it is Impossible the Church shou'd give them such Provocation as might justifie a Separation in like manner All those who are excommunicated by the Church for their obstinate Refusal to assent to any Truth declar'd to be an Article of Faith are properly call'd Heretics Now Protestants as well as Catholics agree that neither Schismatics nor Heretics are Members of the Catholic Church nor any way within its Pale There only remains then to examine who those are on whom these Marks of Schism and Heresie are justly chargeable and who on the other Hand are free from that charge which if plainly made out it will be easy to see what Congregation of Faithful can be justly call'd the Catholic Church Now all the Societies of Christians who with any colour of Reason can pretend to the Name of Catholic are these 1. The Nestorians and Eutychians 2. The Greek Church 3. The Church of England And lastly the R. Catholics I have on purpose omitted the Waldenses Socinians Hussites Lutherans Calvinists and all those almost Innumerable Sects continually shooting out of the Trunck of the Reformation and spreading far and near over our own unfortunate Ilands as Anabaptists Independents Quakers Mugoltonians Seekers Familists Philadelphians c. because all these are destitute of even the least Pretence to the Name of Catholic Church having neither lawful Pastors lawful Mission nor Right Ordination which as all the Christian World before the Reformation and as the Church of England still grants cannot be given without Imposition of Hands performed by Bishops This they Ingenuously own they have not consequently nor the least Pretence to the Catholic Church no nor if we believe some Learned Divines of the Church of England to the Name of Christian For as these Gentlemen Reason no Man can be call'd Christian unless he is Baptiz'd Baptism cannot be conferr'd but by such who have Authority to administer the Sacraments no Man can have this Authority but by lawful Ordination and this is not conferr'd nor cannot without Imposition of Hands by Lawfully ordain'd Bishops Bishops all these Sects own they have not consequently nor true Baptism nor Christianity This I confess cannot be said of the four Societies aforesaid For every one of them hath always retain'd the Hierarchy of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons at least have pretended to it and think it Essential to the being of the Catholic Church But since this is not enough unless they have likewise the Catholic Faith and Communion which together with the said Hierarchy make up the essential parts of Catholic Religion our present Bus'ness shall be to try each of them by this Touchstone and see which will abide the Test 1. Touching the Nestorians and Eutychians Under this Appellation I comprehend the Jacobites Cophtes Armenians and all other Sects who follow the Opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches touching the Person and Natures in Christ all the Rest of the Eastern Christians either adhereing to the Roman or Greek Church What I have to say concerning these Sects shall be dispatch'd in a few Words Dr. Tillotson and all the Learned Men of the Church of England do receive the Definitions of the four first General Councils whereof the two last excommunicated and condemn'd as Heretics the Authors of these Sects and their Adherents Nâ—storius for asserting two persons Eutyches for denying two Natures in Christ consequently all those Sects who took up their Opinions are justly excluded from the number of True Catholics As to the Points in Controversie betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants viz. Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass Prayers for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. they are as firmly believ'd by the said Sects as by the R. Catholics 2. As for the Greek Church It is notoriously known that the Chiefest Reason of their Separation from the Church of Rome was because this Church asserted the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which yet the Protestants hold to be Orthodox Doctrine And no less evident that the Greek Church did Recant their Error concerning this Point and all other things wherein they differ'd from the Church of Rome many times but more especially in three General Councils First in the Council of Lâ—theran where the Patriarch of Constantinople assisted in Person 2dly In the Council of Lyons where the Greek Emperor and other Representatives of the Greek Church were present And lastly in the Council of Florence where the Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople and a great many Greek Bishops were present and disputed the Point for a long time which at last came to this Issue There were Letters of Vnion drawn up wherein the Grecians do acknowledge the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son the Popes Supremacy and some other Points of no great Weight before debated These Letters were signed by the Emperor and by all the Greek Bishops the Bishop of Ephesus only excepted and stand upon Record to this day Whence it is manifest that by their own Act and Deed they are convicted of Schism for their wilful and causeless Separation afterwards from the Church of Rome whom they own'd by this Authentick Instrument to be the Catholic Church and themselves likewise to be Members of it Touching the main Points in Controversie betwixt the Protestants and the Church of Rome what the Greek Church holds and professes let us hear from the Pen of an Ingenious Protestant Gentleman Sir Edwin Sandys in his Europae Speculum pag. 233. With Rome saith he they concur in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Sacrifice and whole body of the Mass in praying to Saints in Auricular Confession in offering of Sacrifice and Prayer for the Dead and in these without any or no material Difference They hold Purgatory also and the Worshiping of Pictures Thus far Sandys So that tho' the Greeks were a true Church it wou'd but very little help the Protestant Cause nay rather it wou'd very much prejudice it since the Grecians hold those points to be Orthodox on the pretended falsity whereof the Protestants ground their Separation But of this more in its proper Place 3. Touching the Church of England This is of so Great Importance to our present Controversie or rather the only necessary Point to be Rightly understood that it is requisite it shou'd be handl'd with all the clearness and perspicuity imaginable And if it be possible to make it Evident that this Church is branded with Heresie and Schism two things sufficient to unchurch any Society of Christians whatsoever I hope I may without vanity say that I have gained my Point To prove then that the Church of England is both Heretical and Schismatical I am heartily sorry I must use such hard Expressions to so many Ingenious and Great Men whose Learning and other good Qualities I very much honor and respect I shall make use of no Arguments but such as are grounded upon the clear Light of natural
