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
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
the Canon of the Council of Nice by which it was provided That there shall be but one Metropolitan in each Province made a Pragmatic Sanction whereby he Constituted the Bishop of Berithum Metropolitan in the same Province and submited a great many of the former Metropolitan's Suffragans to him which when the Bishop of Tyre expos'd to the Council it was unanimously Decreed That the said Bishop of Tyre should be restor'd to all his Privileges and Jurisdiction notwithstanding the Emperor's Sanction which the Council declar'd to be of no Force or Virtue against the Canons of the Church So that it is evident this General Council knew nothing of any such Ecclesiastical Power vested in the Emperor tho' Lord of almost all the World much less in a Prince of a few Provinces 'T is true there is a Canon of a Council held long after in Constantinople called Quinisexta-synodus which provides that if the Emperor shou'd Erect or raise any City to the Dignity of Metropolis of a Province the Ecclesiastical Power ought to follow the Temporal The Sense of which Canon I conceive must be this that either the Bishop of the City thus dignifi'd was to have the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops in the Province the former Metropolitan being reduc'd to the condition of a private Bishop or that the same Province ought to be divided into Two and Governed by two Metropolitans with distinct Limits and Jurisdictions Whether of the two be the Sense of those Fathers 't is manifest this Canon does not exempt the one or the other from the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch much less from that of the Pope as Head of the Church And indeed to give it the most rigorous Interpretation it is impossible to stretch it any further than this That when a City is made Metropolis or Head of a Kingdom the Bishop of that City ought to have Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in the same Kingdom But this does not give the least colour to any Exemption from the Ecclesiastical Power to which this Kingdom was subject before Besides this same was not enacted by the Emperor or any Secular Prince but by a Council of Bishops in favour doubtless of the Episcopal Dignity because it was proper that the first Bishop or Metropolitan shou'd have his Seat in the Metropolis of the Kingdom and take his Denomination from thence And yet we see this never took place in the West otherwise the Bishops of Paris in France of London in England of Edenburg in Scotland and others might as justly pretend to a Primacy in these several Kingdoms which I am confident the Archbishop of Canterbury wou'd as much oppose as any of the Rest Now that the Church of England did wilfully separate from the Pope from their own immediate Heads the Bishops of England and from the Communion of all the Bishops in the World besides Stow Baker Dr. Heilen Dr. Burnet is plain matter of fact equally attested by all Writers as well Protestants as Catholics K. Henry VIII did separate from the Pope and assum'd to himself the Title of Head of the Church of England persecuting and putting to death all such who oppos'd his Supremacy After the Death of Queen Mary in whose Reign the Church of England was again reconcil'd to Rome Queen Elizabeth call'd a Parliament in order to settle Matters of Religion In this Parliament all the Bishops of England were depriv'd of their Episcopal Seas some cast into Prison others banish'd the Country all violently forc'd away from their Flocks and Pastoral Functions Nor will it at all relieve the Protestant Cause to say which yet is their only plea that the Bishops were depriv'd because they wou'd not take the Oath of Supremacy reviv'd by that Parliament For beside that it is an unheard of Thing that any Society of Laymen shou'd take upon them to determin Spiritual Matters for such was the Tenure of that Oath and to impose them upon Bishops to whom it chiefly belong'd to determin such matters This Proceeding was contrary to the Ordinary Methods of Parliament both before and ever after that Time For all things relating to Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Matters are first determin'd and agreed upon in the Convocation of the Bishops whose province and care it is to declare what is Spiritual and what not and then refer'd to both Houses of Parliament to pass into Law But here is a Spiritual Matter past into a Law which vests the Supreme Spiritual Power in the Queen and which all the Bishops in the Kingdom solemnly protest against as a thing as monstrously absurd as it was ever before unheard of And yet they must be all depriv'd because they wou'd not swear to the Truth of nor assert this Spiritual Power lodg'd in a Person whose very Sex rendred her incapable of Indeed they might as well deprive them for not believing and swearing to the truth of the Alcaron But this is too absurd to need a Confutation That the Church of England separated from the Communion of all other Bishops in the World is evident even to this day since they never were able to shew as much as one single Bishop in the whole World who professeth to be of their Communion Now if all this be not Schism I confess I know not what is To separate from the Pope and all in Communion with him To separate from their own Bishops and raise Altars against their Altars or rather to pull down all Altars as they have done to separate from all the Bishops in the World If this be not in the highest degree Schismatical farewel Reason and Religion And here I may justly make the same Intercession as St. Paul calls it against the Church of England with that of Elijah against the Schismatical Church of Israel whose perfect Image I am sorry they bear Lord they have killed thy Bishops and Priests and digged down thine Altars and we poor persecuted Sheep are left alone and they seek our lives to take them away 4. As to the Roman Catholics I need not urge any more Reasons than what has been already offer'd to prove that this Society of Christians is the True Catholic Church For since it is manifestly prov'd that neither the Nestorian nor the Eutychian nor the Greek nor yet the Church of England is the Catholic Church it remains that the Roman Catholics must necessarily be it However I shall lay down some Notes agreed on by all sides to pertain to the Catholic Church which upon Examination will be found to be peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church 1. The Roman Catholic Church is a Great Body of the Faithful spread over all the known parts of the World there being but few Kingdoms known where some Believers in communion with the Bishop of Rome are not to be found Hence She justly claims the Title of Catholic 2. If we except the Protestants there are but few material Points in which all other Sects differ from Her
Inconvenience I confess it is but if we shou'd conclude the Existence or non-Existence the Truth or Falshood of things from their conveniency or inconveniency the World wou'd be brought to a sine pass 'T is very inconvenient that God shou'd condemn all Mankind to death to all the other miseries and infirmities to which human Nature is now obnoxious for the eating of one single Fruit yet it is never the less True 'T is very inconvenient that a Man shou'd be condemn'd to eternal Flames for one only Sin wherein he dies unrepented yet no Man ever question'd this Truth We must not then conclude from the inconvenience that attends a Thing that is therefore false but we ought to weigh the Reasons and Motives whereby we are induc'd to believe it is so Now the Roman Catholics believe that those among the Greeks and Eastern Churches which are not in communion with the Church of Rome together with the Protestants are no true Members of the Catholic Church because they have the most Authentic Records and the most invincible Proof that any matter of Fact is capable of that the said Greeks Eastern Churches and Protestants fell into Heresie and Schism in which they do as yet actually persist What allowance God-almighty may make for the invincible Ignorance and want of Capacity in a great many of these People and how far he will be merciful and pardon the other defects of those who endeavour to live up to what they know and want necessary means to come to the knowledg of the Truth He alone knows None I am sure is more willing to judge favourably of their Salvation than Roman Catholics But to flatter them with hopes of Salvation whilst they persist in their Errors and have necessary means to come to the knowledg of the Truth and to tell them they may be saved with such Errors when we are convinc'd in our Consciences they cannot is surely no Christian Charity but the greatest of Heathenish Cruelty 5. In consequence of the Truth of this Proposition and of the importance of it to the Salvation of Souls they ought to produce express mention of the Roman Catholic Church in the ancient Creeds of the Christian Churches But this says the Dr. they are not able to do on the contrary Aeneas Sylvius who was afterwards Pope Pius the second says that before the Council of Nice little Respect was had to the Roman Church Answ Just so the Arians used to object to the Catholics that if the word Consubstantial were of that importance as it was pretended they ought to produce express mention of it in the ancient Creed of the then present Church but as the Catholics then answer'd that it was enough the thing meant by that Word was in the Creed tho' not the Word it self so say we to the Protestants that in these Words of the Creed I believe the holy Catholic Church is implied what we mean by the Words Roman Catholic Church tho' the Word Roman be not there What Aeneas Sylvius might in passion or upon some private quarrel with the Pope have Written against the Roman Church consider'd with respect only to the Diocess of Rome I am not much concern'd For I am sure he never said nor writ that the Roman Church as it includes all the Christian Churches in communion with the See of Rome in which sense the Dr. cou'd not be ignorant we always take it was not the true Catholic Church Besides if it be true that Aeneas Sylvius said what the Dr. makes him here speak let the Holy and Learn'd Martyr St. Irenaeus who liv'd very neer two hundred years before the Council of Nice teach him the contrary Every Church says he that is the Faithful on every side must have recourse to this Church the Roman by Reason of her more powerful Principallity Loco sup cit CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation WHat we hold to be of Faith concerning this Point is this That the whole Substance of the Bread and Wine is after Consecration chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ without any Alteration in the Accidents or outward Forms This is to all our modern Sectaries a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence Against this they have whetted their Pens and Tongues and pointed all the Shafts of their Art and Eloquence in order to pull down an Edifice whose Builder and Maker is God himself But however they agree to destroy this mysterious Fabrick yet what to substitute in its Room or how to expound those Texts of Scripture on which it is founded none can with greater Heat and Passion even to the most injurious and provoking Language be divided nor fall into more manifest Absurdities and Contradictions than these Pretenders to Reformation And indeed if the Disagreement of Witnesses be an Argument of their Falshood as the Evangelists assure us it is we have all the Reason in the World to conclude that these are false Witnesses For I am sure none ever disagreed more not only in the Circumstances but even in the very Nature and Substance of their Evidence Martin Luther and his Adherents expound these Words This is my Body litterally and therefore believe the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament but being however resolv'd to Incommode the Pope Epist ad Calvin as Luther says they add that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is likewise there And to extricate themselves from a difficulty which attends the Real Presence they affirm moreover that the Body of Christ is every where And thus they have brought forth two New Points of Faith never before heard of namely Consubstantiation and Vbiquitie And this the Church of England Writers call an absurd and monstrous Doctrine Calvin and his Sectators in Contradiction to this expound the same Words Figuratively and therefore believe a Real Absence or which is all one that the Eucharist is but a Type or Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ Zuinglius tells us himself was the first that found out this Exposition by the help of a certain Angel which appear'd to him but whether he was black or white he says he cannot tell So that for ought he knew it may be the Doctrine of a Devil I am sure Luther at least did think it so for he calls Calvin a Devil Epist ad Calvin and worse than a Devil for offering to obtrude this Doctrine upon the World and for wresting the plain Words of our Saviour to such a Sense The Church of England neither expounds those Words litterally nor yet figuratively for She neither believes Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation neither Real Presence nor yet Real Absence And to deal ingenuously I do not well know what she believes in this particular And what is worse to the best of my Understanding nor she herself For in the Catechism which is put into the Children and common people's Hands where surely the Articles of Faith must if any where be clearly and plainly expounded she teaches
the Sacred Bread about them that they may eat of it in Case of any Hazard or Danger But of this enough Touching the Public and solemn Communion of the Church I own we have no instances from Fathers or Ecclesiastical Writers for the first four Centuries to prove that the Communion was publickly given in one kind to any except Infants and little Children nor can our Adversaries instance in any who says it was not so given And so far we are upon the Level But methinks the Scales being thus even the Practice and Custom of the Church expresly Recorded and Deliver'd by the Writers and Liturgies of the Fifth Sixth and all other succeeding Ages in Favour of the public Communion in one as well as in both kinds ought to weigh down the Ballance and determin any reasonable Man to conclude that this same Practice was deriv'd from the foregoing Ages We find indeed in the latter End of the fifth Age a Decree of Pope Gelasius which forbids certain People to receive the Communion in one kind but if we attend to the Motives and Circumstances of this Decree and to the Persons there meant we shall find it is so far from destroying our Hypothesis that it plainly confirms it What gave Occasion to it was this In the Time of St. Leo Pope Gelasius his Predecessor there were a great many Manichees in Rome who the better to spread their wicked Errors feign'd themselves Catholics and frequented the Churches and Sacraments like others but it being part of their Belief that Wine was created by the Devil and that Jesus Christ did not spill his Blood for us but that his Passion was Fantastick not Real they abhorr'd Wine above all things and therefore abstain'd from the Sacred Cup in the Communion St. Leo complains of the Disorders which they caus'd in the Church He declaims against their wicked and hellish Devices He tells us they were so bold as to presume to mix themselves with the Faithful and receive the Lord's Body but abstain'd from the Sacred Cup and gives that as a Mark to discern them by But because the Faithful were at Liberty to take One or both Kinds and that many devont Christians receiv'd the Body without the Sacred Cup it was hard to find out by that Mark who these Manichees were However St. Leo did not think fit to alter the Discipline of the Church nor take away their Liberty from the Faithful but was content to insinuate that whosoever shou'd refuse to take the Sacred Cup as abhorring Wine or in Detestation to the Blood of Christ shou'd be reputed of that Sect. But this Remedy proving ineffectual Pope Gelasius was forc'd to Decree that whosoever abstain'd from the Sacred Cup upon any such superstitious Pretence shou'd be altogether depriv'd of the Communion It may not be amiss to subjoin his very Words Gr. Dist 2 can comper de consecrat We have found out that some People do take only the Body and abstain from the Sacred Blood who seeing they are engag'd in I know not what Superstition must either take both parts or be depriâ—'d of both because the Division of one and the same Mystery cannot be done without great Sacriledge Now to give you my Thoughts upon this Decree I think it is plain First that there was no need of making such a Decree if all the Catholics in those days had receiv'd the Communion in both kinds For this being made on purpose to discover the Manichees who never drank Wine there was nothing so easie as to find out who they were upon their refusal of the Sacred Cup consequently there needed no Decree to discover them But since it is confess'd that these Heretics did mix themselves with the Catholics and receiv'd the Communion only in one kind and that notwithstanding all St. Leo's Care and Diligence to find them out they were still undiscover'd I think it is a Demonstration that some Catholics as well as the Manichecs did receive the Communion in One Kind only And this being all that I undertook to evince I might now take leave of this Decree But I shall observe Secondly that the prohibition here made affects only those who were engag'd in a certain Superstition who seeing they are engag'd in I know not what Superstition must either take both parts or be depriv'd of both For the Reason why they are to be depriv'd of both parts of the Sacrament unless they take both is because they were engag'd in a certain superstition which tended to destroy the Sacrifice of our Redmption by the Belief they had that Christ's Blood was only an Illusion and to divide that Mystery which Gelasius says cannot be done without great Sacriledge by the like wicked opinion that Wine being created by the Devil Christ wou'd never have instituted the Memorial of his passion in that Liquor Whence 't is evident that the Catholics who were in no manner engag'd in these superstitious Errors are nothing concern'd in this Decree nor barr'd of the liberty they always had of receiving the Sacrament in one or both kinds as suited best with their Devotion And this is so true that we find the practice of it recommended by a Canon of a very Famous if not General Council held in Constantinople in the sixth Century Can. 52. known to the Ancients by the Name of Concilium Trullanum This Council confirms the Ancient Custom of the Greek Church which was to celebrate Mass in Lent only on Saturdays and Sundays it being by the Ancients Judg'd improper to consecrate on any of those Days on which they fasted because they wou'd not as they commonly speak mix the solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sadness of the Fast. But on these two days in which they did not fast they us'd to consecrate and reserve as much of the sacred Oblation as wou'd suffice for the Clergy and Laity to take every day till the Saturday following and this they call'd the Mass of the Presanctified than which nothing is more frequently mention'd in the Greek Church Now to know what was offer'd and distributed to the People in this Mass All the Ancient Greek Liturgies tell us that there was nothing reserv'd but the sacred Bread that this Bread was carried in Procession from the Sacrifice into the Church Eucho Goar Bib. P. P. Paris T. 2. expos'd to be ador'd by the People and after some Ceremony distributed to all the Faithful So that here is a Public and Solemn Communion given in One Kind for five Days every Week Yearly while Lent holds But this Practice was not peculiar to the Greek for we find it as early and as solemnly us'd in the Latin Church The Roman Ordinal Bib. P. P Var. T. de Div. Off. whose Antiquity I suppose no body will question being that which St. Gregory the Great made use of in the sixth Century gives us the same Account of Good Friday-Service with that which is express'd in the Rubrics of our
