Intimation in Scripture of this Priviledge confer'd upon the Church of Rome and it is strange the Ancient Fathers in their Disputes against Heretics shou'd never Appeal to this Judge c. That there is not only Intimation but even plain Texts of Scripture which denote the Churche's Infallibility is what I think is already sufficiently Prov'd And since it is likewise Prov'd that the Roman Church or which is the same thing the Congregation of Faithful in Communion with it is the Catholic Church I think it is a necessary ' Consequence that there are plain Texts of Scripture that prove the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Nor is it less certain that the Ancient Fathers in their Disputes against Heretics did Appeal to this Judge For in those days there was no other Means to convince Heretics of their Errors but by the Authority of the Church In the primitive Times New Heresies sprung up as many if not more than in any of our latter Ages yet there was no other Rule or Standard to judge these Errors by the Canonical Books of Scripture not being collected or put together at least in 150 Years after the Foundation of the Church and then not one Book of it all whose Authority or Credit was not question'd by some Heretic or other How was it then possible for the Ancient Fathers to confute these Hereties unless they had Appeal'd to the Authority of the Church and told them that this is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church this is what we receiv'd from our Fore-fathers And this is what all the Christian World believes Neither is it true that the ancient Fathers did not Appeal to this Judge even when the Scripture was collected and receiv'd as the Word of God Read but St. Ireneus Contra Haeres Tertul de Praescript Epipha de Haeres St. Austin cont Epist Fund and many more and you shall find how much the Doctor was mistaken in this bus'ness I do not cite the passages of these Fathers because they are so well known and so often quoted by Others who wrote upon this Subject But let this of St. Austin to use the Doctors own Phrase be instead of a thousand I wou'd not believe the Gospel Cont. Epist Funda were it not that the Authority of the Church moves me to it The second Objection is in Answer to a Certain Passage in the Canon Law Vol. 3. pag. 94. where it is said That if every Man may judge for himself there will be nothing but Confusion in Religion there will be no End of Controversies And that our Lord had not seem'd to be Discreet * The Drs Translation of the Latin has it so if he had not provided for the Assurance of Men's Faith by giving them an Infallible Judge To this he says that if this Reasoning be good we may as well conclude that there is an Universal Infallible Judge in Temporal Matters but it is evident in Fact and Experience says he that there is no such Judge in Temporal Matters consequently nor in Matters of Faith Answ Had there been an Universal Infallible Judge appointed in Temporal Matters it wou'd doubtless contribute very much to the Peace and Tranquility of the World if He were Obey'd but very little to the Means wherewith God Almighty designs to bring his chosen People to the Kingdom of Heaven which is to exercise them with Fiery Tryals and make them pass thro' much Tribulation And therefore He permits the Cruelty of Tyrants to try the patience of Martyrs and suffers the Oppression of the Poor on Earth to enhance their Reward in Heaven So that the Cruelty or Errors of a Temporal Judge do rather increase than diminish the Happiness of the Just But the Case is far otherwise in spiritual Matters If the Judge shou'd spoil us of our Faith or err in Judging for us it wou'd cause our Eternal ruine our Damnation being necessarily consequent upon a False Belief And for that Reason the goodness of God seems to be so much the more engag'd to secure the Spiritual than the temporal Judge from error by how much the danger is the greater on that side and the Ruin more inevitable if we shou'd chance to Err. Christ threatens Damnation to all those that will not believe his Doctrine which how it can stand with his Infinit Goodness unless he had provided Infallible Means of conveying the Truth of this Doctrine to them it is hard to conceive In short Temporal Ease and Tranquility is of very little Moment even in this Life but of none at all in the next and therefore generally speaking God leaves Men in the Counsel of their own Hands and permits Them very often to disturb the public Peace and quiet of this World But the true Knowledge of his Divine Law and of the Mysteries of our Redemption are of so great importance to our Eternal Happiness that his Goodness will Infallibly secure it for us if it be not our own Fault Object 3. An Infallible Judge pag. 95 96. if there were one is no certain way to end Controversies and to preserve the Vnity of the Church unless it were likewise Infallibly Certain that there is such a Judge and who he is For till Men were sure of both