And most of these are condemned by the Protestants as are most if not all the Points wherein the Protestants differ from Her condemned by all other Sects An Evident Argument that she alone hath the Truth since if these things which they ground their Separation upon had been Evident as they pretend they wou'd all agree in them 3. All other Sects separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome begining each Sect in One or Two in opposition to the whole World And we are able to point at the Age and Year of their Separation and at the Name and Character of each Sect's Author and Promotor An Argument that She is the Mother Church or Root of the Tree and those Sects some Branches fallen or cut off 4. The Roman Catholic Church was never Condemn'd by any General Council nor yet by any Council of Bishops whether National or Provincial for the Points of Faith which the Protestants contest if we except the Bishops made in England by Secular Power when the true Bishops were all discarded But the Opinions held by the Protestants and all other Sects in Opposition to the Church of Rome were Condemn'd by several General Councils as every Learned Man can tell 5. It cou'd never be made out in what Age or Year or in whose Reign or by Whom any of the Points in Dispute were introduc'd into the Catholic Belief An Evident Argument that they were believ'd from the Begining it being impossible to conceive how all the Christian World cou'd be induc'd to believe those things contrary to what they held before and yet that no Man should perceive it Nay it is Absurd and Ridiculous to imagine that the greatest part of Mankind shou'd not be allarm'd at the Novelty of a Doctrine which if we believe the Protestants shocks so much both Sence and Reason whereas the New Doctrine of Arius Nestorius Luther Calvin and the Rest of his Tribe so violently shook the whole Earth that to this very day our own woful Experience is but too sensible a Testimony of its direful Effects Lastly the R. Catholic Church hath the universal Consent of all the Christian World for her Tenets in matters of Faith if we except that of the different Sects which sprung up at different Times which as it is before prov'd amounts to no more than the Dissent or Contradiction of one single Man concerning One Point in one Age and of another concerning an other Point or more in a different Age at least at different Times and that in Opposition to all the Rest of Mankind A Prerogative which no other Society of Christians can pretend to it being evident and even confest by themselves that the Opinions which they hold in Opposition to the R. Catholics were taken up by certain Men in different Ages and Times by Luther in the 16th Century by Wiclief in the 13th by De Waldo in the 12th c. I will then conclude That since the R. Catholic Church is as universal in its Communion as almost the Bounds of the Earth as Ancient in its Doctrine as the Apostles of Christ since it was it alone that adher'd to the Ancient Faith and rejected the Novelty of all Heresies and can only glory in having the Universal Consent of the Christian World as before explain'd for the Truth of its Doctrine This Society and no other is the True Catholic Apostolic Church I shall now proceed to answer Dr. Tillotsou's Objections to this Point The first is taken out of Vol. 2. Serm. pag. 50 61 62. which in Substance is this Tho' the R. Catholics be very Stiff and Peremptory in asserting their Infallibility yet they are not agreed among themselves where it is seated whether in the Pope alone or in a Council alone or in both together or in the Diffusive Body of Christians They are sure they have it says he tho' they do not know where it is Then he adds There is not the least Intimation in Scripture of this Priviledge confer'd upon the Church of Rome and it is strange the Ancient Fathers in their Disputes against Heretics shou'd never Appeal to this Judge it being so short and expedite a way of ending Controversies and this very Consideration concludes the Dr. is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Arguments to satisfie him that in those days no such thing was believ'd in the World Answer I may say of these Three Propositions the first is neither True in it self nor in most of its Circumstances The second is perfectly of the same Nature if you except the Word Rome The third is grounded upon a Negative and proves nothing I begin with the first They are not agreed saith he among themselves where it is seated c. For my own part I never yet read or heard of any Catholic Divine that ever said That the Catholic Church taken for the Diffusive Body of Christians was not Infallible in declaring Matters of Faith Therefore I think All agree that the Infallibility is seated in the Diffusive Body of Christians And I challenge any Protestant in the World to name me One who says the contrary The Pope is One and the Chief Member of that Diffusive Body The Pope and Council together make a Great many Members and if you add to these All the Rest of the Faithful they make up the intire Diffusive Body of Christian If the Pope be Infallible surely the Concurrence of a Council will rather confirm than diminish his Infallibility If the Pope and Council together be Infallible the Consent of the Diffusive Body of Christians must surely strengthen and confirm it But if neither the Pope nor the Council alone be Infallible the Diffusive Body of Christians must necessarily be if any such Thing as Infallibility may be ascrib'd to any of the Three seeing both Pope and Council are included in it We are sure then the Infallibility consists at least in the Diffusive Body of Christians But to illustrate this a little more let us propose this familiar Example If I shou'd ask where my Lord Major of Londâ—n is at this Time And that some shou'd tell me He is in his own House Others not in his own House but some where in London and others neither in his own House nor in London but in England I wou'd willingly know whether these three sorts of People do not all agree that my Lord Mayor is in England Certainly they do because the assent of the two former is necessarily implied in the Latter In like manner tho' some say the Pope is Infallible Others not the Pope alone but together with a General Council and others neither Pope nor Council alone without the Concurrence of the Diffusive Body of Christians yet all do 〈◊〉 in this that the Diffusive Body of Christians is Infallible The Dr. then is very much out when he says they do not know where it is tho' they are sure they have it Touching the second Proposition There is not the least
Divine's Books on this subject are still extant and let even our Adversaries be the Judges whether this be not one of the most groundless Mistakes that ever any serious Man cou'd fall into 3dly That he is as far out when he says that to prove a part to be the whole is all one as to prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church Had we said that the particular Church and Diocess of Rome were the Catholic Church his Comparison wou'd then indeed have been Reasonable but surely he cou'd not be ignorant that we understand by the Roman Church all the Christian Churches over the World in Communion with the particular Church and See of Rome which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church because Rome being the Seat of St. Peter's Successor is the Center and Principlâ— of Catholic Unity If the Doctor had a mind to make good his Thesis he shou'd have prov'd that all other Societies of Christians who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome are notwithstanding their Heresies and Schisms a Part of the Catholic Church he shou'd have prov'd that the Nestorians and Eutychians which take up the greatest part of the Eastern Christians are a Part of the Catholic Church notwithstanding they were excommunicated and cut