CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of the Church.

THE R. Catholics hold, that the Church is infallible, that is, cannot err in deli­vering the Doctrine she received from Jesus Christ, nor mistake in her Explanation thereof, when by Heretics wrested and perverted to a wrong sense.

The ground of which Tenet I conceive to be this; that Christ has provided such effi­cacious means for the conveyance of Truth to all succeding Ages, as will infallibly se­cure the Church from error in her Decrees concerning Articles of Faith.

This Point is to be managed with so much the more perspicuity and clearness, by how much it is of greater importance than any other: It will be therefore requisite to take some pains to satisfie Mens Reasons, and, if it be possible, to make this Truth so clear and evident, that those whose Inte­rest and Prejudices make them unwilling to own it, may, at least, be ashamed to deny it: And methinks I have this peculiar advantage in this undertaking, that every Pious Christian, who tenders the welfare of [Page 16] his Soul, cannot chuse but wish me success; because I undertake the Proof of that which it is every Man's Interest, it shou'd be true; for, if I can shew that there is an Infallible Church, and that such a Congre­gation of Faithful is that Church, then all Christians, who are Solicitous about the true Church, and the means of Salvation, and agitated with various Scruples and Difficul­ties; and which is more dreadful, threatned with Hell and Damnation by the furious Zeal of different Parties, may sit still, and hear what the Infallible Church says to them. In the handling then of this important Truth, I shall do these three Things.

First, I will endeavour to shew, that there is a Church, or Congregation of Faithful, which is Infallible in her Decisions and De­clarations of all Articles of Faith.

Secondly, That this Congregation, and no other, is that which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Thirdly, I shall answer the Objections which Dr. Tillotson brings in his Sermons against this Point.

First, I will endeavour to shew, that there is a Church, or Congregation of Faithful, which is Infallible in her Decisions and De­clarations of all Articles of Faith. To prove this, I shall lay down these Grounds.

1. That Jesus Christ planted his Doctrine in the Hearts of a certain number of Men, by working True and Real Miracles in their presence, which no other but an Omnipo­tent Power cou'd effect; and that in order [Page 17] to the propagating of this Doctrine, he chose twelve Men, whom he called Apostles, and made them his chief Ministers, vesting in them his own Power and Authority for that End.

2. That these twelve Apostles, and other Disciples went into several Countries, and preached the same Doctrine to Jews and Gentiles, confirming it with true and real Miracles.

3. That the Apostles ordained and consti­tuted other Ministers of this Doctrine to succeed in their own Room, to whom they delegated the same Power they received from Jesus Christ; and These, Others; and so on from Generation to Generation, to continue to the end of the World.

4. That this Power of working Miracles continued in the Preachers of this Doctrine, at least, till a considerable number of peo­ple had embraced the same Doctrine in most of the then known Countries of Asia, Eu­rope, and Africa: This supposed, I say,

1. That the people who heard the Apo­stles preach, and saw them confirm their Doctrine with true and real Miracles, were infallibly sure, that this Doctrine was True; because they were sure the doing of such Miracles required an Omnipotent Power, and that, according to the Notion all Men natu­rally have of God, he would not exert his Omnipotence in Favour of a Lye.

2. That, whatever Articles the Universal Consent of so many Nations was agreed up­on to have been received from the Apostles, [Page 18] it is impossible it should be false, that they had received them; because it is impossible, that so many Nations of different Interests, Tongues and Manners, should all conspire and agree to relate the same thing, as receiv­ed from the Apostles, if it had not been so. And as this is most assuredly true in regard of those, who saw the Miracles of the Apo­stles, and delivered their Doctrine to the next Generation; so it is, for the same Rea­son, equally impossible it should be false in respect of any succeeding Generation.

That there was such a Man in England, as King Henry the VIII; or that there is, or was, such a Man as the Grand Signior, or such a City as Constantinople; I am as cer­tainly sure, as of any thing I see with my Eyes; for, it is as evident to my Under­standing, that it is impossible in practice, that so many Nations, (as relate these things) different in their Humours, Manners and In­terests, should all conspire to tell an Un­truth, which can be of no Advantage to them, as it is evident to my Senses, that I see the Paper, and feel the Pen wherewith I write. For, since no Cause imaginable can be assigned, to cause so many different Na­tions to conspire together in the Belief of an Untruth, (no interest, as we suppose, mo­ving them thereunto) and no Cause put, it is impossible an Effect should follow, it is as evident to my Reason that they cannot thus conspire, as it is to my Senses, that I perceive their proper Objects; unless we have recourse to God Almighty, and say, [Page 19] that he might put it in their Hearts to act thus: But if we should suppose this not in­consistent with his Divine Attributes; may we not likewise suppose that he might im­pose upon my Senses, and make me think I see and feel when I do not? Yes undoubted­ly: Yet, I suppose, no Body will say, but that I may be certainly sure, that I both see and feel. And whatever reason his unsearch­able Wisdom might have to impose upon my Senses, I am sure it does not stand with his Goodness to put into any Man's Heart to tell a Lye. If it be then impossible, that the universal Consent of all the Nations in Eu­rope, should be liable to err in delivering to posterity things of an indifferent Nature; how much more must the Universal Consent of all the Christian World be certain in con­veying the Truth of the Gospel upon which our eternal Welfare depends?

One single Man may, and has often decla­red the Truths that were committed to him; but because he is obnoxious to Error, no Man is bound to believe him any further than he shews good Credentials for what he says. It was therefore necessary the Apostles and other Disciples, who first preached the Gospel, each apart, should be endued with a power of working Miracles to gain them­selves credit. A small Body of Men, such as a City or Corporation, is less obnoxious to Error than one Man; however no Man is obliged to believe them, no further than they shew good Reason for what they say; because it is easy for such a Body of Men, [Page 20] for some private End to conspire in the Be­lief of an Untruth. Thus in some time af­ter the Flood, the Son of Cham erected Idols, and perswaded the rest of their Kindred, (Men simple indeed, but very much abando­ned by God) that these were the Gods they must adore. And for all this false Worship prevailed in succeding Ages as Men increased, so as to spread almost over the whole Earth: Yet because it was not only destitute of all Rational Motives to perswade its Belief in the beginning, but even contrary to the Light of Nature, the very Philosophers and learn­ed Men, that seem'd to promote its Professi­on, gave no Credit to it. Thus a small number of Sarazens perswaded the rest of their Rude and Barbarous Countrymen to believe the Impostures of Mahomet: And however this Barbarous Nation forced their Passage with Fire and Sword thro' many spa­cious Countries, and planted their Religion in most parts of Asia and Affrica. Tho' their Principles be not altogether so absurd as those of the Pagans, yet as they have not the least Rational Motive to induce any Man to believe them; so neither were they obtru­ded on the Believers (the Progeny of those who first embraced them excepted) by any other means than Cruelty and Slaughter. I have on purpose mentioned these two false Religions, that swayed in the World for a long time, to obviate an Objection which might be made against the Unanimous Con­sent of Christians in their Belief of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. For, if it be said, [Page 21] that several Countries and Nations of Pagans and Mahometans have conspired in the Be­lief of the Faith they received from their Ancestors, yet that this Faith or Religion was false: This Objection is so far from impairing the Truth of the Christian Religi­on, that it rather confirms it: For it is most certain, the Pagans and Mahometans receiv­ed their Religion from their Ancestors, and these from others, and that the mistake did not consist in this; but because they were so foolish as to receive it from those who took it up in the beginning, without any Rational Motive, nay contrary to Sense and Reason, and the very Light of Nature. The Case was very different with the first Christians: They embraced their Religion upon a clear and evident Conviction of their Senses and Ʋnderstanding; viz. upon the evidence of true and real Miracles, and other Corrobo­rating Proofs: But of this enough.