challenge the Attention of the most obstinate especially when deliver'd by a Man in a High Station This with some other Considerations moved me to examine the Sermons of Doctor Tillotson late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to see if the intrinsick Value of his Coin be answerable to the Lustre and outward Appearance of it This ingenâ—ous Man has taken a great deal of Pains to convince the World of his Skill in Controversie and has delivered his Thoughts in such fine smooth Language that in my Opinion very few of his Brethren can equal him in the Elegancy of his Stile We have eight Volumns in 8vo of his Sermons in which he seems to have exhausted the Treasure of his Eloquence in combating the most essential Points controverted betwixt Catholics and Protestants viz. The Infallibility of the Church the Pope's Supremacy Transubstantiation Communion in one kind Prayers in an unknown Tongue as he is pleased to call it Invocation of Saints Worship of Images his own words Purgatory and Indulgences Tho' this be not the Order I find he observes in handling these Points but treats of 'em a little confusedly as suited best with his Texts yet for method Sake I chose to lay 'em down in this order being as I suppose the more natural to treat of the most material Points before I come to those that seem to be of less Importance In the handling then of this important Piece of Controversie I shall with God's Assistance observe this Method First I will lay down what the Roman Catholics believe as of Faith concerning these Points Secondly I will prove their Tenets with Reason Scripture and Authority of Fathers tho' of this there should seem little need considering that it has been so often already done were it not that my Business is with the simple and ignorant whom I would willingly instruct in the Grounds of their own Faith as well as to caution them against the Subtilities of their Adversaries Thirdly I will answer all the material Objections which Dr. Tillotson brings against the said Tenets and do faithfully promise that where I do not quote his own words for that I cannot always do by reason they are in many places very long I shall not extenuate nor diminish to the best of my Knowledge the Force of his Arguments nor wrest his Words to any other Sense than what they naturally bear in any other Man's Mouth or Writings But before I begin it will not be amiss to lay down the Foundation on which this Ingenuous Man builds his Controversie a Foundation indeed whose Superstructure had it been so true and solid as it is artificially contrived would in a great measure justifie the Church of England and all other Protestant's Separation from their ancient Brethren and silence the R. Catholics from fastning the Imputation of Schism and Heresie upon them But how far this is from what it seems to be let the Reader judge when the Mask is taken off Dr. Tillotson's Fundamental Principle then is this Whatever is plain and evident to our Senses and Reason is to be believed tho' all the Churches and Men in the World should perswade us to the contrary Thus far I own he is in the right but what he infers from thence namely that this is the Protestants Case in regard of the Papists as he is pleased to call the R. Catholicks requires something more than Herculean Labours to prove He owns indeed and that for Reasons well known to the World that in things doubtful and obscure every private Man ought to hear the Church and receive her Interpretation but in things that are plain and evident nay as evident as that twice two make four I wou'd stand alone says he against all the World His own Words are thus as I find them in the fifth Volume of his Sermons pag. 16. In all matters of Faith and Practise which are plain and evident either from Natural Reason or from Divine Revelation this Resolution seems to be very reasonable But in things doubtful a modest Man and every Man hath Reason to be so would be apt to be staggered by the Judgement of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgement of the Generality of Men. But in things plainly contrary to the evidence of Sense or Reason or the Word of God a Man would complement no Man or Number of Men nor would he pin his Faith upon any Church in the World much less upon any single Man no not the Pope no tho' there were never so many probable Arguments brought for the Proof of his Infallibility In this Case a Man wou'd be singular and stand alone against the whole World against the Wrath and Rage of a King and all the Terrours of his fiery Furnace as in other matters a Man wou'd not believe all the Learned Men in the World against the clear Evidence of Sense and Reason If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages Archimedes and Euclid and Apollonius and Diophantus c. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and should there declare in the most solemn manner and give it under their Hands and Seals that twice two did not make four but five this would not move me in the least to be of their mind nay I who am no Mathematician wou'd maintain the contrary and wou'd persist in it without being in the least startled by the positive Opinion of these Learned Men and wou'd most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or that they were byassed by some Interest or other and swayed against the clear Evidence of Truth and the full Conviction of their own Reason to make such a Determination as this They might indeed over-rule the point by their Authority but in my inward Judgement I should still be where I was before Just so in Matters of Religion if any Church tho' with never so glorious a pretence to Infallibility should declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition of it and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World that could be so servilely blind as seeming to conspire in the Belief of so monstrous an Absurdity And in like manner if any Church should declare that Images are to be worshipped or that the Worship of God is to be performed in an unknown Tongue and that the Holy Scriptures which contain the Word and Will of God and teaches Men what they are to believe and do in order to their eternal Salvation are to be lock'd up and kept concealed from the People in a Language which they do not understand lest if they were permitted the free use of them in their Mother Tongue
they should know more of the Mind and Will of God than is convenient for the common people to know whose Devotion and Obedience to the Church does chiefly depend upon their Ignorance Or should declare that the Sacrifice of Christ was not offer'd once for all but is and ought to be repeated ten millions of times every day and that the people ought to receive the Communion in one kind only and the Cup by no means to be trusted with them for fear the prophane Beards of the Laity should drink of it and that the saving Efficacy of the Sacraments doth depend upon the Intention of the Priest without which the Receiver can have no Benefit by them These are all of them so plainly contrary to Scripture and most of them in reason so absurd that the Authority of no Church whatsoever can oblige a Man to the Belief of them Thus far the Dr. Here you see Christian Reader a Great Orator and Divine teaching from the Pulpit and Press that Sense Reason and Scripture are all on the Protestant's side in the aforesaid controverted Points as clear and evident as that twice two make four Here you see him arraign all the Patriacks Primats Arch-Bishops Bishops Doctors Vniversities and even all Kings Princes Peers Magistrates together with the common people of all Countries and Provinces of the West as also the Greek Church and all the Countries and Provinces in Communion with it all these Learned and Pious Christians I say that flourisht in and Governed this part of the World when Martin Luther appeared upon the Theatre this worthy Man arraigns for Fools and Madmen I say for Fools and Madmen for all these Patriarchs Primats Kings Princes c. professed in those days to be guided by their Senses by natural Reason and by the Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures and yet all of them believed the very same concerning the said Points the R. Catholics do now Surely then they must have been all Fools and Madmen if Sense Reason and Scripture be as clear and evident on the Protestant's side as that twice two make four For who ever in his wits denied that twice two do make four Or in his right Senses ever affirmed that white was black or black white Or that any of our Senses when they are perfect do not give irrefragable Testimony of their proper Objects Or that plain and evident Texts of Scripture were not to be believed These monstrous Absurdities the Dr. fastens upon all the Eminent and learned Men of the Eastern and Western Churches which flourisht not only when Martin Luther rose up but also by his own Acknowledgement for at least several Ages before him which is in effect to Brand them all with the Ignominious Character of Fools and Madmen If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages saith the Dr. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and there declare in the most solemn manner that twice two did not make four but five I should most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or byassed by some Interest or other But good God! What should byass any Man in his Wits much less any Society of learned Men to declare against a thing so clear and evident Nothing surely less than Phrensy or Madness But let us hear the Application Just so in matters of Religion continues the Dr. if any Church shou'd declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World c. The Dr. knew very well and so do all the learned Protestants in the World that the Latin and Greek Churches and all in Communion with them have not only declared for but have always believed at least for several Ages Transubstantiation as aforesaid If it be then so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind as the Dr. would suggest all those Men whereof a great number had at least the Reputation of being both Learned and Virtuous must necessarily have been all of them out of their wits or byassed by some prejudice which most certainly cou'd be nothing else but the extremity of Madness and Folly their eternal Damnation being necessarily consequent upon such a Belief He pursues the same comparison instancing in the rest of the Controverted Points aforesaid But what Man in his right Senses would believe that any one Nation much less all Europe should conspire to renounce all those means which God has given them to acquire the Knowledge of things viz. Sense Reason and the Word of God without which it is impossible to know any thing especially in a matter which so highly concerns them Or who wou'd not rather believe that Dr. Tillotson was mightily mistaken than that the best part of Mankind should make Shipwrack of that which alone distinguishes them from Beasts nay who would not rather believe that either he himself had been out of his Wits Or that he designed to impose upon Mankind so strange a paradox as that hundreds of millions of Learned and Ingenious Men should conspire to declare against that which is both their everlasting Interest and constitutes them Men since neither he nor any Man else cou'd ever instance in one single Man in his wits that ever was guilty of such a Folly This I must confess is one of the most surprizing nay the most intollerable Charges that ever was laid to Mankind and yet how monstrous and absurd soever it appears 't is no less than what was absolutely necessary to support the Cause the Dr. had undertaken He was it seems well read in that famous Dispute betwixt Dr. Hammond and Mr. Serjeant concerning Schism The former wrote a Book in Vindication of the Church of England from the Imputation of Schism which the R. Catholics charge her with The latter answers his Book in an other entituled Schism disarmed Dr. Hammond writes a Reply to this and Mr. Serjeant adds a Rejoinder to that which he calls Schism dispatcht Now to know what relates to our purpose in this Dispute you must understand that Dr. Hammond in the first Chapter of his Defence of the Church of England in his Description of Schism paints it in its own horrid and dreadful Shape as the Scripture and Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church had done before him viz. That it is Carnality Self-condemning contrary to Charity bereaving one of the benefit both of Prayers and Sacraments as bad as and the Foundation of all Heresies that there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism not Sacriledge Idolatry Parricide that it is obnoxious to peculiar Marks of God's Indignation Antichristianism worshipping or serving the Devil not expiable by Martyrdom
