for my part I cannot perceive but that the Canons and Decrees of dead Councils are liable to wresting and misinterpretation as well as the Holy Scripture Methinks the Bishop of Condom's Book is a very strong proof of this and many instances of the like I could give but I shall omit them because it is notorious that the sense of many Canons is exceedingly disputable Thus I plainly perceive upon the whole matter that either Records of Councils are no infallible or sufficient Guide or if they be so the Holy Scripture is much more such Whence it follows that the Protestants are in the right by relying mainly upon the Scripture Certainly if a Writing can afford infallible direction the written Word of God has the best pretence in the World to that office Therefore the Reformed Church hath reason in some respect to thank the French Papists for althô their pretended unerring Director is not sufficient yet it suggests to them where they may find out one that is very sufficient Such will be the consequence of that model of an Infallible Guide which is advanced and defended by the Gallican Church and by others that follow their method But there are yet farther Inconveniences in it enough to dissatisfie any considerative person whatsoever I was content as you have heard to pass by the great Controversie above mentioned between the Italian and French men I could have prevailed with my self to have connived at the many dissentions under which the Gallican Divines do labour concerning the nature and constitution of a General Council Yet after all I perceive it is impossible to get to an end of their Controversies in so much that I am affraid I shall incumber the Reader with a tedious and long account of them The thing that at present I shall consider is their dissention concerning the extent of that Infallibility which they attribute to General Councils For some extend the supposed Infallibility attending the Councils aforesaid to all sorts of Decrees whether they concern Faith or Practice and this was the current sense of the University of Paris 145 years ago as appears by their conclusions concerning this affair publickly agreed upon and declared Anno Dom. 1542. by the Theological Faculty of that University Articulo 22. It is certain say they that General Councils lawfully assembled Certum est Concilium Generale legitime Congregatam universalem representans Ecclesiam in Fidei Morum determinationibus errare non posse and representing the Universal Church cannot err in Decrees concerning Faith and the Church But of late the Gallican Doctors sing a new song they have departed from this Opinion of their Predecessors and restrained their imagined Infallibility of Councils only to matters of Faith. And an account of this one may find p. 9. of the Reflections made upon the first Answer given to the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Besides it is in every bodies mouth that has been educated in France that in matters of Practice Discipline or Government General Councils are not Infallible Thus at one stroke the French Doctors of these last ages have cut off at least in nine or ten parts from the extent of that Infallibility which their Predecessors 145 years ago did ascribe to the Decrees of Councils For most certain it is the Rules of Practice appertaining to Christianity are to speak within compass nine or ten times as many as the matters of Faith. So the modern French Clergy do hold a much less extended Infallibility then what was heretofore held and taught by the Theological Faculty of Paris above mentioned and according to the modern Position or Doctrin we are deserted by the unerring Guide in much the greater part of Christianity and may err and wander in all practical Points and scatter as much as any Hereticks whatever Hereupon some perhaps will say that although the Office of an infallible Conductor be reduced to a very small compass yet notwithstanding it is better to have his help and assistance as little as it is than to want it Truly there was a time when I thought so too but then I considered that most of those Points controverted between Protestants and Papists are matters of practice Therefore if the unerring direction of the Guide does not extend to practical Decrees it follows that most of the points aforesaid have not hitherto been infallibly determined in savour of the Church of Rome The Worship of Images the Adoration of the Gross the Worship of Angels and Saints the half Communion the Adoration of the Host and several other things are points of practice and not properly matters of Faith. If it be said that the Decrees made by the Council of Trent concerning those things do virtually and implicitly contain a point of Faith by obliging us to believe the lawfulness or expediency of doing them I answer that the case of other Decrees about matters of Practice Discipline or Government is just the same In so much that either all practical Decrees must for this reason be reducible to matters of Faith or else the Decrees concerning Image Worship half Communion and the rest abovementioned cannot be reduced to that kind but must be rank'd among matters of Practice and so are not capable of any infallible Determination if the Description of the Guide given by the French Divines be true But if any man will maintain that all practical Decrees are reducible to matters of Faith for the reason aforesaid then the deposing Canon of the Lateran Council is reducible to the same kind and is consequently established in the Roman Church by an infallible Decree which makes it an essential part of the Romish Church Now this is that great inconvenience which the French Clergy do endeavour to avoid by restraining the unerring priviledge of the Councils to matters of Faith alone They are sensible that several Constitutions and Decrees of Councils are prejudicial to Rights of Sovereign Princes and injurious to the Libertis of the Gallican Church they are aware of the great mischief which those Canons and Decrees made for deposing Kings might bring upon them if their potent Monarch should perceive that such Doctrines are judged essential to the Religion of Rome and for that reason they warily restrain the supposed Infallibility of Councils to matters of Faith alone and so give themselves room and scope enough to run down the deposing Canons Doctrines and yet to pretend that they have an infallible Guide still left in store But this design will be quite ruined if practical Decrees are therefore esteemed to be infallible because they include or suppose a speculative Doctrine concerning the lawfulness or expediency of things they enjoyn For if such Decrees and Constitutions are infallible then they are essential parts of the Roman Catholick Religion even the deposing Canons among the rest So that I plainly see the Frenchmen will be necessitated by trusting to the Conduct of their infallible Guide either to own that
