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
very hard if not impossible to receive such an Injury or Provocation from the Governours of the Church as may make a Separation excusable impossible according to St. Austin that there should be any just cause for any to separate from the Church truly Catholic Thus far the Dr. and indeed very right only where the Fathers condemn him and his party he is so much a Friend to his Cause as to alter the Phrase a little For instance whereas St. Ireneus says absolutely It is impossible to receive such an Injury or Provocation from the Governours of the Church as to make a Separation excusable he saw very well that if no kind of Injury or Provocation cou'd justifie a Separation himself and his Party stood condemned in that Holy Fathers Opinion and therefore he changed the word Impossible into very hard if not impossible tho' in the Greek which some will have to be the original or Latin Translation there is not the least colour for it So where St. Austin saith That it is impossible there should be any just Cause for any to separate from the Catholic Church He softens the Expression changing Catholic Church into the Church truly Catholic pretending if I may presume to spell his meaning that they did not separate from the Church truly Catholic tho' they had separated from all other Societies and Congregations in the World upon a ridiculous Pretence as if the Catholic Church and the Church truly Catholic were two different things or where the Expression seems too harsh he thinks himself sufficiently entituled to moderate it as where the Holy Father St. Austin says There is no Crime so great as Schism he makes bold with his Words rendring them thus there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism Mr. Serjeant to whose great Wit and indefatigable Labour we are obliged for several other Learned and Ingenious Works in these two excellent Treatises presses his Antagonist to purge himself and his party of the guilt of Schism since he owns they had made a separation from that Church in whose communion they and their Ancestors were since they imbraced the Christian Faith But among other pressing Arguments he urges this which in my opinion is enough to open any man's eyes that has not sworn never to see the Sun Dr. Hammond gathers from Fathers and Scripture that Schism is so horrid a sin that there is scarce any crime I give you his own words so great not Sacriledg Idolatry parricide not expiable by Martyrdom very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury or provocation from the Church as may make a separation excuseable Impossible according to St. Augustin that there shou'd be any just cause for any to separate from the Church truly Catholic whence Mr. Serjeant reasons thus No Man in his Wits much less any body of Learned Men ought to separate from the Church or withdraw themselves from its Authority unless they had a clear and evident Conviction both that this Separation waâ— absolutely necessary and that the Authority pretended by the Church was a manifest usurpation because they would else incur that horrid guilt of Schism But Dr. Hammond and his Party are so far from having any such Evidence or Conviction for either the one or the other that nothing is pretended but bare probabilities and conjectures Consequently it is the last of madness and folly in Dr. Hammond and his Party to persist in their Separation Now Dr. Tillotson who was a very acute Man foreseeing what effect so plain a Demostration was like to have upon such as tendered the Salvation of their Souls being however resolved to maintain the Cause at any rate cou'd bethink himself of nothing sufficient to justifie so dangerous a Separation less than a clear and evident Demonstration of the necessity of it And this in my opinion was the Reason why he undertook to demonstrate that in regard of the aforesaid controverted Points the common sense of Man-kind natural Reason and the Scripture were as clear and evident on the Protestant's side as that twice two make four But what if I shew that he is so far from having any such Evidence on his side that there is not one of all these Points in which he instances but what is destitute of even the least probable Argument to support it Nay I go farther what if I demonstrate that the R. Catholics have all the Evidence and Reason that the nature of such things will bear for what they hold concerning these Points Then surely I may reasonably hope that Rational Men who ought to tender the welfare of their Immortal Souls will be so just to themselves as seriously to consider into what horrible and dangerous crimes they are drawn by the wilfulness of Men who are resolved to maintain a Separation which all the world knows was begun for no other end than to countenance Things that I am unwilling to name but are too well known to be concealed This I shall endeavour by the assistance of God's Grace to perform in the following Chapters when I have first laid down that chief and fundamental Point of all Controversies namely the