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
guide it into all Truth surely it will not be wanting to it in this Point which is the most material of all others But I suppose the Dr. grounds his Argument upon this Axiom no Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause If he shou'd hence conclude that the supreme Judge cannot decide a Controversie concerning his own Prerogative he must certainly be a great Stranger to all Civil Laws and Constitutions in the World The King and Parliament together are the Supreme Judge of all Causes in England Now if we suppose the Rest of the people of England shou'd Dispute that Prerogative this Controversie according to the Doctor 's Principles can never be ended Not by the King and Parliament for it is their Own Cause nor yet by the Rest of the People of England for it is not Reasonable they shou'd be Judge and Party Who must judge it then No Body So that if we stretch that Axiom thus far we must leave undecided that without which nothing can be lawfully decided The true Sense of it then is this No Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause that is no Private Man who lives under Laws and Government ought to Judge for himself or be his own Carver but must have Recourse to the ordinary Judges whose Sentence he and his Adverse Party are bound to obey But this is by no means to be extended to the Supreme Legislative Power whose very Essence is to Judge all others and to be Judg'd by None As to what he says that a Controversie Who this Infallible Judge is cou'd never yet be decided in the Church of Rome I answer there never was any Controversie in the Church of Rome concerning what is of Faith in this Point namely that the Church is this Infallible Judge and what the Church is surely no Roman Catholic ever disputed Vol. 3. Edit post obit pag. 32. Object 4. If God had thought it necessary That there shou'd be an Infallible Church he wou'd have reveal'd this very thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever but this he has not done therefore he did not think it necessary Answ Let the Socinians for once answer or rather Retort this Argument upon the Doctor Had God say they thought the Knowledge of Three Persons really distinct each of them perfect God and yet but One God necessary to be believ'd by the Faithful he wou'd have reveal'd this very Thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever because it is look'd upon to be the Chiefest Mystery of Christianity but this He has not done Therefore he did not think it necessary to be believ'd Will the Doctor allow this Argument to be good If not I hope he will give me leave to have the same Thoughts of his Argument For I am certain there is no Text in Scripture that proves a Real Distinction of Three Persons whereof each is Perfect God and all but One God so plainly as it proves many other things which are not so necessary to Salvation But has not God plainly reveal'd that the Church is Infallible Tell the Church and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican When the Spirit of Truth cometh He shall guide you into all Truth Go teach all Nations And lo I am with you alway even unto the End of the World The Church is the Ground and Pillar of Truth Are not all these clear and plain Has not Christ's own Mouth and his Apostle's reveal'd all These concerning the Church Surely then he judg'd the Infallibility of the Church necessary to be believ'd And this is to a Reasonable Man instead of a Thousand Arguments that He thought it not only necessary but even laid it down as the Chief Fundamental Point of our Belief because this once firmly establish'd wou'd easily clear the Obscurity of any other Object 5. pag. 77. We have as great need of Infallible Security against Sin and Vice in matters of Practice as against Errors in matters of Faith but we have no Infallible Security against Sin and Vice in matters of Practice consequently nor against Errors in matters of Faith Answ This Comparison is in one sense Just and Reasonable and in that sense I will be content to stand or fall by it viz. That as the assistance of the Holy Ghost infallibly secures the Church from Error so the assistance of God's Grace together with the cooperation of our Wills which is always in our power is an infallible security against Sin if put in ure For is not every Sin voluntary And if voluntary surely we may abstain from it it wou'd not be voluntary else For if we cannot abstain from it it is no more voluntary but necessary and therefore no Sin and have not we in several places of the Scripture a promise of the Assistance of God's Grace which is never wanting to our sincere Endeavours and if we have God's Grace and are able at least by this assistance to abstain from sin certainly we have an infallible Security against Sin and Vice or if we have it not how can it stand with the infinit goodness of God to condemn us eternally for that which we cannot avoid In short as it is most agreeable to his infinit goodness and mercy to condemn no Man for what he cannot help so it is but reasonable we shou'd believe he has given us such means as will infallibly secure us if it be not our own fault both from Errors in matters of Faith and from Sin and Vice in matters of Practice But with this difference that Free-will without which there can be no reward or punishment by not cooperating with Grace falls into Sin and Vice whereas the assistance of the holy Ghost depending of no such condition as to its effect infallibly attains its end and preserves the Church from Error in matters of Faith Object 6. All things necessary to be known either in Faith or Practice are clear and plain in Scripture therefore there is no need of an Infallible Church Answ This is a Fundamental Principle I think I may truly say with all Protestants The Dr. I am sure repeats it several Times and lays great Stress upon it But in establishing this Principle he does two things which I suppose he wou'd not willingly allow of had he but well consider'd them 1. He makes any Man of sense that can read the Scripture as infallible as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be 2. He justifies in a great measure all the Heretics that ever denied any Points of Faith on pretence that they are not plain in Scripture 1. He makes any Man of sense that can read the Scriptures as Infallible as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be For the Catholic Church pretends only to be Infallible in necessary Articles of Faith Now if all things necessary to be known in Faith and Practice be clear and plain in Scripture there is no Man of sense that
