was any substantial change or no. His words are these If it be inquir'd what kinde of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kinde I am not able to define it Onely I know that it is not formal because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is chang'd into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this sentence others oppose these things If the substance of bread and wine be substantially converted into the body and blood of Christ then every day some substance is made the body or blood of Christ which before was not the body 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 we have remark'd not onely for the 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 but about fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran Council and therefore it made haste in so short time to pass from a disputable opinion to an Article of faith But even after the Council Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintain'd that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not onely possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christs body and yet the matter of bread remain and if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise fom saying that the substance of bread does not remain But here his Reason was overcome by Authority and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account But by this it appears that the opinion was but then in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the questions were uncertain according to that old Distich Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Déque modo lis est non habitura modum And the opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome but it is also plain that it is a stranger to Antiquity De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldome mention made in the ancient Writers of transubstantiating the Bread into Christs Body We know the modesty and interest of the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it There was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church and that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be deny'd by any sober person who considers That it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerous times and argued and unsettled almost 1300 years after Christ. And that it was so will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this question which we finde in the Canon Law For Berengarius was by P. Nicolaus commanded to recant his error in these words and to affirm Verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi sensualiter non solùm in sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not onely in sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded says the Gloss will lead into a heresie greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law statuimus i.e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sense of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body The same is affirmed by Iustin Martyr The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion Origen calls the bread and the chalice the images of the body and blood of Christ and again That bread which is sanctified by the word of God so far as belongs to the matter or substance of it goes into the belly and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural or glorified body of Christ were greatly blasphemous and therefore the body of Christ which the Communicants receive is not the body in a natural sense but in a spiritual which is not capable of any such accident as the elements are Eusebius says that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Oeconomy commanding the image and type of his own body to be made and that the Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood 8. Macarius says that in the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explicated For when they affirm that in this Sacrament is offered the figure the image the antitype of Christs body and blood although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny
least become very probable and therefore they may be believ'd and practis'd without danger according to the Doctrine of Probability And thus the most desperate things that ever were said by any though before the declaration of the Church they cannot become Articles of Faith yet besides that they are Doctrines publickly allowed they can also become rules of practise and securities to the conscience of their Disciples To this we may adde that which is usual in the Church of Rome the praxis Ecclesiae the practise of the Church Thus if an Indulgence be granted upon condition to visit such an Altar in a distant Church the Nuns that are shut up and Prisoners that cannot go abroad if they address themselves to an Altar of their own with that intention they shall obtain the Indulgence Id enim confirmat Ecclesiae praxis says Fabius The practise of the Church in this case gives first a probability in Speculation and then a certainty in practise This instance though it be of no concern yet we use it as a particular to shew the principle upon which they go But it is practicable in many things of greatest danger and concern If the question be Whether it be lawfull to worship the Image of the Cross or of Christ with Divine Worship first there is a Doctrine of S. Thomas for it and Vasquez and many others therefore it is probable and therefore is safe in practise sic est Ecclesiae praxis the Church also practises so as appears in their own Offices and S. Thomas makes this use of it Illi exhibemus cultum Latriae in quo ponimus spem salutis sed in cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis Cantat enim Ecclesia O Crux ave spes unica Hoc passionis tempore Auge piis justitiam Reisque dona veniam Ergo Crux Christi est adoranda adoratione Latriae We give Divine Worship says he to that in which we put our hopes of salvation but in the Cross we put our hopes of salvation for so the Church sings it is the practise of the Church Hail O Cross our onely hope in this time of suffering encrease righteousness to the godly and give pardon to the guilty therefore the Cross of Christ is to be ador'd with Divine Adoration By this Principle you may embrace any opinion of their Doctors safely especially if the practise of the Church do intervene and you need not trouble your self with any further inquiry And if an evil custom get amongst men that very custom shall legitimate the action if any of their grave Doctors allow it or good men use it and Christ is not your Rule but the examples of them that live with you or are in your eye and observation that 's your rule We hope we shall not need to say any more in this affair The pointing out this rock may be warning enough to them that would not suffer shipwrack to decline the danger that looks so formidably Sect. VIII AS these evil Doctrines have general influence into evil life so there are some others which if they be pursued to their proper and natural issues that is if they believ'd and practis'd are enemies to the particular and specifick parts of Piety and Religion Thus the very prayers of the Faithful are or may be spoil'd by Doctrines publickly allowed and prevailing in the Roman Church For 1. They teach That prayers themselves ex opere operato or by the natural work it self do prevail For it is not essential to prayer for a man to think particularly of what he sayes it is not necessary to think of the things signified by the words So Suarez teaches Nay it is not necessary to the essence of prayer that he who prays should think de ipsa locutione of the speaking it self And indeed it is necessary that they should all teach so or they cannot tolerably pretend to justifie their prayers in an unknown Tongue But this is indeed their publick Doctrine For prayers in the mouth of the man that says them are like the words of a Charmer they prevail even when they are not understood sayes Salmeron or as Antoninus They are like a precious stone of as much value in the hand of an unskilful man as of a Ieweller And therefore attention to or devotion in our prayers is not necessary For the understanding of which saith Cardinal Tolet when it is said that you must say your prayers or offices attently reverently and devoutly you must know that attention or advertency to your prayers is