off from the Body of the Catholic Church by the lawful Authority of two General Councils whose Decrees he and all other learned Protestants do profess to embrace that the Grecians are still Members of the Catholic Church notwithstanding their willful Schism from its Communion their ancient Error concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost their having been so often reconcil'd and united to it yet still returning to their Vomit but more especially their self-condemn'd Perverseness in their late Separation from the Communion and Fellowship of the Church of Rome which they solemnly and in the most Authentic manner gave under their Hands in the Council of Florence they wou'd hold and maintain he shou'd have prov'd that Luthor Calvin and all those who adher'd to their new broach'd Opinions are a part of the Catholic Church notwithstanding their being excommunicated by the Church and their own Confession of holding these Opinions in Opposition to all the World besides All this I say the Doctor shou'd have prov'd to shew that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church But neither he nor any Body else did ever so much as attempt it on the contrary most of the learned Men of the Church of England have readily given up the Cause in regard of all the aforesaid Sects and most of all other Sects do as censoriously condemn those of the Church of England With what colour of Reason then can the Doctor suggest that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church Nay can any thing be more plain than that the Roman Church as it is understood by Catholics is the whole Catholic Church since none of the aforesaid Sects can with the least colour of Reason pretend to be a part of it since they themselves do unchurch one another since they own that the Church of Rome is a Part at least of the Catholic Church and that one Faith and one Communion are equally essential to the being or Constitution of the one Catholic Church in both which Essential they own themselves to be different from the Church of Rome So that if we had no other Proof besides this last Reason is a plain Demonstration that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church or that it is no part or member of it 'T is a known Truth and even vouch'd by all Protestants whatsoever that the Church of Rome is at least a Part of the Catholic Church That one Faith and one Communion are equally essential to the Constitution of the Catholic Church of Christ is a Doctrine generally receiv'd by the Church of England and I suppose by all the Divines in the World besides now there is none of all the aforesaid Sects as they all unanimously agree that holds either the same Faith or Communion with the Church of Rome which yet they hold to be a Part of the Catholic Church and which together with the said Sects make up the whole Body of Christians It is then most evident that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church or that it is no Part or Member of it But the latter no Protestant ever yet durst affirm for if they shou'd affirm that the Church of Rome is no part of the Catholic Church this would vacate all their Pretences to be a Church since it is from the Church of Rome they pretend to derive their Mission Ordination and spiritual Power if any they have We are then sure even to a Demonstration that if what the Protestants say be true the Roman Church is the whole Catholic Church and no less sure that neither the Protestants nor any other Sect whatsoever can be any part or member of the Catholic Church whilst they continue out of the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church 2. To prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church the Doctor requires the following Particulars shou'd be clearly shewn and made out 1. A plain Constitution of our Saviour whereby St. Peter and his Successors at Rome are made the Supreme Head and Pastors of the whole Christian Church Of this says he we have not the least Intimation in the Gospel nor in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles nay there is clear Evidence adds he to the contrary that in the Council of Jerusalem St. James was if not superior at least equal to him And St. Paul upon several Occasions declares himself equal to St. Peter But suppose it were true continues the Doctor That St. Peter were Head of the Church where doth it appear that this Authority was deriv'd to his Successors And if it were why to his Successors at Rome rather than at Antioch where â—e was first and unquestionably Bishop Answ Touching a plain Constitution c. methinks a modest good Christian might well be content with one plain Text of Scripture produc'd to that purpose much more with a great many and this surely is already done a hundred times over both from the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles where we plainly find this Charge committed to St. Peter and his frequent Exercise of it as occasion offer'd 'T is true the Scripture makes no mention of his Successor at Rome Nor do we say it is necessary he shou'd be there rather than any where else For St. Peter might if he pleas'd for ought we know have as well plac'd his Chair in Canterbury but it is matter of Fact that he did not place it there but in Rome His making St. James equal if not superior to St. â—eter in the Councâ—l of Jerusalem needs no other Confutation than a bare recital of the matter of Fact which pass'd there I am sure it is as plain as words can make it
challenge the Attention of the most obstinate especially when deliver'd by a Man in a High Station This with some other Considerations moved me to examine the Sermons of Doctor Tillotson late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to see if the intrinsick Value of his Coin be answerable to the Lustre and outward Appearance of it This ingenâ—ous Man has taken a great deal of Pains to convince the World of his Skill in Controversie and has delivered his Thoughts in such fine smooth Language that in my Opinion very few of his Brethren can equal him in the Elegancy of his Stile We have eight Volumns in 8vo of his Sermons in which he seems to have exhausted the Treasure of his Eloquence in combating the most essential Points controverted betwixt Catholics and Protestants viz. The Infallibility of the Church the Pope's Supremacy Transubstantiation Communion in one kind Prayers in an unknown Tongue as he is pleased to call it Invocation of Saints Worship of Images his own words Purgatory and Indulgences Tho' this be not the Order I find he observes in handling these Points but treats of 'em a little confusedly as suited best with his Texts yet for method Sake I chose to lay 'em down in this order being as I suppose the more natural to treat of the most material Points before I come to those that seem to be of less Importance In the handling then of this important Piece of Controversie I shall with God's Assistance observe this Method First I will lay down what the Roman Catholics believe as of Faith concerning these Points Secondly I will prove their Tenets with Reason Scripture and Authority of Fathers tho' of this there should seem little need considering that it has been so often already done were it not that my Business is with the simple and ignorant whom I would willingly instruct in the Grounds of their own Faith as well as to caution them against the Subtilities of their Adversaries Thirdly I will answer all the