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
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
And most of these are condemned by the Protestants as are most if not all the Points wherein the Protestants differ from Her condemned by all other Sects An Evident Argument that she alone hath the Truth since if these things which they ground their Separation upon had been Evident as they pretend they wou'd all agree in them 3. All other Sects separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome begining each Sect in One or Two in opposition to the whole World And we are able to point at the Age and Year of their Separation and at the Name and Character of each Sect's Author and Promotor An Argument that She is the Mother Church or Root of the Tree and those Sects some Branches fallen or cut off 4. The Roman Catholic Church was never Condemn'd by any General Council nor yet by any Council of Bishops whether National or Provincial for the Points of Faith which the Protestants contest if we except the Bishops made in England by Secular Power when the true Bishops were all discarded But the Opinions held by the Protestants and all other Sects in Opposition to the Church of Rome were Condemn'd by several General Councils as every Learned Man can tell 5. It cou'd never be made out in what Age or Year or in whose Reign or by Whom any of the Points in Dispute were introduc'd into the Catholic Belief An Evident Argument that they were believ'd from the Begining it being impossible to conceive how all the Christian World cou'd be induc'd to believe those things contrary to what they held before and yet that no Man should perceive it Nay it is Absurd and Ridiculous to imagine that the greatest part of Mankind shou'd not be allarm'd at the Novelty of a Doctrine which if we believe the Protestants shocks so much both Sence and Reason whereas the New Doctrine of Arius Nestorius Luther Calvin and the Rest of his Tribe so violently shook the whole Earth that to this very day our own woful Experience is but too sensible a Testimony of its direful Effects Lastly the R. Catholic Church hath the universal Consent of all the Christian World for her Tenets in matters of Faith if we except that of the different Sects which sprung up at different Times which as it is before prov'd amounts to no more than the Dissent or Contradiction of one single Man concerning One Point in one Age and of another concerning an other Point or more in a different Age at least at different Times and that in Opposition to all the Rest of Mankind A Prerogative which no other Society of Christians can pretend to it being evident and even confest by themselves that the Opinions which they hold in Opposition to the R. Catholics were taken up by certain Men in different Ages and Times by Luther in the 16th Century by Wiclief in the 13th by De Waldo in the 12th c. I will then conclude That since the R. Catholic Church is as universal in its Communion as almost the Bounds of the Earth as Ancient in its Doctrine as the Apostles of Christ since it was it alone that adher'd to the Ancient Faith and rejected the Novelty of all Heresies and can only glory in having the Universal Consent of the Christian World as before explain'd for the Truth of its Doctrine This Society and no other is the True Catholic Apostolic Church I shall now proceed to answer Dr. Tillotsou's Objections to this Point The first is taken out of Vol. 2. Serm. pag. 50 61 62. which in Substance is this Tho' the R. Catholics be very Stiff and Peremptory in asserting their Infallibility yet they are not agreed among themselves where it is seated whether in the Pope alone or in a Council alone or in both together or in the Diffusive Body of Christians They are sure they have it says he tho' they do not know where it is Then he adds There is not the least 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 it being so short and expedite a way of ending Controversies and this very Consideration concludes the Dr. is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Arguments to satisfie him that in those days no such thing was believ'd in the World Answer I may say of these Three Propositions the first is neither True in it self nor in most of its Circumstances The second is perfectly of the same Nature if you except the Word Rome The third is grounded upon a Negative and proves nothing I begin with the first They are not agreed saith he among themselves where it is seated c. For my own part I never yet read or heard of any Catholic Divine that ever said That the Catholic Church taken for the Diffusive Body of Christians was not Infallible in declaring Matters of Faith Therefore I think All agree that the Infallibility is seated in the Diffusive Body of Christians And I challenge any Protestant in the World to name me One who says the contrary The Pope is One and the Chief Member of that Diffusive Body The Pope and Council together make a Great many Members and if you add to these All the Rest of the Faithful they make up the intire Diffusive Body of Christian If the Pope be Infallible surely the Concurrence of a Council will rather confirm than diminish his Infallibility If the Pope and Council together be Infallible the Consent of the Diffusive Body of Christians must surely strengthen and confirm it But if neither the Pope nor the Council alone be Infallible the Diffusive Body of Christians must necessarily be if any such Thing as Infallibility may be ascrib'd to any of the Three seeing both Pope and Council are included in it We are sure then the Infallibility consists at least in the Diffusive Body of Christians But to illustrate this a little more let us propose this familiar Example If I shou'd ask where my Lord Major of Londâ—n is at this Time And that some shou'd tell me He is in his own House Others not in his own House but some where in London and others neither in his own House nor in London but in England I wou'd willingly know whether these three sorts of People do not all agree that my Lord Mayor is in England Certainly they do because the assent of the two former is necessarily implied in the Latter In like manner tho' some say the Pope is Infallible Others not the Pope alone but together with a General Council and others neither Pope nor Council alone without the Concurrence of the Diffusive Body of Christians yet all do 〈◊〉 in this that the Diffusive Body of Christians is Infallible The Dr. then is very much out when he says they do not know where it is tho' they are sure they have it Touching the second Proposition There is not the least
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
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
prove to him that the Symbols taken in that Sense were not chang'd But this he is so far from doing that the Reason he offers to evince that he was so caught proves no more than that the Accidents or Objects of Sense still remain namely that which may be seen and handled which the Hetetic Eranistes never denied 'T is then evident that he understood the Word Symbol in a different Sense from that of Eranistes Consequently his meaning must have been that the Accidents which he calls Symbols did not pass out of their Nature c. And all his Advantage consisted in the Equivocation of the Word Symbol which his Adversary took in a vulgar Sense and by that gave him an Opportunity to perplex him and tell him he was caught in his own Net And God knows he must be hard put to it who would fain squeez Proof for his Faith from such intricate Disputes I have nothing to add in answer to Gelasius his Passage to what is here said For 't is plain from the Scope and Design of this Father who likewise disputed with an Entychian Heretic that he meant by substance or nature of Bread the Qualities of it which we confess remain still in the Sacrament nothing being more usual in common Discourse than to give the name of Nature to the Quality as we commonly say a Man of ill nature that is of ill Qualities One Word more with the Doctor and I take leave of this Subject He tells us Discourse against Transubstantiation pag. 328 329. That Transubstantiation was first introduc'd into the Catholic Religion about the latter End of the Eight Century in the Second Council of Nice And pag. 333. that it was almost 300 Years before this Mishapen Monster as he Religiously terms it cou'd be Lick'd into that Form in which it is now settl'd and establish'd in the Church of Rome What I shall say to the matter of Fact here mention'd leaving the Doctor to his own Master to account for his civil Language is that I cou'd wish he were alive that he might now at least consult his own Protestant Authors to correct his Error since he was then in two much haste to do it Doctor Humfrey a Famous Divine of his own Country and perswasion wou'd better inform him that Austin the great Monk as he calls him Jesuitiâ—mi part â— sent by Gregory the Great Pope taught the English a Burthen of Ceremonies Purgatory Mass Prayer for the Dead Transubstantiation Reliques c. Now all the World knows that Austin the Monk taught the English about the latter end of the sixth Century and the Begining of the seventh almost two hundred Years before the Second Council of Nice Cent. 6. de Oper. Sti. Greg. The Centuriators of Magdeburg the Doctor 's own good Friends wou'd tell Him that the same Gregory the Great wrought a Miracle in the presence of an uncredulous Woman to confirm her in the Belief of the substantial Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ as the Centurists Phrase it And surely it was no less these Gentlemens Interest than his cou'd they but dâ—vest themselves of all honesty and sincerity to make it of a Fresher Date than even the Council of Nice But the Doctor was so