Infallibility of the Church CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of the Church THE R. Catholics hold that the Church is infallible that is cannot err in delivering the Doctrine she received from Jesus Christ nor mistake in her Explanation thereof when by Heretics wrested and perverted to a wrong sense The ground of which Tenet I conceive to be this that Christ has provided such efficacious means for the conveyance of Truth to all succeding Ages as will infallibly secure the Church from error in her Decrees concerning Articles of Faith This Point is to be managed with so much the more perspicuity and clearness by how much it is of greater importance than any other It will be therefore requisite to take some pains to satisfie Mens Reasons and if it be possible to make this Truth so clear and evident that those whose Interest and Prejudices make them unwilling to own it may at least be ashamed to deny it And methinks I have this peculiar advantage in this undertaking that every Pious Christian who tenders the welfare of his Soul cannot chuse but wish me success because I undertake the Proof of that which it is every Man's Interest it shou'd be true for if I can shew that there is an Infallible Church and that such a Congregation of Faithful is that Church then all Christians who are Solicitous about the true Church and the means of Salvation and agitated with various Scruples and Difficulties and which is more dreadful threatned with Hell and Damnation by the furious Zeal of different Parties may sit still and hear what the Infallible Church says to them In the handling then of this important Truth I shall do these three Things First I will endeavour to shew that there is a Church or Congregation of Faithful which is Infallible in her Decisions and Declarations
their Religion from their Ancestors and these from others and that the mistake did not consist in this but because they were so foolish as to receive it from those who took it up in the beginning without any Rational Motive nay contrary to Sense and Reason and the very Light of Nature The Case was very different with the first Christians They embraced their Religion upon a clear and evident Conviction of their Senses and Vnderstanding viz. upon the evidence of true and real Miracles and other Corroborating Proofs But of this enough A whole Nation is much less subject to err in conveying Truths received to Posterity than a City or small Body of People And tho' it be not impossible they should all agree together to deliver to Posterity what they had not received from their Ancestors yet it is hardly credible they would That there hapned a great Conflagration in London in the Year 66. we have no other Evidence but the Testimony of the People of England yet whoever should deny that Fact would be looked upon as a Fool or a Madman If it be then so incredible that one Nation who speak all the same Language and have daily entercourse one with an other should be so disingenuous as to deliver to their Posterity as a Truth received from their Ancestors what they had not received how should it ever sink into the Heart of any Man in his wits to believe that Hundreds of Nations of different Humours Tongues Customs and Interests should unanimously agree together to do that which is so incredible of one single Nation This indeed is plainly impossible unless we can suppose that so many Nations should meet together or communicate their Thoughts to one another by Writing and so all agree to tell what they knew not to the Prejudice of Truth and their own and Posterities eternal Damnation than which nothing on Earth is more absurd Or that God should put it into their Hearts to deceive their Posterity which even to imagine is horrid Impiety The Sum of all that I have said is this That it is impossible the universal Consent of the Pastors and People of so many different Nations should concur and agree in declaring any Article or Articles of Faith unless they had received the same Articles from their Ancestors and it is equally impossible that these Ancestors should have so delivered them unless they had received them from their Ancestors and these from others their Ancestors and so up till you come to the first People who took up these Articles And if it be found that these people had evident Conviction of the Truth of these Articles such as true and real Miracles it is equal to a Demonstration that the same Articles are true because as 't is said before the working of real Miracles requires an Omnipotent Power and the Light of Nature shews us that God would not put his Seal to an Untruth And if it be asked how come we to be certainly sure that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles I answer because it is impossible that all the Nations to whom the Apostles and their Disciples preached the said Articles of Faith should all agree to deliver to Posterity that they had received such Articles upon a clear Conviction of their Senses and Reason by true Miracles unless it were true that they had so received them And this is an