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Haeres St. Austin cont Epist Fund and many more and you shall find how much the Doctor was mistaken in this bus'ness I do not cite the passages of these Fathers because they are so well known and so often quoted by Others who wrote upon this Subject But let this of St. Austin to use the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
it is Impossible the Church shou'd give them such Provocation as might justifie a Separation in like manner All those who are excommunicated by the Church for their obstinate Refusal to assent to any Truth declar'd to be an Article of Faith are properly call'd Heretics Now Protestants as well as Catholics agree that neither Schismatics nor Heretics are Members of the Catholic Church nor any way within its Pale There only remains then to examine who those are on whom these Marks of Schism and Heresie are justly chargeable and who on the other Hand are free from that charge which if plainly made out it will be easy to see what Congregation of Faithful can be justly call'd the Catholic Church Now all the Societies of Christians who with any colour of Reason can pretend to the Name of Catholic are these 1. The Nestorians and Eutychians 2. The Greek Church 3. The Church of England And lastly the R. Catholics I have on purpose omitted the Waldenses Socinians Hussites Lutherans Calvinists and all those almost Innumerable Sects continually shooting out of the Trunck of the Reformation and spreading far and near over our own unfortunate Ilands as Anabaptists Independents Quakers Mugoltonians Seekers Familists Philadelphians c. because all these are destitute of even the least Pretence to the Name of Catholic Church having neither lawful Pastors lawful Mission nor Right Ordination which as all the Christian World before the Reformation and as the Church of England still grants cannot be given without Imposition of Hands performed by Bishops This they Ingenuously own they have not consequently nor the least Pretence to the Catholic Church no nor if we believe some Learned Divines of the Church of England to the Name of Christian For as these Gentlemen Reason no Man can be call'd Christian unless he is Baptiz'd Baptism cannot be conferr'd but by such who have Authority to administer the Sacraments no Man can have this Authority but by lawful Ordination and this is not conferr'd nor cannot without Imposition of Hands by Lawfully ordain'd Bishops Bishops all these Sects own they have not consequently nor true Baptism nor Christianity This I confess cannot be said of the four Societies aforesaid For every one of them hath always retain'd the Hierarchy of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons at least have pretended to it and think it Essential to the being of the Catholic Church But since this is not enough unless they have likewise the Catholic Faith and Communion which together with the said Hierarchy make up the essential parts of Catholic Religion our present Bus'ness shall be to try each of them by this Touchstone and see which will abide the Test 1. Touching the Nestorians and Eutychians Under this Appellation I comprehend the Jacobites Cophtes Armenians and all other Sects who follow the Opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches touching the Person and Natures in Christ all the Rest of the Eastern Christians either adhereing to the Roman or Greek Church What I have to say concerning these Sects shall be dispatch'd in a few Words Dr. Tillotson and all the Learned Men of the Church of England do receive the Definitions of the four first General Councils whereof the two last excommunicated and condemn'd as Heretics the Authors of these Sects and their Adherents Nâ—storius for asserting two persons Eutyches for denying two Natures in Christ consequently all those Sects who took up their Opinions are justly excluded from the number of True Catholics As to the Points in Controversie betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants viz. Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass Prayers for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. they are as firmly believ'd by the said Sects as by the R. Catholics 2. As for the Greek Church It is notoriously known that the Chiefest Reason of their Separation from the Church of Rome was because this Church asserted the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which yet the Protestants hold to be Orthodox Doctrine And no less evident that the Greek Church did Recant their Error concerning this Point and all other things wherein they differ'd from the Church of Rome many times but more especially in three General Councils First in the Council of Lâ—theran where the Patriarch of Constantinople assisted in Person 2dly In the Council of Lyons where the Greek Emperor and other Representatives of the Greek Church were present And lastly in the Council of Florence where the Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople and a great many Greek Bishops were present and disputed the Point for a long time which at last came to this Issue There were Letters of Vnion drawn up wherein the Grecians do acknowledge the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son the Popes Supremacy and some other Points of no great Weight before debated These Letters were signed by the Emperor and by all the Greek Bishops the Bishop of Ephesus only excepted and stand upon Record to this day Whence it is manifest that by their own Act and Deed they are convicted of Schism for their wilful and causeless Separation afterwards from the Church of Rome whom they own'd by this Authentick Instrument to be the Catholic Church and themselves likewise to be Members of it Touching the main Points in Controversie betwixt the Protestants and the Church of Rome what the Greek Church holds and professes let us hear from the Pen of an Ingenious Protestant Gentleman Sir Edwin Sandys in his Europae Speculum pag. 233. With Rome saith he they concur in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Sacrifice and whole body of the Mass in praying to Saints in Auricular Confession in offering of Sacrifice and Prayer for the Dead and in these without any or no material Difference They hold Purgatory also and the Worshiping of Pictures Thus far Sandys So that tho' the Greeks were a true Church it wou'd but very little help the Protestant Cause nay rather it wou'd very much prejudice it since the Grecians hold those points to be Orthodox on the pretended falsity whereof the Protestants ground their Separation But of this more in its proper Place 3. Touching the Church of England This is of so Great Importance to our present Controversie or rather the only necessary Point to be Rightly understood that it is requisite it shou'd be handl'd with all the clearness and perspicuity imaginable And if it be possible to make it Evident that this Church is branded with Heresie and Schism two things sufficient to unchurch any Society of Christians whatsoever I hope I may without vanity say that I have gained my Point To prove then that the Church of England is both Heretical and Schismatical I am heartily sorry I must use such hard Expressions to so many Ingenious and Great Men whose Learning and other good Qualities I very much honor and respect I shall make use of no Arguments but such as are grounded upon the clear Light of natural
very hard if not impossible to receive such an Injury or Provocation from the Governours of the Church as may make a Separation excusable impossible according to St. Austin that there should be any just cause for any to separate from the Church truly Catholic Thus far the Dr. and indeed very right only where the Fathers condemn him and his party he is so much a Friend to his Cause as to alter the Phrase a little For instance whereas St. Ireneus says absolutely It is impossible to receive such an Injury or Provocation from the Governours of the Church as to make a Separation excusable he saw very well that if no kind of Injury or Provocation cou'd justifie a Separation himself and his Party stood condemned in that Holy Fathers Opinion and therefore he changed the word Impossible into very hard if not impossible tho' in the Greek which some will have to be the original or Latin Translation there is not the least colour for it So where St. Austin saith That it is impossible there should be any just Cause for any to separate from the Catholic Church He softens the Expression changing Catholic Church into the Church truly Catholic pretending if I may presume to spell his meaning that they did not separate from the Church truly Catholic tho' they had separated from all other Societies and Congregations in the World upon a ridiculous Pretence as if the Catholic Church and the Church truly Catholic were two different things or where the Expression seems too harsh he thinks himself sufficiently entituled to moderate it as where the Holy Father St. Austin says There is no Crime so great as Schism he makes bold with his Words rendring them thus there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism Mr. Serjeant to whose great Wit and indefatigable Labour we are obliged for several other Learned and Ingenious Works in these two excellent Treatises presses his Antagonist to purge himself and his party of the guilt of Schism since he owns they had made a separation from that Church in whose communion they and their Ancestors were since they imbraced the Christian Faith But among other pressing Arguments he urges this which in my opinion is enough to open any man's eyes that has not sworn never to see the Sun Dr. Hammond gathers from Fathers and Scripture that Schism is so horrid a sin that there is scarce any crime I give you his own words so great not Sacriledg Idolatry parricide not expiable by Martyrdom very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury or provocation from the Church as may make a separation excuseable Impossible according to St. Augustin that there shou'd be any just cause for any to separate from the Church truly Catholic whence Mr. Serjeant reasons thus No Man in his Wits much less any body of Learned Men ought to separate from the Church or withdraw themselves from its Authority unless they had a clear and evident Conviction both that this Separation waâ— absolutely necessary and that the Authority pretended by the Church was a manifest usurpation because they would else incur that horrid guilt of Schism But Dr. Hammond and his Party are so far from having any such Evidence or Conviction for either the one or the other that nothing is pretended but bare probabilities and conjectures Consequently it is the last of madness and folly in Dr. Hammond and his Party to persist in their Separation Now Dr. Tillotson who was a very acute Man foreseeing what effect so plain a Demostration was like to have