that of those One or Two who first oppos'd it III. That these Authors of Sects did not all oppose this universal Consent at the same time but some in different Ages and all at different Times IV. That they did not all oppose the same Points of Faith 1. That the Contradiction of each of the said Sects began first in one or two at most This is so manifest in History and in all Records both innocient and Modern that it were superfluous to go about to prove it 2. That the Contradiction of all such as adher'd to the Heads of each Sect be they never so many amounts to no more than that of those one or two who first oppos'd it This is evident for if Arius for instance err'd in denying the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father no number of Adherents to his Opinion can make it True Now that Arius err'd in this Point 't is easy to see because the universal Consent of all the Christian World was against him And as this is manifest in respect of Arius and his Sectators so it is no less convincing in regard of Nestorius Eutyches and all other Sects whatsoever 3. These Authors of Sects did not oppose the universal Consent at the same time but some in different Ages and all at different Times This is so plain that it needs no Proof for no body who is never so little read in Antiquity can be Ignorant that Arius for instance opposed it in the Beginning of the fourth Age Nestorius in the Beginning of the fifth Age Eutiches in some Years after and so of all the rest 4. They did not all oppose the same Points of Faith This is no less evident than the former our Adversaries themselves being the Judges Indeed if they had all denied the same Articles of Faith at the same time and in different parts of the World I must confess it would in some Measure lessen the Authority of those that asserted them for it is natural to think that several Men of different Tongues and Interests would without any mutual Participation of their Thoughts never agree to assert or deny the same things unless there had been some Reason for it But when one Man denies one Point or more if you please in one Age and an other denies an other in another Age or at least at a different Time what is this but one Man against all the World To answer this Objection then I say 1. That tho' it were true that all these Heads of Sects had always opposed the universal Consent of the Church as aforesaid viz. One in one Age and another in an other or at a different time this Opposition can no more prejudice the Faith which we hold upon the universal Consent of all the Christian World than if one Man in the last Age and an other in this had denied the being at any time of King Henry the VIII or of the City of Constantinople such Impudence could lessen our Belief concerning that King or this City 2. 'T is not true that these Heads or Ringleaders of Sects did always oppose the universal Consent of the Church For since they were the first as I shall prove by and by that opposed the Doctrine of the Church and taught new Opinions contrary to what was believed before they must have been for some time before they broached their new Doctrine of the same Opinion with the rest of the Church who taught them their Faith consequently they did not always oppose the universal Consent but concurred with the rest in it till they took up their new Opinions and even still continue to own that the Doctrine which they opposed was universally believed at the Time of their Separation So that we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Truth of our Faith even the Consent of those who afterwards opposed it not excepted Now that these Heads or Ring-leaders of Sects to wit Arius Nestorius Eutyches Luther c. were the first that opposed the universal consent of the Church in respect of the several Opinions wherein they are said to contradict it may easily be proved first by the confession of their own Parties who ingenuously own that they follow the Opinions of those Men in the Things wherein they differ'd from the rest of the World and have therefore got the Apellation of Arians Nestorians Eutychians Lutherans c. whereas if any Churches or Societies of Christians had held these Opinions before they wou'd have continued in Communion with them and not have separated from all the World as 't is manifest they have even by the acknowledgment of their own Writers Secondly By an Induction of all these Sects in particular and of the Councils held in several Ages wherein they were proscribed But in this I am happily prevented by the ingenuous confession Dr. Tillotson was pleased to make of this Truth as far at least as relates to my purpose Thus says he in the heigth of Popery Ser. 1. Vol. 5. Wickliff appear'd here in England and Hierom of Prague and John Huss in Germany and Bohemia And in the Beginning of the Reformation when Popery had quite over-run the Western Parts of the World and subdued her Enemies on every side and Antichrist sate securely in the quiet possession of his Kingdom Luther arose a bold and rough Man but a fit wedge to cleave in sunder so hard and knotty a block and appeared stoutly against the gross errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome and for a long time stood alone and with a most invincible spirit and courage maintained his ground and resisted the united malice and force of Antichrist and his Adherents and gave him so terrible a blow that he is not yet perfectly healed and recovered of it So that for a man to stand alone or with a very few adhering to him and standing by him is not a mear immaginary supposition but a case that hath really and in fact happen'd in several Ages and places of the World Thus he and indeed enough to prove what I said For you seâ— he ingenuously owns these Authors of Sects stood alone each in his Time and he might as well have said the same thing of the Authors of all other Sects that ever rose in the Church Wickliff says he appeared here in England and Hierom of Prague and John Huss two of Wickliff's Disciples in Germany and Bohemia There was none then of their Opinion before them Luther stood alone for a long time all the World was then against him And must this single Man be believed upon hiâ— bare Word delivering a new Doctrine in opposition to all the World without the least Mark or Character of a Man sent by God These are surely harder terms than God ever required of the very Pagans for their Conversion from Idolatry But to give this more weight Let us compare the Jews which received the Law and the Prophets with the Christians who received
humana prebet oâ—perimentum How was the Lord's Body after the Resurrection a true Body that cou'd enter the House when the Doors were shut But we must understand that if the Work of God be comprehended by Reason it is not wonderful nor hath that Belief any merit to which humane Reason gives Experience The Disciples saw Christ's Body and felt it with their Hands consequently had the Evidence of two of their Senses Yet according to St. Gregory they cou'd have Faith concerning the Truth of his Body only because they did not comprehend how it was possible for it to enter the House when the Doors were shut In like manner tho' we have Evidence of Reason that the things we believe were reveal'd by Jesus Christ yet the Reward of our Faith is nothing diminish'd because we believe such things as we neither comprehend nor understand And indeed whoever seriously considers the great Work of our Redemption he cannot but think that it was most agreeable to the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of our Divine Redeemer to leave us this Evidence Jesus Christ came to the World declar'd to a select Number of Men such high and mysterious things as seem to shock Humane Reason laid down his Life for the Salvation of Mankind sent his Apostles to publish these Mysteries over all the World and threatned with eternal Damnation all those who wou'd not believe them and that not only for a Time but also unto the End of the World Is it not then very reasonable that this mysterious Doctrine should always be attended with such Characters and Credentials of Truth as may convince the most obstinate Gainsayers of it which I am sure nothing less than either Evidence of Sense or Reason can effect For if the Evidence be less then the Doctrine is only probable and if it be only probable one may reasonably doubt of the Truth of it and if the Truth of it may be reasonably doubted the contrary for ought any one knows may be true and if the contrary may be true I am sure it does not stand with God's Goodness to condemn any Body to eternal Flames for not believing a Doctrine the contrary to which for any thing that he doth or can know may be true Here I wou'd not be understood so as to mean that none can have true Faith without clear Evidence for 't is plain that the most part of Mankind are taught the Articles of their Faith by their Parents or Pastors whose Testimony is confessedly fallible nor do I pretend that this is a Rigorous Demonstration such as Mathematicians make nor yet an Evidence of Sense but this I say that the universal Consent of so many Nations as compose the Catholic Church conspiring in the Belief of such Articles of Faith make it as evident to my Reason that the said Articles of Faith are true as any Evidence of Sense or Demonstration cou'd make them if they were capable of any In a word the Apostles and their Disciples deliver'd the Christian Faith to several Nations and convinc'd their Senses and Reason of the Truth of it by true and real Miracles and the Universal Consent of the same Nations which succeeded the Evidence of Miracles is equally convincing to us that that Faith is certainly true Consequently we have a certain and an undoubted Motive to rely upon in the Belief of the Articles of our Faith Now it is manifest and even acknowledg'd by our Adversaries that excepting those who separated themselves or were cut off from the Church by Excommunication for their obstinate Adherence to some Errors contrary to Faith and whose Opposition cannot prejudice the Truth of that Faith as I prov'd before that excepting those I say the Universal Consent of all the Christian World agrees in all the Articles of Faith that the Catholic Church holds and believes But among other Truths that are deriv'd to us by this Universal Tradition or common Consent of all Nations as afore explain'd this is one That the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of God doth assist the Church and doth guide her into all Truth necessary to Salvation Hence we conclude 1. That the Catholic Church is Infallible in all the Articles of Faith that she holds and professes For since the Holy Ghost is given to the Church to guide her into all Truth and that this Holy Spirit is Omniscient and Omnipotent it cannot be affirm'd without Impiety that it should permit her to fall into Error 2. That General Councils are Infallible in all their Definitions and Decisions of Faith For tho' a General Council be but a Representative of the whole Church yet because General Assemblies of the chief Pastors of the Church have been always look'd upon even by the Apostles themselves whose Steps in this particular the Church doth follow as the best and most effectual Means of determining any Controversie that may arise and that all Good Christians have always held themselves bound to acquiesce to their Determinations and to submit to them it is reasonable to believe that the Spirit of God doth assist and guide them 3. That the Catholic Church is Infallible in determining what Books of Scripture are Canonical and what Books are not and in declaring the true Sense and Interpretation of them For since these sacred Books and the right Interpretation of them are very necessary for the Edification of our Faith and Manners the same Spirit which guides the Church into all Truth does no doubt guide Her in these great and important Truths We shall see hereafter what Society of Christians can justly pretend to be called the Catholic Church I now proceed to prove from Scripture that the Church is Infallible But whereas the Protestants are accustomed to carp at this kind of Proof pretending that this is to Dance in a Circle as They are pleas'd to term it it won't be amiss to examine what is meant by a Circle and when it is to be admitted in Reasoning When two things bear witness mutually the one of the other we call this a Circle and when they have nothing else to support the Truth of their Evidence but their mutual Affirmation then that sort of Proof is Faulty But when both or either have such Evidence on their side as is sufficient to establish their Credit before they bear witness one of another tho' it be still a Circle yet it is good and vallid in all sort of Proof Thus God the Father bore witness of Jesus Christ and He again of the Father Thus Jesus Christ bore witness of John the Baptist and John the Baptist likewise of Him And I hope no Body will be so impious as to say these were vicious or faulty Evidences because God the Father's Testimony was known to be true tho' Jesus Christ had not confirm'd it and Jesus Christ his Works prov'd likewise his own Testimony to be true tho' his Father had not born Him witness In like manner the Church bears witness that the Scripture