these there wou'd be still a Controversie whether there be an Infallible Judge and who he is And if it be true which they tell us that without an Infallible judge Controversies cannot be ended then a Controversie concerning an Infallible judge can never be ended And there are two Controversies actually on foot about an Infallible Judge One whether there be an Infallible Judge or not Which is a Controversie between Vs and the Church of Rome And the other who this Infallible Judge is Which is a Controversie among themselves which cou'd never yet be decided And yet till it be decided Infallibility if they had it wou'd be of no use to them for the ending of Controversies Thus far the Drs. own Words Answ That there is an Infallible Judge is already prov'd Who that Judge is I have likewise manifestly shewn namely the Living Voice of all the Catholic Pastors and People agreeing in the same Points of Faith And if it be farther ask'd who those Pastors and People are I answer The same in Communion with the Pope as it is prov'd before And surely none will doubt but we may be Infallibly certain that these agree in the same Points of Faith Consequently we may be Infallibly certain both that there is an Infallible Judge and who that Judge is And if it be True which they tell us says the Doctor that without an Infallible Judge Controversies cannot be ended then a Controversie concerning an Infallible Judge can never be ended And why so Why may not an Infallible Judge end it Is not an Infallible Judge sufficient to end any Controversie whatsoever If the Church be Infallible and assisted by the Spirit of God for no other End than to
Purgatory because they pray'd for the Virgin Mary and the Apostles and Martyrs c. else why do they not conclude that we do not believe it because we do the same To sum up all these Evidences then I reason thus The Primitive Church pray'd to God for some Souls departed that they might be deliver'd out of Prison that their Faults and Sins might be forgiven them that they might be eas'd of their Pain that they might be sav'd from the Punishment of Fire that they might be receiv'd into Heaven but such Prayers are inconsistent with a Belief that the Souls departed are immediately taken into Heaven or condemn'd to Hell Therefore the Primitive Church believ'd there was a Third Place wherein some souls departed were detain'd and were capable of being assisted and better'd by their Prayers The first Proposition is taken from the very Words of the Fathers and acknowledged by our Adversaries to be true The second a very small portion of Natural Reason with never so little insight in Scripture and Christian Religion which assure us that Prayers of that nature for those that are in Heaven or Hell are needless and vain will easily discover to be likewise True And I think the consequence is rightly infer'd I now proceed to the Objections 3. The Doctor objects first Vol. 2 Pag. 63. that the Doctrine of Purgatory is not founded in Scripture nor can be prov'd from it and that some of our own Eminent Men do acknowledge it cannot To which I answer that I have produc'd two Passages from Scripture and cou'd produce as many more which the most Eminent Fathers of the Primitive Church have interpreted of Purgatory and therefore I think I may safely tell the Dr. that with submission He was mistaken As to those Eminent Men of our Church who say that the Doctrine of Purgatory cannot be prov'd from Scripture when any one in his behalf names them and points at the place in their Works where they say so I will return him as satisfactory an Answer as I can In the mean time I may reasonably presume they say no such thing Seeing he was never backward in giving citations when they made any thing for him All the Eminent Men He vouches for this is Estius who by the Dr's own confession only says that in his Opinion the Passage of St. Paul above cited does not evince Purgatory but does not say that other Passages of Scripture do not and if he had I shou'd oppose to his Opinion that of Tertulian St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerom St. Austin and many more of the Ancient Fathers whose Authority in this matter ought I think to weigh more with any reasonable Man than that of any modern Writer whatsoever Vol. 2. edit post ob pag. 307. His second Objection is borrow'd from a Text in the Revelations Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence forth Yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their Labours and their Works do follow them cap. 14.13 Here says the Dr. the Spirit pronounces them happy who die in the Lord because they rest from their Labours which adds He they wou'd not do were they to be tormented in Purgatory Fire Ergo c. Answ This Passage is confessedly obscure as to the meaning of some Words in it and the Time whence the blessing there mention'd is to Commence and the Doctor 's bestowing six full Pages upon the Explication of it shews it to be so and for that Reason