A whole Nation is much less subject to err, in conveying Truths received to Posterity, than a City, or small Body of People: And tho' it be not impossible they should all a­gree together, to deliver to Posterity what they had not received from their Ancestors, yet it is hardly credible they would. That there hapned a great Conflagration in Lon­don in the Year 66. we have no other Evi­dence, but the Testimony of the People of England; yet, whoever should deny that Fact, would be looked upon as a Fool, or a Madman. If it be then so incredible, that one Nation, who speak all the same Lan­guage, [Page 22] and have daily entercourse one with an other, should be so disingenuous as to de­liver to their Posterity as a Truth received from their Ancestors, what they had not re­ceived; how should it ever sink into the Heart of any Man in his wits, to believe that Hundreds of Nations of different Humours, Tongues, Customs and Interests, should una­nimously agree together to do that, which is so incredible of one single Nation? This indeed is plainly impossible; unless we can suppose, that so many Nations should meet together, or communicate their Thoughts to one another by Writing, and so all agree to tell what they knew not, to the Prejudice of Truth, and their own and Posterities eternal Damnation, than which nothing on Earth is more absurd: Or that God should put it into their Hearts to deceive their Posterity, which, even to imagine, is horrid Impiety.

The Sum of all that I have said is this, That it is impossible the universal Consent of the Pastors and People of so many different Nations, should concur and agree in decla­ring any Article or Articles of Faith, unless they had received the same Articles from their Ancestors; and it is equally impossible, that these Ancestors should have so delivered them, unless they had received them from their Ancestors, and these from others their Ancestors, and so up till you come to the first People who took up these Articles: And if it be found, that these people had evident Conviction of the Truth of these Articles, such as true and real Miracles, it is equal [Page 23] to a Demonstration that the same Articles are true; because (as 'tis said before) the working of real Miracles requires an Omni­potent Power; and the Light of Nature shews us, that God would not put his Seal to an Untruth. And if it be asked, how come we to be certainly sure, that the Apo­stles confirmed their Doctrine with Mira­cles? I answer, because it is impossible that all the Nations to whom the Apostles and their Disciples preached the said Articles of Faith, should all agree to deliver to Posteri­ty, that they had received such Articles up­on a clear Conviction of their Senses and Reason by true Miracles, unless it were true that they had so received them. And this is an Advantage whereof all Heretics are desti­tute; no Sect that ever yet sprung up in the Church being able to derive its Heretical O­pinions from the Apostles, or first Planters of the Christian Faith; but have all a cer­tain Period, beyond which they cannot as­cend to derive their Doctrine. To instance in some: The Arians for near 200 Years might claim the General Consent of some Nations, asserting they had received their Doctrine from their Ancestors; but when they went back as far as the Beginning of the fourth Century, all their Ancestors are reduced to miserable Arius, who at that time contrary to the unanimous Consent of the whole Christian World, denied the Divinity of the Son of God.

In like manner, the Nestorians and Euty­chians may pretend to a General Consent [Page 24] of some Nations, for a great many Ages; but when they ascend as far as the latter End of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth Century, they are forced to stop there, and reduce their Ancestors, the first, to Ne­storius; the second, to Eutyches a Monk, and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria. The Wal­denses likewise may say for themselves some­thing like the rest; but if we look back as far as the twelfth Century, we shall find them all terminate in one single Merchant of Lyons in France Peter de Waldo. And to come near­er home, those many, and almost innumera­ble Sects in our own and Neighbour Coun­tries, who go by the General Name of Pro­testants, tho' they pretend to have received their Doctrine from their Ancestors for some Time; I hope they will not say (and indeed to do them Justice, I never heard they pre­tended to it) that those Opinions they hold in opposition to the R. Catholics, were de­livered to them by their Ancestors, any higher up, than the Beginning of the six­teenth Century; when, 'tis no less manifest, that all their Ancestors were R. Catholics, than that Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin were the Inventors of their new Opinions.

Here, perhaps, it will be Objected, That this Consent of Nations, for all the Arti­cles of the Catholic Faith, is not so univer­sal, as I pretend; since 'tis well known, a great many in almost all Ages have contra­dicted it: The Arians, for instance, (to omit many other Sects before them) con­tradicted it in one Point: The Nestorians, [Page 25] and Eutychi [...], in Two; the Waldenses in more, and the Protestants in most of all.

This is the only Objection which can, with any colour of Reason, be made against the universal Consent of the C. Church; and which, doubtless, occasioned the P [...]ain of many Souls; most of those People, that fol­lowed these Ring-leaders, being either una­ble to examine the Grounds of their Separa­tion, or prejudiced by some temporal Con­sideration, in favour of their Opinions: And with all thinking themselves secure in the Society and Communion of so many Men, whom they look'd upon to be both Learned, and Godly.

Now if I can make out, that this Objecti­on is not only weak, but even void of all colour of Reason; I hope our deluded Friends will be so just to their own Souls, as to consider how dangerous it is to persist in a Separation which is necessarily attended with the unevitable crime of Schism, so dreadfully described, by one of their own Dr. Ham­mond. Learned Men. Which that I may the more distinctly do, I desire these four things may be considered.

I. That the Contradiction of each of the said Sects began first in one or two at must.

II. That the Contradiction of all such as adher'd to the Heads of each Sect, be they ne­ver so many, amounts to no more than that of those One or Two who first oppos'd it.