Advantage whereof all Heretics are destitute no Sect that ever yet sprung up in the Church being able to derive its Heretical Opinions from the Apostles or first Planters of the Christian Faith but have all a certain Period beyond which they cannot ascend to derive their Doctrine To instance in some The Arians for near 200 Years might claim the General Consent of some Nations asserting they had received their Doctrine from their Ancestors but when they went back as far as the Beginning of the fourth Century all their Ancestors are reduced to miserable Arius who at that time contrary to the unanimous Consent of the whole Christian World denied the Divinity of the Son of God In like manner the Nestorians and Eutychians may pretend to a General Consent of some Nations for a great many Ages but when they ascend as far as the latter End of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth Century they are forced to stop there and reduce their Ancestors the first to Nestorius the second to Eutyches a Monk and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria The Waldenses likewise may say for themselves something like the rest but if we look back as far as the twelfth Century we shall find them all terminate in one single Merchant of Lyons in France Peter de Waldo And to come nearer home those many and almost innumerable Sects in our own and Neighbour Countries who go by the General Name of Protestants tho' they pretend to have received their Doctrine from their Ancestors for some Time I hope they will not say and indeed to do them Justice I never heard they pretended to it that those Opinions they hold in opposition to the R. Catholics were delivered to them by their Ancestors any higher up than the Beginning of the sixteenth Century when 't is no less manifest that all their Ancestors were R. Catholics than that Luther Zuinglius and Calvin were the Inventors of their new Opinions Here perhaps it will be Objected That this Consent of Nations for all the Articles of the Catholic Faith is not so universal as I pretend since 't is well known a great many in almost all Ages have contradicted it The Arians for instance to omit many other Sects before them contradicted it in one Point The Nestorians and Eutychiâ—â—â— in Two the Waldenses in more and the Protestants in most of all This is the only Objection which can with any colour of Reason be made against the universal Consent of the C. Church and which doubtless occasioned the Pâ—ain of many Souls most of those People that followed these Ring-leaders being either unable to examine the Grounds of their Separation or prejudiced by some temporal Consideration in favour of their Opinions And with all thinking themselves secure in the Society and Communion of so many Men whom they look'd upon to be both Learned and Godly Now if I can make out that this Objection is not only weak but even void of all colour of Reason I hope our deluded Friends will be so just to their own Souls as to consider how dangerous it is to persist in a Separation which is necessarily attended with the unevitable crime of Schism so dreadfully described by one of their own * Dr. Hammond Learned Men. Which that I may the more distinctly do I desire these four things may be considered I. That the Contradiction of each of the said Sects began first in one or two at must II. 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
is excommunicated by the Church for the Obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which the Church professes cannot justy be call'd a Member of the Church 1. In the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World This is manifest from these Words of St. Paul He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. Eph. 4.11 12. 2. There is but one Catholic Church This is evident from Christ's own Words I have other Sheep which are not of this Fold Them also I must bring and they shall hear my Voice and there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd John 10.16 And from these Words of the Nicene Creed I believe One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church 3. One Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church This is no less evident from the aforesaid Words of Christ who says that his Sheep will not only hear his Voice but also shall be brought all into one Fold than from the very Notion which as well protestants as Catholics have of a Church namely That it is a Congregation of the Faithful believing and practicing the same Things with due Subjection and Subordination to their Lawful Pastors This Truth the Gentlemen of the Church of England are very loth to own in their Disputes with the Roman Catholics and not without Reason For they are Sensible that all their Authority and Mission if any they have are deriv'd from the Church of Rome and that if Unity in Communion which as aforesaid implies a Due Subjection and Subordination to Lawful Pastors be essential to the Being of the Catholic Church they quite unchurch themselves since it is Manifest that in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth