is the Word of God and the Scripture again bears witness that the Church is Infallible and yet this way of Reasoning is not in the least defective because the Church has sufficient Credentials for the truth of its Evidence before it rereceives a Testimony from the Scripture viz. The Universal Consent of the whole Catholic Church which as is already proved is undoubtedly certain The Testimony then of Scripture bearing witness of the Church is properly speaking Argumentum ad hominâ—â— that is an Argument from a Concession or a Principle agreed upon by both Parties And now since the Protestants do agree that the Scripture is Infallibly true I hope they will hear it if it bears witness of the Infallibility of the Church Let us see then what it says upon this Subject Christ saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Matth. 16. verse 18. Again Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and so I am with you alway even unto the End of the World cap. 28. ver 19 20. And again I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now â— howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth John 16. ver 12 13. St. Paul writes to Timothy But if I tarry long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth 1 Tim. â— ver 15. You see Christian Reader that Christ promi'sd to build his Church upon a Rock and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it that he himself continues with it â—â—â—o the end of the World That the spirit of Truth shall guide it into all Truth And St. Paul says that the Church of God is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Now if any Man that believes the Goodness and Power of Jesus Christ to perform what he promises can shew me any Text in Scripture more Plain and Evident to prove any thing else than these do the Infallibility of the Church I shall hold my self highly oblig'd to him for that Favour If the Gates on Power of Hell for they are both the same shall not prevail against the Church surely then it shall not fell into Error For there are but two Ways of prevailing against it viz. by destroying all the Members that compose it as to their temporal Being or by corrupting their Souls with Error That the Gates of Hell hath not prevail'd as to the former our own Being is a sufficient Evidence and that they shall not as to the latter methinks a sober modest man ought to be content with the Insurance of Christ's Promise If Christ continues with the Church unto the end of the World can it be imagined that he shou'd suffer it to fall into Error since we cannot suppose him to have any other bus'ness to continue with it than to preserve it from that If the holy Ghost or as the Teâ—t calls him the Spirit of Truth will guide the Church into all Truth we must surely renounce all pretence to Reason and Christianity if we believe that any Power whether Earthly or Infernal can be able to make it err Lastly if the Church be the Ground and Pillar of Truth as St. Paul calls it certainly neither Rain nor Floods noâ— Wind can shake or throw down an Edifice so firmly founded I shall now add three or four Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers in savour of this Truth and so conclude this chapter Saint Ireneus a Father of the second Age writes thus of the Church where the Church is there is the Spirit and where the Spirit of God is there is all Grace lib. 3. c. 40. Praes in lib. per. Ar. In the third Age Origen That only is to be believed for Truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church And a little after We must not believe otherwise than as the Church of God has by Succession deliver'd to us In the same Age St. Cyprian Whoever divides from the Church and cleaves to the Adultress is separated from the Promises of the Church he cannot have God his Father that has not the Church his Mother Again To Peter's Chair and the Principal Church Infidelity or false Faith cannot have access Epist 55. In the fourth Age St. Jerom The Roman Faith commended by the Apostles cannot be changed in Apolog. cont Ruffin In the beginning of the fifth Age St. Augustin I know by Divine Revelations that the Spirit of Truth teacheth it the Church all truth Lib. 4. de Bap. c. 4. Again To dispute against the whole Church is insolent Madness and I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the Authority of the Church moves me to it cont Epist fundam c. 5. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon these Sentences but will let them stand or fall by their own Weight perswaded as I am that no Comment or Gloss whatsoever can make them speak plainer or more to my purpose I will only mind him that these Great and Eminent Men who shin'd in the Church like so many Lights as well by the Lustre of their extraordinary Piety as by the profoundness of their Learning cou'd not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church of their Time Consequently wou'd never have taught so peremptorily the Infallibility of the Church unless it had been the Opinion of all the Christian World There is then an Infallible Church that is to say a Congregation of Faithful that believes holds and teaches the Doctrine of Jesus Christ 1. Upon the Universal Consent of the Christian World 2. Upon clear and plain Texts of Scripture declaring the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide it into all Truth 3. Upon the unanimous Consent of the Fathers of the Primitive Times a Triple Cord which neither the Power of Hell nor the Subtility of Heretics nor the Malice of the World shall ever be able to break Let us now examine what Society of Christians can justly lay claim to or be truly call'd the Catholic Church CHAP. II. The Congregation of Faithful in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and no other is the Catholic Church TO prove this Assertion I shall lay down some Principles known either by their own Light or sufficiently proved by plain Texts of Scripture and the Consent of our Adversaries I. That in the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World II. That there is but one Catholic Church III. That one Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church IV. That whosoever separates from or
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