III. That these Authors of Sects did not all oppose this universal Consent at the same time; but some in different Ages, and all at different Times.

[Page 26]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, 'tis 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 [Page 27] 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 28] 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 'tis manifest they have, even by the acknowledgment of their own Writers. Secondly, By an Induction of all these Sects in particular, and of the [Page 29] 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 se [...], 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 [Page 30] 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 hi [...] 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 the Gospel.

Tho' the Scribes and Pharisees were noto­riously known to be very wicked, and had en­joyn'd the Jews the observance of some Tradi­tions of their Fathers, together with the Law of Moses; yet Christ was so far from advising the Jews to separate from them, that he ex­presly commanded them, to observe and do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid them: Mat. 23.2. And that, because they sate in the Chair of Mo­ses: Nay, what is more, he says, if I had not done among them the works, John. 15.24. which none other man did, they had not had sin: Intimating that it was neither Reasonable to depart from that Religion which they received from their Ancestors, the Truth whereof was at several times confirm'd by True and Real Miracles; nor sinful not to hear his Doctrine to the pre­judice of their own, unless he had done grea­ter [Page 31] Works, that is, had wrought greater Miracles in confirmation of the Truth of it, than any man before had done in confirmati­on of theirs. And shall the Catholic Religion, the Religion of Jesus Christ, which is groun­ded upon surer and better promises than that of the Jews, even upon the promise of that Word which abideth for ever; shall this Re­ligion, I say, be abandon'd at a Signal given by one single man rising up in opposition to all the World, without a Sign, or Miracle, or the least reasonable pretence to it? Surely this is so monstrously absurd, that were we not convinced of the truth of it, by our own wo­ful experience; we shou'd rather believe, the whole frame of nature wou'd dissolve, and all things run counter to their usual course, than that any man in his wits shou'd be guilty of such a folly; Obstup [...]cite Coell super hoc! That one Profligate Monk, who, as all the World knows, debauched a professed Nun, whom he kept till his death, contrary to his and her solemn vows of Chastity; and, for ough that ever I cou'd hear or learn, never shewed any marks of Repentance for this his Incestuous and Crimminal Commerce: That this wretched man I say, without the least Mark, or Character of a Divine Commission; on the contrary, that was branded with all the Marks wherewith Christ and his Apostles point us out the Ministers of Satan, shou'd prevail upon the Credulity of so many Great, and, in other matters, Wise and Learned Men; is surely so surprising, that nothing in Nature can parallel it.

[Page 32]But did the first Authors of the Reformati­on work no Miracles? As for true Miracles I do not find they did any; but somthing like Miracles, or rather surprising wonders, I find recorded by their own Writers; but the mis­chief on't is, they are such as overthrow the whole Reformation, if they were believed.

Luther tells us in his Book do missa angulari, that, what he wrote against the Mass was sug­gested to him by the Devil. This Book was printed and published by his own Reformed Doctors of Wittenberg; but becauses it looks now somthing scandalous to pious reformed Ears, it must pass for an Imposture. Bolsec a Protestant Writer tells us; that Calvin agreed to give a certain man named Bruleus, a sum of mony, on condition he wou'd feign himself dead, that he might come to Resuscitate him; and when all thing [...] were prepared for this farce, the new Apostle had no sooner commanded the Living to rise, when his words had that strange efficacy as to strike him dead; but Bruleus his poor Wife, who lost both her Husband and the hopes of her Money, reviled the Apostle, and discovered the Im­posture: But this is still so offensive to the Reformation, that it is meet it shou'd like­wise pass for a Fable. But to return.

‘ Luther arose, saith the Dr. and appear'd stoutly against the gross Errors and Cor­ruptions of the Church of Rome,—and re­sisted the united malice and force of Anti­christ and his Adherents.’ And what are these gross Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome? Even that Faith which was [Page 33] preach'd to his Ancestors at their first Con­version to Christianity, as the best of his own Protestant Writers do confess; the Truth whereof was confirm'd, not by Impo­stures, but by true Miracles, as venerable Bede, and all the Historians of those Times do witness. As to his unchristian Railing in this Place, I will say nothing to it, but leave him to his own Master to account for it. And, indeed, if Railing were the sub­ject of our Dispute; I wou'd freely yield him the Palm, for I own I have no Talent that way.

You see then, Christian Reader, upon how fickle and sandy a bottom the Faith of all Sectaries stands; and how firm and solid that Basis and Foundation are, whereon the Catholic Faith is built, namely the Univer­sal Consent of all the Christian World, which, if lyable to Error, we may justly doubt of the Truth of any thing in the World, even of what we see with our Eyes; since, as 'tis already prov'd, it is as impossi­ble, that the Universal Consent of so many Nations shou'd conspire to declare, they had received that Faith from their Ancest­ors; if they had not, as that a Wall, for example, shou'd not be white, when I see it to be so.

Here, I foresee, it will be objected, that clear Evidence destroys the Virtue of Faith, which is essentially obscure, as St. Gregory saith, Nec bides habet meritum cui Ratio humana prebe [...] Experimentum: Nor hath that Belief any merit to which humane Rea­son [Page 34] gives Experience. But this is easily an­swer'd, viz. That the Obscurity of Faith is well consistent with Evidence, that the Faith was reveal'd, tho' not with the Evi­dence of the Thing reveal'd by Faith; that is, one may have Evidence of the Existence of a Thing, tho' his Reason can neither un­derstand, nor comprehend the Thing it self; else the Apostles must have been in worse Circumstances than any other Christian; for having seen with their Eyes, Epist. 1. chap. 1. and felt with their Hands, as St. John saith, most of the Mysteries of our Redemption, they had the Evidence of their Senses for the Truth of their Existence; consequently, could have no Faith concerning them, if there be any Force in this Objection. This Answer is agreeable to the Definition St. Paul gives of Faith, viz. That it is an Evi­dence of things not seen, Fides est speranda­rum substantia rerum, Argumentum non appa­rentium; Faith is the Substance of things hoped for, the Evidence of things not seen; that is, grounded upon the Evidence of things not seen nor understood. And thus St. Grego­ry's Words are to be understood; for he comments upon these Words of St. John, cap. 20. When the Doors were shut, where the Dis­ciples were assembled for Fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst. Quomodo (saith he) post resurrectionem corpus Dominicum ve­rum fuit quod clausis januis ingredi potuit? Sed sciendum nobis est, quod divina operatio, si r [...] ­tione comprehenditur, non est admirabilis, nec fides habet meritum cui ratio humana prebet o [...] ­perimentum. [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 'tis 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 [Page 37] 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.