They shook off all Obedience and Subjection to their Bishops who were all R. Catholics and Drove them all away and in some Years before in King Henry the VIII his Time what with Death and other Cruelties they compell'd most of Them to divide and separate from the Pope and all other Bishops in the World besides They wou'd therefore willingly pass by this sore place if possible but when the Dispute is with the Presbyterians this Truth is highly magnified These they look upon to be Schismatics because they separated from their Communion and erected Altars against their Altars and so far indeed they are in the Right if a Separation from a Separation may be called Schism However this I cannot but admire that they do not observe that in charging the Presbyterians with Schism they condemn themselves since it is notoriously known they are highly guilty of what they charge them with namely of separating from their own and all other Bishops in the World Whoever desires farther Satisfaction in this matter may consult Dr. Heilin's History of the Presbyterians Intitul'd Aerius Redivivus and the History of the Reformation by the same Author but more especially an Ingenious Treatise lately publish'd by a Learned Divine of the Church of England under this Title The Principles of the Cyprianic Age. In this the Author proves excellently well the Necessity of One Communion as well as of One Faith for the being of One Church I will transcribe some of his Words and leave the Reader to judge how well he proves my Postulatum Now they were thus united saith he speaking of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church by the Great and Fundamental Laws of one Faith and one Communion That the One Holy Catholic Faith is essential in the Constitution of One Holy Catholic Church is even this day a receiv'd Principle I think amongst all sober Christians But then I say that the Christians in St. Cyprian's Time reckon'd the Laws of one Communion every whit as forcible and indispensable to the Being of one Church as the Laws of One Faith It was a Prime a Fundamental Article of their Faith that there was but one Church and they cou'd not understand how there cou'd be but One Church if there was more than One Communion By their Principles and Reasonings a multiplication of Communions made unavoidably a multiplication of Churches and by consequence seeing there cou'd be but one true Catholic Church there cou'd be likewise but one true Catholic Communion All other Churches or Communions were false i. e. not at all Christian Churches or Communions Thus far this Learned Man and indeed very right For it was the constant Principle as well of all as of the Primitive Ages of the Church that One Communion was no less Essential to the being of One Church nor less necessary to Salvation than One Faith And here I cannot but observe two things by the way 1. How unjust that intolerable charge of uncharitableness is wherewith the Protestants incessantly Traduce the R. Catholics for denying them Salvation out of their Communion since it is manifest as this Learned Man says that one Faith and one Communion are equally necessary to Salvation And no less evident that the Protestants separated themselves from that Communion and Faith which the R. Catholics believe and maintain to be the true Church How is it then consistent with their Principles to allow Salvation to the Protestants whilst they persist in their Separation Or how can they be deem'd uncharitable for judging according to the known Principles of the Primitive Christians who knew but one Faith and one Communion wherein Salvation was to be had 2. What miserable shifts the Church of England Gentlemen are driven to being forc'd to deny to the R. Catholics in their own justification what they so earnestly press upon the Presbyterians in order to reclaim them as constant and fundamental Principles in the Primitive Church 4. Whosoever separates from or is excommunicated by the Church for the obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which it professeth cannot reasonably be call'd a Member of the Church This is Self-evident as to the first part for to separate from the Church is to go away from it as the very Word imports and by consequence to be no more a Member of it It is likewise no less evident as to the second for to Excommunicate is to put out of Communion or to cut off from the Body of the Church So that whoever is Excommunicated for the Denial of any Article of Faith can no more be said to be united to the Church than an Arm cut off from a Man or a Branch from a Tree can be said to be united to the same Man or Tree All such then who wilfully separate from the Communion of the Catholic Church let their Pretence be never so plausible are properly Schismatics I say let their pretence be never so plausible for Dr. Hammond tells us as aforesaid that
