humana prebet oâ—perimentum How was the Lord's Body after the Resurrection a true Body that cou'd enter the House when the Doors were shut But we must understand that if the Work of God be comprehended by Reason it is not wonderful nor hath that Belief any merit to which humane Reason gives Experience The Disciples saw Christ's Body and felt it with their Hands consequently had the Evidence of two of their Senses Yet according to St. Gregory they cou'd have Faith concerning the Truth of his Body only because they did not comprehend how it was possible for it to enter the House when the Doors were shut In like manner tho' we have Evidence of Reason that the things we believe were reveal'd by Jesus Christ yet the Reward of our Faith is nothing diminish'd because we believe such things as we neither comprehend nor understand And indeed whoever seriously considers the great Work of our Redemption he cannot but think that it was most agreeable to the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of our Divine Redeemer to leave us this Evidence Jesus Christ came to the World declar'd to a select Number of Men such high and mysterious things as seem to shock Humane Reason laid down his Life for the Salvation of Mankind sent his Apostles to publish these Mysteries over all the World and threatned with eternal Damnation all those who wou'd not believe them and that not only for a Time but also unto the End of the World Is it not then very reasonable that this mysterious Doctrine should always be attended with such Characters and Credentials of Truth as may convince the most obstinate Gainsayers of it which I am sure nothing less than either Evidence of Sense or Reason can effect For if the Evidence be less then the Doctrine is only probable and if it be only probable one may reasonably doubt of the Truth of it and if the Truth of it may be reasonably doubted the contrary for ought any one knows may be true and if the contrary may be true I am sure it does not stand with God's Goodness to condemn any Body to eternal Flames for not believing a Doctrine the contrary to which for any thing that he doth or can know may be true Here I wou'd not be understood so as to mean that none can have true Faith without clear Evidence for 't is plain that the most part of Mankind are taught the Articles of their Faith by their Parents or Pastors whose Testimony is confessedly fallible nor do I pretend that this is a Rigorous Demonstration such as Mathematicians make nor yet an Evidence of Sense but this I say that the universal Consent of so many Nations as compose the Catholic Church conspiring in the Belief of such Articles of Faith make it as evident to my Reason that the said Articles of Faith are true as any Evidence of Sense or Demonstration cou'd make them if they were capable of any In a word the Apostles and their Disciples deliver'd the Christian Faith to several Nations and convinc'd their Senses and Reason of the Truth of it by true and real Miracles and the Universal Consent of the same Nations which succeeded the Evidence of Miracles is equally convincing to us that that Faith is certainly true Consequently we have a certain and an undoubted Motive to rely upon in the Belief of the Articles of our Faith Now it is manifest and even acknowledg'd by our Adversaries that excepting those who separated themselves or were cut off from the Church by Excommunication for their obstinate Adherence to some Errors contrary to Faith and whose Opposition cannot prejudice the Truth of that Faith as I prov'd before that excepting those I say the Universal Consent of all the Christian World agrees in all the Articles of Faith that the Catholic Church holds and believes But among other Truths that are deriv'd to us by this Universal Tradition or common Consent of all Nations as afore explain'd this is one That the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of God doth assist the Church and doth guide her into all Truth necessary to Salvation Hence we conclude 1. That the Catholic Church is Infallible in all the Articles of Faith that she holds and professes For since the Holy Ghost is given to the Church to guide her into all Truth and that this Holy Spirit is Omniscient and Omnipotent it cannot be affirm'd without Impiety that it should permit her to fall into Error 2. That General Councils are Infallible in all their Definitions and Decisions of Faith For tho' a General Council be but a Representative of the whole Church yet because General Assemblies of the chief Pastors of the Church have been always look'd upon even by the Apostles themselves whose Steps in this particular the Church doth follow as the best and most effectual Means of determining any Controversie that may arise and that all Good Christians have always held themselves bound to acquiesce to their Determinations and to submit to them it is reasonable to believe that the Spirit of God doth assist and guide them 3. That the Catholic Church is Infallible in determining what Books of Scripture are Canonical and what Books are not and in declaring the true Sense and Interpretation of them For since these sacred Books and the right Interpretation of them are very necessary for the Edification of our Faith and Manners the same Spirit which guides the Church into all Truth does no doubt guide Her in these great and important Truths We shall see hereafter what Society of Christians can justly pretend to be called the Catholic Church I now proceed to prove from Scripture that the Church is Infallible But whereas the Protestants are accustomed to carp at this kind of Proof pretending that this is to Dance in a Circle as They are pleas'd to term it it won't be amiss to examine what is meant by a Circle and when it is to be admitted in Reasoning When two things bear witness mutually the one of the other we call this a Circle and when they have nothing else to support the Truth of their Evidence but their mutual Affirmation then that sort of Proof is Faulty But when both or either have such Evidence on their side as is sufficient to establish their Credit before they bear witness one of another tho' it be still a Circle yet it is good and vallid in all sort of Proof Thus God the Father bore witness of Jesus Christ and He again of the Father Thus Jesus Christ bore witness of John the Baptist and John the Baptist likewise of Him And I hope no Body will be so impious as to say these were vicious or faulty Evidences because God the Father's Testimony was known to be true tho' Jesus Christ had not confirm'd it and Jesus Christ his Works prov'd likewise his own Testimony to be true tho' his Father had not born Him witness In like manner the Church bears witness that the Scripture
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
are so far from countenancing or abbetting them that it is our earnest wishes and the desire of our Hearts that all such shou'd be intirely abolish'd and taken away We cover no more than that all Christians in Time of Jubileâ—s and Plenary Indulgences shou'd think on their way in the bitterness of their Sâ—als shou'd repent and be sorry for their Sins shou'd have a strong hope and confidence in the Mercy of Almighty God giâ—â— Alâ—â—â— to the Poor and by their 〈◊〉 and servent Prayers dispose themselves 〈◊〉 God is Grace to receive the Indulâ—â—â—â— of Permission of those Canonical Penances which neither the Condition of the Persons nor the Wickedness of the Times nor yet the great Decay of Piety will permit us to require they shou'd fully perform And this we do because we find the same thing practic'd in the best and purest Times of Christianity even in the First Second Third and Fourth Ages especially being warranted by the Word of God who gave to his Church the Power of remitting and retaining Sins And now having found nothing in Dr. Tillotson's Sermons upon this Subject that requires any particular Consideration besides what is here explain'd I shall conclude this Treatise with my Hearty Prayers to the Father of Light that He wou'd be mercifully pleas'd to open the Eyes of our Adversaries that they may see the Innocence and Reasonableness of our Doctrine and give them the Grace to lay seriously to Heart how dangerous it is to reject those Things which the Catholic Church declares to have been deliver'd by Christ and His Apostles Our and Their Creed says I believe the Holy Catholic Church And they own that the Catholic Church before the Reformation did hold and Declare those Things wherein we differ from them to be Truths deliver'd by Christ and His Apostles How then can they believe the Catholic Church when She declares these Things if they do not hold and believe these Things themselves Or how can they in Reason reject them if they believe the Catholic Church which tells them they are Divine Truths But there is yet something more desperate which I beg of Almighty God to give them the Grace to consider Our Saviour saith to His Apostles Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Mat. c. 28.19 20. And St. Mark adds He that believeth and is Baptiz'd shall be Sav'd but he that believeth not shall be Damn'd Cap. 16.16 Now if those Things which make the Subject of our Dispute be Truths given in charge to the Apostles then our Adversaries are to my great grief I must say it lost for ever For it is not enough according to Christ's own Words to Believe in the Trinity to Believe the Incarnation to believe in the Holy-Ghost to believe Baptism the Eucharist c. But we must believe all Things whatsoever Christ commanded and that on pain of Damnation But if it shou'd happen as no doubt it cannot that the Points in Dispute were not commanded by Christ or His Apostles where is the harm in believing them since we are commanded to do so by the Church which our Creed tells us we must believe Christ our Saviour doth often reproach the Jews for their Incredulity and the Scripture in several places gives us an Account of the Punishment of such as wou'd not believe the Messengers sent by God to declare His Will to them But we do not find that ever He reproach'd any Body for having too much Faith especially when the Things to be believ'd were declar'd to them by the Messengers of God which sure the Bishops and Priests of the Church are On the contrary we read in the Scripture that Christ has upon several Occasions highly commended and extoll'd Men's readiness to believe O Woman Great is thy Faith Mat. 14.28 Where lyes then the Harm of believing Transubstantiation or the Real Presence which are so plainly deliver'd in Scripture Where is the Harm of allowing due Honor and Respect to be given to Saints and of desiring them to pray for us since it is what we do and are commanded to do to one