against Image worship The sact of Epiphanius rending the Veil that hung in the Church of Anablatha is effectual to demonstrate what an abomination it was in his days and in his opinion to worship Images which himself in his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem translated by St. Hierom out of Greek into Latin does thus explain I found there says he a Veil hanging at the door of the Church dyed Inveni ibi Velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens Imaginem quast Christi vel Sancti cujusdam non enim satis memini cujus Image fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra Auctoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imagi nem scidi idud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperom mortuum eo obvelverent efferrent Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym Tom. 2. Oper Hieron Ep. 60. and painted and having the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I do not well remember whose Image it was When therefore I saw this that contrary to the Athority of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged up in the Church of Christ I cut it and gave counsel to the Keepers of the place that they should wrap and bury some poor dead man in it And afterwards he intreated the Bishop of Jerusalem under whose Government this Church was To give charge thereafter Praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi Vela quae contra nostram Religionem veniunt non appendi Epist Epiphanii ubi supra that such Veils as these which are repugnant to our Religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ Had this holy Father now been arised from the dead and had seen the great number of Images not only hung in Churches and Oratories of them of the Communion of Rome but also worshiped and adored relatively as their Disputants term it how much Christian Reader think you would he be amazed and astonished hereat would he not rather judge them to be the Churches of Baal than of Christ And yet these people brag of Antiquity after this and pretend to rely on the Authority of ancient Writers in asserting the Lawfulness of Image-worship Let us hear in the next place what Lactantius says Imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines serviunt omni Sensu carent quia terra sunt Quis autem non intelligat nefas esse rectum animal curvari ut adoret torram quae ideo subjecta est ut calcanda à nobis non adoranda sit Quare non esse dubium quin Religio nulla fit ubicunque simulachrum est Divini autem nibil est nisi in caelestibus rebus carent ergo Religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse caeleste in ea re quae fit ex terrâ Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 17 18. Those consecrated Images says he which vain men do serve want all Sense because they are earth Now who is there that understands not that it is unfit for an upright creature to be bowed down that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feet that it may be trodden upon not worshiped by us Wherefore there is no doubt but that there is no Religion wherever there is an Image There is nothing that is godly but consists in heavenly things Therfore Images are things that have nothing to do with Religion or they are void of Religion because nothing that is heavenly can be in that thing which is made of earth St. Ambrose affirms that in his days the Church was an utter stranger to any thing like Images He tells us That the Church acknowledged no vain resemblances Ecclesia inanes ideas vanas nescit simulachrorum figuras sed veram novit Trinitatis substautiam Lib. de Jacob Vitâ beata nor any vain Figures of Images but that it acknowledged the true Substance of the Trinity When Adrian the Emperor had commanded that the Temples should be in all Cities rendred clear of Images it was immediately apprehended that he had provided these Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteth in the Life of Alexander Severus Which is a convincing Argument that it was not in use with Christians in those days to have any Images in their Churches This I suppose is enough to demonstrate that the ancient and primitive Church was as great a Stranger to Images and that it abhorr'd them as much as the Church of England does at present Many and large Collections have been made by Protestant Writers of the Sense and Opinions of antient Writers concerning this particular unto whom I must refer the Reader because the present occasion will not permit me to be prolix or tedious in reciting them I have examined several of these Collections and find them to be accurate and this is one principal motive of my Conversion We see by what has been already alledged of what account the use of Images was in the ancient and best times Christians then would by no means permit them to be brought into their Churches Nay some of them would not so much as admit the Art it self of making them so jealous were they of the danger and careful to prevent the deceit whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to adore them Now the Church of Rome does own that it is very abominable to worship an Image absolutely that is to make it the principal or sole object of Adoration But their evasion here in is that a relative Worship is not forbidden nor falleth under the compass of Idolatry that is to say to worship an Image in regard of him whose Image it is and by reason of the relation it has to him it is not against the Commandment To this I answer that the Worship of it after that manner doth not excuse the Worshippers from Idolatry since the Commandment is delivered in general expressions and has no limitation or restriction but it forbids without exception all bowing down to them and worshipping of them of what kind soever the Worship be Had a relative Worship of Images been accounted lawful in the primitive ages certainly the holy Fathers and Councils would not have omitted to acquaint us therewith But we find the quite contrary for when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no known Images they did not say we have Images to be relatively worshipped But Minutius Felix returned them this for answer Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam cùm ipse Homo si recte existimes sit Dei simulachrum Mi nut in Octav. What Image shall I make of God when Man himself if you rightly judge is Gods Image St. Augustine discoursing about the Duties that arise from the first Table of the Decalogue has this following passage It is forbidden that any similitude of God should be worshipped in things contrived by humane invention Prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominem
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
