Lyra seconds him thus on 1 Cor. c. 14. affirming that in the primitive Church Blessings our Lords Prayer and all other things were done in the vulgar tongue nay not only Common Prayers but the whole Bible was anciently by many Translations made fit for the peoples use as St. Hierom. Epist ad Sophr. affirms that himself translated the Bible into the Dalmatian tongue And Vlphilas Sozom lib. 6. Hist c. 37. a Bishop among the Goths translated it into the Gotick tongue And that it was translated into all other Languages we are told by St. Chrysost Homil. 1. in 8. S. Joannis By S. August l. 2. c. 5. de Doctrinâ Christianâ And Theodoret Serm. 5. de Graecar Affect Curat Besides all these authentick Testimonies of the aforementioned renowned Doctors who indifferently acquaint all Christians that in the primitive Church the Priest and the People joined together in their Prayers and understood each other and prayed in their mother-tongue I will produce for a further and more palpable conviction of this Foppery the words of the Civil and Canon Law. Justinian the Emperour made a Law in these words Our Will and Command is that all the Bishops and Priests do celebrate the Sacrament of Oblation and the Prayers thereunto added in the holy Baptism with a loud and clear voice which may be understood by the faithful that thereby the minds of the Hearers may be raised up with greater Devotion to set forth the Praise of the Lord God for so the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 14. And Innocent III. is most express herein in the great General Council of Lateran as themselves esteem held anno 1215. Can. 9. where he hath these words Because saith he in many places within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixt together having under one and the same Faith divers Ceremonies and Rites We strictly charge and command that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses provide men fit who may celebrate the Divine Office according to the diversity of their Languages c. If you will inquire why are they not as stedfast followers of Pope Innocent in this point as in that of Transubstantiation I can give you no other reason but that I am afraid they will be called Libertines by their ill-wishers for making use of the Laws of God and Man as they please to the advancement of their Self-ended Errors and for impudently rejecting what is contrary thereunto Now if the usual Custom of the Prophets Christs Institution and exemplary manner of preaching and teaching to say Prayers in an understood Language if the Words of the Apostle the Practice of the primitive Church the Sayings of the holy Fathers and Concessions of impartial men of their own Communion if the Consent of all other Christian Nations and the Piety of our Forefathers if right Reason and the nature of publick Service it self if the Needs of the Ignorant and Condition of the holy Prayers if the Laws of Princes and the Laws of the Church which require all our Prayers to be said according to the Understanding of our Auditors if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the poor ignorant peoples Souls as to consent they should understand what in particular they ask of God assuredly there is great pertinacy of Opinion and very little Charity to those procious Souls for whom Christ suffer'd and for whom they must give a strict account And the Papists themselves own that at this very instant of time the Egyptians Moscovians Sclavonians Armenians Ethiopians Moravians Bohemians Hungarians the Jacobites Abassines and all other Christian Nations have in and throughout the whole Universe their Liturgies in their own native Languages And Eckius affirms that the same practice and no other is observed in the Indies in Asia in Africa or any other part of the world amongst Christians And that being so it is strange that the Protestants should not have the same priviledge without any peremptory Censure from the See of Rome of being Hereticks and damned for doing nothing else but what other Christians do As to the proof of the fourth part of this Assertion This prophane custom of Prayers in an unknown Language which the Church of Rome so closely sticks unto is derived 1. From the Osseni Hereticks as Epiphanius affirms Haeres 19. 2. From the Heracleonites of whom St. Augustine gives an account saying That they taught to pray with obscure words supposing that words in a barbarous and unknown tongue might be more powerful 3. If we may give credit to famous Historians both ancient and modern From the Jews who in their Synagogues not only formerly but at this very day read Hebrew which the people rarely understand And besides from the Turks who in their Mosques read Arabick of which the people know nothing The very consideration of these leading Patterns which the Church of Rome does so pertinatiously imitate herein have been so prevailing with me as to forsake her Communion and to embrace that of the Reformed Church wherein surer Guides unto Eternity can be demonstrated And now having given an account of the Motives of my Change I have one only Request to make to the candid Protestants that they would not treat a new Convert as the Christians did St. Paul on his first Change Act. 9.26 by being afraid of me and not believing me to be a sincere Proselyte for as I never persecuted any of them in my life but rather did them all good offices that lay in my power so I hope it will be some motive to them to believe my Conversion real when it is done at a time when they themselves are not without fears and apprehensions of Disadvantage FINIS ADVERTISEMENT BEcause that I the Writer of the foregoing Book am in some degree a stranger to the English Tongue I desire the Reader ingeniously to pardon my unskilfulness in it and not to be disgusted if he meet with some improprieties in the Language for although by the advice and direction of my Friends many improper expressions were corrected yet I suppose that some Errors of that nature do still remain ERRATA PAge 3. line 22. read Armenians p. 4. in the margin r. Andradius lib. 3. Orthodoxarum Explicationum Resp ad Axiom 6. alii apud Casalium lib. 1. c. 12. prim part de quadripert justit p. 6. l. 20. r. taken p. 7. l. 25. and afterwards r. Cataphas ib. l. 30. r. de Conciliorum Authoritate p. 8. l. 4. r. Nation ib. in the Latin citation r. Ecclesia p. 15. l. 18. r. Faith and Duties ib. l. 28. r. nine parts in ten p. 16. l. 33. r. Romish Religion p. 17. l. 1. r. to the rights ib. l. 2. r. liberties p. 30. l. 5. r. yet it ceases not ib. l. 18. r. for itu p. 31. l. 28. r. he does p. 33 in the latin citation of Lindanus r. id est anno Domini p 35. in the latin citation of Card. Bona r. sub specie ib. r. communicarunt p. 41. l. 8. r. necessity p. 42. l. 13. of the latin citation r. sacrilega p. 43. l. 31. r. impartial ib. l. ult r. corporis p. 44. l. 11. r. parting of one p. 45. l. 25. r. reconcilable ib. l. 32. r. Lindanus who agreeing p. 47. l. 7. r. erroneous p. 51. l. 14. r. therefore p. 54. l. 13. r. Haeres p. 57. l. 3. r. Bell. lib. 2. c. 23. de Reliquiis sanctis Books Printed for and Sold by William Norman and Eliphal Dobson BIbles and Common Prayers in all volumes Book of Homilies Boltons Statutes Boltons Justice of Peace Book of Rates Plurality of Worlds Prayers and Meditations Gawens Logicks Mortons Devotions Dr. Lakes Officium Eucharisticum Dr. Burnets Life of the Earl of Rochester Tillotson against Transubstantiation Bishop of Corks Sermons Silvius de Febribus Mullineux's Sciothericum Telescopicum Discourse against Purgatory Discourse against Auricular Confession The Interest of Ireland