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
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
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