I think it is against the Rules of Logic to pretend to more Evidence in the conclusion than the Premises will afford But it seems he forgot in his second Sermon upon this Text that in his First he had told us that the Dead which die in the Lord in Scripture Phrase are those who die or are put to death for the Lord's Cause that is as he expresly says suffer Martyrdom for the Lord I say he must have forgot this else he wou'd not have objected that Text against Purgatory since he cou'd not be ignorant that we believe that all the Martyrs who suffer for the Faith of Christ and even other Eminent Saints who do not suffer Martyrdom but live the life of Martyrs do rest from their Labours and pass not thro' the Fire of Purgatory Wherefore in my opinion he shou'd have given us an other Interpretation of this Text or have let Purgatory alone but 't is no new thing to find the Doctor pulldown in one place what he had built in an other and therefore I am not surpriz'd to see Purgatory brought in by Head and Shoulders and spoken against in Season and out of Season 'T is Purgatory that reproaches the Sacrileges and Depredations of the Doctor 's Ancestors of worthy Memory and Bears hard upon their Posterity and upon that account it must be Cry'd down lest the horrid guilt of the Sacrileges of the Fathers shou'd fly in the Face of their Children and give them that Purgatory in this Life which He wou'd perswade them they shall not meet with in the next For a third Objection the Doctor tells us Vol. 2. Edit Post ob Pag. 310. we have a very considerable and substantial Reason to exempt as few as possibly we can from going to Purgatory because says he the more we put in fear of going thither the Market of Indulgences as he calls it riseth the higher and the profit thence accruing to the Pope's Câ—ffers and the more and greater Legacies will be less â—o the Priests to hire their saying of Masses for the delivery of Souls out of the Place of Torments Answ After my hearty thanks to the Dr. for his Charitable Opinion of us I must observe from what is above said that it seems this Market of Indulgences is of a very long standing and that the Ancient Fathers of the Church took great care it shou'd not sink But to be serious 'T is well known and even acknowledged by the Learned of his Church that in the Time of Gregory the Great now a Thousand Years since the Doctrine of Purgatory and all the Practices consequent upon it were believ'd and us'd as they are now And did that great Saint exempt as few as he cou'd from Purgatory only to raise the Market of Indulgences Did all the Bishops of the Western Church nay and of all the World concur with him in this only to fill his Coffers Alas The good Holy Man had but few Coffers and as little Money to fill them with Conversion of Souls not Money was his bus'ness Did St. Austin design the raising of the Market of Indulgences or the putting of the People into a fear of going to Purgatory when he earnestly desires the Readers of his Confessions to pray for his Mother Monica's Soul for the remission of her Sins And had St. Jerom any thoughts of filling the Pope's Coffers when he wrote that much benefit wou'd accrue to the Souls departed by the commemoration made of
they should know more of the Mind and Will of God than is convenient for the common people to know whose Devotion and Obedience to the Church does chiefly depend upon their Ignorance Or should declare that the Sacrifice of Christ was not offer'd once for all but is and ought to be repeated ten millions of times every day and that the people ought to receive the Communion in one kind only and the Cup by no means to be trusted with them for fear the prophane Beards of the Laity should drink of it and that the saving Efficacy of the Sacraments doth depend upon the Intention of the Priest without which the Receiver can have no Benefit by them These are all of them so plainly contrary to Scripture and most of them in reason so absurd that the Authority of no Church whatsoever can oblige a Man to the Belief of them Thus far the Dr. Here you see Christian Reader a Great Orator and Divine teaching from the Pulpit and Press that Sense Reason and Scripture are all on the Protestant's side in the aforesaid controverted Points as clear and evident as that twice two make four Here you see him arraign all the Patriacks Primats Arch-Bishops Bishops Doctors Vniversities and even all Kings Princes Peers Magistrates together with the common people of all Countries and Provinces of the West as also the Greek Church and all the Countries and Provinces in Communion with it all these Learned and Pious Christians I say that flourisht in and Governed this part of the World when Martin Luther appeared upon the Theatre this worthy Man arraigns for Fools and Madmen I say for Fools and Madmen for all these Patriarchs Primats Kings Princes c. professed in those days to be guided by their Senses by natural Reason and by the Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures and yet all of them believed the very same concerning the said Points the R. Catholics do now Surely then they must have been all Fools and Madmen if Sense Reason and Scripture be as clear and evident on the Protestant's side as that twice two make four For who ever in his wits denied that twice two do make four Or in his right Senses ever affirmed that white was black or black white Or that any of our Senses when they are perfect do not give irrefragable Testimony of their proper Objects Or that plain and evident Texts of Scripture were not to be believed These monstrous Absurdities the Dr. fastens upon all the Eminent and learned Men of the Eastern and Western Churches which flourisht not only when Martin Luther rose up but also by his own Acknowledgement for at least several Ages before him which is in effect to Brand them all with the Ignominious Character of Fools and Madmen If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages saith the Dr. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and there declare in the most solemn manner that twice two did not make four but five I should most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or byassed by some Interest or other But good God! What should byass any Man in his Wits much less any Society of learned Men to declare against a thing so clear and evident Nothing surely less than Phrensy or Madness But let us hear the Application Just so in matters of Religion continues the Dr. if any Church shou'd declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World c. The Dr. knew very well and so do all the learned Protestants in the World that the Latin and Greek Churches and all in Communion with them have not only declared for but have always believed at least for several Ages Transubstantiation as aforesaid If it be then so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind as the Dr. would suggest all those Men whereof a great number had at least the Reputation of being both Learned and Virtuous must necessarily have been all of them out of their wits or byassed by some prejudice which most certainly cou'd be nothing else but the extremity of Madness and Folly their eternal Damnation being necessarily consequent upon such a Belief He pursues the same comparison instancing in the rest of the Controverted Points aforesaid But what Man in his right Senses would believe that any one Nation much less all Europe should conspire to renounce all those means which God has given them to acquire the Knowledge of things viz. Sense Reason and the Word of God without which it is impossible to know any thing especially in a matter which so highly concerns them Or who wou'd not rather believe that Dr. Tillotson was mightily mistaken than that the best part of Mankind should make Shipwrack of that which alone distinguishes them from Beasts nay who would not rather believe that either he himself had been out of his Wits Or that he designed to impose upon Mankind so strange a paradox as that hundreds of millions of Learned and Ingenious Men should conspire to declare against that which is both their everlasting Interest and constitutes them Men since neither he nor any Man else cou'd ever instance in one single Man in his wits that ever was guilty of such a Folly This I must confess is one of the most surprizing nay the most intollerable Charges that ever was laid to Mankind and yet how monstrous and absurd soever it appears 't is no less than what was absolutely necessary to support the Cause the Dr. had undertaken He was it seems well read in that famous Dispute betwixt Dr. Hammond and Mr. Serjeant concerning Schism The former wrote a Book in Vindication of the Church of England from the Imputation of Schism which the R. Catholics charge her with The latter answers his Book in an other entituled Schism disarmed Dr. Hammond writes a Reply to this and Mr. Serjeant adds a Rejoinder to that which he calls Schism dispatcht Now to know what relates to our purpose in this Dispute you must understand that Dr. Hammond in the first Chapter of his Defence of the Church of England in his Description of Schism paints it in its own horrid and dreadful Shape as the Scripture and Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church had done before him viz. That it is Carnality Self-condemning contrary to Charity bereaving one of the benefit both of Prayers and Sacraments as bad as and the Foundation of all Heresies that there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism not Sacriledge Idolatry Parricide that it is obnoxious to peculiar Marks of God's Indignation Antichristianism worshipping or serving the Devil not expiable by Martyrdom