intent upon baffling Monsieur Arnauld's Demonstration of the Impossibility of obtruding this Doctrine upon the Faithful without Great and Violent Commotions both in Church and State which he saw he cou'd not well effect unless he had fix'd a certain Epocha whence this Doctrine shou'd take its rise that rather than fail he wou'd hit at a venture upon the Second Council of Nice and there fix his Foot Being perswaded as he says that this was the fittest Time for such a Change And is not this a miserable Shift to which this Ingenious Man is reduc'd when he is forc'd to make good his undertaking to have recourse to such known and manifest I am asham'd to say it falshoods Which surely do better become Impostors than Grave Divines whose very Names and Character shou'd prompt them to candor and sincerity it being evident that disingenuity and false dealing whatever they may do for a time serve to no other end at last than to discredit the Cause and confound its Patrons CHAP. V. Of the Communion in one kind TO give the Communion in one or in both kinds is no matter of Faith but respects the Discipline of the Church which according to the different Circumstances and Exigencies of Affairs for the increase of Piety and Devotion and in Condescension to the Infirmity of her Children is often necessitated to alter some things in her Discipline it being Evident that what in one Age was good and profitable an other Age will in no wise bear And since it is agreed upon that the care of feeding the Flock was committed to the Church that she alone is Commission'd to dispence the Divine Mysteries and hath a peculiar promise of the Assistance of the Holy Spirit to guide her into all Truth none can reasonably doubt but She is the most Competent Judge what in her Discipline to change what to retain Now the main stress lyes upon this whether or no it be in the Power of the Church to alter her Discipline in a matter of this Importance so as to restrain the Faithful to the receiving of the Sacrament in one kind only It being acknowledg'd by our selves that in the Primitive Times this Sacrament was indifferently administred sometimes in Both sometimes in one kind Tho 't is hard to conceive why Men shou'd rather conclude that it is not in the Power of the Church to restrain the Faithful to one kind because the Communion was somtimes given in Both than the contrary that it is in the Power of the Church so to do because it was likewise sometimes given in one kind To justifie then the conduct of the Church in this particular I shall only examin whether the Receiving of the Eucharist in both kinds be Essential to a True and Real Participation of the Sacrament For if both kinds be Essential then 't is certain the Church cannot take away any Essential part of the Sacrament without destroying the whole and consequently in giving but part wou'd give nothing at all Therefore cou'd not restrain the Faithful to one kind it being evident that the Church is only impower'd to dispense and not to destroy the Mysterys of God But if I can make out that the Participation of the Euchurist in Both Kinds is not Essential to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament then it will evidently follow that the Church may lawfully command the forbearance of one kind For if you shou'd ask any of our Learned Protestants why they do not give the Communion at night or after Supper or sitting down or lying on Couches as 't is confess'd Christ gave it They will tell you because 't is not Essential to the Sacrament to give it so Or why they do not
plunge the Children into the Water when they baptize them as the Apostles and primitive Church have done They answer as before that it is not Essential to the spiritual Lotion of the Soul that the Body shou'd be wash'd by Plunging rather than any other way but that whether it be perform'd by Immersion or Aspersion or in any other manner 't is the same thing to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament So that it is plain and even confess'd by our Adversaries that the Church has Power to alter and change all the Circumstances which are not of the Essence and Nature of the Sacraments All the Difficulty then consists in this whether it be Essential to the Communion to receive it in both kinds Or whether One kind be not sufficient And if it be made out that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive both but that it is enough to receive it in One kind then the Protestants must confess that the Church may lawfully command the Forbearance of the other Now that the receiving of the Eucharist in Both Kinds is not Essential to the True and Real Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but that One Kind alone is sufficient I shall endeavour to shew 1. From several Texts of Scripture which affords us sufficient Grounds to conclude that for the due Participation of the Sacrament it is not necessary to receive it in Both kinds 2. From the General Practice of the Church in all Ages even in those days in which the Protestants do own the pure Word of God as they speak was preach'd and the Sacraments duely administred 3. From the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with themselves I begin with the first And that our Adversaries may not think I design to impose upon them I will quote those places of Scripture that seem to make against as well as for me Christ says John c. 6. ver 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may eat thereof and not die Ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh Ver. 53. Verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no Life in you Ver. 54. Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life Ver. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in Me and I in Him Ver. 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Here are six Passages whereof three seem to be expresly for the Communion in one kind and the other three seem to be against it What shall we say to this Must we believe all Or shall we believe but three of them For they seem to contradict one another One says Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you An other If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever If it be True that the Man who eateth of this Bread shall live for ever how can it be at the same time true that he cannot live except he eat the Bread and drink the Cup Must we then hold to three of these Passages and reject the rest As to the Protestants I do not see how it shou'd stand with their Principles to do otherwise For they are so far from believing that the Man who eats of this Bread shall live for ever that they constantly assert that except he drinks also of the Cup he is guilty of a Horrid Sacriledge Vol. 2. pag. 70. 't is what Dr. Tillotson expresly affirms This is no Addition to Christianity says he speaking of the Communion in One Kind but a sacrilegious taking away of an Essential Part of the Sacrament they must then necessarily deny three of these Passages if they be True to their own Principles But for R. Catholics they are not in the least perplext at this seeming Contradiction they believe them all to be both true in themselves and agreeable to their Principles For they belive that whosoever eateth of this Bread the same eateth and drinketh the Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man in the Sense he meant they shou'd eat and drink his Flesh and Blood which is not to be understood as Protestants as well as Catholics must confess tho' upon different Grounds in the strict and proper meaning of the Words as if eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood were to be perform'd by two different Acts whereof one is conversant about a sollid and the other about a liquid Thing as the Words usually and properly import but that to eat and drink his Flesh and Blood signifies no more than to participate of or to take by the Mouth his Flesh and Blood whether with one or different Acts it matters not R. Catholics then find no Difficulty in reconciling these places they believe the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the Flesh of a Living Man which cannot be so without Blood and therefore when they take it they are sure they eat and drink his Body and Blood that is they are Partakers of his Body and Blood And hence it is they do most certainly conclude that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive it in both Kinds because they receive in one all that Christ requires of the Faithful to receive that is his Body and Blood I say Protestants as well as Catholics must confess that in this Passage Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood the Words eat and drink are not to be taken in the strict and usual Sense they commonly bear For seeing they believe that in the Eucharist there is neither Flesh nor Blood nothing but Bread and Wine and that in eating and drinking these Elements to the Letter they do eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith as it is said in the 39 Articles it cannot be said that they eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the literal and usual Sense of the Words it being impossible to eat and drink in the Elements in a literal Sense that which in a literal Sense they do not really contain as Protestants hold They must then necessarily conclude that to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ is not to be understood in a literal but in a figurative Sense and then the meaning of these Words must be To 〈◊〉 and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that is to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and if so then 't is certain that in eating only the Body of Christ which being a living Human Body must needs contain his Blood we eat and drink his Flesh and Blood that is we are made Partakers of his Flesh
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
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
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