it is Impossible the Church shou'd give them such Provocation as might justifie a Separation in like manner All those who are excommunicated by the Church for their obstinate Refusal to assent to any Truth declar'd to be an Article of Faith are properly call'd Heretics Now Protestants as well as Catholics agree that neither Schismatics nor Heretics are Members of the Catholic Church nor any way within its Pale There only remains then to examine who those are on whom these Marks of Schism and Heresie are justly chargeable and who on the other Hand are free from that charge which if plainly made out it will be easy to see what Congregation of Faithful can be justly call'd the Catholic Church Now all the Societies of Christians who with any colour of Reason can pretend to the Name of Catholic are these 1. The Nestorians and Eutychians 2. The Greek Church 3. The Church of England And lastly the R. Catholics I have on purpose omitted the Waldenses Socinians Hussites Lutherans Calvinists and all those almost Innumerable Sects continually shooting out of the Trunck of the Reformation and spreading far and near over our own unfortunate Ilands as Anabaptists Independents Quakers Mugoltonians Seekers Familists Philadelphians c. because all these are destitute of even the least Pretence to the Name of Catholic Church having neither lawful Pastors lawful Mission nor Right Ordination which as all the Christian World before the Reformation and as the Church of England still grants cannot be given without Imposition of Hands performed by Bishops This they Ingenuously own they have not consequently nor the least Pretence to the Catholic Church no nor if we believe some Learned Divines of the Church of England to the Name of Christian For as these Gentlemen Reason no Man can be call'd Christian unless he is Baptiz'd Baptism cannot be conferr'd but by such who have Authority to administer the Sacraments no Man can have this Authority but by lawful Ordination and this is not conferr'd nor cannot without Imposition of Hands by Lawfully ordain'd Bishops Bishops all these Sects own they have not consequently nor true Baptism nor Christianity This I confess cannot be said of the four Societies aforesaid For every one of them hath always retain'd the Hierarchy of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons at least have pretended to it and think it Essential to the being of the Catholic Church But since this is not enough unless they have likewise the Catholic Faith and Communion which together with the said Hierarchy make up the essential parts of Catholic Religion our present Bus'ness shall be to try each of them by this Touchstone and see which will abide the Test 1. Touching the Nestorians and Eutychians Under this Appellation I comprehend the Jacobites Cophtes Armenians and all other Sects who follow the Opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches touching the Person and Natures in Christ all the Rest of the Eastern Christians either adhereing to the Roman or Greek Church What I have to say concerning these Sects shall be dispatch'd in a few Words Dr. Tillotson and all the Learned Men of the Church of England do receive the Definitions of the four first General Councils whereof the two last excommunicated and condemn'd as Heretics the Authors of these Sects and their Adherents Nâ—storius for asserting two persons Eutyches for denying two Natures in Christ consequently all those Sects who took up their Opinions are justly excluded from the number of True Catholics As to the Points in Controversie betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants viz. Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass Prayers for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. they are as firmly believ'd by the said Sects as by the R. Catholics 2. As for the Greek Church It is notoriously known that the Chiefest Reason of their Separation from the Church of Rome was because this Church asserted the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which yet the Protestants hold to be Orthodox Doctrine And no less evident that the Greek Church did Recant their Error concerning this Point and all other things wherein they differ'd from the Church of Rome many times but more especially in three General Councils First in the Council of Lâ—theran where the Patriarch of Constantinople assisted in Person 2dly In the Council of Lyons where the Greek Emperor and other Representatives of the Greek Church were present And lastly in the Council of Florence where the Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople and a great many Greek Bishops were present and disputed the Point for a long time which at last came to this Issue There were Letters of Vnion drawn up wherein the Grecians do acknowledge the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son the Popes Supremacy and some other Points of no great Weight before debated These Letters were signed by the Emperor and by all the Greek Bishops the Bishop of Ephesus only excepted and stand upon Record to this day Whence it is manifest that by their own Act and Deed they are convicted of Schism for their wilful and causeless Separation afterwards from the Church of Rome whom they own'd by this