the East for the Corfirmation and Depâ—sition of Bishops and for such other Acts of Jurisdiction as depended of the Apostolic See I might bring more Instances to this purpose from the most approv'd Writers of ancient and modern History but let these suffice for the Proof of a thing so universally attested by all Antiquity And now if neither plain Texts of Scripture declaring this Prerogative to have been confer'd upon St. Peter and plainly shewing his exercising of it on several Occasions nor the Authority of so many Holy Fathers and Councils of the Primitive Times manifestly defferring the same Privilege to his Successors nor the Testimony of two of the most celebrated Historians of Antiquity publicly witnessing that the Church of Rome had the Priviledge to hear and restore the Patriarchs and Bishops of the East and that the Bishop of Rome follow'd or acted according to the Laws of the Church when he commanded or cited the Eastern Bishops Patriach and all to appear before him nor yet the Consent which the Evidence of the thing has extorted from some Ingenuous and Learned Protestants in favour of this Truth If all this I say will not open our Adversaries Eyes to see the Pope's Supremacy all I can do for their Service is to pray to Almighty God that he wou'd be pleas'd to take away from their Hearts that vail of Prejudice which hinders them to see so manifest a Truth But of this enough let us now see the Objâ—ctions Against this Tenet the Doctor objects 1. That the Bishop of Rome as Successor of St. Peter there Vol. 6. pag. 155. cannot be the Supreme and universal Pastor of Christ's Church by Divine Appointment because saith he there is not the least mention of this in Scripture 2. That it is against reason to found the Pope's Supremacy in being Successor of St. Peter pag. 156. at Rome whereas it shou'd rather pertain to the Bishop of Antioch where Peter was first Bishop To the first I answer that by all these Titles is only meant that the Pope is Head of the Church and the Center of Catholic Unity and no more is requir'd of any Man to believe concerning this Point Now that there is not only mention but even Texts of Scripture clearly proving St. Peter whose undoubted Successor all the World knows to be the Bishop of Rome to have been made the Head of the Church of Christ is already made out 'T is true the Scripture makes no mention of these Words supreme and universal Pastor no more does it of the Word consubstantial yet the Fathers of the Nicene Council did not scruple to make a Fundamental Article of Faith of it and carefully inserted it in their Creed because they judg'd it very proper to express their Belief concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ In like manner tho' some Catholic Writers call the Bishop of Rome Supreme and Vniversal Pastor c. yet I do not see what Grounds the Doctor had to quarrel with them for that since all Catholics agree that they mean nothing else by these Words but that the Pope is Head of the Church and use them for no other end than to express more fully what it is to be Head of the Church But 't is very remarkable that no Sect ever separated from the Church who did not follow this Maxim They take hold of some words invented by the Church to declare more expresly such Articles of Faith as were contested and because these very Terms are not found in Scripture they cry immediately Victory as if our Faith consisted meerly in Words and not in what is meant by them To the Second I answer That it is much more against Reason nay altogether absurd to imagine that St. Peter whom the Dr. as well as I must in this case suppose to be Head of the Church shou'd come to Rome place his Chair in that City and yet leave his Authority behind him at Antioch This aiery Notion I am sure none of the Holy Fathers and Councils in the Primitive Times ever thought of on the contrary they have always consider'd the Bishop of Rome as Successor of St. Peter Head of the Church and Principle of Catholic Unity There are several Objections more of this Nature in the same Volume Pag. 244 245. c. And tho' most of them are levell'd at the Church of Rome yet I chuse to take notice of them under this Head rather than the former both because of their Affinity with this and for the Reader 's Satisfaction who I suppose won't be sorry to find them answer'd in the same order they lie 1. The Doctor grants that If the Roman Church be the Catholic Church it is necessary to be of that Communion because saith he out of the Catholic Church there is ordinarily no Salvation to be had But how do they prove continues he that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church They wou'd fain have us to be so civil as to take it for granted because if we do not they do not well know how to go about to prove it And after some pleasant Sallies of Rallery he concludes that to prove a part to be the whole is all one as to prove that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church To answer this Objection I say first that the Doctor here does very courteously justifie the Roman Catholics from that odious Imputation of Uncharitableness wherewith he elsewhere most grievously charges them for not allowing Protestants Salvation out of their Communion He