another in this Life If they hear our Prayers and Intercede for us well and good But if they do not what do we loose by it Where is the Harm in praying for our deceas'd Friends Sure we do but declare our pious Affections to them tho' our Prayers had done them no good And where is the Harm in all this How can it hurt any Body to believe that the Church hath Power to give Indulgences that is to Remit all or part of the Temporal Punishment due for Sins since it is plainly exprest in Scripture that Christ gave to His Apostles and the Apostles to their Successors the Power of Remitting and Retaining Sins and that whatsoever they Loose on Earth shall be Loosed in Heaven How can this hurt any Body I say or where lies the Hazard in believing those Things tho' we had not as much assurance of their being Divine Truths as of other Things since they are not contrary to any other Article of our Faith nor to Right Reason or Good Manners But there is Infinit Hazard in not believing them since they have been declar'd by the Church which our Creed and the Scripture command as to believe and hear on pain of being reputed Heathens and Publicans Now that they are Divine Truths besides what is already offer'd to prove each Point in particular We have all the Eastern Churches on our side All the Greek Church together with the Nestorians Euâ—ychians Monothelites the Christians of St. Thomas in a Word all the Oriental Sects of what Denomination soever do Practice and Believe Transubstantiation the Real Presence the Sacrifice of the Mass Seven Sacraments the Use of the Liturgy in a Tongue which the Common People do not understand Invocation of Saints Veneration of Relicks and Images and Prayers for the Dead See the Critical History of the Learn-Father Simon Of the Religion and Customs of the Eastern Churches 'T is done into English printed in London and very much esteem'd by the Learn'd Seeing then that the Latin Church which together with the Greek and other Eastern Churches make up the whole Body of the Christian World and that all these Churches did hold and profess the said Doctrine when the Reformation began and do still hold and believe the same I think I may confidently affirm that it is Catholic and Orthodox I shall therefore once more beg of Almighty God thro' the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and by that Blood which was shed for our Redemption that he wou'd please in His Mercy to Soften the Hearts of our Adversaries and give them Grace to entertain Thoughts of Peace of His Holy Church from which they have so long gone astray To the end that They and We may with one Heart and one Tongue praise and magnifie His Holy Name all the Days of our Lives and when it shall please His Infinite Goodness to call us to Himself that we may meet together at the Resurrection of the Just thro' the Merits of the Death and Passion of our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost be Honor and Glory now and for ever Amen FINIS
is the Word of God and the Scripture again bears witness that the Church is Infallible and yet this way of Reasoning is not in the least defective because the Church has sufficient Credentials for the truth of its Evidence before it rereceives a Testimony from the Scripture viz. The Universal Consent of the whole Catholic Church which as is already proved is undoubtedly certain The Testimony then of Scripture bearing witness of the Church is properly speaking Argumentum ad hominâ—â— that is an Argument from a Concession or a Principle agreed upon by both Parties And now since the Protestants do agree that the Scripture is Infallibly true I hope they will hear it if it bears witness of the Infallibility of the Church Let us see then what it says upon this Subject Christ saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Matth. 16. verse 18. Again Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and so I am with you alway even unto the End of the World cap. 28. ver 19 20. And again I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now â— howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth John 16. ver 12 13. St. Paul writes to Timothy But if I tarry long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth 1 Tim. â— ver 15. You see Christian Reader that Christ promi'sd to build his Church upon a Rock and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it that he himself continues with it â—â—â—o the end of the World That the spirit of Truth shall guide it into all Truth And St. Paul says that the Church of God is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Now if any Man that believes the Goodness and Power of Jesus Christ to perform what he promises can shew me any Text in Scripture more Plain and Evident to prove any thing else than these do the Infallibility of the Church I shall hold my self highly oblig'd to him for that Favour If the Gates on Power of Hell for they are both the same shall not prevail against the Church surely then it shall not fell into Error For there are but two Ways of prevailing against it viz. by destroying all the Members that compose it as to their temporal Being or by corrupting their Souls with Error That the Gates of Hell hath not prevail'd as to the former our own Being is a sufficient Evidence and that they shall not as to the latter methinks a sober modest man ought to be content with the Insurance of Christ's Promise If Christ continues with the Church unto the end of the World can it be imagined that he shou'd suffer it to fall into Error since we cannot suppose him to have any other bus'ness to continue with it than to preserve it from that If the holy Ghost or as the Teâ—t calls him the Spirit of Truth will guide the Church into all Truth we must surely renounce all pretence to Reason and Christianity if we believe that any Power whether Earthly or Infernal can be able to make it err Lastly if the Church be the Ground and Pillar of Truth as St. Paul calls it certainly neither Rain nor Floods noâ— Wind can shake or throw down an Edifice so firmly founded I shall now add three or four Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers in savour of this Truth and so conclude this chapter Saint Ireneus a Father of the second Age writes thus of the Church where the Church is there is the Spirit and where the Spirit of God is there is all Grace lib. 3. c. 40. Praes in lib. per. Ar. In the third Age Origen That only is to be believed for Truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church And a little after We must not believe otherwise than as the Church of God has by Succession deliver'd to us In the same Age St. Cyprian Whoever divides from the Church and cleaves to the Adultress is separated from the Promises of the Church he cannot have God his Father that has not the Church his Mother Again To Peter's Chair and the Principal Church Infidelity or false Faith cannot have access Epist 55. In the fourth Age St. Jerom The Roman Faith commended by the Apostles cannot be changed in Apolog. cont Ruffin In the beginning of the fifth Age St. Augustin I know by Divine Revelations that the Spirit of Truth teacheth it the Church all truth Lib. 4. de Bap. c. 4. Again To dispute against the whole Church is insolent Madness and I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the Authority of the Church moves me to it cont Epist fundam c. 5. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon these Sentences but will let them stand or fall by their own Weight perswaded as I am that no Comment or Gloss whatsoever can make them speak plainer or more to my purpose I will only mind him that these Great and Eminent Men who shin'd in the Church like so many Lights as well by the Lustre of their extraordinary Piety as by the profoundness of their Learning cou'd not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church of their Time Consequently wou'd never have taught so peremptorily the Infallibility of the Church unless it had been the Opinion of all the Christian World There is then an Infallible Church that is to say a Congregation of Faithful that believes holds and teaches the Doctrine of Jesus Christ 1. Upon the Universal Consent of the Christian World 2. Upon clear and plain Texts of Scripture declaring the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide it into all Truth 3. Upon the unanimous Consent of the Fathers of the Primitive Times a Triple Cord which neither the Power of Hell nor the Subtility of Heretics nor the Malice of the World shall ever be able to break Let us now examine what Society of Christians can justly lay claim to or be truly call'd the Catholic Church CHAP. II. The Congregation of Faithful in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and no other is the Catholic Church TO prove this Assertion I shall lay down some Principles known either by their own Light or sufficiently proved by plain Texts of Scripture and the Consent of our Adversaries I. That in the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World II. That there is but one Catholic Church III. That one Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church IV. That whosoever separates from or
