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
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
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
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
not rather be surpris'd at the Rashness of the Priest than admire the Mercy of God in this Affair if the Practice and Discipline of the Church had not authoriz'd such a Communion Nay that Eusebius who was so Nice and Severe in his Remarks and Censures upon the least Slips and Mistakes of other Clergymen shou'd be silent in a bus'ness of this Weight is sure what no Man can Reasonably suppose This the Protestants cou'd not but see and therefore the most Ingenuous among them as Bishop Jewel * Answ to Hard. Mr. Smith †Epist de Eccles grac. hod stat pag. 107. and others have freely confess'd that the Communion here mention'd was given only in one kind But others who resolve to say any thing rather than acknowledge the Truth wou'd maintain that that Liquor wherein the Boy was order'd to moisten the Piece of the sacred Bread was the consecrated Wine whereas it is plain from the Words of the Letter the Priest gave him no Liquor at all but order'd him to steep the sacred Bread in any Liquor he cou'd find at Home Besides suppose he had dipt the Bread in the sacred Wine and gave it so to the sick Man no Protestant who understands the Principles of his Religion will say that this is to eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ For Protestants hold that it is therefore necessary to eat and drink the Elements apart because in so doing they shew the Death of our Lord whose Body was Broken and separated from his Blood But this Evasion is so Vain and Groundless that it merits no farther Confutation An other Instance of this Communion is that of St. Ambrose We have this Great Bishop's Life written by Paulinus his own Deacon who was present at his Death and dedicated his Life to St. Austin at whose Request he wrote it so that his Authority is beyond all Exception This Deacon tells us that St. Honoratus Bishop of Verceil who came to visit St. Ambrose as he lay on his Death Bed Heard in the dead of the Night a Voice say to him thrice Arise delay not for he is going to depart He came down adds Paulinus gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint no sooner receiv'd it * Eoque reverentissimé accepto when he gave up the Ghost Here the Body of our Lord is given to St. Ambrose but no mention of his Blood Here 't is said he no sooner receiv'd it when he gave up the Ghost The word It is remarkable for being of the Singular Number and denoting only one thing it cannot be understood but of the Body to which it refers whereas if Paulinus had meant that he had receiv'd the Body and Blood under both Species he shou'd have spoken in the Plural Number and said he no sooner receiv'd them when he gave up the Ghost Well what say our Adversaries to a Decision so plain For something must be said Some say St. Ambrose receiv'd the Communion as well as he cou'd being prevented by a sudden Death before he cou'd receive the Sacred Cup. Vain fancy As if the Divine Power which sent a Voice from Heaven to order the Communion to be given to him cou'd not keep him alive 'till he had receiv'd the Sacrament Intirely Others not satisfied with this Answer say St. Ambrose receiv'd both kinds tho' one only is express'd by the Grammatical Figure Synecdoche where a part is taken for the whole But this is as groundless as the former For besides that the precise and express Terms in which that Phrase is conceiv'd will admit of no figurative Sense such Grammatical Figures are not us'd by any Ecclesiastical Writers when they speak of the Communion nor did any Protestant ever yet instance in one single Passage wherein it is so taken which is an Evident Argument that they had none to Instance in I might farther instance in the Council of Carthage in the Communion of St. Basil but let this suffice for the Communion of the sick for I wou'd not be tedious The same Practice we find observ'd in the Communion of Infants and little Children only with this difference that whereas the Communion was given to the Sick under the Species of Bread here it is given under the Species Wine And the Reason of this Difference I conceive was this In the Begining whilst the Church groan'd under the Tyranny and Persecution of the Pagan Emperors and their Magistrats the Bishops and Priests being forc'd to wander from place to place when they light upon any Christians with little Children or new-born Infants being uncertain whether they shou'd ever return that way again they us'd to administer the Sacraments to them the Bishops the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and the Eucharist and the Priests the First and the Last And because the new-born Babes were not capable of receiving any thing that was sollid they gave them always the Eucharist under the Form of Wine And this Custome thus settled in the first Persecutions continu'd in the Church until the latter end of the Tenth Century yet all this while it never enter'd into any Man's Head to say that this was an Imperfect much less a Sacrilegious Communion The first Instance we find of this Communion is in St. Cyprian's Time about the Year of our Lord 240. This holy Martyr tells us what happen'd in his own Presence to a little Girl Trat de Lapsis who had eaten a little of the Bread that was offer'd to the Idols Her Mother knowing nothing of what She had taken carry'd her as the custom was to the place where the Christians were assembl'd During the the time of Prayer adds this Father this Child was troubled and disorder'd as if for want of Words which her tender Age was not capable of she wou'd by this means declare the Misfortune which befell her After the usual solemnity the Deacon who presented the sacred Cup to the Faithful continues St. Cyprian coming to the rank where this Child was she turn'd her face aside not being able to bear the presence of such a Majesty She shut her Mouth she refus'd the Cup. But being compell'd to swallow some drops of the Pretious Blood she was not able pursues this Father to hold it in her sullied Entrals but violently gave it up so great is the Power and Majesty of our Lord. Here is a fact so plain that nothing can be adedd to it all the Circumstances of it are attended with such Marks of a Communion in one kind that nothing but meer Prejudice or rather Blindness can make any Man doubt it I know some Protestants have been so vain as to pretend that this Child did receive the Body of Christ before the Deacon came with the sacred Cup but this is so contrary to St. Cyprian's Design in relating this surprising Story that I wonder any Man in his Senses shou'd imagin it What a Child that eat of the Sacrifice of Devils is troubled and