material Objections which Dr. Tillotson brings against the said Tenets and do faithfully promise that where I do not quote his own words for that I cannot always do by reason they are in many places very long I shall not extenuate nor diminish to the best of my Knowledge the Force of his Arguments nor wrest his Words to any other Sense than what they naturally bear in any other Man's Mouth or Writings But before I begin it will not be amiss to lay down the Foundation on which this Ingenuous Man builds his Controversie a Foundation indeed whose Superstructure had it been so true and solid as it is artificially contrived would in a great measure justifie the Church of England and all other Protestant's Separation from their ancient Brethren and silence the R. Catholics from fastning the Imputation of Schism and Heresie upon them But how far this is from what it seems to be let the Reader judge when the Mask is taken off Dr. Tillotson's Fundamental Principle then is this Whatever is plain and evident to our Senses and Reason is to be believed tho' all the Churches and Men in the World should perswade us to the contrary Thus far I own he is in the right but what he infers from thence namely that this is the Protestants Case in regard of the Papists as he is pleased to call the R. Catholicks requires something more than Herculean Labours to prove He owns indeed and that for Reasons well known to the World that in things doubtful and obscure every private Man ought to hear the Church and receive her Interpretation but in things that are plain and evident nay as evident as that twice two make four I wou'd stand alone says he against all the World His own Words are thus as I find them in the fifth Volume of his Sermons pag. 16. In all matters of Faith and Practise which are plain and evident either from Natural Reason or from Divine Revelation this Resolution seems to be very reasonable But in things doubtful a modest Man and every Man hath Reason to be so would be apt to be staggered by the Judgement of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgement of the Generality of Men. But in things plainly contrary to the evidence of Sense or Reason or the Word of God a Man would complement no Man or Number of Men nor would he pin his Faith upon any Church in the World much less upon any single Man no not the Pope no tho' there were never so many probable Arguments brought for the Proof of his Infallibility In this Case a Man wou'd be singular and stand alone against the whole World against the Wrath and Rage of a King and all the Terrours of his fiery Furnace as in other matters a Man wou'd not believe all the Learned Men in the World against the clear Evidence of Sense and Reason If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages Archimedes and Euclid and Apollonius and Diophantus c. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and should there declare in the most solemn manner and give it under their Hands and Seals that twice two did not make four but five this would not move me in the least to be of their mind nay I who am no Mathematician wou'd maintain the contrary and wou'd persist in it without being in the least startled by the positive Opinion of these Learned Men and wou'd most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or that they were byassed by some Interest or other and swayed against the clear Evidence of Truth and the full Conviction of their own Reason to make such a Determination as this They might indeed over-rule the point by their Authority but in my inward Judgement I should still be where I was before Just so in Matters of Religion if any Church tho' with never so glorious a pretence to Infallibility should declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition of it and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World that could be so servilely blind as seeming to conspire in the Belief of so monstrous an Absurdity And in like manner if any Church should declare that Images are to be worshipped or that the Worship of God is to be performed in an unknown Tongue and that the Holy Scriptures which contain the Word and Will of God and teaches Men what they are to believe and do in order to their eternal Salvation are to be lock'd up and kept concealed from the People in a Language which they do not understand lest if they were permitted the free use of them in their Mother Tongue
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
that of those One or Two who first oppos'd it III. That these Authors of Sects did not all oppose this universal Consent at the same time but some in different Ages and all at different Times IV. That they did not all oppose the same Points of Faith 1. That the Contradiction of each of the said Sects began first in one or two at most This is so manifest in History and in all Records both innocient and Modern that it were superfluous to go about to prove it 2. That the Contradiction of all such as adher'd to the Heads of each Sect be they never so many amounts to no more than that of those one or two who first oppos'd it This is evident for if Arius for instance err'd in denying the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father no number of Adherents to his Opinion can make it True Now that Arius err'd in this Point 't is easy to see because the universal Consent of all the Christian World was against him And as this is manifest in respect of Arius and his Sectators so it is no less convincing in regard of Nestorius Eutyches and all other Sects whatsoever 3. These Authors of Sects did not oppose the universal Consent at the same time but some in different Ages and all at different Times This is so plain that it needs no Proof for no body who is never so little read in Antiquity can be Ignorant that Arius for instance opposed it in the Beginning of the fourth Age Nestorius in the Beginning of the fifth Age Eutiches in some Years after and so of all the rest 4. They did not all oppose the same Points of Faith This is no less evident than the former our Adversaries themselves being the Judges Indeed if they had all denied the same Articles of Faith at the same time and in different parts of the World I must confess it would in some Measure lessen the Authority of those that asserted them for it is natural to think that several Men of different Tongues and Interests would without any mutual Participation of their Thoughts never agree to assert or deny the same things unless there had been some Reason for it But when one Man denies one Point or more if you please in one Age and an other denies an other in another Age or at least at a different Time what is this but one Man against all the World To answer this Objection then I say 1. That tho' it were true that all these Heads of Sects had always opposed the universal Consent of the Church as aforesaid viz. One in one Age and another in an other or at a different time this Opposition can no more prejudice the Faith which we hold upon the universal Consent of all the Christian World than if one Man in the last Age and an other in this had denied the being at any time of King Henry the VIII or of the City of Constantinople such Impudence could lessen our Belief concerning that King or this City 2. 