grants that out of the Catholic Church there is ordinarily no Salvation to be had Now the Roman Catholics do sincerely believe that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church consequently when they say that there is ordinarily no Salvation out of it they cannot justly be charg'd with the least Uncharitableness since they have as it is already prov'd the greatest Assurance for that Belief that any thing of that Nature is capable of And if it be True as most certainly it is that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church then surely the Roman Catholics are so far from being uncharitable in this particular that it is one of the greatest Marks of their Charity to have that Love for their Erring Brethren as to mind them of the Hazard they run and exhort them to avoid it tho' they are sure they shall be hated for their Pains 2dly That he must be a great Stranger to our Divines and Controveâ—tists if he thinks as he here writes they do not well know how to go about to prove it Surely he must have been very ill read in the Writings of Bellarmin Peron Richelieu and hundreds of Catholic Divines who wrote on this subject when he advances so groundless shall I call it a Story And what as yet renders the thing more intollerable is that this is spoken out of a Pulpit where nothing but Truth and Sincerity shou'd as much as be mention'd In short this is matter of Fact The Catholic
Divine's Books on this subject are still extant and let even our Adversaries be the Judges whether this be not one of the most groundless Mistakes that ever any serious Man cou'd fall into 3dly That he is as far out when he says that to prove a part to be the whole is all one as to prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church Had we said that the particular Church and Diocess of Rome were the Catholic Church his Comparison wou'd then indeed have been Reasonable but surely he cou'd not be ignorant that we understand by the Roman Church all the Christian Churches over the World in Communion with the particular Church and See of Rome which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church because Rome being the Seat of St. Peter's Successor is the Center and Principlâ— of Catholic Unity If the Doctor had a mind to make good his Thesis he shou'd have prov'd that all other Societies of Christians who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome are notwithstanding their Heresies and Schisms a Part of the Catholic Church he shou'd have prov'd that the Nestorians and Eutychians which take up the greatest part of the Eastern Christians are a Part of the Catholic Church notwithstanding they were excommunicated and cut off from the Body of the Catholic Church by the lawful Authority of two General Councils whose Decrees he and all other learned Protestants do profess to embrace that the Grecians are still Members of the Catholic Church notwithstanding their willful Schism from its Communion their ancient Error concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost their having been so often reconcil'd and united to it yet still returning to their Vomit but more especially their self-condemn'd Perverseness in their late Separation from the Communion and Fellowship of the Church of Rome which they solemnly and in the most Authentic manner gave under their Hands in the Council of Florence they wou'd hold and maintain he shou'd have prov'd that Luthor Calvin and all those who adher'd to their new broach'd Opinions are a part of the Catholic Church notwithstanding their being excommunicated by the Church and their own Confession of holding these Opinions in Opposition to all the World besides All this I say the Doctor shou'd have prov'd to shew that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church But neither he nor any Body else did ever so much as attempt it on the contrary most of the learned Men of the Church of England have readily given up the Cause in regard of all the aforesaid Sects and most of all other Sects do as censoriously condemn those of the Church of England With what colour of Reason then can the Doctor suggest that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church Nay can any thing be more plain than that the Roman Church as it is understood by Catholics is the whole Catholic Church since none of the aforesaid Sects can with the least colour of Reason pretend to be a part of it since they themselves do unchurch one another since they own that the Church of Rome is a Part at least of the Catholic Church and that one Faith and one Communion are equally essential to the being or Constitution of the one Catholic Church in both which Essential they own themselves to be different from the Church of Rome So that if we had no other Proof besides this last Reason is a plain Demonstration that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church or that it is no part or member of it 'T is a known Truth and even vouch'd by all Protestants