Authentick Instrument to be the Catholic Church and themselves likewise to be Members of it Touching the main Points in Controversie betwixt the Protestants and the Church of Rome what the Greek Church holds and professes let us hear from the Pen of an Ingenious Protestant Gentleman Sir Edwin Sandys in his Europae Speculum pag. 233. With Rome saith he they concur in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Sacrifice and whole body of the Mass in praying to Saints in Auricular Confession in offering of Sacrifice and Prayer for the Dead and in these without any or no material Difference They hold Purgatory also and the Worshiping of Pictures Thus far Sandys So that tho' the Greeks were a true Church it wou'd but very little help the Protestant Cause nay rather it wou'd very much prejudice it since the Grecians hold those points to be Orthodox on the pretended falsity whereof the Protestants ground their Separation But of this more in its proper Place 3. Touching the Church of England This is of so Great Importance to our present Controversie or rather the only necessary Point to be Rightly understood that it is requisite it shou'd be handl'd with all the clearness and perspicuity imaginable And if it be possible to make it Evident that this Church is branded with Heresie and Schism two things sufficient to unchurch any Society of Christians whatsoever I hope I may without vanity say that I have gained my Point To prove then that the Church of England is both Heretical and Schismatical I am heartily sorry I must use such hard Expressions to so many Ingenious and Great Men whose Learning and other good Qualities I very much honor and respect I shall make use of no Arguments but such as are grounded upon the clear Light of natural
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
And most of these are condemned by the Protestants as are most if not all the Points wherein the Protestants differ from Her condemned by all other Sects An Evident Argument that she alone hath the Truth since if these things which they ground their Separation upon had been Evident as they pretend they wou'd all agree in them 3. All other Sects separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome begining each Sect in One or Two in opposition to the whole World And we are able to point at the Age and Year of their Separation and at the Name and Character of each Sect's Author and Promotor An Argument that She is the Mother Church or Root of the Tree and those Sects some Branches fallen or cut off 4. The Roman Catholic Church was never Condemn'd by any General Council nor yet by any Council of Bishops whether National or Provincial for the Points of Faith which the Protestants contest if we except the Bishops made in England by Secular Power when the true Bishops were all discarded But the Opinions held by the Protestants and all other Sects in Opposition to the Church of Rome were Condemn'd by several General Councils as every Learned Man can tell 5. It cou'd never be made out in what Age or Year or in whose Reign or by Whom any of the Points in Dispute were introduc'd into the Catholic Belief An Evident Argument that they were believ'd from the Begining it being impossible to conceive how all the Christian World cou'd be induc'd to believe those things contrary to what they held before and yet that no Man should perceive it Nay it is Absurd and Ridiculous to imagine that the greatest part of Mankind shou'd not be allarm'd at the Novelty of a Doctrine which if we believe the Protestants shocks so much both Sence and Reason whereas the New Doctrine of Arius Nestorius Luther Calvin and the Rest of his Tribe so violently shook the whole Earth that to this very day our own woful Experience is but too sensible a Testimony of its direful Effects Lastly the R. Catholic Church hath the universal Consent of all the Christian World for her Tenets in matters of Faith if we except that of the different Sects which sprung up at different Times which as it is before prov'd amounts to no more than the Dissent or Contradiction of one single Man concerning One Point in one Age and of another concerning an other Point or more in a different Age at least at different Times and that in Opposition to all the Rest of Mankind A Prerogative which no other Society of Christians can pretend to it being evident and even confest by themselves that the Opinions which they hold in Opposition to the R. Catholics were taken up by certain Men in different Ages and Times by Luther in the 16th Century by Wiclief in the 13th by De Waldo in the 12th c. I will then conclude That since the R. Catholic Church is as universal in its Communion as almost the Bounds of the Earth as Ancient in its Doctrine as the Apostles of Christ since it was it alone that adher'd to the Ancient Faith and rejected the Novelty of all Heresies and can only glory in having the Universal Consent of the Christian World as before explain'd for the Truth of its Doctrine This Society and no other is the True Catholic Apostolic Church I shall now proceed to