upon such as tendered the Salvation of their Souls being however resolved to maintain the Cause at any rate cou'd bethink himself of nothing sufficient to justifie so dangerous a Separation less than a clear and evident Demonstration of the necessity of it And this in my opinion was the Reason why he undertook to demonstrate that in regard of the aforesaid controverted Points the common sense of Man-kind natural Reason and the Scripture were as clear and evident on the Protestant's side as that twice two make four But what if I shew that he is so far from having any such Evidence on his side that there is not one of all these Points in which he instances but what is destitute of even the least probable Argument to support it Nay I go farther what if I demonstrate that the R. Catholics have all the Evidence and Reason that the nature of such things will bear for what they hold concerning these Points Then surely I may reasonably hope that Rational Men who ought to tender the welfare of their Immortal Souls will be so just to themselves as seriously to consider into what horrible and dangerous crimes they are drawn by the wilfulness of Men who are resolved to maintain a Separation which all the world knows was begun for no other end than to countenance Things that I am unwilling to name but are too well known to be concealed This I shall endeavour by the assistance of God's Grace to perform in the following Chapters when I have first laid down that chief and fundamental Point of all Controversies namely the Infallibility of the Church CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of the Church THE R. Catholics hold that the Church is infallible that is cannot err in delivering the Doctrine she received from Jesus Christ nor mistake in her Explanation thereof when by Heretics wrested and perverted to a wrong sense The ground of which Tenet I conceive to be this that Christ has provided such efficacious means for the conveyance of Truth to all succeding Ages as will infallibly secure the Church from error in her Decrees concerning Articles of Faith This Point is to be managed with so much the more perspicuity and clearness by how much it is of greater importance than any other It will be therefore requisite to take some pains to satisfie Mens Reasons and if it be possible to make this Truth so clear and evident that those whose Interest and Prejudices make them unwilling to own it may at least be ashamed to deny it And methinks I have this peculiar advantage in this undertaking that every Pious Christian who tenders the welfare of his Soul cannot chuse but wish me success because I undertake the Proof of that which it is every Man's Interest it shou'd be true for if I can shew that there is an Infallible Church and that such a Congregation of Faithful is that Church then all Christians who are Solicitous about the true Church and the means of Salvation and agitated with various Scruples and Difficulties and which is more dreadful threatned with Hell and Damnation by the furious Zeal of different Parties may sit still and hear what the Infallible Church says to them In the handling then of this important Truth I shall do these three Things First I will endeavour to shew that there is a Church or Congregation of Faithful which is Infallible in her Decisions and Declarations
of all Articles of Faith Secondly That this Congregation and no other is that which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Thirdly I shall answer the Objections which Dr. Tillotson brings in his Sermons against this Point First I will endeavour to shew that there is a Church or Congregation of Faithful which is Infallible in her Decisions and Declarations of all Articles of Faith To prove this I shall lay down these Grounds 1. That Jesus Christ planted his Doctrine in the Hearts of a certain number of Men by working True and Real Miracles in their presence which no other but an Omnipotent Power cou'd effect and that in order to the propagating of this Doctrine he chose twelve Men whom he called Apostles and made them his chief Ministers vesting in them his own Power and Authority for that End 2. That these twelve Apostles and other Disciples went into several Countries and preached the same Doctrine to Jews and Gentiles confirming it with true and real Miracles 3. That the Apostles ordained and constituted other Ministers of this Doctrine to succeed in their own Room to whom they delegated the same Power they received from Jesus Christ and These Others and so on from Generation to Generation to continue to the end of the World 4. That this Power of working Miracles continued in the Preachers of this Doctrine at least till a considerable number of people had embraced the same Doctrine in most of the then known Countries of Asia Europe and Africa This supposed I say 1. That the people who heard the Apostles preach and saw them confirm their Doctrine with true and real Miracles were infallibly sure that this Doctrine was True because they were sure the doing of such Miracles required an Omnipotent Power and that according to the Notion all Men naturally have of God he would not exert his Omnipotence in Favour of a Lye 2. That whatever Articles the Universal Consent of so many Nations was agreed upon to have been received from the Apostles it is impossible it should be false that they had received them because it is impossible that so many Nations of different Interests Tongues and Manners should all conspire and agree to relate the same thing as received from the Apostles if it had not been so And as this is most assuredly true in regard of those who saw the Miracles of the Apostles and delivered their Doctrine to the next Generation so it is for the same Reason equally impossible it should be false in respect of any succeeding Generation That there was such a Man in England as King Henry the VIII or that there is or was such a Man as the Grand Signior or such a City as Constantinople I am as certainly sure as of any thing I see with my Eyes for it is as evident to my Understanding that it is impossible in practice that so many Nations as relate these things different in their Humours Manners and Interests should all conspire to tell an Untruth which can be of no Advantage to them as it is evident to my Senses that I see the Paper and feel the Pen wherewith I write For since no Cause imaginable can be assigned to cause so many different Nations to conspire together in the Belief of an Untruth no interest as we suppose moving them thereunto and no Cause put it is impossible an Effect should follow it is as evident to my Reason that they cannot thus conspire as it is to my Senses that I perceive their proper Objects unless we have recourse to God Almighty and say that he might put it in their Hearts to act thus But if we should suppose this not inconsistent with his Divine Attributes may we not likewise suppose that he might impose upon my Senses and make me think I see and feel when I do not Yes undoubtedly Yet I suppose no Body will say but that I may be certainly sure that I both see and feel And whatever reason his unsearchable Wisdom might have to impose upon my Senses I am sure it does not stand with his Goodness to put into any Man's Heart to tell a Lye If it be then impossible that the universal Consent of all the Nations in Europe should be liable to err in delivering to posterity things of an indifferent Nature how much more must the Universal Consent of all the Christian World be certain in conveying the Truth of the Gospel upon which our eternal Welfare depends One single Man may and has often declared the Truths that were committed to him but because he is obnoxious to Error no Man is bound to believe him any further than he shews good Credentials for what he says It was therefore necessary the Apostles and other Disciples who first preached the Gospel each apart should be endued with a power of working Miracles to gain themselves credit A small Body of Men such as a City or Corporation is less obnoxious to Error than one Man however no Man is obliged to believe them no further than they shew good Reason for what they say because it is easy for such a Body of Men for some private End to conspire in the Belief of an Untruth Thus in some time after the Flood the Son of Cham erected Idols and perswaded the rest of their Kindred Men simple indeed but very much abandoned by God that these were the Gods they must adore And for all this false Worship prevailed in succeding Ages as Men increased so as to spread almost over the whole Earth Yet because it was not only destitute of all Rational Motives to perswade its Belief in the beginning but even contrary to the Light of Nature the very Philosophers and learned Men that seem'd to promote its Profession gave no Credit to it Thus a small number of Sarazens perswaded the rest of their Rude and Barbarous Countrymen to believe the Impostures of Mahomet And however this Barbarous Nation forced their Passage with Fire and Sword thro' many spacious Countries and planted their Religion in most parts of Asia and Affrica Tho' their Principles be not altogether so absurd as those of the Pagans yet as they have not the least Rational Motive to induce any Man to believe them so neither were they obtruded on the Believers the Progeny of those who first embraced them excepted by any other means than Cruelty and Slaughter I have on purpose mentioned these two false Religions that swayed in the World for a long time to obviate an Objection which might be made against the Unanimous Consent of Christians in their Belief of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ For if it be said that several Countries and Nations of Pagans and Mahometans have conspired in the Belief of the Faith they received from their Ancestors yet that this Faith or Religion was false This Objection is so far from impairing the Truth of the Christian Religion that it rather confirms it For it is most certain the Pagans and Mahometans received