[Page 38]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.

[Page 39]When two things bear witness mutually the one of the other, we call this a Circle; and when they have nothing else to support the Truth of their Evidence, but their mutual Affirmation, then that sort of Proof is Faul­ty: But when both, or either, have such Evidence on their side, as is sufficient to establish their Credit before they bear wit­ness one of another; tho' it be still a Circle, yet it is good and vallid in all sort of Proof. Thus God the Father bore witness of Jesus Christ, and He again of the Father. Thus Jesus Christ bore witness of John the Baptist, and John the Baptist likewise of Him: And I hope no Body will be so impious, as to say, these were vicious or faulty Evidences; because God the Father's Testimony was known to be true, tho' Jesus Christ had not confirm'd it; and Jesus Christ his Works prov'd likewise his own Testimony to be true, tho' his Father had not born Him wit­ness. In like manner, the Church bears wit­ness that the Scripture is 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 homin [...], that is, an Argument from a [Page 40] 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 [...] 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. [...]. 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 [...]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, [Page 41] 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 Te [...]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, no [...] 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.

[Page 42]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, [Page 43] 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 [Page 45] the Work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the Ʋni­ty 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] is to put out of Communion, or to cut off from the Body of the Church: So that whoever is Excommunicated for the Denial of any Article of Faith, can no more be said to be united to the Church, than an Arm cut off from a Man, or a Branch from a Tree, can be said to be united to the same Man or Tree. All such then, who wilfully separate from the Communion of the Catho­lic Church, let their Pretence be never so plausible, are properly Schismatics: I say, let their pretence be never so plausible; for Dr. Hammond tells us, as aforesaid, that it is Impossible, the Church shou'd give them such Provocation, as might justifie a Separation. in like manner, All those who are excommu­nicated by the Church, for their obstinate Refusal to assent to any Truth, declar'd to be an Article of Faith, are properly call'd Heretics.

Now Protestants, as well as Catholics a­gree, that neither Schismatics, nor Heretics, are Members of the Catholic Church, nor any way within its Pale: There only remains then to examine, who those are on whom these Marks of Schism, and Heresie are justly chargeable; and who, on the other Hand, are free from that charge; which, if plainly made out, it will be easy to see, what Con­gregation of Faithful can be justly call'd the Catholic Church.

Now all the Societies of Christians, who, with any colour of Reason, can pretend to the Name of Catholic, are these: 1. The Nestorians and Eutychians. 2. The Greek [Page 50] Church. 3. The Church of England; And lastly, the R. Catholics. I have on purpose omitted the Waldenses, Socinians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, and all those, almost Innumerable Sects continually shooting out of the Trunck of the Reformation, and spread­ing far and near, over our own unfortunate Ilands; as Anabaptists, Independents, Quakers, Mugoltonians, Seekers, Familists, Philadelphi­ans, &c. because all these are destitute of even the least Pretence to the Name of Ca­tholic Church; having neither lawful Past­ors, lawful Mission, nor Right Ordination, which, as all the Christian World, before the Reformation; and, as the Church of Eng­land still grants, cannot be given without Imposition of Hands performed by Bishops. This, they Ingenuously own, they have not, consequently nor the least Pretence to the Catholic Church; no nor, if we believe some Learned Divines of the Church of England, to the Name of Christian: For, as these Gen­tlemen Reason, no Man can be call'd Christi­an, unless he is Baptiz'd; Baptism cannot be conferr'd but by such, who have Autho­rity to administer the Sacraments; no Man can have this Authority, but by lawful Or­dination; and this is not conferr'd, nor can­not, without Imposition of Hands by Lawful­ly ordain'd Bishops. Bishops all these Sects own they have not; consequently nor true Baptism, nor Christianity.

This, I confess, cannot be said of the four Societies aforesaid: For every one of them hath always retain'd the Hierarchy of the [Page 51] Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, at least, have pretended to it; and think it Essential to the being of the Catholic Church: But since this is not enough, unless they have likewise the Catholic Faith and Communion, which, together with the said Hierarchy, make up the essential parts of Catholic Re­ligion; our present Bus'ness shall be to try each of them by this Touchstone, and see which will abide the Test.

1. Touching the Nestorians and Eutychians: Under this Appellation, I comprehend the Jacobites, Cophtes, Armenians, and all other Sects, who follow the Opinions of Nestorius, and Eutyches, touching the Person, and Natures in Christ; all the Rest of the Eastern Chri­stians either adhereing to the Roman, or Greek Church. What I have to say concern­ing these Sects, shall be dispatch'd in a few Words. Dr. Tillotson, and all the Learned Men of the Church of England, do receive the Definitions of the four first General Coun­cils, whereof the two last excommunicated and condemn'd, as Heretics the Authors of these Sects and their Adherents; N [...]storius, for asserting two persons; Eutyches, for de­nying two Natures in Christ; consequently all those Sects, who took up their Opinions, are justly excluded from the number of True Catholics. As to the Points in Controversie betwixt the Church of Rome and the Prote­stants, viz. Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers for the Dead, Invocation of Saints, &c. they are as firmly believ'd by the said Sects, as by the R. Catholics.

[Page 52]2. As for the Greek Church: It is notori­ously known, that the Chiefest Reason of their Separation from the Church of Rome, was, because this Church asserted the Proces­sion of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which yet the Protestants hold to be Orthodox Doctrine: And no less evi­dent, that the Greek Church did Recant their Error concerning this Point, and all other things wherein they differ'd from the Church of Rome, many times, but more espe­cially in three General Councils; First, in the Council of L [...]theran, where the Patriarch of Constantinople assisted in Person. 2dly. In the Council of Lyons, where the Greek Em­peror, and other Representatives of the Greek Church were present. And lastly, in the Council of Florence, where the Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and a great ma­ny Greek Bishops were present, and disputed the Point for a long time; which, at last, came to this Issue. There were Letters of Ʋnion drawn up, wherein the Grecians do acknowledge the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, the Popes Supre­macy, and some other Points of no great Weight before debated. These Letters were signed by the Emperor, and by all the Greek Bishops, (the Bishop of Ephesus only excepted) and stand upon Record to this day. Whence it is manifest, that by their own Act and Deed, they are convicted of Schism, for their wilful, and causeless Sepa­ration afterwards from the Church of Rome, whom they own'd by this Authentick Instru­ment [Page 53] to be the Catholic Church, and them­selves likewise to be Members of it.