answer Dr. Tillotsou's Objections to this Point The first is taken out of Vol. 2. Serm. pag. 50 61 62. which in Substance is this Tho' the R. Catholics be very Stiff and Peremptory in asserting their Infallibility yet they are not agreed among themselves where it is seated whether in the Pope alone or in a Council alone or in both together or in the Diffusive Body of Christians They are sure they have it says he tho' they do not know where it is Then he adds There is not the least Intimation in Scripture of this Priviledge confer'd upon the Church of Rome and it is strange the Ancient Fathers in their Disputes against Heretics shou'd never Appeal to this Judge it being so short and expedite a way of ending Controversies and this very Consideration concludes the Dr. is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Arguments to satisfie him that in those days no such thing was believ'd in the World Answer I may say of these Three Propositions the first is neither True in it self nor in most of its Circumstances The second is perfectly of the same Nature if you except the Word Rome The third is grounded upon a Negative and proves nothing I begin with the first They are not agreed saith he among themselves where it is seated c. For my own part I never yet read or heard of any Catholic Divine that ever said That the Catholic Church taken for the Diffusive Body of Christians was not Infallible in declaring Matters of Faith Therefore I think All agree that the Infallibility is seated in the Diffusive Body of Christians And I challenge any Protestant in the World to name me One who says the contrary The Pope is One and the Chief Member of that Diffusive Body The Pope and Council together make a Great many Members and if you add to these All the Rest of the Faithful they make up the intire Diffusive Body of Christian If the Pope be Infallible surely the Concurrence of a Council will rather confirm than diminish his Infallibility If the Pope and Council together be Infallible the Consent of the Diffusive Body of Christians must surely strengthen and confirm it But if neither the Pope nor the Council alone be Infallible the Diffusive Body of Christians must necessarily be if any such Thing as Infallibility may be ascrib'd to any of the Three seeing both Pope and Council are included in it We are sure then the Infallibility consists at least in the Diffusive Body of Christians But to illustrate this a little more let us propose this familiar Example If I shou'd ask where my Lord Major of Londâ—n is at this Time And that some shou'd tell me He is in his own House Others not in his own House but some where in London and others neither in his own House nor in London but in England I wou'd willingly know whether these three sorts of People do not all agree that my Lord Mayor is in England Certainly they do because the assent of the two former is necessarily implied in the Latter In like manner tho' some say the Pope is Infallible Others not the Pope alone but together with a General Council and others neither Pope nor Council alone without the Concurrence of the Diffusive Body of Christians yet all do 〈◊〉 in this that the Diffusive Body of Christians is Infallible The Dr. then is very much out when he says they do not know where it is tho' they are sure they have it Touching the second Proposition There is not the least
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
the East for the Corfirmation and Depâ—sition of Bishops and for such other Acts of Jurisdiction as depended of the Apostolic See I might bring more Instances to this purpose from the most approv'd Writers of ancient and modern History but let these suffice for the Proof of a thing so universally attested by all Antiquity And now if neither plain Texts of Scripture declaring this Prerogative to have been confer'd upon St. Peter and plainly shewing his exercising of it on several Occasions nor the Authority of so many Holy Fathers and Councils of the Primitive Times manifestly defferring the same Privilege to his Successors nor the Testimony of two of the most celebrated Historians of Antiquity publicly witnessing that the Church of Rome had the Priviledge to hear and restore the Patriarchs and Bishops of the East and that the Bishop of Rome follow'd or acted according to the Laws of the Church when he commanded or cited the Eastern Bishops Patriach and all to appear before him nor yet the Consent which the Evidence of the thing has extorted from some Ingenuous and Learned Protestants in favour of this Truth If all this I say will not open our Adversaries Eyes to see the Pope's Supremacy all I can do for their Service is to pray to Almighty God that he wou'd be pleas'd to take away from their Hearts that vail of Prejudice which hinders them to see so manifest a Truth But of this enough let us now see the Objâ—ctions Against this Tenet the Doctor objects 1. That the Bishop of Rome as Successor of St. Peter there Vol. 6. pag. 155. cannot be the Supreme and universal Pastor of Christ's Church by Divine Appointment because saith