is the Word of God and the Scripture again bears witness that the Church is Infallible and yet this way of Reasoning is not in the least defective because the Church has sufficient Credentials for the truth of its Evidence before it rereceives a Testimony from the Scripture viz. The Universal Consent of the whole Catholic Church which as is already proved is undoubtedly certain The Testimony then of Scripture bearing witness of the Church is properly speaking Argumentum ad hominâ—â— that is an Argument from a Concession or a Principle agreed upon by both Parties And now since the Protestants do agree that the Scripture is Infallibly true I hope they will hear it if it bears witness of the Infallibility of the Church Let us see then what it says upon this Subject Christ saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Matth. 16. verse 18. Again Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and so I am with you alway even unto the End of the World cap. 28. ver 19 20. And again I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now â— howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth John 16. ver 12 13. St. Paul writes to Timothy But if I tarry long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth 1 Tim. â— ver 15. You see Christian Reader that Christ promi'sd to build his Church upon a Rock and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it that he himself continues with it â—â—â—o the end of the World That the spirit of Truth shall guide it into all Truth And St. Paul says that the Church of God is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Now if any Man that believes the Goodness and Power of Jesus Christ to perform what he promises can shew me any Text in Scripture more Plain and Evident to prove any thing else than these do the Infallibility of the Church I shall hold my self highly oblig'd to him for that Favour If the Gates on Power of Hell for they are both the same shall not prevail against the Church surely then it shall not fell into Error For there are but two Ways of prevailing against it viz. by destroying all the Members that compose it as to their temporal Being or by corrupting their Souls with Error That the Gates of Hell hath not prevail'd as to the former our own Being is a sufficient Evidence and that they shall not as to the latter methinks a sober modest man ought to be content with the Insurance of Christ's Promise If Christ continues with the Church unto the end of the World can it be imagined that he shou'd suffer it to fall into Error since we cannot suppose him to have any other bus'ness to continue with it than to preserve it from that If the holy Ghost or as the Teâ—t calls him the Spirit of Truth will guide the Church into all Truth we must surely renounce all pretence to Reason and Christianity if we believe that any Power whether Earthly or Infernal can be able to make it err Lastly if the Church be the Ground and Pillar of Truth as St. Paul calls it certainly neither Rain nor Floods noâ— Wind can shake or throw down an Edifice so firmly founded I shall now add three or four Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers in savour of this Truth and so conclude this chapter Saint Ireneus a Father of the second Age writes thus of the Church where the Church is there is the Spirit and where the Spirit of God is there is all Grace lib. 3. c. 40. Praes in lib. per. Ar. In the third Age Origen That only is to be believed for Truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church And a little after We must not believe otherwise than as the Church of God has by Succession deliver'd to us In the same Age St. Cyprian Whoever divides from the Church and cleaves to the Adultress is separated from the Promises of the Church he cannot have God his Father that has not the Church his Mother Again To Peter's Chair and the Principal Church Infidelity or false Faith cannot have access Epist 55. In the fourth Age St. Jerom The Roman Faith commended by the Apostles cannot be changed in Apolog. cont Ruffin In the beginning of the fifth Age St. Augustin I know by Divine Revelations that the Spirit of Truth teacheth it the Church all truth Lib. 4. de Bap. c. 4. Again To dispute against the whole Church is insolent Madness and I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the Authority of the Church moves me to it cont Epist fundam c. 5. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon these Sentences but will let them stand or fall by their own Weight perswaded as I am that no Comment or Gloss whatsoever can make them speak plainer or more to my purpose I will only mind him that these Great and Eminent Men who shin'd in the Church like so many Lights as well by the Lustre of their extraordinary Piety as by the profoundness of their Learning cou'd not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church of their Time Consequently wou'd never have taught so peremptorily the Infallibility of the Church unless it had been the Opinion of all the Christian World There is then an Infallible Church that is to say a Congregation of Faithful that believes holds and teaches the Doctrine of Jesus Christ 1. Upon the Universal Consent of the Christian World 2. Upon clear and plain Texts of Scripture declaring the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide it into all Truth 3. Upon the unanimous Consent of the Fathers of the Primitive Times a Triple Cord which neither the Power of Hell nor the Subtility of Heretics nor the Malice of the World shall ever be able to break Let us now examine what Society of Christians can justly lay claim to or be truly call'd the Catholic Church CHAP. II. The Congregation of Faithful in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and no other is the Catholic Church TO prove this Assertion I shall lay down some Principles known either by their own Light or sufficiently proved by plain Texts of Scripture and the Consent of our Adversaries I. That in the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World II. That there is but one Catholic Church III. That one Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church IV. That whosoever separates from or
is excommunicated by the Church for the Obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which the Church professes cannot justy be call'd a Member of the Church 1. In the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World This is manifest from these Words of St. Paul He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. Eph. 4.11 12. 2. There is but one Catholic Church This is evident from Christ's own Words I have other Sheep which are not of this Fold Them also I must bring and they shall hear my Voice and there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd John 10.16 And from these Words of the Nicene Creed I believe One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church 3. One Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church This is no less evident from the aforesaid Words of Christ who says that his Sheep will not only hear his Voice but also shall be brought all into one Fold than from the very Notion which as well protestants as Catholics have of a Church namely That it is a Congregation of the Faithful believing and practicing the same Things with due Subjection and Subordination to their Lawful Pastors This Truth the Gentlemen of the Church of England are very loth to own in their Disputes with the Roman Catholics and not without Reason For they are Sensible that all their Authority and Mission if any they have are deriv'd from the Church of Rome and that if Unity in Communion which as aforesaid implies a Due Subjection and Subordination to Lawful Pastors be essential to the Being of the Catholic Church they quite unchurch themselves since it is Manifest that in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth They shook off all Obedience and Subjection to their Bishops who were all R. Catholics and Drove them all away and in some Years before in King Henry the VIII his Time what with Death and other Cruelties they compell'd most of Them to divide and separate from the Pope and all other Bishops in the World besides They wou'd therefore willingly pass by this sore place if possible but when the Dispute is with the Presbyterians this Truth is highly magnified These they look upon to be Schismatics because they separated from their Communion and erected Altars against their Altars and so far indeed they are in the Right if a Separation from a Separation may be called Schism However this I cannot but admire that they do not observe that in charging the Presbyterians with Schism they condemn themselves since it is notoriously known they are highly guilty of what they charge them with namely of separating from their own and all other Bishops in the World Whoever desires farther Satisfaction in this matter may consult Dr. Heilin's History of the Presbyterians Intitul'd Aerius Redivivus and the History of the Reformation by the same Author but more especially an Ingenious Treatise lately publish'd by a Learned Divine of the Church of England under this Title The Principles of the Cyprianic Age. In this the Author proves excellently well the Necessity of One Communion as well as of One Faith for the being of One Church I will transcribe some of his Words and leave the Reader to judge how well he proves my Postulatum Now they were thus united saith he speaking of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church by the Great and Fundamental Laws of one Faith and one Communion That the One Holy Catholic Faith is essential in the Constitution of One Holy Catholic Church is even this day a receiv'd Principle I think amongst all sober Christians But then I say that the Christians in St. Cyprian's Time reckon'd the Laws of one Communion every whit as forcible and indispensable to the Being of one Church as the Laws of One Faith It was a Prime a Fundamental Article of their Faith that there was but one Church and they cou'd not understand how there cou'd be but One Church if there was more than One Communion By their Principles and Reasonings a multiplication of Communions made unavoidably a multiplication of Churches and by consequence seeing there cou'd be but one true Catholic Church there cou'd be likewise but one true Catholic Communion All other Churches or Communions were false i. e. not at all Christian Churches or Communions Thus far this Learned Man and indeed very right For it was the constant Principle as well of all as of the Primitive Ages of the Church that One Communion was no less Essential to the being of One Church nor less necessary to Salvation than One Faith And here I cannot but observe two things by the way 1. How unjust that intolerable charge of uncharitableness is wherewith the Protestants incessantly Traduce the R. Catholics for denying them Salvation out of their Communion since it is manifest as this Learned Man says that one Faith and one Communion are equally necessary to Salvation And no less evident that the Protestants separated themselves from that Communion and Faith which the R. Catholics believe and maintain to be the true Church How is it then consistent with their Principles to allow Salvation to the Protestants whilst they persist in their Separation Or how can they be deem'd uncharitable for judging according to the known Principles of the Primitive Christians who knew but one Faith and one Communion wherein Salvation was to be had 2. What miserable shifts the Church of England Gentlemen are driven to being forc'd to deny to the R. Catholics in their own justification what they so earnestly press upon the Presbyterians in order to reclaim them as constant and fundamental Principles in the Primitive Church 4. Whosoever separates from or is excommunicated by the Church for the obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which it professeth cannot reasonably be call'd a Member of the Church This is Self-evident as to the first part for to separate from the Church is to go away from it as the very Word imports and by consequence to be no more a Member of it It is likewise no less evident as to the second for to Excommunicate is to put out of Communion or to cut off from the Body of the Church So that whoever is Excommunicated for the Denial of any Article of Faith can no more be said to be united to the Church than an Arm cut off from a Man or a Branch from a Tree can be said to be united to the same Man or Tree All such then who wilfully separate from the Communion of the Catholic Church let their Pretence be never so plausible are properly Schismatics I say let their pretence be never so plausible for Dr. Hammond tells us as aforesaid that