is excommunicated by the Church for the Obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which the Church professes cannot justy be call'd a Member of the Church 1. In the Catholic Church there is and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops Priests and Teachers from Christ to the End of the World This is manifest from these Words of St. Paul He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. Eph. 4.11 12. 2. There is but one Catholic Church This is evident from Christ's own Words I have other Sheep which are not of this Fold Them also I must bring and they shall hear my Voice and there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd John 10.16 And from these Words of the Nicene Creed I believe One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church 3. One Communion as well as one Faith is Essential to the Being of one Church This is no less evident from the aforesaid Words of Christ who says that his Sheep will not only hear his Voice but also shall be brought all into one Fold than from the very Notion which as well protestants as Catholics have of a Church namely That it is a Congregation of the Faithful believing and practicing the same Things with due Subjection and Subordination to their Lawful Pastors This Truth the Gentlemen of the Church of England are very loth to own in their Disputes with the Roman Catholics and not without Reason For they are Sensible that all their Authority and Mission if any they have are deriv'd from the Church of Rome and that if Unity in Communion which as aforesaid implies a Due Subjection and Subordination to Lawful Pastors be essential to the Being of the Catholic Church they quite unchurch themselves since it is Manifest that in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth They shook off all Obedience and Subjection to their Bishops who were all R. Catholics and Drove them all away and in some Years before in King Henry the VIII his Time what with Death and other Cruelties they compell'd most of Them to divide and separate from the Pope and all other Bishops in the World besides They wou'd therefore willingly pass by this sore place if possible but when the Dispute is with the Presbyterians this Truth is highly magnified These they look upon to be Schismatics because they separated from their Communion and erected Altars against their Altars and so far indeed they are in the Right if a Separation from a Separation may be called Schism However this I cannot but admire that they do not observe that in charging the Presbyterians with Schism they condemn themselves since it is notoriously known they are highly guilty of what they charge them with namely of separating from their own and all other Bishops in the World Whoever desires farther Satisfaction in this matter may consult Dr. Heilin's History of the Presbyterians Intitul'd Aerius Redivivus and the History of the Reformation by the same Author but more especially an Ingenious Treatise lately publish'd by a Learned Divine of the Church of England under this Title The Principles of the Cyprianic Age. In this the Author proves excellently well the Necessity of One Communion as well as of One Faith for the being of One Church I will transcribe some of his Words and leave the Reader to judge how well he proves my Postulatum Now they were thus united saith he speaking of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church by the Great and Fundamental Laws of one Faith and one Communion That the One Holy Catholic Faith is essential in the Constitution of One Holy Catholic Church is even this day a receiv'd Principle I think amongst all sober Christians But then I say that the Christians in St. Cyprian's Time reckon'd the Laws of one Communion every whit as forcible and indispensable to the Being of one Church as the Laws of One Faith It was a Prime a Fundamental Article of their Faith that there was but one Church and they cou'd not understand how there cou'd be but One Church if there was more than One Communion By their Principles and Reasonings a multiplication of Communions made unavoidably a multiplication of Churches and by consequence seeing there cou'd be but one true Catholic Church there cou'd be likewise but one true Catholic Communion All other Churches or Communions were false i. e. not at all Christian Churches or Communions Thus far this Learned Man and indeed very right For it was the constant Principle as well of all as of the Primitive Ages of the Church that One Communion was no less Essential to the being of One Church nor less necessary to Salvation than One Faith And here I cannot but observe two things by the way 1. How unjust that intolerable charge of uncharitableness is wherewith the Protestants incessantly Traduce the R. Catholics for denying them Salvation out of their Communion since it is manifest as this Learned Man says that one Faith and one Communion are equally necessary to Salvation And no less evident that the Protestants separated themselves from that Communion and Faith which the R. Catholics believe and maintain to be the true Church How is it then consistent with their Principles to allow Salvation to the Protestants whilst they persist in their Separation Or how can they be deem'd uncharitable for judging according to the known Principles of the Primitive Christians who knew but one Faith and one Communion wherein Salvation was to be had 2. What miserable shifts the Church of England Gentlemen are driven to being forc'd to deny to the R. Catholics in their own justification what they so earnestly press upon the Presbyterians in order to reclaim them as constant and fundamental Principles in the Primitive Church 4. Whosoever separates from or is excommunicated by the Church for the obstinate Denial of any Article of the Faith which it professeth cannot reasonably be call'd a Member of the Church This is Self-evident as to the first part for to separate from the Church is to go away from it as the very Word imports and by consequence to be no more a Member of it It is likewise no less evident as to the second for to Excommunicate is to put out of Communion or to cut off from the Body of the Church So that whoever is Excommunicated for the Denial of any Article of Faith can no more be said to be united to the Church than an Arm cut off from a Man or a Branch from a Tree can be said to be united to the same Man or Tree All such then who wilfully separate from the Communion of the Catholic Church let their Pretence be never so plausible are properly Schismatics I say let their pretence be never so plausible for Dr. Hammond tells us as aforesaid that
the Canon of the Council of Nice by which it was provided That there shall be but one Metropolitan in each Province made a Pragmatic Sanction whereby he Constituted the Bishop of Berithum Metropolitan in the same Province and submited a great many of the former Metropolitan's Suffragans to him which when the Bishop of Tyre expos'd to the Council it was unanimously Decreed That the said Bishop of Tyre should be restor'd to all his Privileges and Jurisdiction notwithstanding the Emperor's Sanction which the Council declar'd to be of no Force or Virtue against the Canons of the Church So that it is evident this General Council knew nothing of any such Ecclesiastical Power vested in the Emperor tho' Lord of almost all the World much less in a Prince of a few Provinces 'T is true there is a Canon of a Council held long after in Constantinople called Quinisexta-synodus which provides that if the Emperor shou'd Erect or raise any City to the Dignity of Metropolis of a Province the Ecclesiastical Power ought to follow the Temporal The Sense of which Canon I conceive must be this that either the Bishop of the City thus dignifi'd was to have the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops in the Province the former Metropolitan being reduc'd to the condition of a private Bishop or that the same Province ought to be divided into Two and Governed by two Metropolitans with distinct Limits and Jurisdictions Whether of the two be the Sense of those Fathers 't is manifest this Canon does not exempt the one or the other from the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch much less from that of the Pope as Head of the Church And indeed to give it the most rigorous Interpretation it is impossible to stretch it any further than this That when a City is made Metropolis or Head of a Kingdom the Bishop of that City ought to have Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in the same Kingdom But this does not give the least colour to any Exemption from the Ecclesiastical Power to which this Kingdom was subject before Besides this same was not enacted by the Emperor or any Secular Prince but by a Council of Bishops in favour doubtless of the Episcopal Dignity because it was proper that the first Bishop or Metropolitan shou'd have his Seat in the Metropolis of the Kingdom and take his Denomination from thence And yet we see this never took place in the West otherwise the Bishops of Paris in France of London in England of Edenburg in Scotland and others might as justly pretend to a Primacy in these several Kingdoms which I am confident the Archbishop of Canterbury wou'd as much oppose as any of the Rest Now that the Church of England did wilfully separate from the Pope from their own immediate Heads the Bishops of England and from the Communion of all the Bishops in the World besides Stow Baker Dr. Heilen Dr. Burnet is plain matter of fact equally attested by all Writers as well Protestants as Catholics K. Henry VIII did separate from the Pope and assum'd to himself the Title of Head of the Church of England persecuting and putting to death all such who oppos'd his Supremacy After the Death of Queen Mary in whose Reign the Church of England was again reconcil'd to Rome Queen Elizabeth call'd a Parliament in order to settle Matters of Religion In this Parliament all the Bishops of England were depriv'd of their Episcopal Seas some cast into Prison others banish'd the Country all violently forc'd away from their Flocks and Pastoral Functions Nor will it at all relieve the Protestant Cause to say which yet is their only plea that the Bishops were depriv'd because they wou'd not take the Oath of Supremacy reviv'd by that Parliament For beside that it is an unheard of Thing that any Society of Laymen shou'd take upon them to determin Spiritual Matters for such was the Tenure of that Oath and to impose them upon Bishops to whom it chiefly belong'd to determin such matters This Proceeding was contrary to the Ordinary Methods of Parliament both before and ever after that Time For all things relating to Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Matters are first determin'd and agreed upon in the Convocation of the Bishops whose province and care it is to declare what is Spiritual and what not and then refer'd to both Houses of Parliament to pass into Law But here is a Spiritual Matter past into a Law which vests the Supreme Spiritual Power in the Queen and which all the Bishops in the Kingdom solemnly protest against as a thing as monstrously absurd as it was ever before unheard of And yet they must be all depriv'd because they wou'd not swear to the Truth of nor assert this Spiritual Power lodg'd in a Person whose very Sex rendred her incapable of Indeed they might as well deprive them for not believing and swearing to the truth of the Alcaron But this is too absurd to need a Confutation That the Church of England separated from the Communion of all other Bishops in the World is evident even to this day since they never were able to shew as much as one single Bishop in the whole World who professeth to be of their Communion Now if all this be not Schism I confess I know not what is To separate from the Pope and all in Communion with him To separate from their own Bishops and raise Altars against their Altars or rather to pull down all Altars as they have done to separate from all the Bishops in the World If this be not in the highest degree Schismatical farewel Reason and Religion And here I may justly make the same Intercession as St. Paul calls it against the Church of England with that of Elijah against the Schismatical Church of Israel whose perfect Image I am sorry they bear Lord they have killed thy Bishops and Priests and digged down thine Altars and we poor persecuted Sheep are left alone and they seek our lives to take them away 4. As to the Roman Catholics I need not urge any more Reasons than what has been already offer'd to prove that this Society of Christians is the True Catholic Church For since it is manifestly prov'd that neither the Nestorian nor the Eutychian nor the Greek nor yet the Church of England is the Catholic Church it remains that the Roman Catholics must necessarily be it However I shall lay down some Notes agreed on by all sides to pertain to the Catholic Church which upon Examination will be found to be peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church 1. The Roman Catholic Church is a Great Body of the Faithful spread over all the known parts of the World there being but few Kingdoms known where some Believers in communion with the Bishop of Rome are not to be found Hence She justly claims the Title of Catholic 2. If we except the Protestants there are but few material Points in which all other Sects differ from Her