'T is not true that these Heads or Ringleaders of Sects did always oppose the universal Consent of the Church For since they were the first as I shall prove by and by that opposed the Doctrine of the Church and taught new Opinions contrary to what was believed before they must have been for some time before they broached their new Doctrine of the same Opinion with the rest of the Church who taught them their Faith consequently they did not always oppose the universal Consent but concurred with the rest in it till they took up their new Opinions and even still continue to own that the Doctrine which they opposed was universally believed at the Time of their Separation So that we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Truth of our Faith even the Consent of those who afterwards opposed it not excepted Now that these Heads or Ring-leaders of Sects to wit Arius Nestorius Eutyches Luther c. were the first that opposed the universal consent of the Church in respect of the several Opinions wherein they are said to contradict it may easily be proved first by the confession of their own Parties who ingenuously own that they follow the Opinions of those Men in the Things wherein they differ'd from the rest of the World and have therefore got the Apellation of Arians Nestorians Eutychians Lutherans c. whereas if any Churches or Societies of Christians had held these Opinions before they wou'd have continued in Communion with them and not have separated from all the World as 't is manifest they have even by the acknowledgment of their own Writers Secondly By an Induction of all these Sects in particular and of the Councils held in several Ages wherein they were proscribed But in this I am happily prevented by the ingenuous confession Dr. Tillotson was pleased to make of this Truth as far at least as relates to my purpose Thus says he in the heigth of Popery Ser. 1. Vol. 5. Wickliff appear'd here in England and Hierom of Prague and John Huss in Germany and Bohemia And in the Beginning of the Reformation when Popery had quite over-run the Western Parts of the World and subdued her Enemies on every side and Antichrist sate securely in the quiet possession of his Kingdom Luther arose a bold and rough Man but a fit wedge to cleave in sunder so hard and knotty a block and appeared stoutly against the gross errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome and for a long time stood alone and with a most invincible spirit and courage maintained his ground and resisted the united malice and force of Antichrist and his Adherents and gave him so terrible a blow that he is not yet perfectly healed and recovered of it So that for a man to stand alone or with a very few adhering to him and standing by him is not a mear immaginary supposition but a case that hath really and in fact happen'd in several Ages and places of the World Thus he and indeed enough to prove what I said For you seâ— he ingenuously owns these Authors of Sects stood alone each in his Time and he might as well have said the same thing of the Authors of all other Sects that ever rose in the Church Wickliff says he appeared here in England and Hierom of Prague and John Huss two of Wickliff's Disciples in Germany and Bohemia There was none then of their Opinion before them Luther stood alone for a long time all the World was then against him And must this single Man be believed upon hiâ— bare Word delivering a new Doctrine in opposition to all the World without the least Mark or Character of a Man sent by God These are surely harder terms than God ever required of the very Pagans for their Conversion from Idolatry But to give this more weight Let us compare the Jews which received the Law and the Prophets with the Christians who received
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
present Mass-book Alcuinus De Div. Off. a Famous Author of the eigth Century relates the same thing So doth Rupertus Lib. 2. c. 9. de Div. Off. Hugo de Sancto Victore and other Writers of the Eleventh Century They tell us that on Good-Friday there was no Consecration made but that the Body of our Lord which was consecrated the day before was reserv'd for that day's Communion that the Priest took the Lord's Body and some unconsecrated Wine and Water and then gave the Communion to the People under the Form of Bread alone So that there has been a perpetual Practice in the Latin Church of giving the Communion in one kind solemnly once every Year both to Clergy and Laity even to this very Time I might further bring the Authority of Sozomenus Evagrius Authors of the sixth Century and of several Great and Learned Men of the Gallican Church to confirm this Practice but I think it is sufficiently evident from what is said that the Communion was publicly givâ—ng in one kind ever since Christians had Churches for public and solemn Service I shall therefore proceed to shew in the last place That to take the Communion in both kinds is not Essential to the Sacrament from the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with Themselves I suppose Martin Luther's Opinion in this Matter is of no small Authority for 't is but reasonable to suppose that those who have follow'd the Scheme which he drew shou'd pay their just tribute of Respect to his Opinion in this Point Let us then hear him speak If any Council says he shou'd chance to Decree the Communion in both kinds we shou'd by no means make use of Both De Miffa Ang. nay we wou'd sooner in contempt of the Council take one or neither than both and curse those who shou'd by the Authority of such a Council make use of both kinds Here I think it is very plain Luther was of opinion that both kinds was not essential to the Sacrament else surely he wou'd not have said that he wou'd sooner make use of neither than of both nor curse those who shou'd take both kinds But the Discipline of the French Protestants will afford us a more ample Testimony in this Matter In a Synod held in Potiers Anno. 1560. and in an other in Rochel 1571. It is provided that those who cannot drink Wine may receive the Communion under the Form of Bread It may not be amiss to subjoin their very Words as they are read in the 12th Chapter of their Discipline Tit. Of the Lord's Sup. Art 7. The Bread of the Lord's Supper ought to be administer'd to those who cannot drink Wine upon their making Protestation that it is not out of Contempt and upon their endeavouring what they can to obviate all Scandal even by approaching the Cup as neer their Mouths as they are able Now 't is not to be imagin'd that these Gentlemen shou'd think both kinds essential to the Communion and yet make such a Decision For there is no Body who is never so little Read in Philosophy but knows that the Essence of Things is indivisible that by separating one essential Part from the other you destroy the nature of the whole that in giving only an essential part of a thing you give nothing in regard of that whose essential part it was consequently he that gives but part of the Sacrament gives no Sacrament at all Therefore these Gentlemen who knew better Things in ordering the Bread alone to be given to those who cou'd not drink Wine cannot in Reason be suppos'd to believe that the Cup was Essential to the Communion else they wou'd have absolutely refus'd the Sacrament to those who cou'd not receive it in both kinds since to give it in one kind were to give nothing at all but rather to prophane and abuse that which is most Sacred and August in the Christian Religion whereas the natural disability of those who cannot drink Wine might reasonably excuse them from taking either kind And