Reason upon the consent of Mankind and the concession of our Adversaries and upon such known and evident matters of Fact as the most Impudent Wrangler wou'd be asham'd to deny As to the first That the Church of England is Heretical I prove thus Whatsoever Society of Christians obstinately denies any Doctrine believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith is Heretical but the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith Therefore the Church of England is Heretical The Major or first Proposition is a known Principle which no Christian in his wits ever denied The Minor or second Proposition I demonstrate thus The Church of England obstinately denies Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass and many other Points but these are believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith Therefore the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith That the Church of England obstinately denies the said Doctrines or Points is matter of Fact and what She very much glories in That the same Points or Doctrines were all in the begining of the Reformation believed by the Catholic Church to be of Faith we have besides the unanimous consent of the Roman Greek and all the Eastern Churches the Testimony of several Learned Protestants who surely wou'd never have told a thing so favourable to their Adversaries if it had not been manifestly True And to shew that this is not said gratis I will Instance in some Hospinian faith Luther's Separation was from all the World Epist 141. White Popery was a Leprosie breeding so universally in the Church that there was no Visible Company of Men appearing in the World free from it Defence c. 37. p. 136. The aforesaid Doctrineâ— is what this good man is pleas'd to call Popery as all the World knows Bishop Jewel The Whole World Princes Priests and People were overwhelm'd with Ignorance and bound by oath to the Pope Sermon on Luke 11. Whitaker In times past no Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church Controv. 4.9 5. c. 3. Bucer All the World err'd in that Article of the real presence p. 660. Calvin They made all the Kings and People of the Earth Drunk from the First to the Last Justit 4. c. 18. Perkins During the space of 900 years the Popish Heresie had spread it self over the Whole World Exposit symb p. 266. The Sum of this cloud of Witnesses which yet is not the twentieth Part of what may be brought from the Reformation-treasure amounts to this that before the Reformation there was no other Religion in the Whole Christian World but the Roman Catholic or as they are pleas'd to term it the Papistical and that the aforesaid Points and many more which they call Popery Leprosie and Ignorance were universally believed as Articles of Faith by all the visible Companies of Christians in the World And if this be true the Church of England which obstinately denies these Points and many more must necessarily deny some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church as of Faith and by consequence the Church of England is Heretical Touching the second viz. that the Church of England is Schismatical This is no less evident than the former For if Schism be a willful Separation from the Church as it is defined by all Mankind as well Protestants as Catholics the Church of England is doubly guilty of this Crime First for separating from the Pope and their own Immediate Heads the Bishops of England Secondly for separating from the Communion of all other Bishops in the World besides The Bishop of Rome in the begining of the Reformation was acknowledg'd by all the World to be at least Patriarch of the West and by the Protestants themselves to have exercis'd Jurisdiction over the Church of England for 900 years and more even from the time of its Conversion to Christianity and surely so long a prescription is a sufficient Title tho' no other cou'd be shewn We find in the Acts of the third General Council held at Ephesus Binius Tom. 2. Apend 1. Cap. 4. a complaint exhibited by the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus against the Patriarch of Antioch who wou'd force that Iland to submit to his jurisdiction and oblige its Metropolitian to receive the Grace of Ordination from him as the Council phrases it To this Complaint the Council answers That if the Bishops of Cyprus cou'd make out that the Patriarch of Antioch had never conferr'd Orders upon their Metropolitan it was unjust to pretend to it now And the Bus'ness being fairly prov'd in favour of the said Bishops the Council decreed That the Patriarch of Antioch had no Jurisdiction over them nor ought to pretend to any Whence it is manifest that if the Patriarch of Antioch cou'd prove that he had conferr'd Orders upon their Metropolitan at any time or exercis'd Lawful Jurisdiction over them the Council wou'd have Decreed the said Iland to be subject to him and that as it was a manifest Usurpation in the Patriarch of Antioch to pretend to any such Jurisdiction since he was not in Possession of it nor cou'd prove to have ever had it so likewise it wou'd be perfect Rebellion and Schism in them to withdraw from his Jurisdiction if he were Legally possess'd of it Now I would fain know if the same Council were to judge the Church of England and the Pope's cause what they wou'd think of it Pope Eleutherius sent some of his own Clergy to Convert the Brittans in King Lucius his Time St. Gregory sent Augustin the Monk and others to convert the Saxons and exercis'd Jurisdiction over them ordaining their Metropolitan or causing him to be ordained by his Orders and the Popes his Successors continued in peaceable Possession of this Prerogative and they the Clergy and People of England receiving and obeying his lawful Commands not only as Patriarch of the West but even as Head of the Church for the Space of 900 Years and more what wou'd this Council I say think of the Church of England's rising up against the Pope's Authority after so long a Prescription Certainly it wou'd look upon them to be Rebels against the Authority the best establish'd in the World Nor will it any way help them to say as they usually do that the King of England has Power to Transfer the Papal or Patriarchal Power from Rome and confer it upon the Archbishop of Canterbury For besides that it is most absurd to suppose such a Power in a King since it cannot be imagin'd whence such an Ecclesiastical Authority can be deriv'd to a Secular Prince we have an express Decree to the contrary in the fourth General Council held at Calcedon What gave Occasion to it was this The Bishop of Tyre was anciently Metropolitan of Phaenicia Concil Calced Act. 6. and as such exercis'd Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in that Province Marcianus the Emperor contrary to
he was qualified by Jesus Christ for that Office or that he must be a very arrogant Man in taking so much upon him to the Diminution of the Honour and Esteem of his Fellow Apostles And if we put these three things together viz. 1. Christ's building his Church upon Peter giving him the Charge of feeding his Lambs and Sheep and the Power of Confirming his Brethren 2. The Evangelist pursuant to this Power not only reckoning him first amongst the Apostles but also calling him the First 3. Peter's exercising the Office and Charge of Head or Chief among the Apostles as aforesaid We shall plainly see that this Superiority is no Imaginary thing as our Adversaries wou'd make the World believe but a Real Truth grounded upon the Word of God And if this was confer'd upon Peter it is granted by all that the same Prerogative must necessarily devolve upon his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome And indeed this was so publickly taught and profess'd by the Primitive Fathers and Councils as a necessary and fundamental Truth that many Learned Protestants have been forc'd to own it I shall instance in one Monsieur Blondel one of the most learned Protestants that ever writ against the Pope's Supremacy gives it this Testimony The Titles of the Apostle St. Peter saith he ought not to be put in debate since the Grecians and Pâ—otestants also do confess that it has been believ'd and that it might indeed be that he was the President and Head of the Apostles the Foundation of the Church and Possessor of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Again pag. 107. Rome being a Church consecrated by the Residence and Martyrdom of St. Peter whom Antiquity has acknowledg'd to be the Head of the College Apostolic having been honour'd with the Title of the Seat of the Apostle St. Peter might without Difficulty be consider'd by one of the most renowned Councils viz. that of Chalcedon as Head of the Church Thus far this Learned Man and surely nothing but the Evidence of this Truth cou'd extort so ingenuous a Confession from an Adversary in favour of â—â—me whose Supremacy he chiefly aim'd to pull down Now how far this Title gives him Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops I will not take upon me to determine This only I shall undertake to prove that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did believe St. Peter and his Successors the Bâ—shops of Rome to be by virtue of this Prerogative St. Peter Head and Chief amongst the Apâ—stles and the Bishop of Rome the same among all other Bishops and Center of Catholic Vnity and that the Bishop of Rome did exercise Jurisdiction as occasion offer'd over the Eastern as well as the Western Bishops even in the Primitive Times such as Excommunication receiving of Appeals Confirming and Deposing of Bishops c. For the Truth of all which we have besides the general Consent of the Church as Authentic Records next to the Scripture as for any matter of Fact whatsoever happening at so great a distance I shou'd never end if I shou'd cite all the Passages of Fathers and Councils and Ecclesiastical Writers which may be brought to prove this Point I will therefore Instance in a few only but they shall be such as will by the Greatness of their Authority and Clearness of Expression I hope be abundantly sufficient to compose this Difference And 1. St. Irenaeus speaks thus of the Church of Rome ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentierem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui undiquâ— sunt Fideles Every Church that is the Faithful on every side must have recourse to this Church by reason of her more powerful Principality lib. 3. c. 3. 