Intimation in Scripture of this Priviledge confer'd upon the Church of Rome and it is strange the Ancient Fathers in their Disputes against Heretics shou'd never Appeal to this Judge c. That there is not only Intimation but even plain Texts of Scripture which denote the Churche's Infallibility is what I think is already sufficiently Prov'd And since it is likewise Prov'd that the Roman Church or which is the same thing the Congregation of Faithful in Communion with it is the Catholic Church I think it is a necessary ' Consequence that there are plain Texts of Scripture that prove the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Nor is it less certain that the Ancient Fathers in their Disputes against Heretics did Appeal to this Judge For in those days there was no other Means to convince Heretics of their Errors but by the Authority of the Church In the primitive Times New Heresies sprung up as many if not more than in any of our latter Ages yet there was no other Rule or Standard to judge these Errors by the Canonical Books of Scripture not being collected or put together at least in 150 Years after the Foundation of the Church and then not one Book of it all whose Authority or Credit was not question'd by some Heretic or other How was it then possible for the Ancient Fathers to confute these Hereties unless they had Appeal'd to the Authority of the Church and told them that this is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church this is what we receiv'd from our Fore-fathers And this is what all the Christian World believes Neither is it true that the ancient Fathers did not Appeal to this Judge even when the Scripture was collected and receiv'd as the Word of God Read but St. Ireneus Contra Haeres Tertul de Praescript Epipha de Haeres St. Austin cont Epist Fund and many more and you shall find how much the Doctor was mistaken in this bus'ness I do not cite the passages of these Fathers because they are so well known and so often quoted by Others who wrote upon this Subject But let this of St. Austin to use the Doctors own Phrase be instead of a thousand I wou'd not believe the Gospel Cont. Epist Funda were it not that the Authority of the Church moves me to it The second Objection is in Answer to a Certain Passage in the Canon Law Vol. 3. pag. 94. where it is said That if every Man may judge for himself there will be nothing but Confusion in Religion there will be no End of Controversies And that our Lord had not seem'd to be Discreet * The Drs Translation of the Latin has it so if he had not provided for the Assurance of Men's Faith by giving them an Infallible Judge To this he says that if this Reasoning be good we may as well conclude that there is an Universal Infallible Judge in Temporal Matters but it is evident in Fact and Experience says he that there is no such Judge in Temporal Matters consequently nor in Matters of Faith Answ Had there been an Universal Infallible Judge appointed in Temporal Matters it wou'd doubtless contribute very much to the Peace and Tranquility of the World if He were Obey'd but very little to the Means wherewith God Almighty designs to bring his chosen People to the Kingdom of Heaven which is to exercise them with Fiery Tryals and make them pass thro' much Tribulation And therefore He permits the Cruelty of Tyrants to try the patience of Martyrs and suffers the Oppression of the Poor on Earth to enhance their Reward in Heaven So that the Cruelty or Errors of a Temporal Judge do rather increase than diminish the Happiness of the Just But the Case is far otherwise in spiritual Matters If the Judge shou'd spoil us of our Faith or err in Judging for us it wou'd cause our Eternal ruine our Damnation being necessarily consequent upon a False Belief And for that Reason the goodness of God seems to be so much the more engag'd to secure the Spiritual than the temporal Judge from error by how much the danger is the greater on that side and the Ruin more inevitable if we shou'd chance to Err. Christ threatens Damnation to all those that will not believe his Doctrine which how it can stand with his Infinit Goodness unless he had provided Infallible Means of conveying the Truth of this Doctrine to them it is hard to conceive In short Temporal Ease and Tranquility is of very little Moment even in this Life but of none at all in the next and therefore generally speaking God leaves Men in the Counsel of their own Hands and permits Them very often to disturb the public Peace and quiet of this World But the true Knowledge of his Divine Law and of the Mysteries of our Redemption are of so great importance to our Eternal Happiness that his Goodness will Infallibly secure it for us if it be not our own Fault Object 3. An Infallible Judge pag. 95 96. if there were one is no certain way to end Controversies and to preserve the Vnity of the Church unless it were likewise Infallibly Certain that there is such a Judge and who he is For till Men were sure of both these there wou'd be still a Controversie whether there be an Infallible Judge and who he is And if it be true which they tell us that without an Infallible judge Controversies cannot be ended then a Controversie concerning an Infallible judge can never be ended And there are two Controversies actually on foot about an Infallible Judge One whether there be an Infallible Judge or not Which is a Controversie between Vs and the Church of Rome And the other who this Infallible Judge is Which is a Controversie among themselves which cou'd never yet be decided And yet till it be decided Infallibility if they had it wou'd be of no use to them for the ending of Controversies Thus far the Drs. own Words Answ That there is an Infallible Judge is already prov'd Who that Judge is I have likewise manifestly shewn namely the Living Voice of all the Catholic Pastors and People agreeing in the same Points of Faith And if it be farther ask'd who those Pastors and People are I answer The same in Communion with the Pope as it is prov'd before And surely none will doubt but we may be Infallibly certain that these agree in the same Points of Faith Consequently we may be Infallibly certain both that there is an Infallible Judge and who that Judge is And if it be True which they tell us says the Doctor that without an Infallible Judge Controversies cannot be ended then a Controversie concerning an Infallible Judge can never be ended And why so Why may not an Infallible Judge end it Is not an Infallible Judge sufficient to end any Controversie whatsoever If the Church be Infallible and assisted by the Spirit of God for no other End than to
guide it into all Truth surely it will not be wanting to it in this Point which is the most material of all others But I suppose the Dr. grounds his Argument upon this Axiom no Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause If he shou'd hence conclude that the supreme Judge cannot decide a Controversie concerning his own Prerogative he must certainly be a great Stranger to all Civil Laws and Constitutions in the World The King and Parliament together are the Supreme Judge of all Causes in England Now if we suppose the Rest of the people of England shou'd Dispute that Prerogative this Controversie according to the Doctor 's Principles can never be ended Not by the King and Parliament for it is their Own Cause nor yet by the Rest of the People of England for it is not Reasonable they shou'd be Judge and Party Who must judge it then No Body So that if we stretch that Axiom thus far we must leave undecided that without which nothing can be lawfully decided The true Sense of it then is this No Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause that is no Private Man who lives under Laws and Government ought to Judge for himself or be his own Carver but must have Recourse to the ordinary Judges whose Sentence he and his Adverse Party are bound to obey But this is by no means to be extended to the Supreme Legislative Power whose very Essence is to Judge all others and to be Judg'd by None As to what he says that a Controversie Who this Infallible Judge is cou'd never yet be decided in the Church of Rome I answer there never was any Controversie in the Church of Rome concerning what is of Faith in this Point namely that the Church is this Infallible Judge and what the Church is surely no Roman Catholic ever disputed Vol. 3. Edit post obit pag. 32. Object 4. If God had thought it necessary That there shou'd be an Infallible Church he wou'd have reveal'd this very thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever but this he has not done therefore he did not think it necessary Answ Let the Socinians for once answer or rather Retort this Argument upon the Doctor Had God say they thought the Knowledge of Three Persons really distinct each of them perfect God and yet but One God necessary to be believ'd by the Faithful he wou'd have reveal'd this very Thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever because it is look'd upon to be the Chiefest Mystery of Christianity but this He has not done Therefore he did not think it necessary to be believ'd Will the Doctor allow this Argument to be good If not I hope he will give me leave to have the same Thoughts of his Argument For I am certain there is no Text in Scripture that proves a Real Distinction of Three Persons whereof each is Perfect God and all but One God so plainly as it proves many other things which are not so necessary to Salvation But has not God plainly reveal'd that the Church is Infallible Tell the Church and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican When the Spirit of Truth cometh He shall guide you into all Truth Go teach all Nations And lo I am with you alway even unto the End of the World The Church is the Ground and Pillar of Truth Are not all these clear and plain Has not Christ's own Mouth and his Apostle's reveal'd all These concerning the Church Surely then he judg'd the Infallibility of the Church necessary to be believ'd And this is to a Reasonable Man instead of a Thousand Arguments that He thought it not only necessary but even laid it down as the Chief Fundamental Point of our Belief because this once firmly establish'd wou'd easily clear the Obscurity of any other Object 5. pag. 77. We have as great need of Infallible Security against Sin and Vice in matters of Practice as against Errors in matters of Faith but we have no Infallible Security against Sin and Vice in matters of Practice consequently nor against Errors in matters of Faith Answ This Comparison is in one sense Just and Reasonable and in that sense I will be content to stand or fall by it viz. That as the assistance of the Holy Ghost infallibly secures the Church from Error so the assistance of God's Grace together with the cooperation of our Wills which is always in our power is an infallible security against Sin if put in ure For is not every Sin voluntary And if voluntary surely we may abstain from it it wou'd not be voluntary else For if we cannot abstain from it it is no more voluntary but necessary and therefore no Sin and have not we in several places of the Scripture a promise of the Assistance of God's Grace which is never wanting to our sincere Endeavours and if we have God's Grace and are able at least by this assistance to abstain from sin certainly we have an infallible Security against Sin and Vice or if we have it not how can it stand with the infinit goodness of God to condemn us eternally for that which we cannot avoid In short as it is most agreeable to his infinit goodness and mercy to condemn no Man for what he cannot help so it is but reasonable we shou'd believe he has given us such means as will infallibly secure us if it be not our own fault both from Errors in matters of Faith and from Sin and Vice in matters of Practice But with this difference that Free-will without which there can be no reward or punishment by not cooperating with Grace falls into Sin and Vice whereas the assistance of the holy Ghost depending of no such condition as to its effect infallibly attains its end and preserves the Church from Error in matters of Faith Object 6. All things necessary to be known either in Faith or Practice are clear and plain in Scripture therefore there is no need of an Infallible Church Answ This is a Fundamental Principle I think I may truly say with all Protestants The Dr. I am sure repeats it several Times and lays great Stress upon it But in establishing this Principle he does two things which I suppose he wou'd not willingly allow of had he but well consider'd them 1. He makes any Man of sense that can read the Scripture as infallible as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be 2. He justifies in a great measure all the Heretics that ever denied any Points of Faith on pretence that they are not plain in Scripture 1. He makes any Man of sense that can read the Scriptures as Infallible as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be For the Catholic Church pretends only to be Infallible in necessary Articles of Faith Now if all things necessary to be known in Faith and Practice be clear and plain in Scripture there is no Man of sense that
he was qualified by Jesus Christ for that Office or that he must be a very arrogant Man in taking so much upon him to the Diminution of the Honour and Esteem of his Fellow Apostles And if we put these three things together viz. 1. Christ's building his Church upon Peter giving him the Charge of feeding his Lambs and Sheep and the Power of Confirming his Brethren 2. The Evangelist pursuant to this Power not only reckoning him first amongst the Apostles but also calling him the First 3. Peter's exercising the Office and Charge of Head or Chief among the Apostles as aforesaid We shall plainly see that this Superiority is no Imaginary thing as our Adversaries wou'd make the World believe but a Real Truth grounded upon the Word of God And if this was confer'd upon Peter it is granted by all that the same Prerogative must necessarily devolve upon his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome And indeed this was so publickly taught and profess'd by the Primitive Fathers and Councils as a necessary and fundamental Truth that many Learned Protestants have been forc'd to own it I shall instance in one Monsieur Blondel one of the most learned Protestants that ever writ against the Pope's Supremacy gives it this Testimony The Titles of the Apostle St. Peter saith he ought not to be put in debate since the Grecians and Pâ—otestants also do confess that it has been believ'd and that it might indeed be that he was the President and Head of the Apostles the Foundation of the Church and Possessor of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Again pag. 107. Rome being a Church consecrated by the Residence and Martyrdom of St. Peter whom Antiquity has acknowledg'd to be the Head of the College Apostolic having been honour'd with the Title of the Seat of the Apostle St. Peter might without Difficulty be consider'd by one of the most renowned Councils viz. that of Chalcedon as Head of the Church Thus far this Learned Man and surely nothing but the Evidence of this Truth cou'd extort so ingenuous a Confession from an Adversary in favour of â—â—me whose Supremacy he chiefly aim'd to pull down Now how far this Title gives him Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops I will not take upon me to determine This only I shall undertake to prove that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did believe St. Peter and his Successors the Bâ—shops of Rome to be by virtue of this Prerogative St. Peter Head and Chief amongst the Apâ—stles and the Bishop of Rome the same among all other Bishops and Center of Catholic Vnity and that the Bishop of Rome did exercise Jurisdiction as occasion offer'd over the Eastern as well as the Western Bishops even in the Primitive Times such as Excommunication receiving of Appeals Confirming and Deposing of Bishops c. For the Truth of all which we have besides the general Consent of the Church as Authentic Records next to the Scripture as for any matter of Fact whatsoever happening at so great a distance I shou'd never end if I shou'd cite all the Passages of Fathers and Councils and Ecclesiastical Writers which may be brought to prove this Point I will therefore Instance in a few only but they shall be such as will by the Greatness of their Authority and Clearness of Expression I hope be abundantly sufficient to compose this Difference And 1. St. Irenaeus speaks thus of the Church of Rome ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentierem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui undiquâ— sunt Fideles Every Church that is the Faithful on every side must have recourse to this Church by reason of her more powerful Principality lib. 3. c. 3. 2. St. Cyprian thus of St. Peter Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti Potestatis Honoris Primatus tamen Pâ—tro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur The Rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was endued with a like Fellowship of Power and Honour yet the Primacy is given to Peter that the One Church of Christ and one Chair might appear lib. de Unitat. Eccles 3. St. Ambrose Andreas prius secutus est Dominum quam Petrus tamen principatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus Andrew follow'd Christ sooner than Peter yet Andrew did not receive the Principality but Peter in 2 Cor. 12. 4. St. Jerom. Propterea inter duodâ—cem unus eligitur ut capite constituto Schismatis toâ—latur occasio One is chosen among the twelve Apostles to the end that a Head being constituted all occasion of Schism may be taken away Cont. Jovin 5. St. Chrysostom The Pastor and Head of the Church was a Fisherman Hom. 55. in Cap. 16. Mat. 6. St. Augustin In Ecclesia Romana semper viguit Apostoliâ—ae Cathedrae Principatus The Principality of the Apostolic Chair has always flourish'd in the Church of Rome Epist 162. 7. The General Council of Chalcedon We throughly consider that all Primacy and Chief Honour is to be kept for the Bishop of old Rome Act. 16. This was the General Language not only of the Fathers of this Council but even of all Antiquity both in public Assemblies and private Writings the primitive Fathers and Councils always deferring the chief Honour and Primacy to the See of St. Peter as they generally phrase it And indeed tho' the Bishops of Constantinople have always been observ'd to be very ambitious to advance their own See above all others and to have procur'd in two General Councils viz. in the first Council of Constantinople and in that of Chalcedon to have that See prefer'd to Alexandria and Antioch and plac'd next after Rome yet we do not find that any Council or Father did ever dispute with the Bishop of Rome in Point of Primacy or Jurisdiction in so much was all Antiquity perswaded and convinc'd that he was the Chief and Supreme visible Head of the whole Catholic Church Thus much concerning the Primacy of St. Peter and his Successors which yet is not the one half of what may be alledg'd for this Point Now I wou'd willingly beg of any of our Adversaries to Answer me to these few Queries Whether these Holy Fathers did not believe the Primacy of St Peter and his Successors when they spoke so plainly in favour of it Whether they did not understand and were well instructed in the Doctrine of the whole Catholic Church touching this Point Whether they had a mind to flatter the Bishop of Rome or to grant him any more Authority and Power over themselves than was justly due to him And whether it be not an excess of Folly and Weekness to say no worse in the Protestants now fifteen hundred Years after to dispute that Prerogative which is so manifestly acknowledg'd by so many Eminent Martyrs and Confessors and great Doctors of the Primitive Church That the Bishop of