is excommunicated by the Church for the Obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which the Church professes cannot justy be call'd a Member of the Church 1. In the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World This is manifest from these Words of St. Paul He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. Eph. 4.11 12. 2. There is but one Catholic Church This is evident from Christ's own Words I have other Sheep which are not of this Fold Them also I must bring and they shall hear my Voice and there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd John 10.16 And from these Words of the Nicene Creed I believe One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church 3. One Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church This is no less evident from the aforesaid Words of Christ who says that his Sheep will not only hear his Voice but also shall be brought all into one Fold than from the very Notion which as well protestants as Catholics have of a Church namely That it is a Congregation of the Faithful believing and practicing the same Things with due Subjection and Subordination to their Lawful Pastors This Truth the Gentlemen of the Church of England are very loth to own in their Disputes with the Roman Catholics and not without Reason For they are Sensible that all their Authority and Mission if any they have are deriv'd from the Church of Rome and that if Unity in Communion which as aforesaid implies a Due Subjection and Subordination to Lawful Pastors be essential to the Being of the Catholic Church they quite unchurch themselves since it is Manifest that in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth They shook off all Obedience and Subjection to their Bishops who were all R. Catholics and Drove them all away and in some Years before in King Henry the VIII his Time what with Death and other Cruelties they compell'd most of Them to divide and separate from the Pope and all other Bishops in the World besides They wou'd therefore willingly pass by this sore place if possible but when the Dispute is with the Presbyterians this Truth is highly magnified These they look upon to be Schismatics because they separated from their Communion and erected Altars against their Altars and so far indeed they are in the Right if a Separation from a Separation may be called Schism However this I cannot but admire that they do not observe that in charging the Presbyterians with Schism they condemn themselves since it is notoriously known they are highly guilty of what they charge them with namely of separating from their own and all other Bishops in the World Whoever desires farther Satisfaction in this matter may consult Dr. Heilin's History of the Presbyterians Intitul'd Aerius Redivivus and the History of the Reformation by the same Author but more especially an Ingenious Treatise lately publish'd by a Learned Divine of the Church of England under this Title The Principles of the Cyprianic Age. In this the Author proves excellently well the Necessity of One Communion as well as of One Faith for the being of One Church I will transcribe some of his Words and leave the Reader to judge how well he proves my Postulatum Now they were thus united saith he speaking of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church by the Great and Fundamental Laws of one Faith and one Communion That the One Holy Catholic Faith is essential in the Constitution of One Holy Catholic Church is even this day a receiv'd Principle I think amongst all sober Christians But then I say that the Christians in St. Cyprian's Time reckon'd the Laws of one Communion every whit as forcible and indispensable to the Being of one Church as the Laws of One Faith It was a Prime a Fundamental Article of their Faith that there was but one Church and they cou'd not understand how there cou'd be but One Church if there was more than One Communion By their Principles and Reasonings a multiplication of Communions made unavoidably a multiplication of Churches and by consequence seeing there cou'd be but one true Catholic Church there cou'd be likewise but one true Catholic Communion All other Churches or Communions were false i. e. not at all Christian Churches or Communions Thus far this Learned Man and indeed very right For it was the constant Principle as well of all as of the Primitive Ages of the Church that One Communion was no less Essential to the being of One Church nor less necessary to Salvation than One Faith And here I cannot but observe two things by the way 1. How unjust that intolerable charge of uncharitableness is wherewith the Protestants incessantly Traduce the R. Catholics for denying them Salvation out of their Communion since it is manifest as this Learned Man says that one Faith and one Communion are equally necessary to Salvation And no less evident that the Protestants separated themselves from that Communion and Faith which the R. Catholics believe and maintain to be the true Church How is it then consistent with their Principles to allow Salvation to the Protestants whilst they persist in their Separation Or how can they be deem'd uncharitable for judging according to the known Principles of the Primitive Christians who knew but one Faith and one Communion wherein Salvation was to be had 2. What miserable shifts the Church of England Gentlemen are driven to being forc'd to deny to the R. Catholics in their own justification what they so earnestly press upon the Presbyterians in order to reclaim them as constant and fundamental Principles in the Primitive Church 4. Whosoever separates from or is excommunicated by the Church for the obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which it professeth cannot reasonably be call'd a Member of the Church This is Self-evident as to the first part for to separate from the Church is to go away from it as the very Word imports and by consequence to be no more a Member of it It is likewise no less evident as to the second for to Excommunicate is to put out of Communion or to cut off from the Body of the Church So that whoever is Excommunicated for the Denial of any Article of Faith can no more be said to be united to the Church than an Arm cut off from a Man or a Branch from a Tree can be said to be united to the same Man or Tree All such then who wilfully separate from the Communion of the Catholic Church let their Pretence be never so plausible are properly Schismatics I say let their pretence be never so plausible for Dr. Hammond tells us as aforesaid that
Reason upon the consent of Mankind and the concession of our Adversaries and upon such known and evident matters of Fact as the most Impudent Wrangler wou'd be asham'd to deny As to the first That the Church of England is Heretical I prove thus Whatsoever Society of Christians obstinately denies any Doctrine believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith is Heretical but the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith Therefore the Church of England is Heretical The Major or first Proposition is a known Principle which no Christian in his wits ever denied The Minor or second Proposition I demonstrate thus The Church of England obstinately denies Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass and many other Points but these are believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith Therefore the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith That the Church of England obstinately denies the said Doctrines or Points is matter of Fact and what She very much glories in That the same Points or Doctrines were all in the begining of the Reformation believed by the Catholic Church to be of Faith we have besides the unanimous consent of the Roman Greek and all the Eastern Churches the Testimony of several Learned Protestants who surely wou'd never have told a thing so favourable to their Adversaries if it had not been manifestly True And to shew that this is not said gratis I will Instance in some Hospinian faith Luther's Separation was from all the World Epist 141. White Popery was a Leprosie breeding so universally in the Church that there was no Visible Company of Men appearing in the World free from it Defence c. 37. p. 136. The aforesaid Doctrineâ— is what this good man is pleas'd to call Popery as all the World knows Bishop Jewel The Whole World Princes Priests and People were overwhelm'd with Ignorance and bound by oath to the Pope Sermon on Luke 11. Whitaker In times past no Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church Controv. 4.9 5. c. 3. Bucer All the World err'd in that Article of the real presence p. 660. Calvin They made all the Kings and People of the Earth Drunk from the First to the Last Justit 4. c. 18. Perkins During the space of 900 years the Popish Heresie had spread it self over the Whole World Exposit symb p. 266. The Sum of this cloud of Witnesses which yet is not the twentieth Part of what may be brought from the Reformation-treasure amounts to this that before the Reformation there was no other Religion in the Whole Christian World but the Roman Catholic or as they are pleas'd to term it the Papistical and that the aforesaid Points and many more which they call Popery Leprosie and Ignorance were universally believed as Articles of Faith by all the visible Companies of Christians in the World And if this be true the Church of England which obstinately denies these Points and many more must necessarily deny some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church as of Faith and by consequence the Church of England is Heretical Touching the second viz. that the Church of England is Schismatical This is no less evident than the former For if Schism be a willful Separation from the Church as it is defined by all Mankind as well Protestants as Catholics the Church of England is doubly guilty of this Crime First for separating from the Pope and their own Immediate Heads the Bishops of England Secondly for separating from the Communion of all other Bishops in the World besides The Bishop of Rome in the begining of the Reformation was acknowledg'd by all the World to be at least Patriarch of the West and by the Protestants themselves to have exercis'd Jurisdiction over the Church of England for 900 years and more even from the time of its Conversion to Christianity and surely so long a prescription is a sufficient Title tho' no other cou'd be shewn We find in the Acts of the third General Council held at Ephesus Binius Tom. 2. Apend 1. Cap. 4. a complaint exhibited by the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus against the Patriarch of Antioch who wou'd force that Iland to submit to his jurisdiction and oblige its Metropolitian to receive the Grace of Ordination from him as the Council phrases it To this Complaint the Council answers That if the Bishops of Cyprus cou'd make out that the Patriarch of Antioch had never conferr'd Orders upon their Metropolitan it was unjust to pretend to it now And the Bus'ness being fairly prov'd in favour of the said Bishops the Council decreed That the Patriarch of Antioch had no Jurisdiction over them nor ought to pretend to any Whence it is manifest that if the Patriarch of Antioch cou'd prove that he had conferr'd Orders upon their Metropolitan at any time or exercis'd Lawful Jurisdiction over them the Council wou'd have Decreed the said Iland to be subject to him and that as it was a manifest Usurpation in the Patriarch of Antioch to pretend to any such Jurisdiction since he was not in Possession of it nor cou'd prove to have ever had it so likewise it wou'd be perfect Rebellion and Schism in them to withdraw from his Jurisdiction if he were Legally possess'd of it Now I would fain know if the same Council were to judge the Church of England and the Pope's cause what they wou'd think of it Pope Eleutherius sent some of his own Clergy to Convert the Brittans in King Lucius his Time St. Gregory sent Augustin the Monk and others to convert the Saxons and exercis'd Jurisdiction over them ordaining their Metropolitan or causing him to be ordained by his Orders and the Popes his Successors continued in peaceable Possession of this Prerogative and they the Clergy and People of England receiving and obeying his lawful Commands not only as Patriarch of the West but even as Head of the Church for the Space of 900 Years and more what wou'd this Council I say think of the Church of England's rising up against the Pope's Authority after so long a Prescription Certainly it wou'd look upon them to be Rebels against the Authority the best establish'd in the World Nor will it any way help them to say as they usually do that the King of England has Power to Transfer the Papal or Patriarchal Power from Rome and confer it upon the Archbishop of Canterbury For besides that it is most absurd to suppose such a Power in a King since it cannot be imagin'd whence such an Ecclesiastical Authority can be deriv'd to a Secular Prince we have an express Decree to the contrary in the fourth General Council held at Calcedon What gave Occasion to it was this The Bishop of Tyre was anciently Metropolitan of Phaenicia Concil Calced Act. 6. and as such exercis'd Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in that Province Marcianus the Emperor contrary to