the ancient Fathers believ'd touching the Eucharist was this that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ as appears by the passages produc'd from their Works where the Fathers in their Catechisms and Homilies make it their Bus'ness to explain this Mystery to the Faithful And because their Senses gave them to understand that the outward Forms or Accidents remain'd these they call'd the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body because they represent unto us the Body of Christ which is as it were cloath'd with these Accidents So that the ancient Fathers believ'd this Sacrament to be both the Figure and Reality of the Body of Christ according to the two different things they discover'd in it viz. the outward Signs or Simbols and the Body and Blood of Christ which are vail'd and cover'd by them Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem says under the Type and Figure of Bread he gives you his Body and under the Figure of Wine he gives you his Blood And Gratian Distinct 2. C. Hoc est de Consecrat says Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is what we say and what by all means we endeavour to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things consists of two Things of the visible Appearance of the Elements and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Sacrament that is of the External and Sacred Sign and of the thing of the Sacrament Re Sacramenti that is of the Flesh and Blood of Christ Again Caro ejus est c. 'T is his Flesh which we receive in the Sacrament vail'd with the Form of Bread and his Blood which we drink under the Appearance and taste of Wine But for all the Fathers do very often especially in their Disputes with Heretics and when they apprehend their Writings shou'd fall into the Hands of the Pagans call the Eucharist the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood because in effect it is so in regard of the Accidents or outward Forms yet we do not find that they ever call'd it a Sign or Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood 3. 'T is very material to our present Dispute to know whence those Passages objected by the Doctor are taken And this he himself is careful to tell us namely that they are taken out of those Father's Disputes with Heretics In which sort of Writing it is natural for any Man to take all kind of just advantage of his Adversary in order to confute him even to the silencing of some part of the Truth when it is not to his purpose nor absolutely neccessary to be declar'd So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages much more to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions Whereas the Passages which we alledge for Transubstantiation are taken from Catechisms Homilies Sermons and familiar Discourses where the Fathers on purpose and as Pastors and Doctors of the Church expound this Mystery to the people and tell them what they are to believe concerning it This suppos'd 1. I answer 1. That Tertullian here disputed with an Heretic and that at such a Time as was neither convenient nor agreeable to his Prudence to publish the whole Truth concerning this Mystery Consequently that it is not to be admir'd he spoke somewhat obscurely 2. That by these Words this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body he meant the outward Forms or Accidents of the Sacrament For he knew very well that the Sacrament consisted of two things viz. of the outward Accidents or Forms of Bread and Wine and of the Body and Blood of Christ contain'd under these Accidents The first Tertullian calls the Figure of Christ's Body and so do all the R. Catholics at present because these outward forms exhibit and represent unto us the Body and Blood of Christ which they cover Now this gave Tertullian a signal Advantage over his Antagonist who deny'd that Christ had a Real Body because it prov'd that the Sacrament cou'd not be call'd the Figure of Christ's Body unless he had a True and Real Body and therefore he insisted upon it without declaring what was contain'd under that Figure Which tho' it may be blameable in a Sermon or Discourse design'd for the Instruction of the People yet may very well be allow'd in a Dispute considering the advantage it gave to his Cause on the one side but without prejudice to Truth and the Scorn and Contempt it wou'd expose the Christian Religion to on the other had he at that time of day fully expounded that Mystery Now that Tertullian did not believe that the Sacrament was a Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of the Body and blood of Christ is evident from that Passage before cited non sciet Maritus c. 2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean who affirm'd that the Soul or Life of Animals consisted in their Blood Now St. Austin to refute this Error tells him that the Blood of Animals in Scripture is taken for their Life because it represents and contains Life And so says he God calls Blood Soul or Life for our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Which words surely if the comparison be just must signifie that that Sign of Christ's Body contain'd his true Body as the blood which is the Sign of the Soul or Life in Animals contains their Life or Soul But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction 'T is upon these Words of the Psalmist adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam Sanetum est adore ye his Footstool because it is holy Behold Brethren says he what he commands us to adore The Scripture saith elswhere Heaven is my Seat but the Earth is my Footstool He commands us then to adore the Earth because he said in another place that the Earth was God's Footstool and how shall we adore the Earth since the Scripture expresly says thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God And this Psalmist says adore ye his Footstool But explaining to me what his Footstool is he saith The Earth is my Footstool I am at a stand I fear to adore the Earth lest he shou'd damn me who made Heaven and Earth Again I fear if I do not adore the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalm says to me adore ye his Footstool I ask what his Footstool is and the Scripture tells me The Earth is my Footstool Being in doubt I turn me to Christ for 't is He whom I here seek and I find how without impiety the Earth may