of the Protestants that it needs no farther Confutation 3. All the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ both in a literal Sense and in a Sense of Transubstantiation I shou'd fill up a Volum were I to bring all the Passages of Councils and Fathers which make for this Truth no Mistery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies Catechisms and familiar Discourses to the common People and that no doubt for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it but what may suffice to evince the truth of it I shall content my self with the Testimony of a few Councils and Fathers whose Authority and Weight however I hope shall make sufficient amends for the smalness of their number And 1. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense or which is the same thing believ'd the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament let St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria bear witness This great Patriarch in his Epistle to Nestorius speaks thus of the Eucharist Neque enim illam ut â—arnem communem suscipimus absit hoc neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati dignitatis unitate verbo consociati sed tanquam verè vivificam ipsiusque verbi propriam God forbid we shou'd receive it as common flesh nor yet as the flesh of a Man sanctified and united to the Word by a conjunction of dignity but we receive it as it truely is the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself This Letter was read and approv'd in the third General Council * Concil Ephes puncto 7. which no doubt wou'd never have been had it contain'd any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith so that having receiv'd Authority and Approbation from those Fathers we shall no more consider it as the Doctrine of a private Man but as the Faith of the whole General Council Now can it be imagin'd that this Council which represented the whole Catholic Church shou'd approve and put upon Record a Letter which declares the Real Presence as clear and plain as is possible for words to express it unless it had been at that Time the Faith of the whole Catholic Church And can it be imagin'd that the Catholic Church in those fair Days of her Youth as the Calvinists speak shou'd believe that Christ's proper Flesh as the said Letter words it was in the Sacrament unless they had understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense and receiv'd the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors Or can it be imagin'd that these Ancestors shou'd be of this Belief unless they had likewise receiv'd it from their Ancestors and so up to the very Apostles This is surely to any Man of Sense but more especially ought to be to the Church of England who professes to receive the Acts and Decrees of this Council instead of a Demonstration that from the begining of Christianity to the Time of this Council all the Orthodox Christians did both believe the Real Presence and understand Christ's Words in a literal Sense 2. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ this is my Body in a sense of Transubstantiation we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church many whereof in their familiar Discourses to the common People Illustrate this Conversion by the change of the Water into Wine of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the River Nilus into Blood and the like And 't is very observable that in all their Discourses upon this Subject and whenever they speak of this Change they have Recourse to the Omnipotent Power of God to which alone they ascribe it which surely wou'd be very needless had there been no real Change in the Case St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks thus Concerning this Change Therefore since Christ hath said of the Bread this is my Body who durst any more doubt it And since He himself so positively affirm'd saying this is my Blood who ever doubted so as to say that it was not his Blood In Time past at the Wedding of Cana in Galilee he chang'd Water into Wine which has a certain likeness to blood and shall not we think him worthy to be believ'd that he cou'd change Wine into his Blood Again for under the appearance of Bread he gives us his Body and under the appearance of Wine he gives us his Blood And a little after tho' your Senses seem in this to oppose you yet Faith must confirm you do not judge the thing by the Taste but let Faith assure you beyond all doubt that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Cate. Mystag 3. Here is a great Bishop an Eminent Witness of Antiquity one who flourish'd 1300 Years since and who no doubt knew very well the Faith of the Catholic Church of his Time touching this Point Here is a careful Pastor expounding Christ's Words and Catechizing his Flock in the very Language of the present Roman Catholics He tells them that since Christ said that the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood they must believe that the Bread and Wine were chang'd into his Body and Blood He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water which Christ chang'd into Wine and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other by the actual Existence of this change which they both read and believ'd He tells them that under the Appearance of Bread they receive the Body and under the Appearance of Wine they receive the Blood of Christ and that tho' their senses may tell them that it is still Bread yet their Faith must correct that Mistake that they must not judge what it is by the Taste but must believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ whatever their senses may suggest to them to the contrary Did ever any Roman Catholic speak plainer concerning Transubstantiation Can any Roman Bishop or Pastor at present enforce the belief of this Mystery with more cogent Arguments than to tell his Auditors that since Christ said this is my Body we must believe it is so since he chang'd Water into Wine we have no Reason to doubt but his Omnipotence is sufficient to change Wine into his â—lood that tho' it appears to our Eyes to our Taste to our Smell that the thing is otherwise yet we must not in this bus'ness rely upon the Relation of these senses but upon the sense of Hearing because Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God which Word we are here only requir'd to believe All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril Now what the Protestants may think of this great Maâ— I shall not determin but this I am sure of that had he written this since the Reformation they wou'd have all reckon'd him to be as rank a Papist as ever put Pen
to Paper St. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the same purpose Rectè Dei Verbo sanctificatum Panem in Dei Verbi corpus credo transmutari I do believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is chang'd into the Body of God the Word Orat. Cate. Cap. 37. St. Ambrose takes a great deal of pains to inculcate this Truth to the Ignorant people instancing in several real Changes as that of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the Creation of the World out of nothing c. I will instance in one only of his Passages to this purpose 'T is indeed somewhat tedious to be brought here at length however since it cannot be well understood unless it be intirely read I hope the Reader will pardon me so necessary a Fault Panis iste says he ante Verba Sacramentorum Panis est c. That Bread before the Sacramental Words is Bread but when the Consecration comes to it of the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Let us prove this How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration By what and by whose Words is the Consecration perform'd By the Words of the Lord Jesus For all other things which are said do give Praise to God there is a Prayer premis'd for the People for Kings and for others but when the Priest comes to make the venerable Sacrament he does no more use his own but Christ's Words Therefore the Word of Christ maketh this Sacrament What Word of Christ Even that Word by which all things were made The Lord commanded and the Earth was made The Lord commanded and every Creature was ingender'd You see then how efficacious the Word of Christ is Seeing then there is so much Efficacy in the Word of the Lord Jesus as to cause things that were not to have a Being How much more efficacious is it to make the things that are extant to be chang'd into an other thing Heaven was not the Sea was not the Earth was not but hear him that says He said and they were made He commanded and they were created That I may answer you then It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration Note That some Critics have Doubted whether the Books whence this Passage is taken belong to St. Ambrose by Reason that the Stile of them is somewhat different from the Rest of the Works of this Father but the best and ablest Critics agree that they are either St. Ambrose's Works or some other Bishop's neer his Time who dilates upon what St. Ambrose wrote concerning the Eucharist I say unto you that it is then the Body of Christ He said and it was made He commanded and it was created Lib. 4. de Sacra Cap. 4. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon this Passage being in my Opinion so plain and so much to the purpose that it cannot possibly need any thing to strengthen it Nor will I tire his Patience with any more from Fathers it being evident to any Man of Sense that these great Pillars of the Church Men so Eminent both for Learning and Piety wou'd never have believ'd Transubstantiation nor have taken so much pains to inculcate it to the People had it not been the universal belief of the Catholic Church I shall only add some Words of the Decree of the Council of Lateran on this Subject and so conclude The Words which relate to our purpose are these Concil Later 4. sub Inno. 3. Transubstantiates Pane Vino in Corpus Sanguinem Christi The Bread and Wine being transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ This all the Protestants confess is very plain in favour of Transubstantiation and therefore they do most outragiously declaim against it and even force their Lungs and Pipes both to decry the Decree and to expose the Authors of it For my part I am in no passion nor heat I shall therefore soberly and calmly examin what this Council was what Authority it may justly claim and how far it ought to influence our Faith If it be found to be only a Conventicle of Heretics or a confus'd assembly of some Bishops met together without any authority from the Chief Pastor and other Patriarchs of the Church in order to broach new Doctrines in opposition to the Faith which was once deliver'd unto the Saints then it will be but reasonable we reject their Authority But if on the contrary it appears to have been an Oecumenical or General Council representing the whole Catholic Church and that all the individual Members of the Catholic Church at that Time receiv'd and acquiesc'd to its Decrees especially to that part of it which relates to our present purpose it is but just and reasonable we pay the same