the main End and Design of their meeting and what is more to the eternal damnation of their own Souls they shou'd unanimously agree to declare as an Article of their Faith what they neither receiv'd nor knew nor believ'd before In a word is it possible that any Man of sense cou'd imagin that in any Age of the Church the Pope Patriarchs Bishops Kings Princes and People shou'd all agree to receive as an Article of Faith that which the Apostles never deliver'd to their Ancestors nor their Ancestors to them And if this be absurd and not to be suppos'd as most certainly it is with what colour of Reason can any Man refuse the Evidence of this Council What shall we believe if we do not believe so great and so grave an Assembly Here are from all parts of the Christian World so many hundreds of Learned Prelats attesting on no less penalty than their eternal Damnation if false that this is the Faith which the Apostles deliver'd to the Church that this is the Doctrine which they receiv'd from their Fore-fathers Here are all the Rest of the Prelats and People of the whole Catholic Church likewise declaring by their ready Acceptance and Submission to this Doctrine that it is the same they receiv'd from their Predecessors And now if after all this Men will be so much in love with their fancies as to believe that the whole Catholic Church both in its Representatives and in the diffusive Body of Christians cou'd be induc'd to conspire together to deceive their Posterity against their own plain and True Interest against the Trust and Confidence repos'd in them the Duty and Piety of Parents to their Children the tender Care they ought to have for their Welfare and contrary to the main End and Design of the Divine goodness who put his Word into their Mouths to the end they might faithfully deliver it to succeeding Generations and all this notwithstanding the terrors of the Lord and the wrath of God reveal'd from Heaven against all impious Lyars notwithstanding the dreadful Woes and Curses pronounc'd in Scripture against false Seducers and the horrible aggravation of their own Guilt for having led so many millions into Error and Perdition Add to this the promise of the Holy-Ghost's guiding the Church into all Truth the assistance of the Divine Spirit with it to the End and consumation of the World the dear and tender Love of the great Shepherd of our Souls for his Flock and the great care and concern he has for the preservation of his Church for which he shed his most precious Blood If after all this I say Men will be so far deluded as to believe such dreams I shall only say to them as Joshua did to the Children of Israel If it seem evil to you to serve the Lord chuse you this day whom you will serve but for me and my House Josh 24. we will serve the Lord and believe his holy Word Thus much concerning the Proof of this Mystery Let us now see what the Doctor Objects Never Roman Conqueror sung more Pâ—ans after Victory nor insulted over his Enemy with more Ostentation than Dr. Tillotson has on this Subject over the Roman Catholics and the Church of Rome and to compleat the Parallel if his Railing Eloquence and Unchristian Contumelies I am sorry he extorts such Words from me were of equal force to bind with that of Roman Chains no Barbarous Captives were ever worse us'd by their Insulting Conquerors than the Sons of that Mother whose Piety and Zeal brought forth in Christ his Ancestors have the fortune to be treated by the Unchristian Slanders and Calumnies of his bitter Tongue and Pen. Besides that invincible Argument if we believe him that Achilles the Evidence of Sense which he pretends to be against this Mystery and which he repeats over and over in more places of his Sermons than I can at present reckon he has oblidg'd us with a Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation It begins vol. 3. pag. 297. In this Piece I meet with as copious a Collection of scrurrilous injurious Language of Notorious and Manifest Impositions with so much disingenuity in citing of Authors and managing their Authorities as I believe was ever possible for any Man who had never so little esteem for his Credit to bring within so narrow a Compass Now to Answer all this Discourse and to lay open all its Disingenuity to set these Passages of the Fathers which he mangles and dismembers in their due Light and to shew the Scope and End at which those Fathers aim'd woud alone require a volum of no small bulk which in no wise agrees with my design'd Brevity nor yet will my present Affairs I shall therefore be content at present to answer his main Objection taken from the Evidence of Sense which is the only Objection I find in all his Sermons but with as many faces as Protheus was said to have and some three or four more taken out of this Discourse which are the only Real Difficulties in it being resolv'd however to lay hold on the next Opportunity to answer the whole Paragraph by Paragraph Vol. 3. pag. 80 81. Vol. 5. p. 20. c. Vol. 6. pag. 165. 1. His main Objection is this Transubstantiation is contradicted by Sense The Evidence of our Senses is against it 'T is contrary to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind c. Answ This He repeats over and over and to enforce the Belief of it he tells us in several places that it destroys the External Means of Confirming the Truth of Christianity But he only repeats it for I cou'd never yet find in all his Books that he has made the least offer to prove it He wou'd have us it seems be so civil as to take it for granted For without this I believe nay I am sure he did not well know how go about to prove it And 't is a thing I often admir'd with how much Confidence his Good Man and Others wou'd press this Argument upon us without ever offering the least Proof for it when at the same time they knew very well we firmly deny it And this seems so much the more strange because the more Evident any thing is as they pretend this to be the easier it is to find Mediums to prove it But neither He nor all the Philosophers that ever were or are to come shall ever be able to make one good Argument to prove that Transubstantiation is contradicted by Sense For what is Transubstantiation The Change of one Substance into another Of what Sense then is Substance the Object that such a Change may be discover'd by it 'T is of no Sense sure but of the Vnderstanding as all the World knows How can that then contradict Sense which is not the Object of any Sense since no Faculty can be employ'd but about its proper Object They might as well
are so far from countenancing or abbetting them that it is our earnest wishes and the desire of our Hearts that all such shou'd be intirely abolish'd and taken away We cover no more than that all Christians in Time of Jubileâ—s and Plenary Indulgences shou'd think on their way in the bitterness of their Sâ—als shou'd repent and be sorry for their Sins shou'd have a strong hope and confidence in the Mercy of Almighty God giâ—â— Alâ—â—â— to the Poor and by their 〈◊〉 and servent Prayers dispose themselves 〈◊〉 God is Grace to receive the Indulâ—â—â—â— of Permission of those Canonical Penances which neither the Condition of the Persons nor the Wickedness of the Times nor yet the great Decay of Piety will permit us to require they shou'd fully perform And this we do because we find the same thing practic'd in the best and purest Times of Christianity even in the First Second Third and Fourth Ages especially being warranted by the Word of God who gave to his Church the Power of remitting and retaining Sins And now having found nothing in Dr. Tillotson's Sermons upon this Subject that requires any particular Consideration besides what is here explain'd I shall conclude this Treatise with my Hearty Prayers to the Father of Light that He wou'd be mercifully pleas'd to open the Eyes of our Adversaries that they may see the Innocence and Reasonableness of our Doctrine and give them the Grace to lay seriously to Heart how dangerous it is to reject those Things which the Catholic Church declares to have been deliver'd by Christ and His Apostles Our and Their Creed says I believe the Holy Catholic Church And they own that the Catholic Church before the Reformation did hold and Declare those Things wherein we differ from them to be Truths deliver'd by Christ and His Apostles How then can they believe the Catholic Church when She declares these Things if they do not hold and believe these Things themselves Or how can they in Reason reject them if they believe the Catholic Church which tells them they are Divine Truths But there is yet something more desperate which I beg of Almighty God to give them the Grace to consider Our Saviour saith to His Apostles Go 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 Mat. c. 28.19 20. And St. Mark adds He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be Sav'd but he that believeth not shall be Damn'd Cap. 16.16 Now if those Things which make the Subject of our Dispute be Truths given in charge to the Apostles then our Adversaries are to my great grief I must say it lost for ever For it is not enough according to Christ's own Words to Believe in the Trinity to Believe the Incarnation to believe in the Holy-Ghost to believe Baptism the Eucharist c. But we must believe all Things whatsoever Christ commanded and that on pain of Damnation But if it shou'd happen as no doubt it cannot that the Points in Dispute were not commanded by Christ or His Apostles where is the harm in believing them since we are commanded to do so by the Church which our Creed tells us we must believe Christ our Saviour doth often reproach the Jews for their Incredulity and the Scripture in several places gives us an Account of the Punishment of such as wou'd not believe the Messengers sent by God to declare His Will to them But we do not find that ever He reproach'd any Body for having too much Faith especially when the Things to be believ'd were declar'd to them by the Messengers of God which sure the Bishops and Priests of the Church are On the contrary we read in the Scripture that Christ has upon several Occasions highly commended and extoll'd Men's readiness to believe O Woman Great is thy Faith Mat. 14.28 Where lyes then the Harm of believing Transubstantiation or the Real Presence which are so plainly deliver'd in Scripture Where is the Harm of allowing due Honor and Respect to be given to Saints and of desiring them to pray for us since it is what we do and are commanded to do to one another in this Life If they hear our Prayers and Intercede for us well and good But if they