he there is not the least mention of this in Scripture 2. That it is against reason to found the Pope's Supremacy in being Successor of St. Peter pag. 156. at Rome whereas it shou'd rather pertain to the Bishop of Antioch where Peter was first Bishop To the first I answer that by all these Titles is only meant that the Pope is Head of the Church and the Center of Catholic Unity and no more is requir'd of any Man to believe concerning this Point Now that there is not only mention but even Texts of Scripture clearly proving St. Peter whose undoubted Successor all the World knows to be the Bishop of Rome to have been made the Head of the Church of Christ is already made out 'T is true the Scripture makes no mention of these Words supreme and universal Pastor no more does it of the Word consubstantial yet the Fathers of the Nicene Council did not scruple to make a Fundamental Article of Faith of it and carefully inserted it in their Creed because they judg'd it very proper to express their Belief concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ In like manner tho' some Catholic Writers call the Bishop of Rome Supreme and Vniversal Pastor c. yet I do not see what Grounds the Doctor had to quarrel with them for that since all Catholics agree that they mean nothing else by these Words but that the Pope is Head of the Church and use them for no other end than to express more fully what it is to be Head of the Church But 't is very remarkable that no Sect ever separated from the Church who did not follow this Maxim They take hold of some words invented by the Church to declare more expresly such Articles of Faith as were contested and because these very Terms are not found in Scripture they cry immediately Victory as if our Faith consisted meerly in Words and not in what is meant by them To the Second I answer That it is much more against Reason nay altogether absurd to imagine that St. Peter whom the Dr. as well as I must in this case suppose to be Head of the Church shou'd come to Rome place his Chair in that City and yet leave his Authority behind him at Antioch This aiery Notion I am sure none of the Holy Fathers and Councils in the Primitive Times ever thought of on the contrary they have always consider'd the Bishop of Rome as Successor of St. Peter Head of the Church and Principle of Catholic Unity There are several Objections more of this Nature in the same Volume Pag. 244 245. c. And tho' most of them are levell'd at the Church of Rome yet I chuse to take notice of them under this Head rather than the former both because of their Affinity with this and for the Reader 's Satisfaction who I suppose won't be sorry to find them answer'd in the same order they lie 1. The Doctor grants that If the Roman Church be the Catholic Church it is necessary to be of that Communion because saith he out of the Catholic Church there is ordinarily no Salvation to be had But how do they prove continues he that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church They wou'd fain have us to be so civil as to take it for granted because if we do not they do not well know how to go about to prove it And after some pleasant Sallies of Rallery he concludes that to prove a part to be the whole is all one as to prove that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church To answer this Objection I say first that the Doctor here does very courteously justifie the Roman Catholics from that odious Imputation of Uncharitableness wherewith he elsewhere most grievously charges them for not allowing Protestants Salvation out of their Communion He grants that out of the Catholic Church there is ordinarily no Salvation to be had Now the Roman Catholics do sincerely believe that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church consequently when they say that there is ordinarily no Salvation out of it they cannot justly be charg'd with the least Uncharitableness since they have as it is already prov'd the greatest Assurance for that Belief that any thing of that Nature is capable of And if it be True as most certainly it is that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church then surely the Roman Catholics are so far from being uncharitable in this particular that it is one of the greatest Marks of their Charity to have that Love for their Erring Brethren as to mind them of the Hazard they run and exhort them to avoid it tho' they are sure they shall be hated for their Pains 2dly That he must be a great Stranger to our Divines and Controveâ—tists if he thinks as he here writes they do not well know how to go about to prove it Surely he must have been very ill read in the Writings of Bellarmin Peron Richelieu and hundreds of Catholic Divines who wrote on this subject when he advances so groundless shall I call it a Story And what as yet renders the thing more intollerable is that this is spoken out of a Pulpit where nothing but Truth and Sincerity shou'd as much as be mention'd In short this is matter of Fact The Catholic
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