thus I have endeavour'd as briefly as I cou'd to prove from the practice and discipline of the Church in all Ages from public as well as private Communion from Liturgies Fathers and Historians and even from the consent of our Adversaries manifestly imply'd in their Discipline and Practice that neither the Primitive Christians nor the Catholic Church in any Age nor yet any Orthodox Believer did ever think that to take the Sacrament in both kinds was essential to the Communion And if so then it is plain and evident that the Church hath Power to and may lawfully restrain the Faithful from the Cup and confine them to One kind only Let us now see what Dr. Tillotson objects to all this And here I shall not abuse the Reader 's Patience by repeating the same thing over again for since all that can with any colour of Reason be objected is contain'd in one short Paragraph tho' the things there insisted on are often repeated in several of his Sermons but with no material Addition I will only transcribe it and offer my Exceptions to it And then says he the Communion in One kind is plainly contrary to our Saviours Institution in both kinds as they themselves acknowledge And therefore the Council of Constance being sensible of this was forc'd to decree it with an express non Obstante to the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church And their Doctrine of Concomitancy as if the Blood were in the Flesh and together with it will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and pierc'd and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood and his Blood is represented as shed and poured out so that one kind can by no means contain and exhibit both Three things the Doctor here insists upon 1. That We our selves acknowledg the the Communion in one kind to be contrary to our Saviour's Institution 2. That the Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a non obstante to the Institution of Christ 3. That the Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and exhausted and drain'd of His Blood I may say of these three Propositions the first is neither True nor to the purpose The second is something to the Purpose but not True The third is like the first neither True nor to the Purpose I begin with the first We our selves acknowledge that the Communion in one Kind is contrary to our Saviour's Institution For my own part I have read at least some of the best R. Catholic Casuists and Divines upon this Subject and have convers'd with many more Yet I declare I neither read nor heard any of them say that to give the Communion in one kind was contrary to our Saviour's Institution nay I think all R. Catholics do believe that the Administration of the Communion
ascribe Omnipotence to them for Omnipotence supposes a power of doing all things whatsoever possible whereas we suppose in the Angels and Saints at most but a power of obtaining of God those benefits and blessings we have need of 2. Nor Omniscience for Omniscience supposes a knowledge of all things past present and possible to be And we only suppose in the Saints aknowledge of those few prayers we put up to them 3. Nor Immense-presence for this supposes an immensity or a being present not only to all the things in the World but to hundreds of Worlds if there had been so many whereas the utmost of what we suppose can amount to no more than that the Angels and Saints are present to those Christians who beg their Charitable Assistance Nor do we ascribe any of those divine Perfections to them if we conceive that God reveals our prayers to them This the Dr. himself does not say but endeavours to elude our Reasons by saying that if God reveals our prayers to the Saints we shou'd pray to Him before every prayer we make to the Saints that He wou'd be pleas'd to reveal that prayer to them but this says he is such away about as no Man wou'd take that cou'd help it To which I answer that such Reasonings are only fit to amuse the common People who as I said above measure all things even the most sublime by the notions they have of those things they are here on Earth acquainted with whereas the Scripture and the Fathers tell us that the manner of God's revealing His Will to His Angels and Saints is so mysterious and the knowledge and power of these blessed Spirits so vast and to us so incomprehensible that nothing on Earth much less such poor stuff as the Dr. brings is able to give us the least glimpse how these things are perform'd Vol. 2. edit post ob pag. 46. The Dr's last Objection is founded in a Parallel which he makes between the Pagan Saints as he calls them and the Christian Saints He tells us the Gentils address'd themselves to God by innumerable Mediators by Angels and the Souls of their departed Herâ—es which were the Pagan Saints This he repeats in several places with no material Addition only that in speaking to the pretended Worship we give to Images he adds that all our distinctions are no other ibid pag. 100. but what the Heathens us'd in the same Case And taking this for granted He leaves his Auditors to conclude that as it was Idolatry in the Heathens to Worship these Pagan Saints so it is in the Church of Rome to worship the Christian Saints Answ The best way in my opinion to remove this difficulty is to take a short view of the Character and Worship which the Heathens gave to their Pagan Saints as the Dr. is pleas'd to call them tho' without any Warrant from the Heathen Writers who always call them Gods and see whether upon the Comparison the Christian Saints be in any thing by us treated like Them And here I shall not distrust any Man's knowledge so far as to bring any Authorites from Heathen Writers to confirm what I say being resolv'd to instance only in such plain things as our very School-Boys are not ignorant of And First As to their Character 't is no less evident that the Heathens gave these Saints the Attributes of the Supream Being than that they are represented in their Writings under such Circumstances of Debauchery Lewdness and Intemperance as the greatest Debauchees are hardly capable of The Doctor cannot deny but Jupiter to omit several others was reckon'd a Hero in his Time according to the Pagan Belief We are told his Father was Saturn that he was born in Crete and that after his Death he was for his great Feats Deified and got the Supream Dominion in Heaven as his Brothers Pluto and Neptune got that of Hell and the Sea This departed Hero is describ'd every where with the Majesty of the true God He has Omnipotence put into His hands He is represented as the Great Rector and Governour of the World and at the same time is said to be sullied with all the Lewdness and Debauchery imaginable Now the Christian Heroes or Saints are quite of another Complexion We give them none of the Attributes of the true God We believe they fought stoutly under the Banner of Jesus Christ reduc'd Kings and Princes not by their Swords but by their Sufferings to his Subjection and laid down their Lives for the Truth of his Doctrine but we do not put Omnipotence into their Hands We believe they did work Miracles and wondrous Things but then we do not say they did these Things by their own Power and Virtue but that they were the happy Instruments by which God wrought these Miracles in Confirmation of the Word which he put in their Mouth We believe the Saints are Great Friends and Favourites of the true God because Jesus Christ has so declar'd He tells us