do not what do we loose by it Where is the Harm in praying for our deceas'd Friends Sure we do but declare our pious Affections to them tho' our Prayers had done them no good And where is the Harm in all this How can it hurt any Body to believe that the Church hath Power to give Indulgences that is to Remit all or part of the Temporal Punishment due for Sins since it is plainly exprest in Scripture that Christ gave to His Apostles and the Apostles to their Successors the Power of Remitting and Retaining Sins and that whatsoever they Loose on Earth shall be Loosed in Heaven How can this hurt any Body I say or where lies the Hazard in believing those Things tho' we had not as much assurance of their being Divine Truths as of other Things since they are not contrary to any other Article of our Faith nor to Right Reason or Good Manners But there is Infinit Hazard in not believing them since they have been declar'd by the Church which our Creed and the Scripture command as to believe and hear on pain of being reputed Heathens and Publicans Now that they are Divine Truths besides what is already offer'd to prove each Point in particular We have all the Eastern Churches on our side All the Greek Church together with the Nestorians Euâ—ychians Monothelites the Christians of St. Thomas in a Word all the Oriental Sects of what Denomination soever do Practice and Believe Transubstantiation the Real Presence the Sacrifice of the Mass Seven Sacraments the Use of the Liturgy in a Tongue which the Common People do not understand Invocation of Saints Veneration of Relicks and Images and Prayers for the Dead See the Critical History of the Learn-Father Simon Of the Religion and Customs of the Eastern Churches 'T is done into English printed in London and very much esteem'd by the Learn'd Seeing then that the Latin Church which together with the Greek and other Eastern Churches make up the whole Body of the Christian World and that all these Churches did hold and profess the said Doctrine when the Reformation began and do still hold and believe the same I think I may confidently affirm that it is Catholic and Orthodox I shall therefore once more beg of Almighty God thro' the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and by that Blood which was shed for our Redemption that he wou'd please in His Mercy to Soften the Hearts of our Adversaries and give them Grace to entertain Thoughts of Peace of His Holy Church from which they have so long gone astray To the end that They and We may with one Heart and one Tongue praise and magnifie His Holy Name all the Days of our Lives and when it shall please His Infinite Goodness to call us to Himself that we may meet together at the Resurrection of the Just thro' the Merits of the Death and Passion of our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost be Honor and Glory now and for ever Amen FINIS
A Modest and True Account OF THE Chief Points IN CONTROVERSIE Between The Roman Catholics And the PROTESTANTS TOGETHER With some Considerations upon the SERMONS of a Divine of the Church of England By N. C. Corripiet me Justus in Misericordia increpabit me Oleum autem Peccatoris non impinguet caput meum Psal 141. ANTWERP Printed in the YEAR 1696. THE PREFACE WHen first I thought of this Work my Design was only to answer the most material Objections in Dr. Tillotson's Sermons without offering any Reasons or Arguments to prove the Tenets which He impugns But upon second Thoughts considering that the Weaker and more Ignorant sort of People for whose Vse I chiefly design'd it might be easily shaken in their Faith by the specious Arguments of this Ingenious Man and not a little startled at his Pretence to Evidence of Sense and Reason against the Doctrine of R. Catholicks and that perhaps they had not the leisure nor happily the will to read over other Controversies where the said Doctrine is largely prov'd I judg'd it would contribute more to their satisfaction and strengthen them more effectually in their Faith if I shou'd lay down some of the Grounds on which their Belief is founded than barely to solve the Objections and refer them to other Books for the Proof of their Faith Weak Capacities being commonly loth to take much pains and what is worse apt to forget what they read in one Place before they join it to that which they read in another Whereas a brief Account of their Faith and some Considerations upon the Objections laid together wou'd render the Task more easie and the satisfaction more full But what influenc'd me most to take that Method was this A certain R. Catholic Gentlewoman being very uneasie with her Friends upon account of Religion was very much solicited by One to whom she had some special Obligations to read Dr. Tillotson's Sermons as the most effectual means to make her see the Truth of the Protestant Religion and the Errors of her own And to engage her the more in the matter he read some of the said Sermons to her and highly commended them concluding that nothing cou'd be more plain than that she was very much wanting to her own Interest if she shou'd refuse to read those Sermons which as he said made out as clear as the Day that she was in an Error Which when she told me and withall added that she shou'd be glad to have the Scruples which these Sermons gave her remov'd and not a little pleas'd to find that her own Faith was founded in Scripture and in the Authority of the Primitive Fathers which it seems she had not taken pains to enquire into before I promis'd her to contribute my Endeavours to her satisfaction in both And this in a word is what chiefly determin'd me to prefix the Proof of each Controverted Point to the Dr's Objections How well I have succeeded in the Performance let others judge This with many other Defects I am Conscious of that the apprehension of being too tedious has made me contract my Arguments and Reasons and bring them within a narrower Compass than the Rules of Discourse will well allow of My Bus'ness it to instruct the Weak and Ignorant not to please the Curious and therefore if I have deliver'd my Thoughts plain and easie I am content 'T is the Fate of Great Volums scarce ever to be read all out at least by such as most need them and so by multiplying of Reasons and Arguments and dilating upon them the whole is made useless Whereas small Treatises of two or three days reading are commonly perus'd by every body upon this sole Consideration that if the Advantage be not great at least the Labour is but little For this Reason in quoting the Fathers I have multiply'd their Number nor their Passages to that degree as might otherwise be expected But to make Amends I took special care to bring no one Passage to which any Learned Protestant can justly except being such as the most Judicious Critics do acknowledge to be the Genuine Works of those Fathers in whose Names they are quoted My Passages are indeed Small in Number but Great in Authority I judg'd that five or six of the Fathers the most Eminent for Piety and Learning were sufficient Witnesses of the Faith of their Times especially when not contradicted by others These Great Men I look upon as so many Flameing Torches set up to give Light to all future Ages Their vast Learning and Knowledge in Sciences especially in the Law of God is enough to perswade any Man that they cou'd not be ignorant of any the least Point of their Faith and their Piety and Zeal for God's Honor and His Holy Religion sets them above the suspicion of even Malice it self of Writing or Teaching or Practising any thing that shou'd appear to be contrary to the Faith and Discipline of the Church especially since their learned Works do still demonstrate how suddenly they were alarm'd at the least Errors or Innovations in these Matters and how zealously they wrote against and branded the Broachers and Promoters of Novelty So that we may confidently assert That what these Father 's taught and believ'd was undoubtedly the Catholic Faith and pronounce upon the strength of their Reasons and Authority tho' we had no other Arguments to prove it As to Dr. Tillotson's Sermons because there are several Editions of them in different Sizes it will be requisite to let the Reader know what Edition and Size I make use of I have all that has been hitherto publish'd of them in Eight Volums in a large Octavo whereof the two first are of the Eighth Edition the third of the Fourth and all the rest of the First Edition But the Three Last being publish'd by Dr. Barker after the Decease of the Author are Mark'd on the Back and in the Title Page 1st 2d 3d. Vol. which in my Citations I point at thus Vol. 1st 2d or 3d. Edit post Obit to distinguish them from the Rest which are Cited without Addition only that of Volum and Page Two things more seem to require I shou'd here speak to in order to bespeak the Reader 's Favour The First that it may seem to need some Apology that in Answering the Books of an Arch Bishop I do not treat him with that Civility and Respect that is due to his Person and Character The Second that it may seem very hardy and bold for a R. Catholic to engage in a Controversie which must needs offend many especially at this time of day when the most Innocent of our Actions are lyable to sinister Constructions For it seems to carry a face of Rashness and Presumption to provoke our Superiours when we know it is in their Power to crush and destroy us To the First I Answer That I have endeavour'd as far as the Nature of the Cause wou'd allow it to keep within the
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
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
guide it into all Truth surely it will not be wanting to it in this Point which is the most material of all others But I suppose the Dr. grounds his Argument upon this Axiom no Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause If he shou'd hence conclude that the supreme Judge cannot decide a Controversie concerning his own Prerogative he must certainly be a great Stranger to all Civil Laws and Constitutions in the World The King and Parliament together are the Supreme Judge of all Causes in England Now if we suppose the Rest of the people of England shou'd Dispute that Prerogative this Controversie according to the Doctor 's Principles can never be ended Not by the King and Parliament for it is their Own Cause nor yet by the Rest of the People of England for it is not Reasonable they shou'd be Judge and Party Who must judge it then No Body So that if we stretch that Axiom thus far we must leave undecided that without which nothing can be lawfully decided The true Sense of it then is this No Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause that is no Private Man who lives under Laws and Government ought to Judge for himself or be his own Carver but must have Recourse to the ordinary Judges whose Sentence he and his Adverse Party are bound to obey But this is by no means to be extended to the Supreme Legislative Power whose very Essence is to Judge all others and to be Judg'd by None As to what he says that a Controversie Who this Infallible Judge is cou'd never yet be decided in the Church of Rome I answer there never was any Controversie in the Church of Rome concerning what is of Faith in this Point namely that the Church is this Infallible Judge and what the Church is surely no Roman Catholic ever disputed Vol. 3. Edit post obit pag. 32. Object 4. If God had thought it necessary That there shou'd be an Infallible Church he wou'd have reveal'd this very thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever but this he has not done therefore he did not think it necessary Answ Let the Socinians for once answer or rather Retort this Argument upon the Doctor Had God say they thought the Knowledge of Three Persons really distinct each of them perfect God and yet but One God necessary to be believ'd by the Faithful he wou'd have reveal'd this very Thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever because it is look'd upon to be the Chiefest Mystery of Christianity but this He has not done Therefore he did not think it necessary to be believ'd Will the Doctor allow this Argument to be good If not I hope he will give me leave to have the same Thoughts of his Argument For I am certain there is no Text in Scripture that proves a Real Distinction of Three Persons whereof each is Perfect God and all but One God so plainly