Touching the main Points in Controver­sie betwixt the Protestants, and the Church of Rome; what the Greek Church holds and professes, let us hear from the Pen of an In­genious Protestant Gentleman, Sir Edwin Sandys in his Europae Speculum, pag. 233. ‘With Rome (saith he) they concur in the opinion of Transubstantiation, and gene­rally in the Sacrifice and whole body of the Mass; in praying to Saints; in Au­ricular Confession; in offering of Sacrifice and Prayer for the Dead; and in these, without any or no material Difference. They hold Purgatory also, and the Worshiping of Pictures.’ Thus far Sandys. So that, tho' the Greeks were a true Church, it wou'd but very little help the Protestant Cause, nay rather, it wou'd very much prejudice it; since the Grecians hold those points to be Orthodox; on the pretended falsity where­of, the Protestants ground their Separation: But of this more in its proper Place.

3. Touching the Church of England. This is of so Great Importance to our present Controversie, or rather the only necessary Point to be Rightly understood, that it is requisite it shou'd be handl'd with all the clearness and perspicuity imaginable: And if it be possible to make it Evident, that this Church is branded with Heresie and Schism, (two things sufficient to unchurch any Society of Christians whatsoever) I hope I may, without vanity, say, that I have gain­ed [Page 54] my Point. To prove then, that the Church of England is both Heretical and Schismati­cal (I am heartily sorry I must use such hard Expressions to so many Ingenious and Great Men, whose Learning and other good Quali­ties I very much honor and respect) I shall make use of no Arguments, but such as are grounded upon the clear Light of natural Reason, upon the consent of Mankind, and the concession of our Adversaries; and upon such known and evident matters of Fact, as the most Impudent Wrangler wou'd be a­sham'd to deny.

As to the first; That the Church of Eng­land is Heretical, I prove thus: Whatsoever Society of Christians obstinately denies any Doctrine, believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith, is Heretical; but the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines, believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith. Therefore the Church of England is Heretical. The Major, or first Proposition, is a known Principle, which no Christian in his wits ever denied: The Minor, or second Proposition I demonstrate thus: The Church of England obstinately denies Transubstantiation, the Sa­crifice of the Mass, and many other Points; but these are believ'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith: Therefore the Church of Eng­land denies obstinately some Doctrines be­liev'd by the Catholic Church to be of Faith. That the Church of England obstinately de­nies the said Doctrines or Points, is matter of Fact, and what She very much glories in: That the same Points or Doctrines were all, [Page 55] in the begining of the Reformation, belie­ved by the Catholic Church to be of Faith, we have, besides the unanimous consent of the Roman, Greek, and all the Eastern Church­es, the Testimony of several Learned Pro­testants, who, surely wou'd never have told a thing so favourable to their Adversaries; if it had not been manifestly True. And to shew, that this is not said gratis; I will In­stance in some.

Hospinian faith, Luther's Separation was from all the World. Epist. 141.

White: Popery was a Leprosie breeding so universally in the Church, that there was no Visible Company of Men appearing in the World free from it. Defence. c. 37. p. 136. The aforesaid Doctrine [...] is what this good man is pleas'd to call Popery, as all the World knows.

Bishop Jewel: The Whole World, Princes, Priests, and People, were overwhelm'd with Igno­rance, and bound by oath to the Pope. Sermon on Luke 11.

Whitaker: In times past no Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church. Controv. 4.9, 5. c. 3.

Bucer: All the World err'd in that Article of the real presence. p. 660.

Calvin: They made all the Kings and Peo­ple of the Earth Drunk, from the First to the Last. Justit. 4. c. 18.

Perkins: During the space of 900 years, the Popish Heresie had spread it self over the Whole World. Exposit. symb. p. 266.

[Page 56]The Sum of this cloud of Witnesses, which yet is not the twentieth Part of what may be brought from the Reformation-treasure; amounts to this; that before the Reforma­tion, there was no other Religion in the Whole Christian World, but the Roman Ca­tholic, or, as they are pleas'd to term it, the Papistical; and that the aforesaid Points, and many more, which they call Popery, Le­prosie, and Ignorance, were universally belie­ved, as Articles of Faith, by all the visible Companies of Christians in the World. And if this be true; the Church of England, which obstinately denies these Points, and many more, must necessarily deny some Doctrines believ'd by the Catholic Church as of Faith; and by consequence the Church of England is Heretical.

Touching the second, viz. that the Church of England is Schismatical. This is no less evident than the former: For, if Schism be a willful Separation from the Church, as it is defined by all Mankind, as well Protestants as Catholics; the Church of England is doubly guilty of this Crime. First, for separating from the Pope, and their own Immediate Heads, the Bishops of England. Secondly, for separating from the Communion of all other Bishops in the World besides.

The Bishop of Rome, in the begining of the Re­formation, was acknowledg'd by all the World to be, at least, Patriarch of the West; and by the Protestants themselves, to have exer­cis'd Jurisdiction over the Church of England for 900 years and more; even from the time [Page 57] of its Conversion to Christianity; and surely, so long a prescription is a sufficient Title, tho' no other cou'd be shewn.

We find, in the Acts of the third General Council held at Ephesus, Binius Tom. 2. Apend. 1. Cap. 4. a complaint exhibi­ted by the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, against the Patriarch of Antioch, who wou'd force that Iland to submit to his jurisdiction, and oblige its Metropolitian to receive the Grace of Ordination from him, as the Council phrases it. To this Complaint the Council answers, That if the Bishops of Cyprus cou'd make out, that the Patriarch of Antioch, had ne­ver conferr'd Orders upon their Metropoli­tan, it was unjust to pretend to it now. And the Bus'ness being fairly prov'd in favour of the said Bishops; the Council decreed, That the Patriarch of Antioch had no Jurisdiction over them, nor ought to pretend to any. Whence it is manifest, that if the Patriarch of Antioch cou'd, prove that he had conferr'd Orders upon their Metropolitan, at any time; or exercis'd Lawful Jurisdiction over them, the Council wou'd have Decreed the said Iland to be subject to him; and that, as it was a manifest Usurpation in the Patri­arch of Antioch to pretend to any such Ju­risdiction; since he was not in Possession of it, nor cou'd prove to have ever had it; so likewise, it wou'd be perfect Rebellion and Schism in them to withdraw from his Juris­diction, if he were Legally possess'd of it. Now, I would fain know, if the same Coun­cil were to judge the Church of England, and the Pope's cause, what they wou'd think of [Page 58] it? Pope Eleutherius sent some of his own Clergy to Convert the Brittans in King Lu­cius his Time. St. Gregory sent Augustin the Monk, and others to convert the Saxons, and exercis'd Jurisdiction over them, or­daining their Metropolitan, or causing him to be ordained by his Orders; and the Popes his Successors continued in peaceable Possession of this Prerogative, and they (the Clergy and People of England) receiv­ing and obeying his lawful Commands, not only as Patriarch of the West, but even as Head of the Church, for the Space of 900 Years and more; what wou'd this Council, I say, think of the Church of England's ri­sing up against the Pope's Authority after so long a Prescription? Certainly it wou'd look upon them to be Rebels against the Au­thority the best establish'd in the World. Nor will it any way help them to say, as they usually do, that the King of England has Power to Transfer the Papal, or Patriar­chal Power from Rome, and confer it upon the Archbishop of Canterbury: For, besides that it is most absurd to suppose such a Power in a King; since it cannot be imagin'd, whence such an Ecclesiastical Authority can be deriv'd to a Secular Prince; we have an express Decree to the contrary in the fourth General Council held at Calcedon: What gave Occasion to it, was this. The Bishop of Tyre was anciently Metropolitan of Phaeni­cia, Concil. Calced. Act. 6. and as such, exercis'd Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in that Province. Marcianus the Emperor (contrary to the Canon of the [Page 59] 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. 'Tis 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, 'tis manifest, this [Page 60] 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 [Page 61] 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 [Page 62] 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.’