whatsoever that the Church of Rome is at least a Part of the Catholic Church That one Faith and one Communion are equally essential to the Constitution of the Catholic Church of Christ is a Doctrine generally receiv'd by the Church of England and I suppose by all the Divines in the World besides now there is none of all the aforesaid Sects as they all unanimously agree that holds either the same Faith or Communion with the Church of Rome which yet they hold to be a Part of the Catholic Church and which together with the said Sects make up the whole Body of Christians It is then most evident that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church or that it is no Part or Member of it But the latter no Protestant ever yet durst affirm for if they shou'd affirm that the Church of Rome is no part of the Catholic Church this would vacate all their Pretences to be a Church since it is from the Church of Rome they pretend to derive their Mission Ordination and spiritual Power if any they have We are then sure even to a Demonstration that if what the Protestants say be true the Roman Church is the whole Catholic Church and no less sure that neither the Protestants nor any other Sect whatsoever can be any part or member of the Catholic Church whilst they continue out of the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church 2. To prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church the Doctor requires the following Particulars shou'd be clearly shewn and made out 1. A plain Constitution of our Saviour whereby St. Peter and his Successors at Rome are made the Supreme Head and Pastors of the whole Christian Church Of this says he we have not the least Intimation in the Gospel nor in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles nay there is clear Evidence adds he to the contrary that in the Council of Jerusalem St. James was if not superior at least equal to him And St. Paul upon several Occasions declares himself equal to St. Peter But suppose it were true continues the Doctor That St. Peter were Head of the Church where doth it appear that this Authority was deriv'd to his Successors And if it were why to his Successors at Rome rather than at Antioch where â—e was first and unquestionably Bishop Answ Touching a plain Constitution c. methinks a modest good Christian might well be content with one plain Text of Scripture produc'd to that purpose much more with a great many and this surely is already done a hundred times over both from the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles where we plainly find this Charge committed to St. Peter and his frequent Exercise of it as occasion offer'd 'T is true the Scripture makes no mention of his Successor at Rome Nor do we say it is necessary he shou'd be there rather than any where else For St. Peter might if he pleas'd for ought we know have as well plac'd his Chair in Canterbury but it is matter of Fact that he did not place it there but in Rome His making St. James equal if not superior to St. â—eter in the Councâ—l of Jerusalem needs no other Confutation than a bare recital of the matter of Fact which pass'd there I am sure it is as plain as words can make it
that St. Peter rose up first open'd the Subject of their Meeting discours'd upon the Conversion of the Gentiles by his Ministry shew'd the Unreasonableness of that Yoke the Jews wou'd fain put upon them and concluded with a peremptory Sentence to that purpose which 't is manifest St. James and the rest did but follow and if this be not sufficient Evidence of his Superiority even over St. James let the World judge As for St. Paul's declaring himself equal to St. Peter it moves me not For so may any Bishop lawfully ordain'd do to the Pope without the least diminution of his Supremacy the Equality meant by St. Paul respecting only the Power of preaching the word of God to those to whom he was sent of administring the Sacraments and of ordaining Ministers for the use and benefit of the Faithful To do all which I readily grant every Apostle's Power to be equal to St. Peter's and every lawfully ordain'd Bishop's to that of the Pope's As to his Question Where doth it appear that St. Peter 's Power was deriv'd to his Successors I am almost unwilling to honour it with a Confutation being in my sense one of the simplest Expressions that ever drop'd from a Man of his parts If I shou'd ask where doth it appear that he was by Divine Institution Archbishop of Canterbury I believe he wou'd be puzel'd a little to give a good Answer Yet he did not scruple to stile himself John by the Grace of God Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Did ever any Man question whether the Authority and Power of the Bishop of any See was deriv'd to his Successor Was not Christ's Power deriv'd to his Apostles As the Father hath sent me even sâ— sâ—nd I you Was not the Apostle's Power deriv'd to their Successors Else how cou'd we pretend to be Christians In short that Heirs and