respect and deference to it Now after having examin'd the Authentic Acts of this Council and consulted all the at least famous Historians and Ecclesiastical Writers of those Times and even the Writings of some of our Learned Adversaries I find that it has all the Marks and Characters which even the most Oecumenical Council ever yet had I find that this Council was call'd by common consent of both Emperors and of all the Kings and free States in Europe that it was held in Rome in the Year of our Lord 1215. Pope Innocent the 3d. Presiding in it The best Historians of those Times tell us that there were near 1200 Prelats in this Council that the Patriachs of Constantinople and Jerusalem were there in Person that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being under the Yoke of the Sarazen and Turkish Tyrany because they cou'd not come in Person sent their Deputies instructed with Power to represent their Persons and Churches As to Europe the great number of Prelates there assembled shew even to a Demonstration that there were more than sufficient Representatives of the Western Churches And what more can be desir'd to compleat a General Council Now can any Man imagin that so August an Assembly as this so man Grave and Learn'd Men of different Humors Interests and Manners shou'd all conspire together to impose upon themselves and all Mankind besides a New Doctrine in one of the most essential points of Christian Faith contrary to what they had receiv'd from their Ancestors and that not one Honest Man shou'd be found among them all to discover the Imposture Or that all Mankind shou'd acquiesce to such a Doctrine and none say this is contrary to what we have been hitherto taught Can it be imagin'd that the Bishops who met here on purpose to hear every Individual Prelate tell his own Story and to declare what Faith he had receiv'd from his Ancestors on this Subject who aim'd at nothing else but to find out the Truth but to see wherein they did all agree and to reckon That only as an Article of their Faith which shou'd be found to be the same in every Man's Mouth and yet that contrary to
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
affirm'd that the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men did destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity How can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy 'em then Thus you see how grosly the Common People are abus'd on the one hand when they are made to believe that Transubstantiation is so monstrously absurd as the Dr. wou'd fain here paint it And how hardy He himself must needs have been on the other when he had the Courage to deliver out of the very Pulpit the Chair of Truth that it was as evidently contrary to the common Sense of Mankind as it is evident that twice two make four vol. 5. pag. 18 19. But I have an other Challenge to him yet He tells us in the foregoing Page that in things doubtful a modest Man wou'd be very apt to be stagger'd by the judgment of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgment of the Generality of Men the General Voice and Opinion of Mankind being next to the Voice of God himself And a little after He gives this Reason for it because in things lawful and indifferent we are bound by the Rules of Decency and Civility not to thwart the General Practice and by the Commands of God we are certainly oblig'd to obey the lawful Commands of lawful Authority Since then the falshood of Transubstantiation is not only doubtful but the Truth of it is establish'd upon the firmest Foundation either in Heaven or on Earth even upon that Word which shall never pass away tho' Heaven and Earth shall and since the belief of it when the Reformation began was grounded upon the General Voice and Opinion of the Generality of Mankind as the Doctor and all those of his Perswasion do acknowledg and upon the lawful Commands of lawful Authority if any such thing were on Earth I appeal to his own Judgment if every Man be not bound both in Decency and Civility and by the Commands of God not to thwart or contradict a Point of Faith so firmly establish'd And now if after all this any Man will undertake to justifie the Doctor 's Conduct and Vindicate what he writ against Transubstantiation I here make him this fair offer for his encouragement that tho' this good Doctor is pleas'd to say Vol. 3. pag. 299. that in the bus'ness of Transubstantiation it is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down right Impudence civily spoken against the plain meaning of Scripture and the Sense and Reason of Mankind If He I say or any body else will bring but one single Argument in Mood and Figure to prove that Transubstantiation does either contradict Sense or Reason I do sincerely promise him I will be of his Opinion the very next Moment And this I do the more confidently affirm because I am sure Transubstantiation cannot possibly contradict or be against Sense or Reason Sense it cannot for it is not the Object of any of our Senses and surely it is not against Reason that one Substance shou'd be chang'd into an other since all Generations and Corruptions are thus perform'd and even daily Experience teaches us that the Meat on which wee feed does not nourish us but in as much as it is chang'd into the substance of our Flesh And to let the World know it is not the Roman Catholics alone who see the absurdity of this Pretence I will Transcribe the Words of an Ingenious Sociâ—tan upon this Subject who surely is no more a Friend to the Roman Catholics than to the Protestants They are taken out of a Book Intitul'd Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity c. Pag. 21. He cites the Words of the Bishop of Sarum taken out of his Discourse concerning the Divinity and Death of Christ pag. 94. which are these Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration And thus he speaks his own Thoughts of them This is says he every way faulty for it is not pretended by the Papists that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense The Papists following the Philosophy of Aristotle distinguish in Bodys these two things the Accidents such as the quantity figure colour smell taste and such like which are Objects of our Senses And the Substance which bears and is cloathed as it were with these visible and sensible Accidents but is it self invisible and the Object of our Vnderstanding not of our Senses They say hereupon our Saviour having call'd the Sacrament his Body and Blood because our Senses assure us there is no change of the sensible Accidents therefore the change that is made must be in the invisible Substance Which change they therefore call Transubstantiation Nor do they say that Christ is corporally or bodily present in the Sacrament but that His Body is present in a spiritual manner As Cardinal Bellarmin largely discourses De Eucharist l. 1. c. 2. His Lordship therefore is greatly out in pretending that the Transubstantiation as held by the Papists is contradicted by Sense in an Object of Sense Thus far this Ingenious Man Whence 't is evident how miserably weak the Doctor 's pretence to Evidence of Sense against this Mystery is and how grosly he abuses Mankind when alluding to Transubstantiation he tells them they do not come to learn from their Guids or Pastors the difference between Sea and dry Land Vol. 3. pag. 100. or between North and South as if they had the same Evidence that there is no Transubstantiation in the Eucharist as they have of the difference of Sea from dry Land or of North from South 2. The four Objections taken out of the Dr's Discourse against Transubstantiation are these Vol. 3. pag. 315. 1. Tertullian speaks thus of the Eucharist The Bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it cou'd not have been the Figure of his Body if there had not been a True and Real Body Advers Marcion l. 4. Here Tertullian seems to insinuate that the Eucharist is the Figure of Christ's Body Vol. 3. pag. 318. 2. St. Austin seems to be of the same Opinion Our Lord says he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body lib. contra Adimant 3. Theodoret speaks to the same purpose in his second Dialogue between a Catholic Vol. 3. pag. 324. under the Name of Orthodoxus and an Heretic under the Name of Eranistes where he makes Eranistes speak these Words As the Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the
the ancient Fathers believ'd touching the Eucharist was this that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ as appears by the passages produc'd from their Works where the Fathers in their Catechisms and Homilies make it their Bus'ness to explain this Mystery to the Faithful And because their Senses gave them to understand that the outward Forms or Accidents remain'd these they call'd the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body because they represent unto us the Body of Christ which is as it were cloath'd with these Accidents So that the ancient Fathers believ'd this Sacrament to be both the Figure and Reality of the Body of Christ according to the two different things they discover'd in it viz. the outward Signs or Simbols and the Body and Blood of Christ which are vail'd and cover'd by them Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem says under the Type and Figure of Bread he gives you his Body and under the Figure of Wine he gives you his Blood And Gratian Distinct 2. C. Hoc est de Consecrat says Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is what we say and what by all means we endeavour to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things consists of two Things of the visible Appearance of the Elements and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Sacrament that is of the External and Sacred Sign and of the thing of the Sacrament Re Sacramenti that is of the Flesh and Blood of Christ Again Caro ejus est c. 'T is his Flesh which we receive in the Sacrament vail'd with the Form of Bread and his Blood which we drink under the Appearance and taste of Wine But for all the Fathers do very often especially in their Disputes with Heretics and when they apprehend their Writings shou'd fall into the Hands of the Pagans call the Eucharist the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood because in effect it is so in regard of the Accidents or outward Forms yet we do not find that they ever call'd it a Sign or Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood 3. 