[Page 63]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. And most of these are condemned by the Protestants; as are most, if not all the Points, wherein the Pro­testants differ from Her condemned by all other Sects. An Evident Argument, that she alone hath the Truth; since, if these things which they ground their Separation upon, had been Evident, as they pretend, they wou'd all agree in them.

3. All other Sects separated from the Com­munion of the Church of Rome, begining, each Sect, in One, or Two in opposition to [Page 64] the whole World: And we are able to point at the Age, and Year of their Separation; and at the Name and Character of each Sect's Author and Promotor. An Argument that She is the Mother Church, or Root of the Tree, and those Sects some Branches fallen, or cut off.

4. The Roman Catholic Church was ne­ver Condemn'd by any General Council, nor yet by any Council of Bishops whether Natio­nal, or Provincial, for the Points of Faith, which the Protestants contest, if we except the Bishops made in England by Secular Pow­er, when the true Bishops were all discard­ed: But the Opinions held by the Prote­stants, and all other Sects, in Opposition to the Church of Rome, were Condemn'd by several General Councils, as every Learned Man can tell.

5. It cou'd never be made, out in what Age, or Year, or in whose Reign, or by Whom, any of the Points in Dispute were introduc'd into the Catholic Belief. An Evi­dent Argument, that they were believ'd from the Begining; it being impossible to conceive how all the Christian World cou'd be induc'd to believe those things contrary to what they held before, and yet that no Man should perceive it: Nay, it is Absurd and Ridiculous to imagine, that the greatest part of Mankind shou'd not be allarm'd at the Novelty of a Doctrine, which, if we be­lieve the Protestants, shocks so, much both Sence and Reason; whereas the New Doc­trine of Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, [Page 65] and the Rest of his Tribe, so violently shook the whole Earth, that to this very day, our own woful Experience is but too sensible a Testimony of its direful Effects.

Lastly, the R. Catholic Church hath the universal Consent of all the Christian World for her Tenets in matters of Faith; if we except that of the different Sects, which sprung up at different Times; which, as it is before prov'd, amounts to no more, than the Dissent, or Contradiction of one single Man concerning One Point, in one Age; and of another, concerning an other Point, or more, in a different Age, at least, at different Times; and that in Opposition to all the Rest of Mankind: A Prerogative which no other Society of Christians can pretend to; it being evident, and even confest by them­selves, that the Opinions which they hold, in Opposition to the R. Catholics, were taken up by certain Men in different Ages and Times; by Luther, in the 16th Century; by Wiclief, in the 13th; by De Waldo in the 12th, &c.

I will then conclude, That since the R. Catholic Church is as universal in its Commu­nion, as, almost, the Bounds of the Earth; as Ancient in its Doctrine, as the Apostles of Christ; since it was it alone, that adher'd to the Ancient Faith, and rejected the No­velty of all Heresies; and can only glory in having the Universal Consent of the Christi­an World (as before explain'd) for the Truth of its Doctrine: This Society, and no other, is the True Catholic Apostolic [Page 66] Church. I shall now proceed to answer Dr. Tillotsou's Objections to this Point.

The first is taken out of Vol. 2. Serm. pag. 50, 61, 62. which in Substance is this. ‘Tho' the R. Catholics be very Stiff, and Peremptory in asserting their Infallibility; yet they are not agreed among themselves, where it is seated, whether in the Pope alone, or in a Council alone, or in both together, or in the Diffusive Body of Christi­ans. They are sure they have it, says he, tho' they do not know where it is. Then he adds, There is not the least Intimation in Scripture of this Priviledge confer'd up­on the Church of Rome; and it is strange, the Ancient Fathers, in their Disputes a­gainst Heretics, shou'd never Appeal to this Judge, it being so short and expe­dite a way of ending Controversies; and this very Consideration, (concludes the Dr.) is to a Wise Man instead of a Thou­sand Arguments to satisfie him, that, in those days, no such thing was believ'd in the World.’

Answer. I may say of these Three Propo­sitions; the first is neither True in it self, nor in most of its Circumstances. The second is perfectly of the same Nature, if you except the Word Rome. The third is grounded upon a Negative, and proves nothing.

I begin with the first. "They are not a­greed, (saith he) among themselves where it is seated, &c. For my own part, I ne­ver yet read, or heard of any Catholic Di­vine, that ever said, That the Catholic Church, [Page 67] taken for the Diffusive Body of Christians, was not Infallible in declaring Matters of Faith; Therefore, I think, All agree, that the Infallibility is seated in the Diffusive Bo­dy of Christians: And I challenge any Prote­stant in the World, to name me One, who says the contrary. The Pope is One, and the Chief Member of that Diffusive Body. The Pope, and Council together, make a Great many Members; and if you add to these All the Rest of the Faithful, they make up the intire Diffusive Body of Christian. If the Pope be Infallible, surely the Concurrence of a Council will rather confirm, than di­minish his Infallibility. If the Pope and Council together be Infallible, the Consent of the Diffusive Body of Christians must sure­ly strengthen and confirm it; But if neither the Pope, nor the Council alone be Infallible, the Diffusive Body of Christians must necessa­rily be; if any such Thing as Infallibility may be ascrib'd to any of the Three, seeing both Pope and Council are included in it. We are sure then the Infallibility consists, at least, in the Diffusive Body of Christians. But to illustrate this a little more, let us pro­pose this familiar Example. If I shou'd ask where my Lord Major of Lond [...]n is, at this Time? And that some shou'd tell me, He is in his own House; Others, not in his own House, but some where in London; and o­thers, neither in his own House, nor in Lon­don, but in England; I wou'd willingly know whether these three sorts of People do not all agree that my Lord Mayor is in England? [Page 68] Certainly they do; because the assent of the two former is necessarily implied in the Latter.