Successors shou'd Inherit the Power and Authority of their Ancestors unless there be a positive Law or Exception to the contrary is surely a self evident Maxim grafted in our Hearts by the Law of Nature and confirm'd by the Common Consent of Mankind What shou'd then hinder Peter's Authority to be deriv'd to his Successors whom all the World before the rise of Protestanism did believe to be the Bishops of Rome and not those of Antioch as the Dr. seems here to suggest 2. To make good that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church they are oblig'd to affiirm says the Dr. That the Churches of Asia and Affrica which were Excommunicated by the Bishops of Rome for celebrating Easter after the Jewish manner and upon the point of Rebaptizing Heretics were cut off from the Catholic Church and from a possibility of Salvation This the Church of Rome themselves will not affirm continues he and yet if to be cast out of the Communion of the Roman and the Catholic Church be all one they must affirm it Answ This Argument is grounded upon a Fallacy and therefore the Inference is False Had the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Church been convertible Terms the Inference wou'd then indeed have been Right and the Argument True but surely Dr. Tillotson knew very well we never understood these Terms so The Fallacy then consists in this that he joyns together the two different Notions of Roman Church and Bishop of Rome and makes them pass for one and the same thing and so by a cunning piece of Sophistry concludes that whatever is done by the Bishop of Rome is likewise the Act and Deed of the whole Roman Church 3. In consequence of this Proposition that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church they ought to hold that all Baptism out of the Communion of their Church is void and of none effect For if it be good pursues the Dr. then it makes the Persons Baptiz'd Members of the Catholic Church and then those that are out of the Communion of the Roman Church may be true Members of the Catholic Church And then the Roman and the Catholic Church are not all one But the Church of Rome holds the Baptism of Heretics to be good consequently the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church Answ His Inference is likewise here false and so is his Consequence The Roman Catholics following the Ancient Fathers and Councils of the Primitive Church do believe that the Baptism confer'd by Heretics with due Matter and Form is good and vallid and that it makes the Baptiz'd True Members of the Catholic and consequently of the Roman Church provided there be no impediment of Heresie or Schism on the part of the Persons thus Baptiz'd but if they are engag'd in any Heresie or Schism they hold indeed that they receive a true Character of Baptism but this alone neither makes them Members of the Catholic Church nor availes any thing to their Salvation For as St. Austin says all the Sacraments may be had out of the Church but Salvation cannot Now the Doctor to make good this Inference shou'd do these two things 1. He shou'd have prov'd that Infants and such as are not capable of Heresie or Schism being Baptiz'd by Heretics are out of the Communion of the Roman Church For this we utterly deny and on the contrary affirm they are true Members of it untill they forsake or renounce it by actual Profession of Heresie or by Schism 2. That those who are actually engag'd in Heresie or Schism being Baptiz'd in that State and persisting in it are notwithstanding by virtue of their Baptism made true Members of the Catholic Church Cou'd the Dr. but prove this he wou'd I own both gain his Point and render glorious Service to several Thousands of Ancient Heretics who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ as well as to the present Protestants by making them all True Members of the Catholic Church in spite of all the General Councils and their Authority But alas This is what neither he nor any body else will ever attempt And indeed if it were possible to be effected we shou'd I am sure be as glad of it and as willing to contribute to the Salvation of these Men as he or any body else but we have learn'd from the Word of God and from the Principles of true Charity not to flatter any Society of Men with a false Peace and Security when we have no grounds for it 4. In consequence of this Proposition all the Christians in the World which do not yield Subjection to the Bishop of Rome and acknowledg his Supremacy are no true parts of the Catholic Church nor in a possibility of Salvation And this does not only exclude those of the Reform'd Religion from being Members of the Catholic Church but the Greeks and the Eastern Churches i. e. four of the five Patriarchal Churches of the Christian World Hence the Dr. concludes that the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church because it has not more Charity than this comes to Answ This Argument is founded upon an Inconveniency and a great