as it proves many other things which are not so necessary to Salvation But has not God plainly reveal'd that the Church is Infallible Tell the Church and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican When the Spirit of Truth cometh He shall guide you into all Truth Go teach all Nations And lo I am with you alway even unto the End of the World The Church is the Ground and Pillar of Truth Are not all these clear and plain Has not Christ's own Mouth and his Apostle's reveal'd all These concerning the Church Surely then he judg'd the Infallibility of the Church necessary to be believ'd And this is to a Reasonable Man instead of a Thousand Arguments that He thought it not only necessary but even laid it down as the Chief Fundamental Point of our Belief because this once firmly establish'd wou'd easily clear the Obscurity of any other Object 5. pag. 77. We have as great need of Infallible Security against Sin and Vice in matters of Practice as against Errors in matters of Faith but we have no Infallible Security against Sin and Vice in matters of Practice consequently nor against Errors in matters of Faith Answ This Comparison is in one sense Just and Reasonable and in that sense I will be content to stand or fall by it viz. That as the assistance of the Holy Ghost infallibly secures the Church from Error so the assistance of God's Grace together with the cooperation of our Wills which is always in our power is an infallible security against Sin if put in ure For is not every Sin voluntary And if voluntary surely we may abstain from it it wou'd not be voluntary else For if we cannot abstain from it it is no more voluntary but necessary and therefore no Sin and have not we in several places of the Scripture a promise of the Assistance of God's Grace which is never wanting to our sincere Endeavours and if we have God's Grace and are able at least by this assistance to abstain from sin certainly we have an infallible Security against Sin and Vice or if we have it not how can it stand with the infinit goodness of God to condemn us eternally for that which we cannot avoid In short as it is most agreeable to his infinit goodness and mercy to condemn no Man for what he cannot help so it is but reasonable we shou'd believe he has given us such means as will infallibly secure us if it be not our own fault both from Errors in matters of Faith and from Sin and Vice in matters of Practice But with this difference that Free-will without which there can be no reward or punishment by not cooperating with Grace falls into Sin and Vice whereas the assistance of the holy Ghost depending of no such condition as to its effect infallibly attains its end and preserves the Church from Error in matters of Faith Object 6. All things necessary to be known either in Faith or Practice are clear and plain in Scripture therefore there is no need of an Infallible Church Answ This is a Fundamental Principle I think I may truly say with all Protestants The Dr. I am sure repeats it several Times and lays great Stress upon it But in establishing this Principle he does two things which I suppose he wou'd not willingly allow of had he but well consider'd them 1. He makes any Man of sense that can read the Scripture as infallible as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be 2. He justifies in a great measure all the Heretics that ever denied any Points of Faith on pretence that they are not plain in Scripture 1. He makes any Man of sense that can read the Scriptures as Infallible as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be For the Catholic Church pretends only to be Infallible in necessary Articles of Faith Now if all things necessary to be known in Faith and Practice be clear and plain in Scripture there is no Man of sense that
reads it but may be as Infallible in what is clear and plain as any Church or Churches in the World For what is clear and plain to a Man that he is as Sure and Certain of as if all the Mathematicians in the World had demonstrated it to him since a Demonstration serves for no other end than to make a thing clear and plain So that this worthy grave Doctor necessarily vests in every private Man that Infallibility which he endeavours with so much earnestness to deny to the whole Catholic Church And surely if one single Man be Infallible when he interprets Scripture concerning necessary Articles of Faith how much surer can the same privilege be ascrib'd to a learned assembly of Divines compos'd of the whole Church The Dr. is then forc'd volens nolens even by his own Principles to admit an Infallibility 2. He Justifies in a great measure all the Heretics that ever denied any Points of Faith on pretence that they are not plain in Scripture For Instance the Socinians are Generally Men of Learning and their Ingenious Writings do sufficiently witness to the World they want neither sense nor judgment yet they solemnly declare they do not find one Text in Scripture which proves clearly and plainly the Divinity of Jesus Christ or a Trinity of Persons in One God in a True and proper sense which notwithstanding is one of the Greatest Mysteries of our Faith What must we say of these Men Can we imagin they wou'd be so great Enemies to their own Salvation as to deny this great Mystery if it were clearly and plainly set down in Scripture And if it be not with what face can Protestants condemn the Socinians who openly profess to follow their Principles and do for that very Reason reject this Mistery because it is not plain in Scripture Or how will they be able to convince them upon this Principle since they are ready as they have often declar'd to believe the Mystery of the Trinity if it cou'd be made out that it is clearly and plainly contain'd in the Scripture But why do I say convince them Alas They are so far from any such thing that the Absurd and Ridiculous Systems of many of their Doctors in their Answers to the accute and Ingenious Pamphlets of these Heretics proclaim loudly to the World that the Socinians have got the better and fairly beat them at their own Weapons And thus in rejecting the Authority of the Church which Christ commands us to hear on no less penalty than of being reputed Heathens and Publicans they have open'd a door for these and all other Sects who are daily cutting their Throats with those very weapons Themselves have put into their Hands CHAP. III. Of the Pope's Supremacy VVHat we believe to be of Faith concerning this Point is this That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter and as such Head of the Catholic Church That the Bishop of Rome is Successor of St. Peter I hope I need not prove since there is nothing in History more universally attested by all Ancient and Modern Writers Nor was it ever yet question'd that I cou'd find 'till some Protestants in this and in the last Age without the least Grounds in Antiquity had the Assurance to dispute it whose Opinions notwithstanding are exploded by most of their own Learned Writers See Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Peter The main Bus'ness then is to shew that this Prerogative was confer'd upon St. Peter And for this we have several Texts of Scripture in which it is plain 1. That Christ confer'd this Dignity upon Him 2. That the Evangelist giving the Names of the 12 Apostles marks particularly his Primacy And 3. That after Christ's Ascension he took upon him this Character always speaking first and moving to the Rest of the Apostles whatever was to be debated 1. Christ confer'd this Dignity upon him I say unto thee that thou art Peter or â—as the Greek has it a Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church Mat. 16. Jesus saith to Simon Peter Simon Son of Jonas Lovest thou me more than these John 21. And a little after feed my Lambs again feed my Sheep feed my Sheep And the Lord said Luke 22.31 32. Simon Simon behold Satan hath desir'd to have you that he may sift you as Wheat but I have prais'd for thee that thy Faith fail not and when thou art converted confirm thy Brethren The English Translators carrying no doubt an Eye upon this Controversie have rendred it strengthen thy Brethren because a Charge of Confirming others does too plainly denote a Superiority I shall make no other Reflections upon these Texts only desire the Reader to observe that this particular pointing out of Peter as a Rock to build the Church upon the especial Charge of feeding Christ's Lambs and Sheep by which the Holy Fathers have always understood both People and Pastors and the Confirming of his Brethren viz. The Rest of the Apostles must surely denote some particular Mark and Character above the Rest 2. The Evangelist in giving the Names of the 12 Apostles marks particularly St. Peters's Primacâ— Now the Names of the twelve Apostles are these the first Simon Mat. 10. who is called Peter 'T is certain that Peter was not the first Disciple of the twelve nor yet the eldest Man for his Brother Andrew was sooner a Disciple and older than Peter And most certainly Christ did not design the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Primacy of Ceremony or Civility but for that of Order and Jurisdiction at least as far as it was requisite to found the peace and unity of the Church 3. After Christ's Ascension Peter took upon him this Character Acts of the Apostles cap. 1. He stands up discourses at large upon the fall of Judas and lays before the Apostles and Disciples the Necessity of substituting an other in his Room chap. 2. When the Disciples were fill'd with the Holy-Ghost and spoke with other Tongues and the Multitude thought they were drunk Peter lifts up his voice and gives an account of that miraculous Gift His Spâ—ech in the Temple cap. 3. His defence before the Rulers and Elders in Jerusalem cap. 4. His Sentence upon Ananias and Saphira cap. 5. And many other passages to this purpose found in the same Volum are convincing Proofs of this Truth but more especially that famous Council of the Apostles related cap. 15. Where after much disputing Peter rose up first shew'd the Apostles what conduct they were to keep in regard of the converted Gentils and concluded in a manner the debate with this Sentence Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the neck of the Disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear c. So that if we had never been taught any thing else concerning Peters Primacy his conduct in these affairs were enough for any unprejudic'd Man to conclude that either
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
of the Protestants that it needs no farther Confutation 3. All the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ both in a literal Sense and in a Sense of Transubstantiation I shou'd fill up a Volum were I to bring all the Passages of Councils and Fathers which make for this Truth no Mistery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies Catechisms and familiar Discourses to the common People and that no doubt for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it but what may suffice to evince the truth of it I shall content my self with the Testimony of a few Councils and Fathers whose Authority and Weight however I hope shall make sufficient amends for the smalness of their number And 1. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense or which is the same thing believ'd the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament let St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria bear witness This great Patriarch in his Epistle to Nestorius speaks thus of the Eucharist Neque enim illam ut â—arnem communem suscipimus absit hoc neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati dignitatis unitate verbo consociati sed tanquam verè vivificam ipsiusque verbi propriam God forbid we shou'd receive it as common flesh nor yet as the flesh of a Man sanctified and united to the Word by a conjunction of dignity but we receive it as it truely is the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself This Letter was read and approv'd in the third General Council * Concil Ephes puncto 7. which no doubt wou'd never have been had it contain'd any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith so that having receiv'd Authority and Approbation from those Fathers we shall no more consider it as the Doctrine of a private Man but as the Faith of the whole General Council Now can it be imagin'd that this Council which represented the whole Catholic Church shou'd approve and put upon Record a Letter which declares the Real Presence as clear and plain as is possible for words to express it unless it had been at that Time the Faith of the whole Catholic Church And can it be imagin'd that the Catholic Church in those fair Days of her Youth as the Calvinists speak shou'd believe that Christ's proper Flesh as the said Letter words it was in the Sacrament unless they had understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense and receiv'd the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors Or can it be imagin'd that these Ancestors shou'd be of this Belief unless they had likewise receiv'd it from their Ancestors and so up to the very Apostles This is surely to any Man of Sense but more especially ought to be to the Church of England who professes to receive the Acts and Decrees of this Council instead of a Demonstration that from the begining of Christianity to the Time of this Council all the Orthodox Christians did both believe the Real Presence and understand Christ's Words in a literal Sense 2. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ this is my Body in a sense of Transubstantiation we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church many whereof in their familiar Discourses to the common People Illustrate this Conversion by the change of the Water into Wine of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the River Nilus into Blood and the like And 't is very observable that in all their Discourses upon this Subject and whenever they speak of this Change they have Recourse to the Omnipotent Power of God to which alone they ascribe it which surely wou'd be very needless had there been no real Change in the Case St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks thus Concerning this Change Therefore since Christ hath said of the Bread this is my Body who durst any more doubt it And since He himself so positively affirm'd saying this is my Blood who ever doubted so as to say that it was not his Blood In Time past at the Wedding of Cana in Galilee he chang'd Water into Wine which has a certain likeness to blood and shall not we think him worthy to be believ'd that he cou'd change Wine into his Blood Again for under the appearance of Bread he gives us his Body and under the appearance of Wine he gives us his Blood And a little after tho' your Senses seem in this to oppose you yet Faith must confirm you do not judge the thing by the Taste but let Faith assure you beyond all doubt that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Cate. Mystag 3. Here is a great Bishop an Eminent Witness of Antiquity one who flourish'd 1300 Years since and who no doubt knew very well the Faith of the Catholic Church of his Time touching this Point Here is a careful Pastor expounding Christ's Words and Catechizing his Flock in the very Language of the present Roman Catholics He tells them that since Christ said that the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood they must believe that the Bread and Wine were chang'd into his Body and Blood He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water which Christ chang'd into Wine and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other by the actual Existence of this change which they both read and believ'd He tells them that under the Appearance of Bread they receive the Body and under the Appearance of Wine they receive the Blood of Christ and that tho' their senses may tell them that it is still Bread yet their Faith must correct that Mistake that they must not judge what it is by the Taste but must believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ whatever their senses may suggest to them to the contrary Did ever any Roman Catholic speak plainer concerning Transubstantiation Can any Roman Bishop or Pastor at present enforce the belief of this Mystery with more cogent Arguments than to tell his Auditors that since Christ said this is my Body we must believe it is so since he chang'd Water into Wine we have no Reason to doubt but his Omnipotence is sufficient to change Wine into his â—lood that tho' it appears to our Eyes to our Taste to our Smell that the thing is otherwise yet we must not in this bus'ness rely upon the Relation of these senses but upon the sense of Hearing because Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God which Word we are here only requir'd to believe All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril Now what the Protestants may think of this great Maâ— I shall not determin but this I am sure of that had he written this since the Reformation they wou'd have all reckon'd him to be as rank a Papist as ever put Pen
tell us that Colours contradict the Sense of Hearing or Sound the Sense of Seeing Had we said that there is a Trans-Accidentation in that Mystery the Dr. wou'd then indeed have been in the right to press his Argument Accidents being the proper Objects of our Senses but surely we never said any such thing consequently we never contradicted our Senses upon that Subject We see with our Eyes that the Accidents remain the same as before we therefore conclude that the Change must be in the Substance which we cannot see because Christ told us it was his Body and because we are sure he was able by his Omnipotent Power to make it his Body But says the Doctor there are all the Accidents of the Bread and where ever the proper Accidents of any Substance is there the Substance must necessarily be Answ 1. Suppose this were true there is still no contradicting of Senses in the Case since we own the Accidents are there which alone are the Object of our Senses 2. Will the Dr. himself say that this is and always was necessarily True No for he tells us Vol. 2. Pag. 67. That God may impose upon our Senses and if he tells us the thing is otherwise than it appears we must believe him All that this Argument proves then is that ordinarily and for the most part the matter is so but why may not God notwithstanding this do otherwise upon extraordinary Occasions especially in Mysteries of Faith which are not subject to the ordinary Rules of Nature And why may not we believe that the Accidents of Bread may exhibit an other Substance to us especially since we have the Word of the Son of God for it as well as the Accidents of a Dove and the Appearance of Men cou'd represent the Holy Ghost and the Angels to St. John the Baptist and to Lot John the Baptist saw in appearance a Dove descend and remain upon Christ yet He believ'd it was not a Real Dove because he was told by him that sent him God that it was the Holy Ghost that was to descend and remain upon him And why may not we likewise believe the same God when he tells us that that which appears to us to be Bread is his Body John the Baptist says I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a Dove and it abode upon him and I knew him not But he that sent me to baptize with Water the same said unto me upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost John 1.31 32. Now John the Baptist might have waited till now and expected to see the Holy Ghost descend upon Christ and yet be never the wiser had he been of the Doctor 's Opinion For if he must in that respect believe his Senses he is never like to see the Holy Ghost who surely has neither Colour Shape nor Figure to affect our Senses And whatever Shape or Figure the Holy Ghost appear'd in St. John was still in Right of maintaining his Ground and of affirming if we believe the Doctor that what he saw was not the Holy Ghost but a Dove or something else For he might have said with the Doctor the Evidence of Sense is Infallible Whatever my Eyes represent to me I must believe it Take away the Evidence of Sense and you destroy all Knowledge What appears to my Eyes is a Dove therefore I cannot nor must not believe it is the Holy Ghost or any thing else but a Dove When you told me I shou'd see the Holy Ghost descending c. I gave Credit to my Hearing by which I perceiv'd your Words and now I must contradict my Sight which tells me this is a Dove Or if I believe it is the Holy Ghost why may not I as well question my Hearing and doubt whether you said any such thing to me as I must now disclaim the Evidence of my Sight which surely is a Sense every whit as Infallible as my Hearing May not all these Questions and Reasonings be urg'd by St. John as well as by the Doctor But alas St. John never dreamt of any such thing For he knew very well and so might the Doctor too if he cou'd devest himself of his Prejudices that tho' we must ordinarily Rely upon the Evidence of our Senses yet when God tells us the thing is otherwise than our Senses represent it we ought to give Credit to his Word because we are sure on the one side his Word cannot be false and we know on the other he may impose upon our Senses And sure this does not destroy any human Knowledge or Science since it does not hinder but that in all other things we may rely and that must assuredly upon the Evidence of our Senses only where the Word and Omnipotent Power of God it pleas'd to interpose Nor does it in the least shake the External Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity as the Doctor wou'd bear the World in Hand it does For when our Saviour bad the Apostles have recourse to their Senses to convince them of the Truth of his Resurrection he did not tell them that they must not believe their Senses in that particular Since we are then in all things which are not repugnant to God's Word not only allow'd to follow the Evidence of our Senses for that we always uncontroulably do but also may safely believe that the Substance which such Accidents or Objects of our Senses usually represent is infallibly there how can that Doctrine which is warranted by the same Divine Word in that wherein it seems to be repugnant to Sense destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity it being evident that wherever Christ appeal'd to the Evidence of Sense for the Proof of any of his Miracles he never disclaim'd that Evidence nor said nor acted any thing that might seem to invalidate it But surely this cannot be said of the Eucharist nor of St. John's Dove nor yet of Lot's young Men For it is said of the first that it is the Body of Christ tho' it has the Appearance of Bread of the second that it was the Holy Ghost tho' under the Appearance of a Dove and of the third that they were Angels tho' under the Appearance of Men. Now how can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity any more than the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men Here is a Dove and two Men in Appearance and as far as Corporeal Senses can discover yet they are beliv'd to be the Holy Ghost and two Angels There is Bread in appearance yet it is beliv'd to be the Body of Christ Is not the Evidence of our Senses equally disclaim'd in both Do not we believe contrary to what we see in the one as well as in the other Notwithstanding no Man ever yet
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
