originem Dominicae Traditionis revertatur◠Cypr. Epist 63. Pamilianae editionis and in administring it to the People do not do that which Jesus Christ our Lord God the Teacher and Author of this Sacrifice did and taught I judged it to be agreeable to good Conscience and necessary to write to you about this matter that if any one be yet possessed with this Error he may by seeing the Light of Truth return to the root and original of our Lords Tradition And thus having establisht his foundation namely that nothing ought to be done contrary to the Institution of Christ in the first part of his Epistle he proves the necessity of using Wine in the Consecration of the Sacrament but in the later part he comes to consider the great inconvenience and mischief to the people that ensued from their being deprived of the Cup. And that which he chiefly takes notice of was a great decay and failure of Christian Courage occasioned as St. Cyprian supposes by this depravation of the Sacrament For in times of Persecution some learned from the Aquarians to abstain from drinking the Consecrated Wine least the smell of it should discover that they have been at the Christian Meetings in the Mornings St. Cyprians Words are these Caeterum omnis Religionis et ve ritatis Disciplina subvertitur nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observetur nisi si sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis ve retur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi sic ergoincipit in persecutionibus a passione Christi fraternitas retardari dum in oblationibus discit de sanguine ejus et cruore confundi Cyp. Ep. 63. ubi supra But the discipline and good order of all Religion and Truth is overthrown unless what was spiritually commanded be faithfully observed But perhaps the case is that some persons in the Morning Sacrifices or Sacraments are afraid least by the savor of Wine they should smell of Christs Blood and so by this means our Christian Brethren in times of Persecution begin to be slack or backward in suffering for Christ while at the Celebration of the Sacrament they learn to be ashamed of Christs Blood. And a little after the same Author says Quomodo autem possumus propter Christem sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere How can we being asham'd to drink the Blood of Christ spill our Blood for Christs sake Besides in another Epistle the same S. Cyp. writing to Cornelius the Bishop of Rome concerning the restoring of certain delinquent Brethren who in times of Persecution had fallen into Idolatry but by Repentance deserved to be reconciled to the Church urges the necessity of their being admitted into Communion because that since new Troubles and Persecutions were coming on it would be necessary to arm and fortifie all Believers with the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and he insists particularly upon the necessiy of giving them the Sacramental Cup. His expressions are these that follow For after what a strange manner do we teach and excite them to lose their Blood in confessing the Name of Christ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis Christi sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Sanguinem Christi denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si eos priùs ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure Communicationit non admittimus Cyp. Ep 54. Edit Pamel if we deny the Blood of Christ to them that are ready to undergo such a warfare And how do we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first by the right of Communion to drink our Lords Cup in the Church It is observable that S. Cyprian here pleads for the peoples receiving the Cup from the right of Communion that is from the right which accrewed to every one by his being made a member of the visible Church By this passage and the rest before cited it appears abundantly what the Judgment of this holy Martyr was that he thought all Christians obliged to receive the consecrated Wine and that the omission of it was a transgression of our Lords Commandment and the destruction of several Christian virtues especially of that courage and resolution wherewith all Believers ought openly to profess the Name of Christ I might produce many more ancient Witnesses of great credit to make good what is here by me affirmed but I shall content my self for brevitys sake with two others whose Authority doubtless ought to be past all exception with the Roman Catholicks because they were Popes or Bishops of Rome for anciently the Title of Pope was given to any eminent Bishop The first of these is Leo the first of that name that was Bishop in Rome but before I produce his Testimony it is necessary to observe that although his words are levelled against the Manichees who superstitiously abhorred Wine and therefore avoided receiving the Sacramental Cup yet Leo's words do abundantly shew what his Judgment was concerning that necessity which as he thought did lye indispensibly upon all Communicants to partake of the mystical Blood of Christ Consequently says he when they venture to be present at our mysteries Cumque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant quod ideò vestram scire volumus sanctitatem ut nobis hujusmodi homines his manifestentur indiciis quorum fuerit deprehensa sacrilegia simulatio notati proditi à Sanctorum societate Sacerdotali Authoritate pellantur Serm. 4. in Quadrages they after such manner do comport themselves in partaking of the Sacraments that sometimes they very safely pass undiscerned with an unprepared mouth they receive the Body but altogether avoid the drinking of the Blood of our Redemption which I would have you holy Brethren therefore to take no tice of that by these indications such men as these may be discovered to us and that they whose sacrilegious dissimulation is sound out by being observed and detected may be driven from the society of the Saints by the Power of the Church Hence it is manifest to any man of reason that St. Leo lookt upon this practice of the Manichees as a most wicked and sacrilegious thing and he decrees no less a penalty for it than Excommunication Now it cannot be their inward and invisible superstition that he would have notice taken of but it must be their external comportment in avoiding the consecrated Wine Moreover if receiving the Cup had been an indifferent thing and esteemed so in Leo's age then the omission or declining of it would have been no distinctive mark to discover the Manichees from the Orthodox or regular Communicants For both might have done the same thing and so