2. St. Cyprian thus of St. Peter Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti Potestatis Honoris Primatus tamen Pâ—tro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur The Rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was endued with a like Fellowship of Power and Honour yet the Primacy is given to Peter that the One Church of Christ and one Chair might appear lib. de Unitat. Eccles 3. St. Ambrose Andreas prius secutus est Dominum quam Petrus tamen principatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus Andrew follow'd Christ sooner than Peter yet Andrew did not receive the Principality but Peter in 2 Cor. 12. 4. St. Jerom. Propterea inter duodâ—cem unus eligitur ut capite constituto Schismatis toâ—latur occasio One is chosen among the twelve Apostles to the end that a Head being constituted all occasion of Schism may be taken away Cont. Jovin 5. St. Chrysostom The Pastor and Head of the Church was a Fisherman Hom. 55. in Cap. 16. Mat. 6. St. Augustin In Ecclesia Romana semper viguit Apostoliâ—ae Cathedrae Principatus The Principality of the Apostolic Chair has always flourish'd in the Church of Rome Epist 162. 7. The General Council of Chalcedon We throughly consider that all Primacy and Chief Honour is to be kept for the Bishop of old Rome Act. 16. This was the General Language not only of the Fathers of this Council but even of all Antiquity both in public Assemblies and private Writings the primitive Fathers and Councils always deferring the chief Honour and Primacy to the See of St. Peter as they generally phrase it And indeed tho' the Bishops of Constantinople have always been observ'd to be very ambitious to advance their own See above all others and to have procur'd in two General Councils viz. in the first Council of Constantinople and in that of Chalcedon to have that See prefer'd to Alexandria and Antioch and plac'd next after Rome yet we do not find that any Council or Father did ever dispute with the Bishop of Rome in Point of Primacy or Jurisdiction in so much was all Antiquity perswaded and convinc'd that he was the Chief and Supreme visible Head of the whole Catholic Church Thus much concerning the Primacy of St. Peter and his Successors which yet is not the one half of what may be alledg'd for this Point Now I wou'd willingly beg of any of our Adversaries to Answer me to these few Queries Whether these Holy Fathers did not believe the Primacy of St Peter and his Successors when they spoke so plainly in favour of it Whether they did not understand and were well instructed in the Doctrine of the whole Catholic Church touching this Point Whether they had a mind to flatter the Bishop of Rome or to grant him any more Authority and Power over themselves than was justly due to him And whether it be not an excess of Folly and Weekness to say no worse in the Protestants now fifteen hundred Years after to dispute that Prerogative which is so manifestly acknowledg'd by so many Eminent Martyrs and Confessors and great Doctors of the Primitive Church That the Bishop of
Rome did exercise Jurisdiction by way of Excommunication over the Eastern Bishops of which alone there remains any difficulty We have besides Innumerable Examples from the Fourth to the Tenth Century as that for instance Innocent the First excommunicated â—â—eâ—phiâ—us Bishop of Alexandria Celestinus the First Nestorius of Constantinople Agapâ—tus Anthimius another Bishop of Constantinople Nicholas the First Pâ—otius the intruded Bish p of Constantinople besides these I say we have two memorable Facts to this purpose in the begining of the Second and about the midle of the Third Century The first is related by two Eminent Witnesses St. Irenaeus Eusebius Casariensis by St. Ireâ—aeus in a Letter to Pope Victor and by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 5. cap. 25. This Historian tells us that Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated Polycrates and the Rest of the Asiatic Bishops because they wou'd not be induc'd to celebrate Easter after the Roman Custom And St. Irenaeus in his Leter to this Pope complains most grievously of his Severity in cutting off so many Members from the Body of the Church for a matter of Discipline which no way respected the Faith 'T is true St. Irenaeus and Eusebius do not approve of Victor's Proceedings in this Bus'ness because they look'd upon his Sentence to be too severe yet neither the one nor the other did ever say that Victor had no power to do so And as St. Irenaeus took the liberty to reprehend the Pope for his too great Severity as he thought in this matter so no doubt he wou'd have told him that he exceeded his Commission by such a Procedure if he had not been convinc'd that the like Power had been vested in him And most certainly Eusebius who was an Asiatic Bishop himself wou'd never have complemented the Bishop of Rome but wou'd have plainly here inserted that the Pope had no power to Excommunicate the Bishops of Asia had there been the least question of his Authority in that particular The Second is that famous Controversie between Pope Stephen and St. Cyprian touching the Baptism confer'd by Hereties Many learned Writers are of opinion that St. Stephen Excommunicated St. Cyprian and his Adherents and all do agree that he threatn'd at last to Excommunicate Them Yet we do not find that St. Cyprian or any other Ecclesiastical Writer did ever say that the Bishop of Rome exceeded his Power in so doing 'T is true St. Cyprian and his Adherents as well as the Asiatic Bishops persisted in their Error notwithstanding the Pope's Excommunication as it usually falls out Men being hardly ever diswaded from the Opinions they once undertake to maintain but the Council of Nice has Justifi'd the Pope's Conduct in both these particulars branding with Heresie such as maintain'd the said Errors That there were Appeals made to the Bishop of Rome by the Eastern Bishops is no less manifest St. Athanasius and Paul Bishop of Constantinople appeal'd to Pope Julius for redress of the Violence offer'd them by the Arians St. Chrys stom to Innocent the First Theodoretus to Leo besides many more which I shall at present omit Socrates a famous Ecclesiastical Writer of the Primitive Times tells us lib. 2. cap. 15. How St. Athanasius and Paul with several other Bishops came to Rome and complain'd to Julius of the Violence offer'd them by the Arians and how he had undertaken their Patronage Among other things he adds this concerning the Pope's Authority in this particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he the Pope because the Church of Rome had that Priviledge warranted them with his Letters wherein he freely spoke his mind and sent them back to the East restoring Each to his own Place and severely reprehending those who rashly turn'd them out The Learned Theodoretus informs us Hist Eccles lib. 2. cap. 4. that St. Athanasius being a second Time turn'd out by the Arians appeal'd again to Rome And that Pope Julius following the Canon of the Church commanded the Arians to come to Rome and cited Athanasius to appear at his Consistory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us now put both these Testimonies together Here are two of the greatest Bishops of the East violently thrust out of their Bishopricks and flying to the Bishop of Rome for Redress Here are two of the most famous and most Eminent Historians of Antiquity who tell us that the Church of Rome had a peculiar Priviledge to protect and restore Bishops that the Bishop of Rome did but act according to or follow the Canon or Law of the Church as Thedoretus words it when he commanded the Aâ—ians to appear before him and summon'd Athanasius to answer their Charge If these be not Aâ—ts of Legal Jurisdiction if this be not the formal and proper Process of an Appeal we are as yet to Learn the meaning of these Terms Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis in the Life of St. Chrysostom tells us that this great Patriach sent four Bishops to Rome to plead his Cause and we have two Letters of Theodoretus setting forth his Appeal to the Bishop of Rome the first to the Pope and the second to Renatus Dean or Arch-Deacon of the Church of Rome in which he has these Words They have spoil'd me of my Bishoprick they did not reverence my Age consum'd in Religion nor my Gray Hairs Wherefore I beseech you to perswade the most Holy Arch-bishop to use his Apostâ—lic Authority and to command us to come to your Consistory for that Holy See sitteth at the Helm and hath the Government of the whole World Besides all these we have an express Canon of the General Council of Sardica held in or about the Year 347. wherein it is manifestly Decreed That if any Bishop be accus'd or condemn'd or depriv'd of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of his Province and that the Bishop thus depriv'd will Appeal or fly to the Bishop of Rome and desire to be heard the Bishop of Rome may either commit the Cognizance of his Cause to the Bishops of the Neighbouring Province or send Legats clâ—ath'd with his own Authority to be present at the Judgement or do whatever shall seem best in that behalf to his own most prudent Counsel Now let any Impartial Man judge if the single Authority of this Council be not sufficient to establish the Pope's Authority in Point of Appeals tho' there were nothing else to prove it That the Bishop of Rome exercis'd Jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops by way of Confirmation and Deposition is too well known to need much Proof St. Leo tells us Epist 13. That he was earnestly desir'd by Theodosius the Emperor to confirm Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople which yet he refus'd to do unless Anatolius had first profess'd the same Doctrine with Cyrillus and the Rest of the Catholic Bishops in Opposition to the Heresie of Nestorius The same Pope gives us to understand in his Epist 82. That he had constituted the Bishop of Thessalonica as his Vicegerent in that part of
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