and Blood which surely is all that is requisite to the Essence or Nature of the Sacrament And now who wou'd believe that the R. Catholics had such grounds in Scripture for the Communion in one kind considering the loud and clamorous accusations yea and the horrible Sacrileges they are charg'd with upon this Subject Well! And who are those who charge us thus Why they are Great and Eminent Men Great indeed not only for the Rank and Station wherein the Powers of this World have placed them but also Great for their Learning and other Excellent Endowments But then 't is that they must so do The Protestant Religion as all the World knows was planted in these Kingdoms by open Force and Violence These Gentlemen's Predecessors possess'd Themselves of the Rich Benefices of the Church and when Men's Interest and Honor are once engag'd 't is hard if they do not stand by them Now there is no way left to justifie these Proceedings but by railing at the Church of Rome and exposing her pretended Corruptions and therefore 't is no marvel they shou'd lay these and a great deal more to her charge But take away these Fatal Byasses Let Benefices be laid a side Let the Riches of the Church be propos'd as the Reward of Virtue and Merit and then we shall see how many Eyes this will open then we shall see the Scales fall off and those who have been hitherto our Greatest Persecutors become like St. Paul the most Zealous Assertors of our Faith and Religion But this by the way There is an other Passage in St. Luke which favours the Communion in One Kind This Evangelist tells us that Christ after his Resurrection appear'd to two of his Disciples as they went to Emans who adds St. Luke constrain'd Him to aâ—ide with them and when he sate at Meat He took Bread and bless'd it and brake and gave to them and their Eyes were open'd and they knew him and he vanish'd out of their sight Now 't is certain that if this Bread which Christ bless'd and brake was the Eucharist we have at least one instance in which Christ himself gave the Communion in one kind For 't is said that after he had broke the Bread and gave it to them he vanish'd out of their sight And indeed it is very hard to conceive how the breaking of ordinary Bread as 't is usually done at Meat shou'd open these Disciples Eyes so as to know him that did it to be Christ Besides the breaking of Bread in the Acts of the Apostles is always understood of the Communion and St. Chrisostom St. Augustin venerable Bede and Theophilactus in their comments upon this place teach us that this Bread which Christ brake was the Eucharist which surely they wou'd not have done had there been the least doubt of the lawfulness of the Communion in one kind However because it is not thus interpreted by the universal consent of the Church I shall lay no more weight upon it than it can reasonably bear leaving the Reader to judge what impression the Authority of four such Great Men so well read in Antiquity is apt to make upon an unprejudic'd Mind I now proceed to shew that the Communion in Both Kinds is not Essential to the Sacrament 2. from the general practise of the Church in all Ages even in those days wherein the Protestants do confess the Pure Word of God was preach'd and the Sacraments duly administred The Protestants do pretend to pay a great deal of Respect and veneration to Antiquity and in all their Debates and Controversies of Religion whether with Us or among Themselves they are willing to Appeal to the Primitive Church which they look upon as the Rule and Measure of their Faith and Practice Now if it appears by the Practice of the Primitive Church that the Communion was given in One Kind without the other and that this was neither prohibited by the Governours of the Church nor found fault with by the People nor yet wrote against by any Man whatsoever then 't is but reasonable to hope that every Ingenious Protestant will easily be perswaded that neither the Pastors nor the People of the Primitive Church did ever believe that both kinds were Essential to the worthy participation of the Sacrament This I shall by God's Assistance endeavour to evince from the best Records and the most unquestionable Witnesses and Writers of the Primitive Times And here I find four sorts of Communion the Communion of the Sick the Communion of Infants and little Children the Communion of Private Families commonly call'd the Domestic Communion and the Public and Solemn Communion of the Church And in regard of all these I shall undertake to prove that for the first six hundred Years the Eucharist was given 1. in the Communion of the Sick under the Species of Bread alone 2. In the Communion of Infants and little Children under the species of Wine alone 3. In the Domestic or Private Communion under the species of Bread but so as to be sometimes given tho' seldom in both kinds And lastly in the public and solemn Communion of the Church sometimes in one sometimes in both kinds as the Piety and Devotion of the People carry'd them to participate of one or Both. Touching the Communion of the Sick Eusebius One of the Best Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 44. and most Celebrated Historians of the Primitive Church gives us an intire Letter of the Great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria upon this Subject In this Letter Dionysus relates the Story of a certain Old Man call'd Serapion who being under Publick Pennance and falling Sick sent a Boy to a Priest that was at some distance from him to desire him to come to him and give him the sacred Communion before he had departed this Life but the Priest happening at the same time to be sick and not able to go so far gave a Piece of the sacred Bread to the Boy and order'd him to carry it to Serapion and enjoyn'd him moreover to moisten it in some Liquor and then to give it to him as his last Viaticum which when he had done saith Dionysius the good Old Man immediately gave up the Ghost Here is a Communion in one kind related by a Man who was as Great a Saint as he was a Bishop and Recorded by an other Great and Learned Bishop Both very ancient Witnesses both much celebrated by Antiquity Yet neither the one nor the other finds any fault with the Priest nor with Serapion for this Communion which our Adversaries wou'd now abhor as sacrilegious and detestable on the contrary they both admire the Goodness of God as the said Letter witnesseth in sparing this poor Man's Life 'till he had receiv'd the sacred Pledge of his Redemption And now can it be imagin'd that these two Great Men who liv'd so near the Times of the Apostles and were so well instructed in the Faith and Discipline of the Church shou'd