l. 3. At alii apud Casail de quadripli justit l. 1. c. 12 Collium de anim pag. l. 1. c. 24. l. 5. c. 7 8 22. many of their own Writers do grant a possibility of Salvation to the Pagans if they live good moral lives and yet the Protestants thô they believe in Christ and profess all the Articles of the Apostles Creed and lead their lives suitable to the Gospel must be damned to Hell only because they cannot believe the Church of Rome to be their Mistress nor call the Pope their Master on Earth It seems that Infidelity is a lesser crime then Non-Communion with Rome that there is more hopes of Pagans then of Protestants to be saved and that it is more pardonable not to believe in Christ Jesus then to deny the authority of the Church of Rome In that many of them make so few things to be necessary to be believed in order to eternal salvation that upon their own Principles they cannot exclude the Protestants from the hopes of it and for those that inlarge the Articles of Belief a little farther they cannot deny Salvation to the Protestants if they believe all that they require as necessary Some men make the Belief of Jesus Christ and submission to his Laws sufficient to bring a man to Heaven and if so it is very uncharitable to exclude Protestants from it that believe so much as well as themselves Others add the knowledge and belief of those things that are contained in the Lords Prayer and the Ten Commandments and Doctrin of the Sacraments Now take the explicite credenda in which of these Notions you will it is hugely uncharitable to exclude the Protestants out of Heaven when they believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and submit to his Laws and live according to his Religion when they believe all that is contained in the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue and assent to the Doctrin of those Sacraments that are generally necessary for salvation CHAP. II. Of the Infallibility of the Pope THE second Motive is The Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning the Infallibility of the Pope also concerning an Infallible Church and General Council and concerning the Infallible Judg or Guide in Controversies about Religion which the Romanists talk so much of and pretend to have No man certainly that fully considers the various models of an Infallible Guide which the several parties of Papists do describe and defend in opposition to one another will wonder that I have given this Chapter a manifold Title The great uncertainty and confusion of Opinions which I found in the Romish Communion about this affair was not the least cause of my being discontented with that Religion It startled me exceedingly at the beginning of my inquiry to find the main Pillar of the Romish Doctrin that is the Infallible Director above mentioned was only a name without any reality for there is little or nothing set up by one party under this name or title which is not strongly confuted by another of the Roman Catholicks yet they all join to run down the Protestants for having a Religion built upon no secure foundation for all Religion is so insecurely built if we believe the Romanists which is not bottomed upon the Testimony of some visible Infallible director whether that be the unerring guidance or direction of the Pope as some think or of a Pope and General Council together as others do judg or of a Council without the Pope and acting under an assumed President as a third sort imagine Now it is true indeed that our Faith ought to rely upon an Infallible Foundation and the written Word of God is the thing and the vain pretence of a visible unerring Judge or Guide is nothing but mere conceit as I shall hereafter plainly shew Therefore I look upon my self at present as obliged to acquaint the Reader how much I found my self mistaken concerning this Infallible Guide which heretofore I very much relied upon When I entered into an enquiry and would very gladly have consulted him and take his advice immediately I found my self lost in an endless wilderness of Disputes dissentions and inconsistent Opinions concerning him For the writers of the Roman Church are divided into several Sects about this affair and what one party of them sets up another party pulls down and rejects Most Divines that have dependance on the Court of Rome and likewise many others maintain that the Pope is Infallible in his own Person and that he needs not the concurrence of general Councils but can make Infallible Decrees concerning Faith and Manners by himself alone yet they are not well agreed about this neither Albertus Pighius as it is reported by Cardinal Bell. lib. 4. c. 2 de Rom. Pont. was of opinion that the Pope could not become a Heretick neither in his private capacity nor when he acted publickly by his Pontifical Authority Now the Cardinal thô a great Assertor of Papal Priviledges yer condemns this Opinion of Pighius for an extravagance Thus The third Opinion for he had cited two before is in the other extream Tertia sententia est in altero extremo Pontificem non posse ullo modo esse Haereticum nec docere publicè Haeresin etiamsi rem aliquam solus definiat Ita Albertus Pighius lib. 4. c. 8. Hierarch Eccl. that the Pope in no way can become an Heretick nor publickly teach Heresie although he defines some things by himself alone Nevertheless not only this Cardinal but also Cajetan and Baronius most of the order of the Jesuites and in short all the Divines of the Italian Faction do stifly maintain the personal Infallibility of the Pope In some sense indeed more moderatly and in some sense more extravagantly then Pighius for they are more moderate in acknowledging that the Pope in his private capacity may become a Heretick and much worse Yet they constantly affirm that in his publick capacity and when he makes use of his Pontifical Authority then he cannot possibly be in the wrong nor teach any false Doctrin And this Position they endeavor to make good by the best Arguments they can get Every little shadow of proof that occurrs either in the holy Scripture or in the Fathers is setched out in order to confirm this pretended unerring priviledg of the Roman Prelate Amongst other things the Example of the Jewish high Priest is thought to have some weight in it thô some of those were Idolaters and one that is Caiphas by the same sentence condemned Christ for a Deceiver and the whole Christian Religion for an Imposture Now the Romish Doctors being urged with this mighty Scandal and shame to Pontifical Infallibility do some of them give this answer that Caiphas mistook the matter of Fact but not the matter of Faith. See Bell. Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 8. Concil de Authoritate Rom. Pont. And the wise Author of the Papist Misrepresented pag. 46. brings