whether in one or both kinds is quite an other thing from the Institution of it We say indeed that when Christ instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood He consecrated not in One but in both Kinds because He design'd to leave these Symbols to his Church as a perpetual and everlasting Memorial of His Body broken and Blood shed upon the Cross which is express'd by the Separation of one Symbol from t'other and this I hope we are careful to do as often as we offer that Sacrifice But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice it self in one or both kinds is sure no part of the Institution but belongs to the Modus or manner of administring it Christ instituted the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and Matrimony yet we do not find that ever he gave or administred any of these Sacraments to any Body which surely he wou'd not have omitted were it any part of their Institution 'T is then plain that to give the Communion in One or both kinds is neither for nor against our Saviour's Institution but respects meerly Administration and Use But let us suppose with the Doctor that to administer the Communion in One kind is contrary I do not say to Christ's Institution for that it cannot be but to the manner in which our Saviour gave it yet still I do not see how this can help the matter For the Question is not whether Christ gave it in both kinds but whether we ought necessarily to give it in both kinds because he did so This the Doctor affirms and we deny But how does He prove it Why because Christ gave it in both kinds This is begging the Qustion Well because Christ gave it in both kinds we ought to do so too This is to say if it be to purpose that we are bound to do all those things that Christ did at the institution and administration of the Communion If so then we must fall to wash the Disciples Feet to eat Suppers before the Sacrament to administer the Communion at Night and which is more strange we must command all those to whom we give the Communion to do the same thing we do that is to consecrate and administer the Sacrament and consequently make them all Priests all these things I say we are bound to do For Christ did all and every particular here mention'd to all those to whom he gave the Communion in both kinds But since neither He nor any Man in his Wits will say that we are bound to do all these Things because the Discipline and Practice of the Church and the Living Members of it have determin'd that all those particulars are now neither Necessary nor Expedient I hope he will give us leave to conclude that we are not bound to give the Communion in both kinds neither Touching the second Proposition The Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ The Doctor is not the only Man who affirms this for I find it in the Works of one or two more of his Brethren upon this Subject But Good God! What may not Men undertake who have the Confidence to give out such Calumnies for Truth 'T is a vulgar Observation but a True one that when Mountebanks pretend most to infallible Cures they are then furthest from them just so 't is with these Gentlemen for there are Mountebanks in Religion as well as in Physick when they pretend most to Evidence and Demonstration in matters of Religion then they have the least Colour or reasonable Pretence to it But the best way to refute this Calumny is to cite the very Words of the Council and then let the Reader judge what Faith is to be given to Men who vend such Impostures for Truth In the * In nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Amen Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque Specie Panis Vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante Sacrorum Canorum Authoritas laudabilis aprobata Ecclesiae consuetudo servavit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post Caenam neque a fâ—lelibus recipi non jejunis nisi in casu Infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel ab Ecclesia concesso vel admisso Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost Amen Tho' Christ hath instituted this venerable Sacrament after Supper and hath administred it to his Disciples under both Kinds of Bread and Wine tamen hoc non obstante yet this notwithstanding the Authority of the sacred Canons the Laudable and Approv'd Custom of the Church hath held and doth hold that this Sacrament ought not to be made after Supper nor receiv'd by the Faithful not fasting except in case of Infirmity or some other Necessity approv'd and allow'd by Law or by the Church This is all in this Decree that has any Relation to the Dr's Non obstante And now I appeal to the most partial of our Adversaries whether he had the least Colour or Pretence to what he here suggests There is indeed a Non obstante to the making of this Sacrament after Supper and giving it to those who were not fasting and no more And if this be a sin sure he is not qualified to throw the first Stone at us for it For he and his Brethren are confessedly involv'd in the same Crime seeing they do not make the Sacrament after Supper nor give it to the best of their knowledge to any but such as are fasting As to the third Proposition 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 Hence the Doctor infers that the Sacred Bread which represents his Body under these circumstances cannot be said to contain or exhibit his Blood But methinks he shou'd have prov'd his Postulatum before he wou'd perswade us of the Truth of this Inference For I suppose he was too well acquainted with us to think we shou'd believe it upon his Word That our blessed Lord shed a great deal of His Precious Blood as much as was sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind we readily grant but that His Body was exhausted and drain'd of His Blood so as to have none at all left in it we can by no means assent to If Christ's Body had been drain'd of His Blood He wou'd have died of Weakness and Loss of Blood but the Centurion who it seems was a better Naturalist than the Doctor thought quite otherwise For he concluded from the Force and Vigour wherewith our Blessed Lord gave up the Ghost that he was the Son of God Vere Filius Dei erat iste Nor will it avail the Doctor that when the Souldier pierc'd his side with a Spear there came out Blood and Water For Christ being then dead and
the Blood as Anatomists and Experience teach us being by the last motion of the Heart convey'd from the Arteries into the Veins where it stands still when there is no more Circulation it is impossible to conceive how all the Blood in his Body shou'd come out of his Side especially in the Posture he then lay in So that that which the Doctor wou'd have us take for granted has no Degree of Truth in it Well but suppose we shou'd grant that Christ's Body was exhausted and drain'd of his Blood will this destroy the Doctrine of Concomitancy by no means For since we believe that under the Species of Bread is really or as his own Cathechism says verily and indeed contain'd the Body of Christ which being now a human living Body must necessarily have Blood in it though we shou'd suppose it had none when it was â—ead we have all the Reason in the World to believe that when we take the Lord's Body we do at the same time by Concomitancy that is together with it take the Blood which it contains So that tho' it were true that the Body of Christ was exhausted and drain'd of his Blood in his Passion yet it wou'd not at all prejudice our Doctrine of Concomitancy nor make any thing for the Doctor 's Purpose But you will say If the Communion in One Kind be sufficient If it contains the Body and Blood of Christ why did the Christians heretofore sometimes receive it in both kinds I answer because the Representation of the Death of our Lord is more fully express'd in both kinds than in One But then we must consider that this Representation is not of that Importance as to ballance all the weighty Considerations that mov'd the Church to command the use only of One kind We have the Death of our Lord sufficiently represented to us when we take the Communion in One kind because we believe and are put in mind that it is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord which we receive in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and we have this Representation fully express'd in the Sacrifice of the Mass where his Body and Blood are shewn Mystically separated under different Forms and that almost as often as we receive the Communion So that there is nothing wanting in our Communion to give us a lively Representation of the Death and Passion of our Blessed Lord and if there were 't is not of that moment as to make amends for the Horrid Prophanations and Abuses which must inevitably attend the Communion in both kinds in a degenerate Age in which all Piety and Godliness are almost extinguisht and whereof we have sad Instances in our Adversaries Practice it being frequently boasted by many of their Libertins that after hard drinking over Night they come in the Morning to receive the Communion and drink off whole Communion-Cups of consecrated Wine to quench their brutish Thirst Besides the Manner of administring the Sacrament of Baptism at present which our Adversaries do also follow and practice tho' very different from that of the primitive Church doth sufficiently justifie our Conduct in this Particular 'T is certain that the Regeneration of the Faithful is more lively express'd and represented by Immersion or plunging into the Water as the Primitive Church did always Baptize than by Infusion or Aspersion as we now do For the Faithful being plung'd into the Water of Baptism Rom. 6. â— is as St. Paul saith buried with Christ and in rising out of it he seems to rise out of the Tomb with his Saviour and therefore fully represents that Mystery by which he was regenerated whereas a simple Infusion or Aspersion such as we use doth scarce shadow it Moreover when the Faithful is immers'd or dip'd into the Water or Four where all the Parts of the Body are wash'd this Lotion does more fully express the cleansing of the Soul from all its sins than if one part only had been wash'd Yet no body doubts but that the Baptism conferr'd by Infusion or sprinkling of Water upon one Part only of the Body is sufficient to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament because the main thing is there represented namely the washing of the Soul So that it is enough to express the Mystery as to the Substance and the Effect and the Grace that is annex'd to it and not scrupulously to inquire after every minute-Circumstance of it especially when there are weighty Reasons and Motives to diswade us from it In like manner tho' we do not so fully represent the Death of our Lord when we take the Communion in One kind as we shou'd by taking it in Both yet we are perswaded that there is nothing Essential to the Sacrament wanting to it because we do both express and receive the Substance the Effect and the Grace of the Sacrament that is the Body and Blood of Christ the spiritual Food of our Souls and that strict Union with Christ which as he himself saith maketh us dwell in Him and Him in us And if the Church did forbid the Laity the Use of the Sacred Cup 't was not with an Intent to rob them of any thing that might tend to increase their Devotion as our Adversaries do most injustly suggest but in Respect to the Precious Blood of Christ for which surely we cannot have too much Veneration She saw that as the Piety and Devotion of the people diminish'd so their Negligence to receive the sacred Cup in such a manner as may secure it from spilling abounded She found by Experience that many Infirm and Old and even Folks in perfect Health what with coughing or other Convulsions as they receiv'd the Sacred Cup gave up their Stomacks into the Chalice or shed the Precious Blood to the great Horror of the Spectators and their own greater Confusion that others what with trembling and quaking did very often notwithstanding all their care spill some Drops of the Sacred Blood in fine that in Cities where some thousands use to communicate at a time Crouds of People pressing upon the Priest have sometimes spilt the Sacred Chalice in his Hands and which I cannot mention without Horror Trod upon that Precious Blood by which they were Redeem'd These and the like Considerations mov'd the Church or rather the People for the Church did only confirm the Custom which was introduc'd for many Years before to abstain from the Sacred Cup and to content themselves with the Body and Blood of Christ under the Form of Bread which is easily receiv'd with due Respect and without Danger and to which nothing is wanting only a more full Representation of the Mystery which yet is supply'd by other means and which in the Opinion of any Reasonable Man is not sufficient to attone for the aforesaid Prophanations CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue I May Reasonably presume it will not be expected I shou'd speak much to this Head for the Scandal which our Adversaries wou'd