to Paper St. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the same purpose Rectè Dei Verbo sanctificatum Panem in Dei Verbi corpus credo transmutari I do believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is chang'd into the Body of God the Word Orat. Cate. Cap. 37. St. Ambrose takes a great deal of pains to inculcate this Truth to the Ignorant people instancing in several real Changes as that of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the Creation of the World out of nothing c. I will instance in one only of his Passages to this purpose 'T is indeed somewhat tedious to be brought here at length however since it cannot be well understood unless it be intirely read I hope the Reader will pardon me so necessary a Fault Panis iste says he ante Verba Sacramentorum Panis est c. That Bread before the Sacramental Words is Bread but when the Consecration comes to it of the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Let us prove this How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration By what and by whose Words is the Consecration perform'd By the Words of the Lord Jesus For all other things which are said do give Praise to God there is a Prayer premis'd for the People for Kings and for others but when the Priest comes to make the venerable Sacrament he does no more use his own but Christ's Words Therefore the Word of Christ maketh this Sacrament What Word of Christ Even that Word by which all things were made The Lord commanded and the Earth was made The Lord commanded and every Creature was ingender'd You see then how efficacious the Word of Christ is Seeing then there is so much Efficacy in the Word of the Lord Jesus as to cause things that were not to have a Being How much more efficacious is it to make the things that are extant to be chang'd into an other thing Heaven was not the Sea was not the Earth was not but hear him that says He said and they were made He commanded and they were created That I may answer you then It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration Note That some Critics have Doubted whether the Books whence this Passage is taken belong to St. Ambrose by Reason that the Stile of them is somewhat different from the Rest of the Works of this Father but the best and ablest Critics agree that they are either St. Ambrose's Works or some other Bishop's neer his Time who dilates upon what St. Ambrose wrote concerning the Eucharist I say unto you that it is then the Body of Christ He said and it was made He commanded and it was created Lib. 4. de Sacra Cap. 4. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon this Passage being in my Opinion so plain and so much to the purpose that it cannot possibly need any thing to strengthen it Nor will I tire his Patience with any more from Fathers it being evident to any Man of Sense that these great Pillars of the Church Men so Eminent both for Learning and Piety wou'd never have believ'd Transubstantiation nor have taken so much pains to inculcate it to the People had it not been the universal belief of the Catholic Church I shall only add some Words of the Decree of the Council of Lateran on this Subject and so conclude The Words which relate to our purpose are these Concil Later 4. sub Inno. 3. Transubstantiates Pane Vino in Corpus Sanguinem Christi The Bread and Wine being transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ This all the Protestants confess is very plain in favour of Transubstantiation and therefore they do most outragiously declaim against it and even force their Lungs and Pipes both to decry the Decree and to expose the Authors of it For my part I am in no passion nor heat I shall therefore soberly and calmly examin what this Council was what Authority it may justly claim and how far it ought to influence our Faith If it be found to be only a Conventicle of Heretics or a confus'd assembly of some Bishops met together without any authority from the Chief Pastor and other Patriarchs of the Church in order to broach new Doctrines in opposition to the Faith which was once deliver'd unto the Saints then it will be but reasonable we reject their Authority But if on the contrary it appears to have been an Oecumenical or General Council representing the whole Catholic Church and that all the individual Members of the Catholic Church at that Time receiv'd and acquiesc'd to its Decrees especially to that part of it which relates to our present purpose it is but just and reasonable we pay the same respect and deference to it Now after having examin'd the Authentic Acts of this Council and consulted all the at least famous Historians and Ecclesiastical Writers of those Times and even the Writings of some of our Learned Adversaries I find that it has all the Marks and Characters which even the most Oecumenical Council ever yet had I find that this Council was call'd by common consent of both Emperors and of all the Kings and free States in Europe that it was held in Rome in the Year of our Lord 1215. Pope Innocent the 3d. Presiding in it The best Historians of those Times tell us that there were near 1200 Prelats in this Council that the Patriachs of Constantinople and Jerusalem were there in Person that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being under the Yoke of the Sarazen and Turkish Tyrany because they cou'd not come in Person sent their Deputies instructed with Power to represent their Persons and Churches As to Europe the great number of Prelates there assembled shew even to a Demonstration that there were more than sufficient Representatives of the Western Churches And what more can be desir'd to compleat a General Council Now can any Man imagin that so August an Assembly as this so man Grave and Learn'd Men of different Humors Interests and Manners shou'd all conspire together to impose upon themselves and all Mankind besides a New Doctrine in one of the most essential points of Christian Faith contrary to what they had receiv'd from their Ancestors and that not one Honest Man shou'd be found among them all to discover the Imposture Or that all Mankind shou'd acquiesce to such a Doctrine and none say this is contrary to what we have been hitherto taught Can it be imagin'd that the Bishops who met here on purpose to hear every Individual Prelate tell his own Story and to declare what Faith he had receiv'd from his Ancestors on this Subject who aim'd at nothing else but to find out the Truth but to see wherein they did all agree and to reckon That only as an Article of their Faith which shou'd be found to be the same in every Man's Mouth and yet that contrary to
and Blood which surely is all that is requisite to the Essence or Nature of the Sacrament And now who wou'd believe that the R. Catholics had such grounds in Scripture for the Communion in one kind considering the loud and clamorous accusations yea and the horrible Sacrileges they are charg'd with upon this Subject Well! And who are those who charge us thus Why they are Great and Eminent Men Great indeed not only for the Rank and Station wherein the Powers of this World have placed them but also Great for their Learning and other Excellent Endowments But then 't is that they must so do The Protestant Religion as all the World knows was planted in these Kingdoms by open Force and Violence These Gentlemen's Predecessors possess'd Themselves of the Rich Benefices of the Church and when Men's Interest and Honor are once engag'd 't is hard if they do not stand by them Now there is no way left to justifie these Proceedings but by railing at the Church of Rome and exposing her pretended Corruptions and therefore 't is no marvel they shou'd lay these and a great deal more to her charge But take away these Fatal Byasses Let Benefices be laid a side Let the Riches of the Church be propos'd as the Reward of Virtue and Merit and then we shall see how many Eyes this will open then we shall see the Scales fall off and those who have been hitherto our Greatest Persecutors become like St. Paul the most Zealous Assertors of our Faith and Religion But this by the way There is an other Passage in St. Luke which favours the Communion in One Kind This Evangelist tells us that Christ after his Resurrection appear'd to two of his Disciples as they went to Emans who adds St. Luke constrain'd Him to aâ—ide with them and when he sate at Meat He took Bread and bless'd it and brake and gave to them and their Eyes were open'd and they knew him and he vanish'd out of their sight Now 't is certain that if this Bread which Christ bless'd and brake was the Eucharist we have at least one instance in which Christ himself gave the Communion in one kind For 't is said that after he had broke the Bread and gave it to them he vanish'd out of their sight And indeed it is very hard to conceive how the breaking of ordinary Bread as 't is usually done at Meat shou'd open these Disciples Eyes so as to know him that did it to be Christ Besides the breaking of Bread in the Acts of the Apostles is always understood of the Communion and St. Chrisostom St. Augustin venerable Bede and Theophilactus in their comments upon this place teach us that this Bread which Christ brake was the Eucharist which surely they wou'd not have done had there been the least doubt of the lawfulness of the Communion in one kind However because it is not thus interpreted by the universal consent of the Church I shall lay no more weight upon it than it can reasonably bear leaving the Reader to judge what impression the Authority of four such Great Men so well read in Antiquity is apt to make upon an unprejudic'd Mind I now proceed to shew that the Communion in Both Kinds is not Essential to the Sacrament 2. from the general practise of the Church in all Ages even in those days wherein the Protestants do confess the Pure Word of God was preach'd and the Sacraments duly administred The Protestants do pretend to pay a great deal of Respect and veneration to Antiquity and in all their Debates and Controversies of Religion whether with Us or among Themselves they are willing to Appeal to the Primitive Church which they look upon as the Rule and Measure of their Faith and Practice Now if it appears by the Practice of the Primitive Church that the Communion was given in One Kind without the other and that this was neither prohibited by the Governours of the Church nor found fault with by the People nor yet wrote against by any Man whatsoever then 't is but reasonable to hope that every Ingenious Protestant will easily be perswaded that neither the Pastors nor the People of the Primitive Church did ever believe that both kinds were Essential to the worthy participation of the Sacrament This I shall by God's Assistance endeavour to evince from the best Records and the most unquestionable Witnesses and Writers of the Primitive Times And here I find four sorts of Communion the Communion of the Sick the Communion of Infants and little Children the Communion of Private Families commonly call'd the Domestic Communion and the Public and Solemn Communion of the Church And in regard of all these I shall undertake to prove that for the first six hundred