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
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
she hath authority to impose things on my Belief that thwart my Senses and contradict common Principles of Reason This monstrous and lately framed figment of human invention I mean the Doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the time it began to be owned publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced For all the World knows that by their own Parties by (a) In 4. lib Sentent d. 11. q. 3. Scotus by (b) ibid. q. 6. Ocham (c) Leâ—t 40. in can missae Biel Fisher Bishop (d) Cap. cont captivit Babyl of Rochester and divers others whom (e) De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect 2. dicit Bellarmine calls most acute and learned men It was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of Novelty But further we know that it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Innocent III. 1215 Years after Christ that since that pretended (f) Venere quidem tunc multa in confultationem nec decerni tamen aperte quic quam potuit Platina in vita Innocent III. determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have no more been satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirmed that the Article is not expressed in Scripture (g) apud Suar. tom 3. disp 46. sect 3. loc com lib. 3. fund 2. particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckoned And therefore if it was not expressed in Scripture it will be clear that they made their Article out of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it be there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past Argument and Probability it is certain That as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not taught at all as a Catholick Doctrine or as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now in order to make this appear we have the Confessions of many Authors very much esteemed by the Church of Rome whose authorities have been most exactly collected and examined by the learned Bishop Taylor to whom I own my self much indebted for my Conversion For the further manifestation of the incontroulable truth of this point we need no other proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the great Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says That before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23 Sect. unum tamen Sum. l. 8. c. 20. and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says It was not antient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of Ignorance saying He talked at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to little purpose he had heaped together Rem Transubstantionis Patres nè attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuites in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touched or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation Discurs modest p. 13. And in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confessed He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these L. 4. Senten dist 11 lit a. If it be enquired what kind of Conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or another kind I am not able to define it only I know that it is not formal because the same Accidents remain the same Colour and Tast To some it seems to be substantial saying that the Substance is changed that it is done essentially to which the former authority seems to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things if the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ which before was not the Body then every day some substance is made the Body and Bloud of Christ which was not his Body before And to day something is Christs Body which yesterday was not and every day Christs Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception These are his words which I have remarked not only for Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written about (a) Ad Annum 1160. fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran (b) Ad Annum 1215. Council And therefore it made haste in so short a time to pass from a disputable Question to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council (c) Secund. Buchol An. Dom. 1271. sed secund Volaterranum 1335. in 4. lib. Sen. tent dist 11. q. 1. sect propter tertium Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintained that even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it be Christs Body and yet the matter of Bread remain And if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of Bread does not remain But here his Reason was overcome by Authority and he durst not affirm that which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account of But by this it appears that the Opinion then was but in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain and the Opinion was not determined at Lateran as it is now held at Rome It is also plain that it is a stranger to antiquity De Transubstantiatione â—anis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio De Heraes l. 8. verbo Indulgentia said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of Transubstantiating the Bread into Christs Body I know the modesly and interest of
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
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