that as his Father hath appointed unto Him so haâ—â— He appointed unto them a Kingdom Luke 22.30 that they might eat and drink at His Table in His Kingdom by which Metaphor of Eating and Drinking He gives us to understand that they are Partakers of the same Glory and Bliss with himself in Heaven But we say the Saints can do nothing of themselves but that all their Sufficiency is from God who made them what they are And then as to their Lives and Conversation I hope the Doctor wou'd not put me upon proving that the Apostles and the B. V. Mary and the Saints in Heaven are in no manner concern'd in the Lewdness and Intemperance of the Pagan Saints or that we do not ascribe any such thing to them So that as to the Character the Pagan and Christian Saints have no more Resemblance than Black and White Secondly as to the Worship The Heathens worship'd their Gods or Pagan Saints as the Doctor wou'd have it upon a false Pretence of their Power and Greatness in Heaven whereas there was no such Gods or Saints But we honour and respect the Christian Saints because we are warranted by the Word of God that they are such as we represent them The Heathens erected Altars to their Gods but we make Altars for none but one God only They offer'd Sacrifice to all their Gods and Saints which is the chief Mark of supream Worship but we offer Sacrifice only to the true and living God as Malice it self cannot deny They made Idols and believ'd that their Gods came and dwelt in them and that many of them spake and eat and drank and for that Reason they worship'd them and therefore are justly call'd Idolaters because they worship'd things that were not but we only put up in our Churches the Images and Pictures of Jesus Christ the Living God and of such as we are sure are truly Saints but do not believe that there is any Virtue or Divinity in
of our Saviour and the B. Virgin And as some of us now bow towards the Altar and all of us are enjoy'd to do so at the Name of Jesus so will we not fail to testifie all due Respect to this Representation Now we do-likewise declare and have upon all occasions done that we neither mean nor intend to give any more to the Images of Christ or the V. Mary or the Saints but due Honor and Respect But if neither the express Decree of the Council of Trent which commands us to give them no more nor the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition of our Doctrine in which this is so manifestly declar'd nor our own often repeated Protestations to that Effect will prevail upon them to believe us all we can say is that we are sorry for their Incredulity but cannot help it As to those Abuses which this Ingenious Man says have crept in upon Account of Images If there be any such we protest and declare that we abhor and detest them no less than he or any of his Perswasion or to use the Council of Trent's Phrase we earnestly desire they shou'd be intirely abolish'd But sure he was too reasonable to think that the abuse of a thing was a good Argument against the use of it Nor will his Example of Hezekiahis destroying the Brazen Serpent help the matter For he may please to consider that the Children of Israel liv'd in a Country where they were surrounded and as I may say hedg'd in on every side with Idolatry and the Worship of false Gods and not only so but they themselves were very much given to that Worship as appears by the Groves and high Places and Idols set up among them by their wicked Kings and Rulers and which this pious King pull'd down and destroy'd and therefore is deservedly commended in Scripture for breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent to which the People no doubt sacrific'd But blessed be God we have no such thing to fear We have no Idolaters among us nor near us we have no Groves nor high Places nor Idols in the land We do not burn Incense to any false Gods nor worship them We make only the Images and Pictures of the true God and his Saints and it cannot be denied but these same Pictures and Images have been kept in our Churches and have had the same respect given them which we now give at least these nine hundred years and in the Opinion of many learned Protestants for four hundred Years before Yet all this while no Heathen Idolatry was ever introduc'd into the Church upon Account of our Images No Defection from Christianity to Pagan Worship was heard among us So that the Example of Hezekiah is not to the purpose the Parallel is not just we are nothing concern'd in it Besides the Brazen Serpent was a Monument of no such great Moment to be long preserv'd 'T was only kept to put the Children of Israel in mind of the Miraculous Cure of those who were bitten by the Serpents in the Wilderness and when they left that Land and were no more vex'd by these Serpents it was of no great use But the Remembrance of the Death and Passion of our Lord by whom the Sins of the World was taken away and of his Holy Apostles and Saints by whom his Doctrine was propagated and transmitted to us is of that high Importance and Concern to all the World that these Monuments which put us in mind of them ought to be for ever most carefully preserv'd Page 14. As to what he says that in the Hymns for the day of the Invention of the Cross Good-Fryday we desire the Cross to strengthen the Righteous and give Pardon to the Guilty c. And that in the Service on Good-Fryday we say Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it I answer First That Poetical Hymns and Verses have in all Writings a greater Latitude than Prose Secondly That these Expressions are Apostrophes and Exclamations address'd to Jesus Christ upon the Cross whom we represent to our minds as there hanging when we salute the Cross And that this is our meaning whatever the words may import upon any other occasion I think is plain from the Words of the Council of Trent which expresly forbids us to believe that there is any Virtue or Divinity in Images or to demand any thing of them which if we believe as we profess and declare we do it cannot with any colour of Reason be presum'd that we shou'd ask Strength or Pardon of the Wood of the Cross contrary to the express commands of the Council and to the Faith which we profess Touching the Words in the Service on Good-Fridaâ— Behold the Wood of the Cross Come let us adore it I am sorry to see so Ingenious a Man and who otherwise professes to be so great a Friend to Sincerity and Truth swerve so manifestly from both in this Point He gives us here an Anthem sung on Good-Fryday maim'd in the middle and added to in the End The Words in the Roman Missal are thus Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo salus mundi pependit Venice Adoremus Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung Come let us adore Here is no It as he adds And sure it is more reasonable and more agreeable to Grammatical Construction to refer the word Adore to Saviour of the World which imediately goes before it than to Wood of the Cross which goes before that And then the sense is plainly this Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung Come let us adore Him And that this and no other is the Sense in which the Roman Catholic Church takes these Words I wonder any Man that ever read the Council of Trent shou'd be ignorant of seeing the Church in that Council has expresly declar'd that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and bow down we adore Christ and reverence the Saints Here is a Crucifix propos'd to us a Representation of Jesus Christ upon Mount Calvary we kiss it and bow to it and when we say Come let us adore we must surely mean come let us adore Christ else we shou'd contradict the express words of the Council I own indeed that we mean likewise by Kissing the Crucifix and bowing to it that day to give it due Honour and Respect and that we make use of the words Crucem Adoramus several Times on Good-Fryday to express the Respect we give it But then we are warranted so to do by the Scripture which uses the same Term to express the Honor exhibited to several Creatures as appears by these Texts Adorem te Filii Matris tuae Let thy Mother's Sons adore Thee says Isaac to his Son Jacob Gen. 27.29 Et omnis Multitudo inclinantes capita adoraverunt Dominum Regem and all the Congregation bowing their Heads ador'd the Lord and the King