manifold 1. That you attend to the words so that you speak them not to fast or to begin the next verse of a Psalm before he that recites with you hath done the former verse and this attention is necessary But 2. There is an attention which is by understanding the sense and that is not necessary For if it were very extremely few would do their duty when so very few do at all understand what they say 3. There is an attention relating to the end of prayer that is that he that prays considers that he is present before God and speaks to him and this indeed is very profitable but it is not necessary No not so much So that by this Doctrine no attention is necessary but to attend that the words be all said and said right But even this attention is not necessary that it should be actual but it suffices to be virtual that is that he who says his office intends to do so and do not change his minde although he does not attend And he who does not change his minde that is unless observing himself not to attend he still turn his minde to other things he attends meaning he attends sufficiently and as much as is necessary though indeed speaking naturally and truly he does not attend If any man in the Church of England and Ireland had published such Doctrine as this he should quickly and deservedly have felt the severity of the Ecclesiastical Rod. But in Rome it goes for good Catholick Doctrine Now although upon this account Devotion is it may be good and it is good to attend to the words of our prayer and the sense of them yet that it is not necessary is evidently consequent to this But it is also expresly affirm'd by the same hand There ought to be devotion that our mind be inflam'd with the love of God though if this be wanting without contempt it is no deadly sin Ecclesiae satisfit per opus externum nec aliud jubet saith Reginaldus If ye do the outward work the Church is satisfied neither does she command any thing else Good Doctrine this And it is an excellent Church that commands nothing to him that prays but to say so many words Well! But after all this if Devotion be necessary or not if it be present or not if the minde wander or wander not if you minde what you pray or minde it not
of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not adde that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith That he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary That he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and what-ever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the promulger That the souls of men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion does consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubious disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Yrent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius that this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so inviduous and ill sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more adoe it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this New Faith and that they can therefore in no sense be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory Indices The Serpent by being so curious a Defender of his Head shewes where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a Record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publique complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more dis-reputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundem neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the Expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a Copie of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a Copie of it was gotten and published by Iohannes Pappus and Franciscus Iunius and since it came abroad against their wills they finde it necessary now to own it and they have Printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In S. Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no Merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of S. Iohn Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to S. Ambrose and to S. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Iunius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we fain some convenient sense when they are oppos'd in Disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Frobens Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no sacrifice but the memory of a sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will not contain Venial sins damne The dead Saints after this life cannot help us Nay out of the Index of S. Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the witnesses and razing the records of antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if the Fathers were not against them what need these arts Why should they use them thus Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them both that they do so and that they need it But besides these things we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England and make it evident that they are indeed new and brought into the Church first by way of opinion and afterwards by power and at last by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles Sect. II. FIrst we alledge that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and we prove it first by the words of the Apostle saying If we or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel viz. in
Christs merits and satisfactions a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience a labor of love a religion of justice and piety and moral virtues they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences are not required of us and are not the way of salvation as is to be seen in an Oration made by S. Gregory Nyssene wholly against pilgrimages to Ierusalem in S. Chrysostom S. Austin and S. Bernard The sense of these Fathers is this in the words of S. Austin God said not Go to the East and seek righteousness sail to the West that you may receive indulgence But indulge thy brother and it shall be indulg'd to thee you have need to enquire for no other indulgence to thy sins if thou wilt retire into the Closet of thy heart there thou shalt find it That is All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through IESVS CHRIST and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ and perseverance in good works and intire mortification of all our sins To conclude this particular Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves yet the greatest Patrons of this new doctrine could never give any certainty or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it They never durst determine whether they were Absolutions or Compensations whether they onely take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor or potentially and all that which might have been impos'd whether all that may be paid in the Court of men or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ onely or of the Saints For if of Saints it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate and being finite and limited will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served and if therefore it be necessary to adde the merits and satisfaction of Christ since they are an Ocean of infinity and can supply more than all our needs to what purpose is it to adde the little minutes and droppings of the Saints They cannot tell whether they may be given if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome than by the Church of Rome yet all the Doctrines which built up this new Fabrick of Indulgences were so dangerous to determine so improbable so unreasonable or at best so uncertain and invidious that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines and all the cases of Conscience quite alone and slubber'd the whole matter both in the question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesome And that all hard and subtil questions viz. concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is the fuel of Indulgences and maintains them wholly all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not Superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence and they establish no Doctrine neither curious nor iucurious nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter The Churches Treasure Neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceed in the