'T is very material to our present Dispute to know whence those Passages objected by the Doctor are taken And this he himself is careful to tell us namely that they are taken out of those Father's Disputes with Heretics In which sort of Writing it is natural for any Man to take all kind of just advantage of his Adversary in order to confute him even to the silencing of some part of the Truth when it is not to his purpose nor absolutely neccessary to be declar'd So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages much more to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions Whereas the Passages which we alledge for Transubstantiation are taken from Catechisms Homilies Sermons and familiar Discourses where the Fathers on purpose and as Pastors and Doctors of the Church expound this Mystery to the people and tell them what they are to believe concerning it This suppos'd 1. I answer 1. That Tertullian here disputed with an Heretic and that at such a Time as was neither convenient nor agreeable to his Prudence to publish the whole Truth concerning this Mystery Consequently that it is not to be admir'd he spoke somewhat obscurely 2. That by these Words this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body he meant the outward Forms or Accidents of the Sacrament For he knew very well that the Sacrament consisted of two things viz. of the outward Accidents or Forms of Bread and Wine and of the Body and Blood of Christ contain'd under these Accidents The first Tertullian calls the Figure of Christ's Body and so do all the R. Catholics at present because these outward forms exhibit and represent unto us the Body and Blood of Christ which they cover Now this gave Tertullian a signal Advantage over his Antagonist who deny'd that Christ had a Real Body because it prov'd that the Sacrament cou'd not be call'd the Figure of Christ's Body unless he had a True and Real Body and therefore he insisted upon it without declaring what was contain'd under that Figure Which tho' it may be blameable in a Sermon or Discourse design'd for the Instruction of the People yet may very well be allow'd in a Dispute considering the advantage it gave to his Cause on the one side but without prejudice to Truth and the Scorn and Contempt it wou'd expose the Christian Religion to on the other had he at that time of day fully expounded that Mystery Now that Tertullian did not believe that the Sacrament was a Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of the Body and blood of Christ is evident from that Passage before cited non sciet Maritus c. 2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean who affirm'd that the Soul or Life of Animals consisted in their Blood Now St. Austin to refute this Error tells him that the Blood of Animals in Scripture is taken for their Life because it represents and contains Life And so says he God calls Blood Soul or Life for our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Which words surely if the comparison be just must signifie that that Sign of Christ's Body contain'd his true Body as the blood which is the Sign of the Soul or Life in Animals contains their Life or Soul But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction 'T is upon these Words of the Psalmist adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam Sanetum est adore ye his Footstool because it is holy Behold Brethren says he what he commands us to adore The Scripture saith elswhere Heaven is my Seat but the Earth is my Footstool He commands us then to adore the Earth because he said in another place that the Earth was God's Footstool and how shall we adore the Earth since the Scripture expresly says thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God And this Psalmist says adore ye his Footstool But explaining to me what his Footstool is he saith The Earth is my Footstool I am at a stand I fear to adore the Earth lest he shou'd damn me who made Heaven and Earth Again I fear if I do not adore the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalm says to me adore ye his Footstool I ask what his Footstool is and the Scripture tells me The Earth is my Footstool Being in doubt I turn me to Christ for 't is He whom I here seek and I find how without impiety the Earth may
the Psalms in their public Prayers from that Time to This in any other Language than the Hebrew tho' if we except their Rabbins very few if any of that Nation understand any thing of it The Grecians have long since corrupted their Language as all the World knows and the common People among them know no more of the Genuine Greek than ours do of the Latin yet the Greek Church never chang'd a Syllable in their Liturgy but do still say their Mass in the same Pure Greek which was us'd when they first embrac'd the Christian Faith All other Sects of Christians See Father Symon's Critical History of the Old and New Testament in the Earstern Churches have likewise Corrupted their Languages yet they continue to Celebrate Divine Service in the Languages they first us'd tho' the Communion People do not understand them And if I may be allow'd to borrow an instance from Infidels the Turks still retain the Arabic Language in their Alcaron nor did they ever permit it to be read in any other Tongue in their public Prayers tho' 't is confess'd their common People understand it not But of this enough Let us now see what the Doctor objects to this Point And here I do not intend to pursue him in all the Repetitions He makes of the same thing without any material Addition for then I shou'd transcribe several almost intire Sermons but shall for the Reader 's ease and my own bring all his Real or Apparent Difficulties within the compass of these few Heads First he saith That the celebrating of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church and the Great Design and End of Religious Worship which being a Reasonable Service ought to be Directed by our Understanding and accompanied with our Hearts and Affections Secondly That to pray in an unknown Tongue is contrary to St. Paul's Doctrine who has no less than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes and condemns this Practice Thirdly Vol. 1. edit post obit pag. 126 161. That we lock up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue and forbid the People the use of them which is contrary to Christ's own Design who exhorts the Jews to search the Scriptures to St. Luke who commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures and trying the Apostles Doctrine by that Test and to the ancient Fathers who do most earnestly recommend to the People the Reading and Study of the Scriptures Fourthly That the Scripture being Vol. 1. edit post obit pag. 264. by our own Confession a principal Part of the Rule of Faith it cannot be imagin'd how People shou'd square or measure their Faith by this Ride unless they are allow'd to read and understand it Lastly Vol. 2. edit post obit pag. 369. That we therefore look up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue because it is certain that if the People were once brought to understand the Scriptures they wou'd soon quit our Religion and go over to them This is the Sum of what he says upon this Subject to which I shall return my Exceptions as plainly and briefly as I can First he saith That the celebrating of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church I answer if he means by unknown Tongue such a Tongue as no body understands it is very True but not to the purpose For the Tongue in which we celebrate divine Service is not such but on the contrary the Tongue in the World I believe the best known But if he means by it a Tongue unknown to most of the common people his Assertion has no Degree of Truth in it For first he himself acknowledges and so doth all Mankind that the Primitive Church and all succeeding Generations I mean in the Latin Church till the Reformation appear'd did celebrate divine Service in the same Latin Tongue we now use And secondly even Malice it self cannot deny but that generally speaking all the common people except the Italians were always Ignorant of the Latin Tongue 'T is then manifest our Conduct in this particular is altogether conformable to the Practice of the primitive Church and then the Doctor is out in his first Attempt This he cou'd not but see and therefore in an other place he endeavours to Insinuate tho' he durst not speak it out that the common people spoke all Latin Vol. 3. pag. 469. But this only shews what the Wit of Man is capable of when he must and will maintain a thing What the common people of Spain France Germany Sweden Denmark Norway England Ireland Scotland c. spoke all Latin 'T is indeed confess'd all these People were in Communion with the Church of Rome all receiv'd their Faith and Liturgy from her all celebrated divine Service in the same Tongue and after the same manner with her but that they all spoke and understood the Roman or Latin Tongue is surely so ridiculously absurd that I rather believe I mistook his meaning than that a Man of his Parts shou'd be guilty of so great a Mistake As to what he says that Religious Worship being a reasonable Service ought to be directed by our Understandings and accompanied with our Hearts and Affections I readily agree with him And for that Reason I hope we are as careful to teach the common People their prayers in their own Tongue and to exhort them to say 'em in the same Tongue as our Neighbours Yet this notwithstanding it did not seem good to the Holy Spirit of God who guides his Church into all Truth and consequently into all good Practices to alter that Tongue which venerable Antiquity and a Prescription of now almost seventeen hundred Years have consecrated to His divine Worship The Reasons whereof I have partly touch'd upon before Touching the Second viz. That to pray in an unknown Tongue is contrary to St. Pauâ—'s Doctrine who has no less than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes and condemns this Practice Answ The Chapter the Doctor here refers to is the 14th of the first to the Corinthians which had it been faithfully translated either from their own Greek or our Latin wou'd leave no Room for this Objection The Question is whether St. Paul condemns public prayers in a Tongue which all the common people do not understand This the Doctor affirms and vouches the Authority of the English Translation in the aforesaid Chapter where St. Paul as he says condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue We say first St. Paul has no such thing as unknown Tongue but the word Vnknown is an Addition of their own Secondly St. Paul does not condemn speaking or praying with Tongues which is the only thing there mention'd And both these we are able to make appear the first from their own Translation in which tho' they give it to us in their Sermons and Disputes for currant Scripture yet they put the word Vnknown in small Italic Characters to
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