here fasten upon us is so Gross and Palpable that it were to abuse the Reader 's Patience to insist long upon our Vindication They say we pray in an Vnknown Tongue and we say and are ready to prove that we pray in the Tongue the best known in Europe And we farther say that therefore we pray in it because it is so And I am sure They Themselves what ever they may say in the Heat of Disputes are upon all other Occasions ready to acknowledge this Truth However because we are commanded by St. Peter to be ready always to give an Answer to every Man 1 Pet. 3.15 that asketh us a Reason of the hope that is in us I shall endeavour to offer some of the Reasons why we pray in that Tongue which they call Vnknown and leave the Reader to judge whether our Adversaries have all the Reason they pretend to cry so loud 1. We make use of the Latin Tongue in our Liturgy because we wou'd not Recede from the Example and Practice of our Ancestors who from the first planting of Christianity to this Day whether in Rome or in any other Part of the Western Church us'd no other Language in the Liturgy than Latin And thus to follow the Model our Holy and Pious Fore-fathers left us the Scripture not only warrants but commands us to do Remember the Days of Old Deut. 32.7 consider the Years of many Generations Ask thy Father and he will shew thee thy Elders and they will tell thee 'T is certain and even acknowledg'd by our Aversaries that when the Christian Religion was first Preach'd in the West every Country had then as well as now it s own peculiar Language different from the Latin which tho' it was cultivated by Men of Letters and Bus'ness in all Countrys to which the Romans extended their Conquest yet the common people or Natives were generally Ignorant of And 't is no less Evident that the Apostles and Apostolical Men who preach'd and Propagated the Christian Religion in these Countrys were endued with a Power of working Miracles in Confirmation of the Truth of it and by their readiness to lay down their Lives and to shed their Blood for it gave sufficient Testimony of their Zeal and Charity for the common People as well as for the great Ones yet all the Records of Antiquity all the Ancient and Modern Liturgies together with the Universal Tradition of the Western Church and even the Consent of our Adversaries all these I say bear witness that neither the Apostles nor the Apostolical Men who first planted the Christian Faith in these Parts nor any succeeding Generation of Catholics did ever use in the public Liturgy of the Church any other Language than the Latin which 't is confess'd the common People Generally Speaking of all Countries except Italy are and have always been Ignorant of And therefore I think we may very safely tred in the steps of these our Holy Ancestors and be content with the Liturgy and Language they left us at least if we must be condemn'd for so doing we have the comfort to be condemn'd in Company with these Great and Holy Men to whose Doctrine and Practice God Himself was pleas'd to put His Seal 2. We must make use of this Language because we conceive it very necessary to have an Uniformity as much as is possible both in Faith and Practice that we may with one Heart and one Tongue Praise the Lord and Magnifie His holy Name The Catholic Church is One in Communion as well as in Faith Now how much one common Tongue in which the public Service of the Church is perform'd contributes to foment this Union the miserable Distractions and Divisions of our modern Reformers who have as many different Religions as they have different Tongues do but too manifestly Evince All the Members of the Catholic Religion ought to have Communion and Fellowship one with another They shou'd all be united in one common Faith and one uniform Worship of one God they ought all to be qualified for the Participation of the same Sacrament and to assist together at the same Public Divine Service wherever they meet else how can the Unity of their Faith and Communion subsist Now 't is hard to conceive how all this can be perform'd if we have our Liturgy in as many different Tongues as there are Countrys in the Catholic Church For how can I have fellowship with a Man whose Language I do not understand How can I joyn in Prayer or in God's public Worship with any Society of People when I cannot discern by any thing they do or say whether they are Catholics or Heretics Or how shall I receive the Sacrament in the Society of those who for any thing I can see or understand may be Jews or Blasphemers of my Holy Religion So that if we take away that Common Band that Common Language that unites and Cements all the Members of Christ's mystical Body the whole Frame of the Catholic Church will dissolve and falls to Pieces and we shall have as many different Churches as we have Tongues 3. We do not see what great loss the Common People suffer by not having the Liturgy in vulgar Tongues and if we had we are sure the good that might acrew to them by having it so is not so valuable as to be purchas'd at the Expence of the common Union and Peace of the whole Catholic Church which as experience shews is necessarily consequent upon such an Indulgence The most Part of the common People are taught at least to read in their own Language and if we except some of the Commonality of Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland who are industriously barr'd all sort of Education there is not one in a hundred even of the meanest of the Common sort who want this Help And then they have the whole Mass the Epistles and Gospels and Collects of all the Sundays in the Year together with all the Psalms in vulgar Languages in their Prayer-books which they may read to themselves in their own Tongue whilst the Priest reads them in Latin and which no doubt contributes more to their Edification than if the Priest had spoke in their own Tongue considering that in Catholic Countries where some Thousands are assembled it is not possible for the hundreth part of the Audience to hear what is said in what ever Language he speaks Add that the greatest part of the Mass is pronounc'd so low that scarce any that is present hears what is said the Rubric so commanding that the Priest may in the Silence of Recollection and Meditation be the better dispos'd to perform the Office in that August and Adorable Mystery with the Gravity and Decency that becomes it Besides on all Sundays and great Festivals throughout the Year there are in Catholic Countries public Sermons and Exhortations perform'd in Vulgar Language yea and public Prayers read in the Pulpit either before or after the
the Psalms in their public Prayers from that Time to This in any other Language than the Hebrew tho' if we except their Rabbins very few if any of that Nation understand any thing of it The Grecians have long since corrupted their Language as all the World knows and the common People among them know no more of the Genuine Greek than ours do of the Latin yet the Greek Church never chang'd a Syllable in their Liturgy but do still say their Mass in the same Pure Greek which was us'd when they first embrac'd the Christian Faith All other Sects of Christians See Father Symon's Critical History of the Old and New Testament in the Earstern Churches have likewise Corrupted their Languages yet they continue to Celebrate Divine Service in the Languages they first us'd tho' the Communion People do not understand them And if I may be allow'd to borrow an instance from Infidels the Turks still retain the Arabic Language in their Alcaron nor did they ever permit it to be read in any other Tongue in their public Prayers tho' 't is confess'd their common People understand it not But of this enough Let us now see what the Doctor objects to this Point And here I do not intend to pursue him in all the Repetitions He makes of the same thing without any material Addition for then I shou'd transcribe several almost intire Sermons but shall for the Reader 's ease and my own bring all his Real or Apparent Difficulties within the compass of these few Heads First he saith That the celebrating of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church and the Great Design and End of Religious Worship which being a Reasonable Service ought to be Directed by our Understanding and accompanied with our Hearts and Affections Secondly That to pray in an unknown Tongue is contrary to St. Paul's Doctrine who has no less than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes and condemns this Practice Thirdly Vol. 1. edit post obit pag. 126 161. That we lock up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue and forbid the People the use of them which is contrary to Christ's own Design who exhorts the Jews to search the Scriptures to St. Luke who commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures and trying the Apostles Doctrine by that Test and to the ancient Fathers who do most earnestly recommend to the People the Reading and Study of the Scriptures Fourthly That the Scripture being Vol. 1. edit post obit pag. 264. by our own Confession a principal Part of the Rule of Faith it cannot be imagin'd how People shou'd square or measure