practise and set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new and curious and scandalous questions and to uphold the gainful trade But however it be with them Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate Sect. IV. THe Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences and the fear of that hath introduc'd these For the world hapned to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable who being told he was like to fall into a delirium in his feet was advis'd for remedy to take the juice of Cotton He feared a disease that was not and look'd for a cure as ridiculous But if the Parent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built the Superstructures of Rome must fall they can be no stronger than their Supporter Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation 1. We consider That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable are all dubious and disputable at the very best Such are 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment that is That when a mans sin is pardon'd he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned which is a Proposition of which no wise man can make sense but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God who promises upon our repentance so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way but by curing our evil hearts and taking away the punishment And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church that they always made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution and after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was enjoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand in what does this stain consist In the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or always together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary onely lest any stain'd or
said every day the power of the Keys so largely imployed would in a short time have emptied Purgatory of all her sad inhabitants or it may be very few would go thither and they that unfortunately do cannot stay long and consequently besides that this great softness and easiness of procedure would give confidence to the greatest sinners and the hopes of Purgatory would destroy the fears of Hell and the certainty of doing well enough in an imperfect life would make men carelesse of the more excellent besides these things there will need no continuation of pensions to pray for persons dead many years ago To them I say who talk to them at this rate they have enough to answer Deceive not your selves there are more things to be reckon'd for than so For when you have deserved great punishments for great sins and the guilt is taken off by absolution and you suppose the punishment by indulgences or the satisfaction of others it may be so and it may be not so For 1. It is according as your Indulgence is Suppose it for fourty years or it may be a hundred or a thousand and that is a great matter yet peradventure according to the old penitential rate you have deserved the penance of fourty thousand years or at least you may have done so by the more severe account of God If the penance of fourty years be taken off by your indulgence it does as much of the work as was promised or intended but you can feel little ease if still there remains due the penance of threescore thousand years No man can tell the difference when what remains shall be so great as to surmount all the evils of this life and the abatement may be accounted by pen and ink but will signifie little in the perception it is like the casting out of a Devil out of a miserable Demoniack when there still remains fifty more as bad as he that went away the man will hardly find how much he is advanced in his â—ure But 2. You have with much labour and some charge purchased to your self so many Quadragenes or Lents of pardon that is you have bought off the penances of so many times forty dayes It is well but were you well advised it may be your Quadragenes are not Carenes that is are not a quitting the severest penances of fasting so long in bread and water for there is great difference in the manner of keeping a penitential Lent and it may be you have purchased but some lighter thing and then if your demerit arise to so many Carenes and you purchased but mere Quadragenes without a minute and table of particulars you may stay longer in Purgatory than you expected 3. But therefore your best way is to get a plenary Indulgence and that may be had on reasonable terms but take heed you do not think your self secure For a plenary Indulgence does not do all that it may be you require for there is an Indulgence more full and another most full and it is not agreed upon among the Doctors whether a plenary Indulgence is to be extended beyond the taking off those penances which were actually enjoyn'd by the confessor or how far they go further And they that read Turrecremata Navar Cordubensis Fabius Incarnatus Petrus de Soto Armilla aurea Aquinas Tolet Cajetan in their several accounts of Indulgences will soon perceive that all this is but a handful of smoke when you hold it you hold it not 4. But further yet all Indulgencies are granted upon some inducement and are not ex mero motu or acts of mere grace without cause and if the cause be not reasonable they are invalid and whether the cause be sufficient will be very hard to judge And if there be for the Indulgence yet if there be not a reasonable cause for the quantity of the indulgence you cannot tell how much you get and the Preachers of indulgences ought not to declare how valid they are assertive that is by any confidence but opinative or recitative they can onely tell what is said or what is their own opinion 5. When this difficulty is passed over yet it may be the person is not capable of them for if he be not in the state of grace all is nothing and if he be yet if he does not perform the condition of the Indulgence actually his mere endeavour or good desire is nothing And when the conditions are actually done it must be enquired whether in the time of doing them you were in charity whether you be so at least in the last day of finishing them it is good to be certain in this least all evaporate and come to nothing But yet suppose this too though the work you are to do as the condition of the indulgence be done so well that you lose not all the indulgence yet for every degree of imperfection in that work you will lose apart of the indulgence and then it will be hard to tell whether you get half so much as you propounded to your self But here Pope Adrian troubles the whole affair again for if the indulgence be onely given according to the worthiness of the work done then that will avail of it self without any grant from the Church and then it is hugely questionable whether the Popes authority be of any use in this whole matter 6. But there is yet a greater heap of dangers and uncertainties for you must be sure of the Authority of him that gives the Indulgence and in this there are many doubtful questions but when they are over yet it is worth inquiry for some Doctors are fearful in this point Whether the intromission of Venial sinnes without which no man lives does hinder the fruit of the Indulgence for if it does all the cost is lost 7. When an Indulgence is given put case to abide forty dayes on certain conditions whether these forty dayes are to be taken collectively or distributively for because it is confessed that the matter of Indulgences is res odibilis a hateful and an odious matter it is not to be understood in the sense of favour but of greatest severity and therefore it is good to know before hand what to trust to to enquire how the Bull is pen'd and what sense of Law every word does bear for it may be any good mans case If an Indulgence be granted to a place for so many dayes in every year it were fit you enquire for how many years that will last for some Doctors say That if a definite number of years be not set down it is intended to last but twenty years And therefore it is good to be wise early 8. But it is yet of greater consideration If you take out a Bull of Indulgence relating to the Article of Death in case you recover that sickness in which you thought you should use it you must consider whether you must not take out a new one for the next fit