Years the Eucharist was given 1. in the Communion of the Sick under the Species of Bread alone 2. In the Communion of Infants and little Children under the species of Wine alone 3. In the Domestic or Private Communion under the species of Bread but so as to be sometimes given tho' seldom in both kinds And lastly in the public and solemn Communion of the Church sometimes in one sometimes in both kinds as the Piety and Devotion of the People carry'd them to participate of one or Both. Touching the Communion of the Sick Eusebius One of the Best Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 44. and most Celebrated Historians of the Primitive Church gives us an intire Letter of the Great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria upon this Subject In this Letter Dionysus relates the Story of a certain Old Man call'd Serapion who being under Publick Pennance and falling Sick sent a Boy to a Priest that was at some distance from him to desire him to come to him and give him the sacred Communion before he had departed this Life but the Priest happening at the same time to be sick and not able to go so far gave a Piece of the sacred Bread to the Boy and order'd him to carry it to Serapion and enjoyn'd him moreover to moisten it in some Liquor and then to give it to him as his last Viaticum which when he had done saith Dionysius the good Old Man immediately gave up the Ghost Here is a Communion in one kind related by a Man who was as Great a Saint as he was a Bishop and Recorded by an other Great and Learned Bishop Both very ancient Witnesses both much celebrated by Antiquity Yet neither the one nor the other finds any fault with the Priest nor with Serapion for this Communion which our Adversaries wou'd now abhor as sacrilegious and detestable on the contrary they both admire the Goodness of God as the said Letter witnesseth in sparing this poor Man's Life 'till he had receiv'd the sacred Pledge of his Redemption And now can it be imagin'd that these two Great Men who liv'd so near the Times of the Apostles and were so well instructed in the Faith and Discipline of the Church shou'd
present Mass-book Alcuinus De Div. Off. a Famous Author of the eigth Century relates the same thing So doth Rupertus Lib. 2. c. 9. de Div. Off. Hugo de Sancto Victore and other Writers of the Eleventh Century They tell us that on Good-Friday there was no Consecration made but that the Body of our Lord which was consecrated the day before was reserv'd for that day's Communion that the Priest took the Lord's Body and some unconsecrated Wine and Water and then gave the Communion to the People under the Form of Bread alone So that there has been a perpetual Practice in the Latin Church of giving the Communion in one kind solemnly once every Year both to Clergy and Laity even to this very Time I might further bring the Authority of Sozomenus Evagrius Authors of the sixth Century and of several Great and Learned Men of the Gallican Church to confirm this Practice but I think it is sufficiently evident from what is said that the Communion was publicly givâ—ng in one kind ever since Christians had Churches for public and solemn Service I shall therefore proceed to shew in the last place That to take the Communion in both kinds is not Essential to the Sacrament from the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with Themselves I suppose Martin Luther's Opinion in this Matter is of no small Authority for 't is but reasonable to suppose that those who have follow'd the Scheme which he drew shou'd pay their just tribute of Respect to his Opinion in this Point Let us then hear him speak If any Council says he shou'd chance to Decree the Communion in both kinds we shou'd by no means make use of Both De Miffa Ang. nay we wou'd sooner in contempt of the Council take one or neither than both and curse those who shou'd by the Authority of such a Council make use of both kinds Here I think it is very plain Luther was of opinion that both kinds was not essential to the Sacrament else surely he wou'd not have said that he wou'd sooner make use of neither than of both nor curse those who shou'd take both kinds But the Discipline of the French Protestants will afford us a more ample Testimony in this Matter In a Synod held in Potiers Anno. 1560. and in an other in Rochel 1571. It is provided that those who cannot drink Wine may receive the Communion under the Form of Bread It may not be amiss to subjoin their very Words as they are read in the 12th Chapter of their Discipline Tit. Of the Lord's Sup. Art 7. The Bread of the Lord's Supper ought to be administer'd to those who cannot drink Wine upon their making Protestation that it is not out of Contempt and upon their endeavouring what they can to obviate all Scandal even by approaching the Cup as neer their Mouths as they are able Now 't is not to be imagin'd that these Gentlemen shou'd think both kinds essential to the Communion and yet make such a Decision For there is no Body who is never so little Read in Philosophy but knows that the Essence of Things is indivisible that by separating one essential Part from the other you destroy the nature of the whole that in giving only an essential part of a thing you give nothing in regard of that whose essential part it was consequently he that gives but part of the Sacrament gives no Sacrament at all Therefore these Gentlemen who knew better Things in ordering the Bread alone to be given to those who cou'd not drink Wine cannot in Reason be suppos'd to believe that the Cup was Essential to the Communion else they wou'd have absolutely refus'd the Sacrament to those who cou'd not receive it in both kinds since to give it in one kind were to give nothing at all but rather to prophane and abuse that which is most Sacred and August in the Christian Religion whereas the natural disability of those who cannot drink Wine might reasonably excuse them from taking either kind And thus I have endeavour'd as briefly as I cou'd to prove from the practice and discipline of the Church in all Ages from public as well as private Communion from Liturgies Fathers and Historians and even from the consent of our Adversaries manifestly imply'd in their Discipline and Practice that neither the Primitive Christians nor the Catholic Church in any Age nor yet any Orthodox Believer did ever think that to take the Sacrament in both kinds was essential to the Communion And if so then it is plain and evident that the Church hath Power to and may lawfully restrain the Faithful from the Cup and confine them to One kind only Let us now see what Dr. Tillotson objects to all this And here I shall not abuse the Reader 's Patience by repeating the same thing over again for since all that can with any colour of Reason be objected is contain'd in one short Paragraph tho' the things there insisted on are often repeated in several of his Sermons but with no material Addition I will only transcribe it and offer my Exceptions to it And then says he the Communion in One kind is plainly contrary to our Saviours Institution in both kinds as they themselves acknowledge And therefore the Council of Constance being sensible of this was forc'd to decree it with an express non Obstante to the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church And their Doctrine of Concomitancy as if the Blood were in the Flesh and together with it will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and pierc'd and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood and his Blood is represented as shed and poured out so that one kind can by no means contain and exhibit both Three things the Doctor here insists upon 1. That We our selves acknowledg the the Communion in one kind to be contrary to our Saviour's Institution 2. That the Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a non obstante to the Institution of Christ 3. That the Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and exhausted and drain'd of His Blood I may say of these three Propositions the first is neither True nor to the purpose The second is something to the Purpose but not True The third is like the first neither True nor to the Purpose I begin with the first We our selves acknowledge that the Communion in one Kind is contrary to our Saviour's Institution For my own part I have read at least some of the best R. Catholic Casuists and Divines upon this Subject and have convers'd with many more Yet I declare I neither read nor heard any of them say that to give the Communion in one kind was contrary to our Saviour's Institution nay I think all R. Catholics do believe that the Administration of the Communion
the Angel declar'd it grant us thy humble Petitioners who believe Her to be truly the Mother of God that by Her intercession we may with Thee be assisted thro' the same our Lord Jesus Christ c. Amen A Collect on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul O God who hast consecrated this Day by the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul grant to thy Church to follow their Example in all things by whom the Religion began thro' our Lord Jesus c. Amen A Collect on the Nativity of St. John Baptist O God who hast Honor'd this Day with the Nativity of St. John give to thy People the Grace of Spiritual Joy and guide the Minds of all the Faithful in the way of eternal Salvation thro' Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Here you see all these Prayers are address'd to God alone And thus indeed are all the Collects in the Mass-Book and Breviary which I willingly submit to any Man's Tryal ad Paenam libri As to the Office and Litanies of the B. V. Mary which are found in Manuals and read by some R. Catholics there is no Reason to charge them upon the Public Office and Service of the Church since they are not us'd by the Church nor publish'd by public Authority The Church does indeed allow such Prayers to be said as far as they hold within the Compass of meer Intercession because they are founded in the Practice of the Primitive Church and all succeeding Ages But if any of them contain any Terms or Expressions bordering upon the Prerogative of the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ she does as heartily and as earnestly desire they shou'd be abolish'd as any Protestant whatsoever Touching the Rosary or Beads in which the Dr. reproaches us for saying ten Ave Marias for one Pater Noster I believe every one knows the Church obliges no body to say it I am sure there are Millions of R. Catholics who never do Besides there is nothing in the Ave Maria but the very Words of Scripture except these last pray for us now and in the Hour of our Death and if it be a good thing to desire the Mother of God to pray for us sure the oftner we desire it the better it is As to the Disproportion between the Pater Nosters and the Ave Marias I must confess it were something