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
are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome since there is no Controvertist that doth not affirm them and they are expresly defined in the Council of Trent in her Anathema to every Article And Pope Pius IV. affirms in his Bull That this is the Catholick Faith out of which no one can be saved All the Clergy of Ireland whether Secular or Regular are taught to say so the Priests and Friers affirm it in their Sermons now to the People more than ever And it is one of the most popular Arguments and common Topicks of Conversion that they all use to the Protestants to reconcile them to the Church of Rome That they are all Hereticks That they are out of the Church That there is no hopes of Salvation for them whilest they are so The first of these particulars viz. Confining of the Catholick Church to themselves is a Proposition so hugely unreasonable that I could hardly bring my self to the belief of it It seemed to me a very unreasonable thing that the Church of Rome which is but a Member of the Catholick Church and that none of the foundest should arrogate to it self the Name and Priviledges of the whole Catholick Quia à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter non valet consequentia Nec semper denominatio totius sequitur partes seperatim sumptas And I could find no Text of Scripture for the justification of it nor any sound Reason to prove it nor any promise of our Saviour on which to ground it and I concluded with my self that the affirming it might prove a dangerous prejudice to the perpetuity of the Church and contradict our Saviours promise concerning the Gates of Hell not being able to prevail against it because it was not only possible that the Church of Rome as well as other Churches might err but there are express Cautions given her in that particular by St. Paul Rom 11.18 20. Thou bearest not the root but the root thee Be not high minded but fear and if God spareth not the natural branches take heed least he also spare not thee In the Writings of the Primitive Fathers it appears that they never believed the Church of Rome to be any thing else but a particular Church Ignatius in the Title of his Epistle to the Romans stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Ambrose reckons the Roman Church in the same rank with the Churches of Egypt and Alexandria So that if they were particular or topical Churches the Church of Rome must be so too The same thing doth Pope * Apud Binium in Concil Ephesino Celestine in his Epistle to John Bishop of Antioch where he reckons up the Churches of Rome and Alexandria as Members of the Catholick Church Asseret se Nestorius fidem tenere quam secundum Apostolicam doctrinam Romana Alexandrina Catholica universalis Ecclesia tenet Nay it appears by the Epistle of Pope Innocent III. to John Lib. 2. Epist 200. Patriarch of Constantinople that in the 12th Century the Pope himself did not believe it Dicitur autem universalis Ecclesia quae de universis constet Ecclesiis quae Graeco Verbo Catholica nominatur says he Ecclesia Romana sic non est universalis Ecclesia sed universalis Ecclesiae pars Besides this I find this very Proposition condemned in the Donatists and looked upon by the Fathers as the grand Fundamental Principle of their Schism and Division for they as appears by the Writings of St. Augustine and Optatus did affirm that Christ had no Church on Earth but in the parts of Donatus that the Church was perished in all parts of the World except their own Assemblies and that Salvation no where could be had but in their Communion they esteemed the rest of the Christians to be no better than Pagans they broke their Chalices scraped their Altars and washed their Vestments and the Walls of their Churches pretending that all was polluted by their touch of them How much of this Spirit doth reign in our modern Donatists is easily observed by any man that will take the pains to compare their Writings and Practises with those of their Ancestors the antient Donatists in Africk And indeed it is high time for every man to leave the society of that Person that thinks himself alone to have reason and all the rest of mankind to be mad and out of their wits Nor is this Proposition only unreasonable but is also very uncharitable in as much as it condemns not only Protestant Churches but all the Christians in the Eastern parts of the World that are not of the Roman Faith the Greeks and Arminians the Jacobites and Nestorians the Maronites and Abissines and Cophtites or Christians of Egypt and for ever excludes them from hopes of Salvation which is in effect to unchurch the greatest part of Christians and condemn them to everlasting burnings who are more in number and more extend in Territories then the Professors of the present Roman Faith can pretend to be notwithstanding all their brags of Universality It may be perhaps said that the Eastern Christians and Protestants are Hereticks but I think it much easier to say so than make it good and if they were yet the charity of the modern Bomanists is much more streightned than that of St. Augustines was De Baptis contra Don. l. 1. c. 10. l. 5. c. 27. who durst not deny a possibility of Salvation even to Hereticks themselves For when the Donatists did object that Heresio is an Harlot that if Baptism of Hereticks be good then Sons are born to God of Heresie and so of an Harlot His Answer was that the Conventicles of Hereticks do bear Children unto God not in that wherein they are divided but in that wherein they still remain join'd with the True Catholick Church not in that they are Hereticks but as much as they profess and practise that which other Christians do Nay according to the Opinion of the Roman Doctors they have no reason if they stand to their own Principles to judg so severely of Hereticks for they grant that the honour of Martyrdom is only peculiar to the Members of the Catholick Church and they cannot deny but it is possible for an Heritick to suffer for the Christian Religion and lay down his life in the defence of the Faith of Christ From whence it must inevitably follow according to their own confessions that either Hereticks may be saved or else Martyrdom is not proper to the Church and Members of it Nor are the Romanists only unreasonable and uncharitable in confining the Catholick Church to themselves but they are so in excluding also other Christians from the hopes of Salvation that are not of their own Communion This will appear from two Considerations First they are more uncharitable to them then they are to Heathens that never heard of Jesus Christ for * Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civitat Dei. l. 18. c. 47. Andr. id
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