which that I may the more plainly and distinctly do I shall proceed in this Method 1. I will endeavour to shew that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded in Scripture as interpreted by the Ancient Fathers of the Church 2. But more especially that it is founded in the Practice observ'd in the primitive Church of Praying for the Dead This I take to be an unanswerable Argument for if it appears that the Primitive Church did pray for the Dead that their Sins might be forgiven them then it will necessarily follow that they believ'd those Souls they thus pray'd for to be in a place where they might be help'd and benefited by their Prayers This is evident for if the Primitive Church were of Opinion that all Souls departed did go strait to Heaven or to Hell it were vain and superfluous to pray for them They knew there was no getting of Souls out of Hell for out of Hell there is no Redemption And therefore it were in vain to attempt it And it were superfluous to pray for the Souls in Heaven for the Remision of their Sins For why shou'd they pray for that which they knew they had no need of So that if they did pray for the Remission of Sins of Souls departed the Consequence is inevitable that they did believe there was a Third Place were some Souls were detain'd and might be assisted by their Prayers which is what we call Purgatory 3. I shall answer what Doctor Tillotson brings against this Point 1. I shall endeavour to shew that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded in Scripture as interpreted by the Ancient Fathers of the Church To prove this Head I will produce some Texts of Scripture with the Readings of the Fathers upon Them 1. Agree with thine Adversary quickly whilst thou art in the way with him Lest at any time the Adversary deliver thee to the Judge and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer and thou be cost into Prison Verify I say unto thee thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost Farthing Mat. 5.25.26 Tertullian a Father of the Second Age â— de Anima cap. 58. reâ—ds thus upon this Text. Seeing we understand that Prison which the Gospel demonstrates to be places below and the uttermost Farthing we interpret every small fault there to be punish'd by the delay of the Resurrection no Man can doubt but the Soul may pay something in the places below St. Cyprian a Father of the third Age It is one thing to be cast into Prison not to go out thence till he pays the uttermost Farthing an other Epist 52. ad Anton presently to receive the Reward of Faith one thing to be afflicted with long pains for Sins to be mended and purg'd long with Fire another to have purg'd all Sins by sufferings Here this Father alluding to the foregoing Text says that some Souls are cast into Prison 'till they pay the uttermost Fathing that others immediately receive their Reward that is Heaven Some are afflicted and purg'd by Fire in order to their Amendment whilst others have purg'd all their Sins by Sufferings or Martyrdom The very Language of the present R. Catholic Church St. Jerom a Father of the fourth Age who for his extraordinary Learning and Knowledge in the Scriptures was call'd Magister Mundi the Master of the World in his comment upon the said Text has these Words This is that which he says Comment in 5. Matt. thou shalt not go out of Prison till thou pay even thy little Sins There is then such a Prison in this Great Master's Opinion 2. Every Man's Work shall be made manifest for the Day shall declare it because it shall be reveal'd by Fire and the Fire shall try every Man's Work of what sort it is If any Man's Work abide which he hath built thereupon he shall receive a Reward If any Man's Work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire 1 Cor. 3.13.14 15. St. Ambrose or the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul annex'd to his Works which the ablest Critics do with good Reason ascribe to Hilary Deacon of the Church of Rome and Contemporary to St. Ambrose speaks thus of this Passage But when he St. Paul saith Yet so as by Fire he shews indeed that he shall be saved but yet shall suffer the Punishmenâ— of Fire that being purg'd by Fire he may be sav'd and not tormented for ever as the Infidels are with Everlasting Fire In cap. 3. Epist 1. ad Cor. St. Gregory of Nisse is so plain and full upon this Subject that no R. Catholic can at this Time speak plainer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Man is cleansed says he either in this present Life by Prayer and the Love of Wisdom or after his Death by the Furnace of a Purging Fire And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After his Departure out of the Body knowing the Difference between Virtue and Vice it is impossible to be Partakers of the Divinity unless Purgatory Fire doth cleanse the Soul from the Spots that stick to it Orat. pro. Mortuis prope Fin. St. Austin speaks much to the same purpose Purge me O Lord says he in this Life and make me such as shall not need that Puâ—ifying Fire And a little after he adds He shall be saved yet so as by Fire And because it is said He shall be saved this Fire is contemn'd yet it will be more grievous than any Thing that a Man can suffer in this Life Enar. in Psal 37. I might insist upon several other Passages of St. Austin and bring more Texts of Scripture with the Sense of the Fathers upon them with Respect to this Subject but I think what is here offer'd is sufficient to shew that our Doctrine concerning Purgatory is founded in Scripture and that the Ancient Fathers did believe it to be so I shall now proceed to shew 2. That the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded in the Practice observ'd in the Primitive Church of praying for the Dead for the Remission of Sins This as I said before if made out will plainly establish our Tenet For if the Primitive Church did pray for the Dead for the Remission of their Sins it follows necessarily that they suppos'd them capable of being assisted by their Prayers and consequently neither in Heaven nor in Hell but in a third Place which is what we believe and call Purgatory Now that the Primitive Church and all succeeding Generations us'd to pray for the Dead for the Remission of their Sins no one Point in the Christian Religion is more Universally attested St. Epiphanius tells us that Aerius was reputed an Heretic for denying the Lawfulness of it and besides him I do not find since Christianity began till the Begining of the last Age any one single Person that ever denied or question'd it Never was there found any Liturgy without it