if those who use the Rosary made all their Devotion to consist in it But it is well known that such as say it do to their Power discharge all other Christian Duties at least do pretend to no Exemption upon the Score of their Beads or Rosary from Praying to Almighty God from Adoring and Worshiping Him and giving Him their Humble and Hearty Thanks for his Benefits and Blessings from commemorating the Death and Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and having recourse to the Merits thereof for Mercy and Pardon of their Sins And now when they have endeavour'd to discharge all these Essential Duties where lies the harm if they spend some part of their spare Hours in saying over and above so many Ave Marias especially since they are founded in the Merits of the Death and Passion of our Lord and Saviour in Virtue whereof all Catholics do hope and trust that the Virgin Mary and all the Saints will pray for them Or how can it be counted a Fault to desire the Virgin Mary to do that for us which even the Dr. himself and all the Learned Protestants in the world do acknowledge She and all the Saints in Heaven constantly do tho' we shou'd not ask it of them Now this is plainly the Case All R. Catholics are taught and exhorted by the Church to discharge first their Duty to God to worship and adore him to put up their Prayers to Him to thank him for His Benefits to be sorry for their sins to beg Mercy and Forgiveness thro' the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and when this is done if they will take the Lady's Office or the Litanies of the Saints or the V. Mary or their Beads and beg those great Friends and Favourits of Jesus Christ who shed their Blood and lay down their Lives for the Truth of His Gospel to recommend them to Him and his Heavenly Father is it not better since the mind of Man must always be in Action than spend the Time in Idleness or perhaps in Evil Conversation In a Word these are Devotions which certain Fraternities and Regular Societies have taken upon them to discharge over and above the necessary and Essential Duties of Christianity and which other Catholics to be Partakers of the Prayers of the said Fraternities and Societies do also perform But in saying their Beads they do not always as the Dr. wou'd suggest say ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster For several Fraternities and Catholics say all Pater Nosters without ever an Ave Maria. But of this enough I proceed to shew 3. From the very Words of the Holy Fathers that this Practice of praying to Saints was us'd in the primitive Church St. Ambrose delivers his Thoughts in these Words We ought to pray to the Angels in our own Behalf who are given as a Guard to Vs We ought to pray to the Martyrs whose Bodies remaining with Vs seem to be as it were a Pledge of their Protection Lib de Viduis prope Fin. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the Martyr St. Theodorus Intercede and Pray for your Country with our Common Lord and King Orat. in St. Theodor. St. Austin We do not Commemorate the Martyrs at the Lord's Table as We do those who die in the Peace of the Church but We do Commemorate them that they may pray for Vs that we may follow their Steps Tract 84. in Joa Again Holy Mary * Note that the Sermon whence this Passage is taken is ascrib'd by some Critics to St. Fulgentius but whether of the two it belongs to it matters not being both Fathers of Great Renown and of the same Age. succour the Distressed help the Pusillanimous cherish those that Mourn pray for the People mediate for the Clergy intercede for the Devout Female Sex let every one perceive thy Assistance who celebrate thy Commemoration Ser. 18. de Sanctis Theodoret We do not address our Selves unto the Martyrs as unto Gods but we pray unto them as Divine Men that they wou'd please to become Legats or Intercessors for us Ser. 8. de Martyr lib. Curat Grae◠Affect The Council of Calcedon Act. 11. has these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Flavianus Liveth after his Death the Martyr will pray for us or as the Translators render it Let the Martyr pray for us it being usual with the Orientals to put the Future Tense for the Imperative Here is a General Council of more than 600 Bishops desiring the Martyr Flavianus to pray for Them This Council was held in the Year 451 and is one of the four first General Councils whose Acts and Decrees the Church of
them in the venerable and dreadful Mysteries For shame Doctor Away with such unchristian Scandals and do not put us upon exposing your Credit and Character any farther But perhaps the Legacies left for the bireing of Priests as he odly phrases it to say Mass for the delivery of Souls out of the place of Torments will mend the matter Indeed if the Priests were allow'd to determin matters of Faith the thing comming from the Doctor wou'd not appear altogether so unreasonable for considering how very remarkable his Charity is to Priests I do not question He wou'd judge they wou'd deal well for themselves had they but the handling of these matters But it is no less evident that no simple Priest has ever yet had any Vote in declaring matters of Faith than that no other is hired as He calls it or will receive any Money for saying Masses for the Living or the Dead but the poorer or more indigent sort of Priests who have not a sufficient Patrimony or Maintenance to subsist without it And the matter being undeniably so where is the Conscience in saying that the Councils and Prelates of the Church shou'd possess the People with the fear of Purgatory only to oblige them to hire some indigent Priests to say Mass for their Souls But the Scandal is so gross and palpable that the best answer I can make it is to contemn it The Doctor has some two or three Objections more upon this Subject but they are either solv'd in the Proofs brought for this Point or coincident with those Objections already spoken to or else have no particular Difficulty And so I take leave of him for this Time CHAP. X. Of Indulgences THE Power of Indulgences is founded in the Power of the Keys wherewith Jesus Christ was pleas'd to intrust the Pastors and Governours of the Church by which Emblem of Keys is denoted the Power of opening and shutting the Kingdom of Heaven of letting in and keeping out as Christians shall be found worthy of the one or the other This Power is promis'd to Saint Peter in a special Manner and in his Person to all his lawful Successors in these Words I say unto thee that thou art Peterâ— i. e. a Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Mat. 16.18.19 Again the Promise of binding and loosing is made in another Place to all the Apostles in the same Words Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven And whatsoever ye loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Matt. 18.18 And Christ a little before his Ascension actually confer'd this power upon them and told them wherein it consists Receive ye the Holy-Ghost whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retain'd Joa 20.22 23. So that the Power of the Keys consists in remitting of Sins and retaining them that is in loosing Men from those Bands of Iniquity wherewith they tye themselves and in binding them up or keeping them bound till they have satisfied for their Sins according to the Rules prescrib'd for that purpose In a Word in opening the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven and letting some in and in shutting the same and excluding others as they shall be found to have deserv'd it But whereas our Blessed Saviour did not intend that the Apostles and their Successors shou'd bind Sinners so as finally to exclude them from the Kingdom of Heaven but only to keep them under Discipline for a Time till they had fulfill'd the Terms of the Covenant upon which he offers them Salvation which consists in Obedience to His Laws in Repentance and Satisfaction for their Sins and Amendment of Life for the Time to come so the Church in all Ages never retain'd the Sins of Men for any other End than to keep them in a wholesome and saving Discipline till by penitential and laborious Works they had given Marks of their Sorrow and Repentance in Proportion to the Greatness of their Sins And as the Apostles and their Successors are commission'd by Christ to retain Sins so likewise are they to loose them And therefore may remit abate or alter these penitential and laborious Works as their Prudence and Wisdom shall judge it most expedient Now Indulgence is nothing else but a Relaxation or Remission of some part of or all these penitential Works to which a Sinner is lyable by the Canons of the Church which Remission is granted by the Pastors but especially by the Chief Pastor of the Church upon some weighty Considerations for the greater Benefit and Advantage of the Faithful in general Which that we may the better understand it will be requisite to lay open some part of the Discipline of the Primitive Church with Respect to this Matter We have 50 Canons that go under the Name of the Apostles which if not of them are undoubtedly of some Apostolical Bishops of the first or second Age their Use and Authority being very great since that Time We have likewise the Canons of several Provincial Councils of the third and fourth Age which have been in great Esteem and Veneration among the Ancients and for the pure and wholesome Discipline contain'd in them have been inserted in the Codex Canonum or Book of Canons of the Vniversal Church as the Ancient Writers term it These Canons among other Matters of Discipline prescribe the different Penances which were to be impos'd upon Sinners in proportion to the greatness of their Sins whence came the Name of Penitential Canons so famous in Antiquity Some Canons prescribe seven Years Penance to certain Sins others eight Years to other sins some prescribe ten Years some fifteen some to the Hour of Death Some Penitents by order of these Canons fasted three Days every Week during the Time of their Penance using no other Sustenance during that Time but Bread and Water others stood cover'd with Sackcloath at the Church Doors sub dio in the open Air on Sundays and Festivals while their Penance lasted others stood within Doors cloathed in the same Raiment weeping and lamenting their sins some lay prostrate upon the Floor begging and praying their Brethren to intercede for them others were admitted to hear divine Service in the Weeds of Penitents after they had gone thro' the foremention'd Stations whence the Names of Hyemantes Flentes Prostrati Audientes so often mention'd in the Canons Now these Rigorous Penances very Rigorous I am sure they wou'd appear in our Days or Exomologeses as some of the Fathers call them were sometimes abated and remitted partly upon Account of the Fervor of the Penitents who before they had gone thro' all their Stations gave such Marks of sincere