In like manner, tho' some say, the Pope is Infallible; Others, not the Pope alone, but together with a General Council; and others, neither Pope nor Council alone, with­out the Concurrence of the Diffusive Body of Christians; yet all do [...] in this, that the Diffusive Body of Christians is Infallible. The Dr. then is very much out, when he says; they do not know where it is, tho' they are sure they have it.

Touching the second Proposition: ‘There is not the least 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, [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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 Ʋnity 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 [Page 72] on foot, about an Infallible Judge; One, whether there be an Infallible Judge, or not? Which is a Controversie between Ʋs 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, [Page 73] 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, [Page 74] 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, [Page 75] 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: [Page 76] 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, [Page 77] and lays great Stress upon it. But in esta­blishing this Principle, he does two things, which, I suppose, he wou'd not willingly al­low of, had he but well consider'd them.

1. He makes any Man of sense, that can read the Scripture, as infallible, as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be. 2. He justi­fies, in a great measure, all the Heretics that ever denied any Points of Faith, on pretence that they are not plain in Scripture.

1. He makes any Man of sense, that can read the Scriptures, as Infallible, as the whole Catholic Church pretends to be: For the Catholic Church pretends only to be Infallible in necessary Articles of Faith: Now if all things, necessary to be known in Faith, and Practice, be clear and plain in Scripture; there is no Man of sense, that reads it, but may be as Infallible in what is clear and plain, as any Church, or Churches in the World: For what is clear and plain to a Man, that he is, as Sure and Cer­tain of, as if all the Mathematicians in the World had demonstrated it to him; since a Demonstration serves for no other end, than to make a thing clear and plain: So that this worthy grave Doctor necessarily vests, in every private Man, that Infallibility, which he endeavours with so much earnest­ness to deny to the whole Catholic Church. And surely, if one single Man be Infallible, when he interprets Scripture concerning ne­cessary Articles of Faith, how much surer can the same privilege be ascrib'd to a learned assembly of Divines compos'd of the whole [Page 78] Church: The Dr. is then forc'd volens nolens, even by his own Principles, to admit an Infallibility.

2. He Justifies, in a great measure, all the Heretics, that ever denied any Points of Faith on pretence that they are not plain in Scrip­ture. For Instance; the Socinians are Gene­rally Men of Learning, and their Ingenious Writings do sufficiently witness to the World, they want neither sense, nor judgment; yet they solemnly declare, they do not find one Text in Scripture, which proves clear­ly, and plainly the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or a Trinity of Persons in One God, in a True and proper sense; which notwithstanding is one of the Greatest Mysteries of our Faith. What must we say of these Men? Can we imagin they wou'd be so great Enemies to their own Salvation, as to deny this great Mystery, if it were clearly and plainly set down in Scripture? And if it be not, with what face can Protestants condemn the Socinians, who open­ly profess to follow their Principles; and do, for that very Reason, reject this Mistery, because it is not plain in Scripture? Or how will they be able to convince them upon this Principle; since they are ready, as they have often declar'd, to believe the Mystery of the Trinity, if it cou'd be made out, that it is clearly, and plainly contain'd in the Scripture? But why do I say convince them? Alas! They are so far from any such thing, that the Absurd and Ridiculous Systems of many of their Doctors, in their Answers to the accute and Ingenious Pamphlets of these He­retics, [Page 79] proclaim loudly to the World, that the Socinians have got the better, and fairly beat them at their own Weapons. And thus in rejecting the Authority of the Church, which Christ commands us to hear, on no less penalty, than of being reputed Heathens and Publicans; they have open'd a door for these, and all other Sects, who are daily cut­ting their Throats with those very weapons Themselves have put into their Hands.

CHAP. III. Of the Pope's Supremacy:

VVHat we believe to be of Faith con­cerning this Point; is this, That the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is the Successor of St. Peter, and, as such, Head of the Ca­tholic Church.

That the Bishop of Rome is Successor of St. Peter, I hope, I need not prove, since there is nothing in History more universally attested by all Ancient and Modern Writers: Nor was it ever yet question'd, that I cou'd find, 'till some Protestants in this, and in the last Age, without the least Grounds in An­tiquity, had the Assurance to dispute it; whose Opinions notwithstanding are explo­ded by most of their own Learned Writers. See Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Peter.

The main Bus'ness then is to shew, that [Page 80] this Prerogative was confer'd upon St. Peter. And for this we have several Texts of Scrip­ture, in which it is plain,

1. That Christ confer'd this Dignity up­on Him.

2. That the Evangelist giving the Names of the 12 Apostles, marks particularly his Primacy. And,

3. That after Christ's Ascension, he took upon him this Character, always speaking first, and moving to the Rest of the Apostles whatever was to be debated.

1. Christ confer'd this Dignity upon him. I say unto thee that thou art Peter, or [...]as the Greek has it, a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Mat. 16. Jesus saith to Simon Peter. Simon Son of Jonas, Lovest thou me more than these. John 21. And a little after, feed my Lambs; again, feed my Sheep— feed my Sheep. And the Lord said, Luke 22.31, 32. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desir'd to have you, that he may sift you as Wheat; but I have prais'd for thee, that thy Faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy Brethren. The English Transla­tors (carrying, no doubt, an Eye upon this Controversie) have rendred it, strengthen thy Brethren; because a Charge of Confirming others does too plainly denote a Superiority.

I shall make no other Reflections upon these Texts, only desire the Reader to observe, that this particular pointing out of Peter, as a Rock to build the Church upon; the especial Charge of feeding Christ's Lambs and Sheep, by which the Holy Fathers have always understood both People and Pastors; [Page 81] and the Confirming of his Brethren, viz. The Rest of the Apostles, must, surely, denote some particular Mark and Character above the Rest.