I think I may reasonable conclude that the common people wou'd do the same were they never so well read in the Scriptures unless we suppose that the Protestant Religion has some Virtue to attract the common people upon the readding of Scripture in a vulgar Tongue which is incommunicable to Men of Letters when they read the same But methinks the stand the Protestant Religion has been at now upwards of an hundred Years without gaining one Foot of Ground nay hardly keeping what it had notwithstanding all the liberty and Indulgence it gives to Flesh and Blood is an evident Argument that it was not a serious Meditation and Study of Scripture but rather a popular fury and something like madness that brought over so many of the common People to embrace it in the Begining And indeed if the Fences and Bulworks wherewith the Protestant Religion is fortified were taken away if the Tests and Penal-Laws and other grievous Burdens laid upon R. Catholics were taken off if all the scandalous and opprobrious Language which Ministers thunder out in their Pulpits against the Church and Bishop of Rome all the False and Ridiculous Tenets which are ascrib'd to R. Catholics and manag'd with all the Art and Industry proper to inflame the People's hatred and to give them a perpetual aversion to R. Catholics and their Religion all the marks of Infamy and Dishonour put upon them being not permitted to bear any Civil or Military Office nay scarce allow'd in some Countries to exercise such honest Professions or Callings as may enable them to get their Bread if all these fatal Engins I say were laid aside and every Man left to chuse his Religion without the hopes of Reward on the one side or the Fear of loss of Goods and Temporal Punishment on the other I doubt the Protestant Religion wou'd soon fall to pieces and many a Prodigal Child wou'd return to their Father's Houses whence they have so long stray'd But these Fences and Barriers shall I call them of Religion being so Rivetted and interwoven with the Temporal Laws and Constitutions of most Governments where the Protestant Religion sways I fear all Reasons and Arguments tho' never so Evident are too weak to encounter them unless God of His Mercy be pleas'd to put His Hand to the Work To whose infinit Goodness and Mercy I do from my Heart most earnestly recommend it CHAP. VII Of the Invocation of Saints WHat we believe to be of Faith on this Head is thus declar'd by the Council of Trent That the Saints who Reign with Jesus Christ offer up to God their Prayers for Men that it is Good and Profitable to Invocate them after an Humble Manner and to have Recourse to their Prayers Aid and Assistance to obtain of God His Benefits thro' our Lord Jesus Christ His Son who is our only Saviour and Redeemer Sess 25. This the Council declares to be the Faith of the Church concerning this point but does not Command or Oblige any of the Laity to pray to the Saints or Invocate them 'T is a Practice receiv'd from the Primitive Church and us'd by the Greatest and most Learned and virtuous of the Holy Fathers of those Times as appears by their Works and handed Down to us by an uninterrupted Tradition But because it is not absolutely necessary the Church leaves every one the liberty to make use of it or not aâ— they think fit Yet to see how Dr. Tillotson lays about him upon this Subject and what pains he takes to confute it one wou'd think we have nothing in our Liturgies and public Prayer-books but Prayers to Saints and that we do nothing else in the public and solemn Service of the Church but pray to Saints and worship them Here it may be expected I shou'd give a Specimen of his Laborious Endeavours in this matter but I think a Pattern wou'd not do and therefore I shall refer the Reader to three intire Sermons Vol. 2. edit post obit Ser. 2 3 4. where this Bus'ness is handled to some purpose Now to justifie our Proceedings from these imputations and to shew the Reasonableness of this Practice as by us us'd I shall do these Four Things 1. I will endeavour to shew that to invocate the Saints by which Words we protest and declare and 't is hard if we may not be allow'd to interpret our own Words that we mean nothing else but to desire them to pray for us is not repugnant to the Word of God 2. that in the public and solemn Service of the Church excepting the Litanies of the Saints which are read or sung solemnly four times a Year the General Confession of Sins in the begining of the Mass a few Hymns Anthems and Versicles which are not Prayers strictly and properly so call'd and most of which are read only once a Year excepting these I say we put up no Prayers to Saints or Angels but all our Prayers are address'd to Almighty God and to Jesus Christ our Mediator and Redeemer Not but that we hold it lawful even in the public and solemn Service of the Church to pray to the Saints that is to desire them to pray for us since all the Addresses we make to the Saints do finally Terminate in Jesus Christ in virtue of whose Death and Passion we believe the Saints are enabled to pray for us but because it is matter of Fact that we do not address our Prayers in the solemn Service of the Church but to God alone 3. I will make it appear from the very Words of the Holy Fathers that the Practice of praying to Saints was us'd in the Primitive Church And Lastly I shall endeavour to return a brief Answer to what the Dr. thought fit to bring against this Point 1. I will endeavour to shew that to invocate the Saints or which is the same thing to desire them to pray for us is not repugnant to the Word of God The Texts of Scripture which seems to be against this Practice and which the Doctor urges are taken out of St. Paul 1 Tim. 2.5 where he says There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus And again Heb. 9.15 For this Cause He Christ is the Mediator of the New Testament c. Hence the Doctor concludes that it is contrary to the Word of God and which he mostly insists upon derogatory to the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ to pray to any Saint or Angel since to do so were to constitute them Mediators between God and Men contrary to the Express Words of St. Paul But sure he was not aware how far this Inference wou'd carry him else he wou'd be a little more reserv'd We are exhorted by the Scriptures and by the Rules of Charity we are bound to pray to God for one another Eph. 6.19 1 Tim. 2. Yea and St. Paul himself desires the Ephesians to pray for him and exhorts Timothy to have Prayers and
England Divines do profess to receive So that it cannot be enough admir'd what shou'd induce them to reject the Invocation of Saints I shou'd never end if I shou'd bring all the Sayings of the Fathers on this Subject St. Austin has a long Discourse upon it against Faustus the Manichean where He gives at large the Reasons why the Catholic Church gives due Honour to the Martyrs and desires the Assistance of their Prayers And St. Jerom wrote a Book against Vigilantius upon this Subject and calls him Heretic for denying the Lawfulness of praying to Saints I shall therefore conclude with this Reflection that it is not reasonable to believe nay 't is incredible that these Holy Fathers who took so much pains to propagate the Faith and Gospel of Jesus Christ who wrote so many Learned and Voluminous Works which breath so much Piety and Christian Devotion spent all their Lives in Holy and Religious Exercises consecrated their Time and Labour to the Service of the True and Living God and were ready to lay down their Lives for the Truth of the Doctrine which they taught and practis'd if Occasion requir'd shou'd at the same Time write and practice a Doctrine which derogates from the Honour and Mediatorship of Jesus Christ it being their chief Study and Care to inculcate to the World that He was the only Lord and Mediator in whose Name and no other Salvation was to be had But if the Doctor shou'd say as many of his Brethren have that all these Holy Fathers err'd and consequently did not understand the Doctrine they labour'd so earnestly to Propagate I answer him as St. Austin did a certain Man to whom I fear the Doctor was in some Things but too near akin Mallem cum eis errare quam tecum consentire I had rather err with the Fathers than agree with Him Thus I have endeavour'd as plainly and briefly as I cou'd to shew how Reasonable how Harmless how Inoffensive the Invocation of Saints is and how agreeable to the Practice of the Holy Fathers and the Primitive Church I now proceed Lastly to return a brief Answer to what Dr. Tillotson thought fit to bring against this Point Here I wou'd not be understood as if I meant to answer all the little Objections and pretty quâ—rks of Wit which he endeavours to improve with all his Art and Eloquence in order no doubt to catch the well-meaning but weaker sort of People with this Fig-leaf Cover which yet all sober thinking Men may easily see thro' My Design is to answer only such Objections as have any real or apparent Difficulties being convinc'd that things naked or so thinly cover'd need no Reading upon His first Objection is taken out of St. Paul Colos 2.18 Vol. â— edit post obit pag. 43 44 45 19. Where the Apostle says Let no Man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary Humility and worshiping of Angels not holding the Head By which Words says the Doctor St. Paul intimates that for Christians to address themselves to God by any other Mediator than Jesus Christ only was a Defection from the Head This He says is Theodoret's Interpretation of that Passage in his Comment upon it and the third Chapter ver 17. of the same Epistle and to enforce this Interpretation he cites a Canon of the Council of Laodicea which says That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and go away from it and to invocate Angels and to make Conventicles all which are forbidden if therefore any be found giving himself to this secret Idolatry let him be Anathema because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and is gone over to Idolatry After which Words the Dr. breaks out into this Exclamation What shall be said to them who do not only secretly and in their Private Devotions but in the public Assemblies of Christians and in the most public Offices of their Church invocate Angels and pray to them Before I answer this Objection it won't be amiss to clear the Equivocation which in most controversial Disputes commonly attends these two words Worship and Invocation I worship is render'd in Latin colo or adoro in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in these three Languages 't is us'd in Scripture and in common Discourse not only to signifie the supream Worship and Honour we pay to Almighty God but also for all sort of Respect and Reverence done to Kings Princes and Persons of Condition Of this we have innumerable Examples in Scripture and not only so but the very Word which we use to signifie the supream Worship due to God alone is sometimes applied to human Affairs For as we say colere Deum to worship God colere Parentes to honour our Parents colere Vineam colere Agrum Hortum c. to till the Vineyard to till the Ground c. Yet no Man ever said that we rob God of his due Honour by using the same Expression to signifie the Respect we pay some Creatures which we use when we express the Honour due only to Him because the different Ideas or Notions we have of God and these Creatures sufficiently determin our meaning tho' the want of Words or rather the Conveniency of delivering our Thoughts in fewer Words oblige us to make use of the same Term to express these different Services In like Manner the Word Invocation is us'd in Scripture not only to signifie our calling upon God as our Sovereign Lord and Maker but is also us'd and applied in several places to ordinary Men. For instance Isaiah says Seven Women shall take hold of one Man saying we will eat our own Bread and wear our own Apparel only let thy Name be invocated upon us to take away our Reproach Tantum invocetur Nomen tuum super nos Cap. 4.1 So that if we do not attend to the Subject Matter to which these Words are applied the Scripture will afford us sufficient Grounds for Worshipping and invocating not only God Angels and Saints but even common ordinary Men. To worship and invocate then must necessarily mean to exhibit a Service and Duty to those whom we worship and call upon according to the Notion or Idea we have of their Excellency and Perfection and of the Power and Ability we conceive in them to help and assist us And then to Worship God and invocate Him must mean to pay Him the Supream Honor and Respect which is due only to the Great Creator and Redeemer of the World and to beg Mercy and Forgiveness of Him as the Source and Fountain of all Goodness but to Worship and Invocate the Angels and Saints must mean no more than to shew them that respect and honor which is due to the Friends and Courtiers of our Sovereign Lord and to ask their Help and Assistance in those things which we conceive they are able to do that is to pray for us and to recommend us to their