their Faith by this Ride unless they are allow'd to read and understand it Lastly Vol. 2. edit post obit pag. 369. That we therefore look up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue because it is certain that if the People were once brought to understand the Scriptures they wou'd soon quit our Religion and go over to them This is the Sum of what he says upon this Subject to which I shall return my Exceptions as plainly and briefly as I can First he saith That the celebrating of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church I answer if he means by unknown Tongue such a Tongue as no body understands it is very True but not to the purpose For the Tongue in which we celebrate divine Service is not such but on the contrary the Tongue in the World I believe the best known But if he means by it a Tongue unknown to most of the common people his Assertion has no Degree of Truth in it For first he himself acknowledges and so doth all Mankind that the Primitive Church and all succeeding Generations I mean in the Latin Church till the Reformation appear'd did celebrate divine Service in the same Latin Tongue we now use And secondly even Malice it self cannot deny but that generally speaking all the common people except the Italians were always Ignorant of the Latin Tongue 'T is then manifest our Conduct in this particular is altogether conformable to the Practice of the primitive Church and then the Doctor is out in his first Attempt This he cou'd not but see and therefore in an other place he endeavours to Insinuate tho' he durst not speak it out that the common people spoke all Latin Vol. 3. pag. 469. But this only shews what the Wit of Man is capable of when he must and will maintain a thing What the common people of Spain France Germany Sweden Denmark Norway England Ireland Scotland c. spoke all Latin 'T is indeed confess'd all these People were in Communion with the Church of Rome all receiv'd their Faith and Liturgy from her all celebrated divine Service in the same Tongue and after the same manner with her but that they all spoke and understood the Roman or Latin Tongue is surely so ridiculously absurd that I rather believe I mistook his meaning than that a Man of his Parts shou'd be guilty of so great a Mistake As to what he says that Religious Worship being a reasonable Service ought to be directed by our Understandings and accompanied with our Hearts and Affections I readily agree with him And for that Reason I hope we are as careful to teach the common People their prayers in their own Tongue and to exhort them to say 'em in the same Tongue as our Neighbours Yet this notwithstanding it did not seem good to the Holy Spirit of God who guides his Church into all Truth and consequently into all good Practices to alter that Tongue which venerable Antiquity and a Prescription of now almost seventeen hundred Years have consecrated to His divine Worship The Reasons whereof I have partly touch'd upon before Touching the Second viz. That to pray in an unknown Tongue is contrary to St. Pauâ—'s Doctrine who has no less than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes and condemns this Practice Answ The Chapter the Doctor here refers to is the 14th of the first to the Corinthians which had it been faithfully translated either from their own Greek or our Latin wou'd leave no Room for this Objection The Question is whether St. Paul condemns public prayers in a Tongue which all the common people do not understand This the Doctor affirms and vouches the Authority of the English Translation in the aforesaid Chapter where St. Paul as he says condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue We say first St. Paul has no such thing as unknown Tongue but the word Vnknown is an Addition of their own Secondly St. Paul does not condemn speaking or praying with Tongues which is the only thing there mention'd And both these we are able to make appear the first from their own Translation in which tho' they give it to us in their Sermons and Disputes for currant Scripture yet they put the word Vnknown in small Italic Characters to
nothing so frequent in the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers as the Recommendation of it In a Word there is not one Doctrine or Practice of the Catholic Religion deliver'd with so full and unquestionable a Tradition no not the Mystery of the Trinity no nor the Incarnation nor the Necessity of Baptism nor even the Truth of the Scriptures So that a Man may lib. de Cor. Militis lib. de Monog de vita Const lib. 4. c. 71. In Enchir cap. 110. lib. 9. Confes cap. 13. as well make an Apology for being a Christian as for this Tertulian tells us that in his Days they made yearly Oblations for the Dead and pray'd for their Souls Eusebius that all the Congregation pray'd for the Soul of the Emperor Constantin the Great St. Austin that it is not to be denied that the Souls of the Dead are eas'd by the Pitty of their living Friends when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offer'd for them That his Mother Monica her last Injunctions to him was to remember her at the Altar That the Tradition of the Fathers is observ'd by the whole Church Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost viz. That they shou'd pray for those who dy'd in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in that place of the Sacrifice where the Dead are recommended In short I shou'd never end shou'd I relate all the Sayings of Fath rs and Councils and Eccl siastical Writâ—rs upon this Subject so that I may confidently affirm there is not one Point in the Christian Religion more unanimously believ'd or more religiously practic'd over all the Catholic Church in all Ages than this of praying for the Dead and offering the Sâ—crifice of the Mass for their Souls And this is so well known that â—o Sober and Learned Protestant ever yet denied the immemorial Antiquity of it at least that ever I met with But being sensible how necessarily and inevitably the Belief of Purgatory or a Third Place where Souls are detain'd for a Time is consequent upon this Practice they have recourse to certain suâ—terfuges and Evasions They tell us that Prayers were made from the second Age for the Apostles and Martyrs and Confessors Exposit of the Doctrine of the Church of England pag. 31. and even for the Blessed Virgin Mary all which they thought in Happiness and never touch'd at Purgatory that therefore it does not follow there is a Purgatory because they prayed for the Dead To which I answer that these Gentlemen wou'd very much oblige us if they wou'd be so good as to instance in some of those Prayers which they say were put up for the Apostles and Martyrs and the Virgin Mary which I never yet met with in any of their Writings And this very thing gives me a shrewd Suspicion that they are not able to produce any Examples of that kind at least to the purpose considering how liberal and even prodigal they are of Quotations of Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers when they seem to make for them This I am certain of that the primitive Church did only believe their Prayers available for those whom they thought not to have so well lived as that they shou'd not need their Charitable Assistance 'T is what St. Austin says De Civit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 24. Pro defunctis quibusdam Ecclesiae exanditur oratio quorum in Christo regeneratorum nec usque adeo vita in corpore malè gesta est ut tali Misericordia judicentur digni non esse nec usque adeo berè ut talem Misericordiam reperiantur necessariam non habere The Prayers of the Church are heard for such as are regenerated in Christ whose Lives have not been altogether so bad as not to be thought worthy of such a Mercy nor altogether so good as not to need such a Mercy And the same Father tells us that it were to injure the Martyrs to pray for them to whose Prayers we ought rather to have our selves commended But do not the Ancient Liturgies make mention of Prayers and Thanksgivings put up to God for or in Honor of the Apostles and Martyrs and the Virgin Mary And does not the Roman Missal we now use do the same Yes most certainly for we pray to God and thank Him for and in Honour of the Apostles and Martyrs and the Virgin Mary and so did all Antiquity But then these Prayers are not intended for the Delivery of their Souls from any Pains but to thank Almighty God for crowning the Martyrs and Saints and to praise his Holy Name for bringing them to that happy State they how are in as the Prayers and Oblations of the Prâ—â—ative Church and those we new make for the Souls of such as die in the Communion of the Church of whose perfect Innocence and Holiness we are not assur'd are intended to beg of God that he wou'd be merciful to them and forgive them those sins for which they did not fully satisfie in this Life And this St. Austin tells us was the Design and End of all the Prayers put up for the Dead whether Apostles or Martyrs or other Christian Souls These are his Words The Oblations and Alms usually offer'd in the Church for all the Dead De Enchiridio ad Lau. cap. 100. who receiv'd Baptism were Thanksgivings for such as were very Good Propitiations for such as were not very Bad but for such as were very wicked tho' they gave no Relief to the Dead yet were they some Consolation to the Living And is not this the very Doctrine we hold this Day Do not we offer the Sacrifice of Christ's Body as this Father calls it on the Feasts of the Apostles and Martyrs c. in Thanksgiving to God for the blessed Estate of the Saints in Heaven And do not we pray and give Alms and offer the same Sacrifice for the Propitiation of those whom we charitably believe to have died in the Peace and Communion of the Church Does our praying to God for the Apostles and Martyrs and the Virgin Mary as aforesaid hinder us to believe that there is a Place wherein other Souls are detain'd till they have satisfied the Divine Justice No sure And why must the like Prayers hinder the Primitive Church to believe the same Nay rather does it not necessarily follow that the Primitive Church as well as We did believe there was such a place because they put up Prayers to God for Pardon and Forgiveness of Sins for such as they reasonably believ'd to have died in the Communion of the Body of Christ as the Fathers speak but not so perfect as that they shou'd not need their Prayers since it were both vain and superfluous to have pray'd for them upon this Score had they believ'd they were immediately receiv'd into Heaven or thrust into Hell This I am confident no Man of Sense can reasonably deny So that it is a most shameful Evasion to conclude that the Primitive Church did not believe