of our Saviour and the B. Virgin And as some of us now bow towards the Altar and all of us are enjoy'd to do so at the Name of Jesus so will we not fail to testifie all due Respect to this Representation Now we do-likewise declare and have upon all occasions done that we neither mean nor intend to give any more to the Images of Christ or the V. Mary or the Saints but due Honor and Respect But if neither the express Decree of the Council of Trent which commands us to give them no more nor the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition of our Doctrine in which this is so manifestly declar'd nor our own often repeated Protestations to that Effect will prevail upon them to believe us all we can say is that we are sorry for their Incredulity but cannot help it As to those Abuses which this Ingenious Man says have crept in upon Account of Images If there be any such we protest and declare that we abhor and detest them no less than he or any of his Perswasion or to use the Council of Trent's Phrase we earnestly desire they shou'd be intirely abolish'd But sure he was too reasonable to think that the abuse of a thing was a good Argument against the use of it Nor will his Example of Hezekiahis destroying the Brazen Serpent help the matter For he may please to consider that the Children of Israel liv'd in a Country where they were surrounded and as I may say hedg'd in on every side with Idolatry and the Worship of false Gods and not only so but they themselves were very much given to that Worship as appears by the Groves and high Places and Idols set up among them by their wicked Kings and Rulers and which this pious King pull'd down and destroy'd and therefore is deservedly commended in Scripture for breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent to which the People no doubt sacrific'd But blessed be God we have no such thing to fear We have no Idolaters among us nor near us we have no Groves nor high Places nor Idols in the land We do not burn Incense to any false Gods nor worship them We make only the Images and Pictures of the true God and his Saints and it cannot be denied but these same Pictures and Images have been kept in our Churches and have had the same respect given them which we now give at least these nine hundred years and in the Opinion of many learned Protestants for four hundred Years before Yet all this while no Heathen Idolatry was ever introduc'd into the Church upon Account of our Images No Defection from Christianity to Pagan Worship was heard among us So that the Example of Hezekiah is not to the purpose the Parallel is not just we are nothing concern'd in it Besides the Brazen Serpent was a Monument of no such great Moment to be long preserv'd 'T was only kept to put the Children of Israel in mind of the Miraculous Cure of those who were bitten by the Serpents in the Wilderness and when they left that Land and were no more vex'd by these Serpents it was of no great use But the Remembrance of the Death and Passion of our Lord by whom the Sins of the World was taken away and of his Holy Apostles and Saints by whom his Doctrine was propagated and transmitted to us is of that high Importance and Concern to all the World that these Monuments which put us in mind of them ought to be for ever most carefully preserv'd Page 14. As to what he says that in the Hymns for the day of the Invention of the Cross Good-Fryday we desire the Cross to strengthen the Righteous and give Pardon to the Guilty c. And that in the Service on Good-Fryday we say Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it I answer First That Poetical Hymns and Verses have in all Writings a greater Latitude than Prose Secondly That these Expressions are Apostrophes and Exclamations address'd to Jesus Christ upon the Cross whom we represent to our minds as there hanging when we salute the Cross And that this is our meaning whatever the words may import upon any other occasion I think is plain from the Words of the Council of Trent which expresly forbids us to believe that there is any Virtue or Divinity in Images or to demand any thing of them which if we believe as we profess and declare we do it cannot with any colour of Reason be presum'd that we shou'd ask Strength or Pardon of the Wood of the Cross contrary to the express commands of the Council and to the Faith which we profess Touching the Words in the Service on Good-Fridaâ— Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it I am sorry to see so Ingenious a Man and who otherwise professes to be so great a Friend to Sincerity and Truth swerve so manifestly from both in this Point He gives us here an Anthem sung on Good-Fryday maim'd in the middle and added to in the End The Words in the Roman Missal are thus Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo salus mundi pependit Venice Adoremus Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung Come let us adore Here is no It as he adds And sure it is more reasonable and more agreeable to Grammatical Construction to refer the word Adore to Saviour of the World which imediately goes before it than to Wood of the Cross which goes before that And then the sense is plainly this Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung Come let us adore Him And that this and no other is the Sense in which the Roman Catholic Church takes these Words I wonder any Man that ever read the Council of Trent shou'd be ignorant of seeing the Church in that Council has expresly declar'd that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and bow down we adore Christ and reverence the Saints Here is a Crucifix propos'd to us a Representation of Jesus Christ upon Mount Calvary we kiss it and bow to it and when we say Come let us adore we must surely mean come let us adore Christ else we shou'd contradict the express words of the Council I own indeed that we mean likewise by Kissing the Crucifix and bowing to it that day to give it due Honour and Respect and that we make use of the words Crucem Adoramus several Times on Good-Fryday to express the Respect we give it But then we are warranted so to do by the Scripture which uses the same Term to express the Honor exhibited to several Creatures as appears by these Texts Adorem te Filii Matris tuae Let thy Mother's Sons adore Thee says Isaac to his Son Jacob Gen. 27.29 Et omnis Multitudo inclinantes capita adoraverunt Dominum Regem and all the Congregation bowing their Heads ador'd the Lord and the King
Purgatory because they pray'd for the Virgin Mary and the Apostles and Martyrs c. else why do they not conclude that we do not believe it because we do the same To sum up all these Evidences then I reason thus The Primitive Church pray'd to God for some Souls departed that they might be deliver'd out of Prison that their Faults and Sins might be forgiven them that they might be eas'd of their Pain that they might be sav'd from the Punishment of Fire that they might be receiv'd into Heaven but such Prayers are inconsistent with a Belief that the Souls departed are immediately taken into Heaven or condemn'd to Hell Therefore the Primitive Church believ'd there was a Third Place wherein some souls departed were detain'd and were capable of being assisted and better'd by their Prayers The first Proposition is taken from the very Words of the Fathers and acknowledged by our Adversaries to be true The second a very small portion of Natural Reason with never so little insight in Scripture and Christian Religion which assure us that Prayers of that nature for those that are in Heaven or Hell are needless and vain will easily discover to be likewise True And I think the consequence is rightly infer'd I now proceed to the Objections 3. The Doctor objects first Vol. 2 Pag. 63. that the Doctrine of Purgatory is not founded in Scripture nor can be prov'd from it and that some of our own Eminent Men do acknowledge it cannot To which I answer that I have produc'd two Passages from Scripture and cou'd produce as many more which the most Eminent Fathers of the Primitive Church have interpreted of Purgatory and therefore I think I may safely tell the Dr. that with submission He was mistaken As to those Eminent Men of our Church who say that the Doctrine of Purgatory cannot be prov'd from Scripture when any one in his behalf names them and points at the place in their Works where they say so I will return him as satisfactory an Answer as I can In the mean time I may reasonably presume they say no such thing Seeing he was never backward in giving citations when they made any thing for him All the Eminent Men He vouches for this is Estius who by the Dr's own confession only says that in his Opinion the Passage of St. Paul above cited does not evince Purgatory but does not say that other Passages of Scripture do not and if he had I shou'd oppose to his Opinion that of Tertulian St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerom St. Austin and many more of the Ancient Fathers whose Authority in this matter ought I think to weigh more with any reasonable Man than that of any modern Writer whatsoever Vol. 2. edit post ob pag. 307. His second Objection is borrow'd from a Text in the Revelations Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence forth Yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their Labours and their Works do follow them cap. 14.13 Here says the Dr. the Spirit pronounces them happy who die in the Lord because they rest from their Labours which adds He they wou'd not do were they to be tormented in Purgatory Fire Ergo c. Answ This Passage is confessedly obscure as to the meaning of some Words in it and the Time whence the blessing there mention'd is to Commence and the Doctor 's bestowing six full Pages upon the Explication of it shews it to be so and for that Reason I think it is against the Rules of Logic to pretend to more Evidence in the conclusion than the Premises will afford But it seems he forgot in his second Sermon upon this Text that in his First he had told us that the Dead which die in the Lord in Scripture Phrase are those who die or are put to death for the Lord's Cause that is as he expresly says suffer Martyrdom for the Lord I say he must have forgot this else he wou'd not have objected that Text against Purgatory since he cou'd not be ignorant that we believe that all the Martyrs who suffer for the Faith of Christ and even other Eminent Saints who do not suffer Martyrdom but live the life of Martyrs do rest from their Labours and pass not thro' the Fire of Purgatory Wherefore in my opinion he shou'd have given us an other Interpretation of this Text or have let Purgatory alone but 't is no new thing to find the Doctor pulldown in one place what he had built in an other and therefore I am not surpriz'd to see Purgatory brought in by Head and Shoulders and spoken against in Season and out of Season 'T is Purgatory that reproaches the Sacrileges and Depredations of the Doctor 's Ancestors of worthy Memory and Bears hard upon their Posterity and upon that account it must be Cry'd down lest the horrid guilt of the Sacrileges of the Fathers shou'd fly in the Face of their Children and give them that Purgatory in this Life which He wou'd perswade them they shall not meet with in the next For a third Objection the Doctor tells us Vol. 2. Edit Post ob Pag. 310. we have a very considerable and substantial Reason to exempt as few as possibly we can from going to Purgatory because says he the more we put in fear of going thither the Market of Indulgences as he calls it riseth the higher and the profit thence accruing to the Pope's Câ—ffers and the more and greater Legacies will be less â—o the Priests to hire their saying of Masses for the delivery of Souls out of the Place of Torments Answ After my hearty thanks to the Dr. for his Charitable Opinion of us I must observe from what is above said that it seems this Market of Indulgences is of a very long standing and that the Ancient Fathers of the Church took great care it shou'd not sink But to be serious 'T is well known and even acknowledged by the Learned of his Church that in the Time of Gregory the Great now a Thousand Years since the Doctrine of Purgatory and all the Practices consequent upon it were believ'd and us'd as they are now And did that great Saint exempt as few as he cou'd from Purgatory only to raise the Market of Indulgences Did all the Bishops of the Western Church nay and of all the World concur with him in this only to fill his Coffers Alas The good Holy Man had but few Coffers and as little Money to fill them with Conversion of Souls not Money was his bus'ness Did St. Austin design the raising of the Market of Indulgences or the putting of the People into a fear of going to Purgatory when he earnestly desires the Readers of his Confessions to pray for his Mother Monica's Soul for the remission of her Sins And had St. Jerom any thoughts of filling the Pope's Coffers when he wrote that much benefit wou'd accrue to the Souls departed by the commemoration made of