2. The Evangelist, in giving the Names of the 12 Apostles, marks particularly St. Peters's Primac [...]. Now the Names of the twelve Apostles are these; the first, Simon, Mat. 10. who is called Peter. 'Tis certain, that Peter was not the first Disciple of the twelve, nor yet the eldest Man; for his Brother Andrew was sooner a Disciple, and older than Peter. And most certainly, Christ did not design the [...] for a Primacy of Ceremo­ny or Civility, but for that of Order and Jurisdiction; at least, as far as it was re­quisite to found the peace and unity of the Church.

3. After Christ's Ascension, Peter took up­on him this Character. Acts of the Apostles cap. 1. He stands up, discourses at large upon the fall of Judas; and lays before the Apostles, and Disciples, the Necessity of sub­stituting an other in his Room. chap. 2. When the Disciples were fill'd with the Holy-Ghost, and spoke with other Tongues, and the Mul­titude thought they were drunk; Peter lifts up his voice, and gives an account of that miraculous Gift. His Sp [...]ech in the Tem­ple, cap. 3. His defence before the Rulers, and Elders in Jerusalem, cap. 4. His Sen­tence upon Ananias and Saphira, cap. 5. And many other passages to this purpose found in the same Volum, are convincing Proofs of this Truth; but more especially [Page 82] that famous Council of the Apostles related, cap. 15. Where after much disputing, Peter, rose up first, shew'd the Apostles what con­duct they were to keep in regard of the converted Gentils, and concluded, in a man­ner, the debate with this Sentence: Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a Yoke up­on the neck of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers, nor we, were able to bear, &c. So that if we had never been taught any thing else, concerning Peters Primacy, his conduct in these affairs were enough for any unprejudic'd Man to conclude, that either 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 [Page 83] 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 P [...]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 [...]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 B [...]shops of Rome, to be by virtue of this Prerogative; St. Peter, Head, and Chief amongst the Ap [...]stles; and the Bi­shop [Page 84] of Rome, the same among all other Bi­shops, and Center of Catholic Ʋnity; 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 undiqu [...] 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 P [...]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, [Page 85] —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 duod [...]cem unus eligitur, ut capite constituto Schismatis to [...]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 Apostoli [...]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 [Page 86] 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?

[Page 87]That the Bishop of Rome did exercise Ju­risdiction, by way of Excommunication, over the Eastern Bishops (of which alone there re­mains any difficulty) We have, besides In­numerable Examples from the Fourth to the Tenth Century, as that, for instance, Inno­cent the First excommunicated [...]e [...]phi [...]us Bi­shop of Alexandria; Celestinus the First, Ne­storius of Constantinople; Agap [...]tus, Anthimi­us, another Bishop of Constantinople; Nicholas the First, P [...]otius, the intruded Bish p of Constantinople; besides these, I say, we have two memorable Facts to this purpose, in the begining of the Second, and about the mi­dle of the Third Century. The first is rela­ted by two Eminent Witnesses, St. Irenaeus, & Eusebius Casariensis; by St. Ire [...]aeus, in a Let­ter to Pope Victor; and by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 5. cap. 25. This Historian tells us, that Victor Bishop of Rome, excommunicated Polycrates, and the Rest of the Asiatic Bishops; because they wou'd not be induc'd to celebrate Easter, after the Roman Custom. And St. Irenaeus in his Let­er to this Pope, complains most grievously of his Severity in cutting off so many Mem­bers from the Body of the Church, for a mat­ter of Discipline, which no way respected the Faith. 'Tis true, St. Irenaeus, and Eusebi­us do not approve of Victor's Proceedings in this Bus'ness; because they look'd upon his Sentence to be too severe; yet neither the one, nor the other, did ever say, that Victor had no power to do so: And as St. Irenaeus took the liberty to reprehend the Pope, for [Page 88] his too great Severity, as he thought, in this matter; so, no doubt, he wou'd have told him, that he exceeded his Commission by such a Procedure, if he had not been con­vinc'd, that the like Power had been vested in him. And most certainly, Eusebius, who was an Asiatic Bishop himself, wou'd never have complemented the Bishop of Rome, but wou'd have plainly here inserted, that the Pope had no power to Excommunicate the Bishops of Asia, had there been the least questi­on of his Authority in that particular.

The Second, is that famous Controversie between Pope Stephen, and St. Cyprian, touch­ing the Baptism confer'd by Hereties. Many learned Writers are of opinion, that St. Stephen Excommunicated St. Cyprian, and his Adherents; and all do agree, that he threatn'd at last to Excommunicate Them: Yet we do not find that St. Cyprian, or a­ny other Ecclesiastical Writer did ever say, that the Bishop of Rome exceeded his Power in so doing: 'Tis true, St. Cyprian, and his Adherents, as well as the Asiatic Bishops, persisted in their Error, notwithstanding the Pope's Excommunication, as it usually falls out, Men being hardly ever diswaded from the Opinions they once undertake to maintain; but the Council of Nice has Justifi'd the Pope's Conduct in both these particulars, branding with Heresie such as maintain'd the said Errors.

That there were Appeals made to the Bi­shop of Rome, by the Eastern Bishops, is no less manifest: St. Athanasius, and Paul, Bi­shop [Page 89] of Constantinople, appeal'd to Pope Julius for redress of the Violence offer'd them by the Arians; St. Chrys stom, to Innocent the First; Theodoretus to Leo; besides many more which I shall at present omit.

Socrates, a famous Ecclesiastical Writer of the Primitive Times, tells us, lib. 2. cap. 15. How St. Athanasius, and Paul, with several other Bishops, came to Rome, and complain'd to Julius of the Violence offer'd them by the Arians, and how he had undertaken their Patronage. Among other things, he adds this, concerning the Pope's Authority in this particular. [...]. But he, (the Pope) because the Church of Rome had that Priviledge, warrant­ed them with his Letters, wherein he freely spoke his mind, and sent them back to the East, restoring Each to his own Place, and severely reprehending those, who rashly turn'd them out.

The Learned Theodoretus informs us, Hist. Ec­cles. lib. 2. cap. 4. that St. Athanasius, being a second Time, turn'd out by the Arians, appeal'd again to Rome. And that Pope Julius following the Canon of the Church, commanded the Arians to come to Rome, and cited Athanasius to appear at his Consistory. [...]

Let us now put both these Testimonies to­gether: Here are two of the greatest Bishops [Page 90] of the East violently thrust out of their Bi­shopricks, and flying to the Bishop of Rome for Redress: Here are two of the most fa­mous, and most Eminent Historians of Anti­quity, who tell us, that the Church of Rome had a peculiar Priviledge to protect and re­store Bishops; that the Bishop of Rome did but act according to, or follow the Canon, or Law of the Church, as Thedoretus words it, when he commanded the A [...]ians to appear before him, and summon'd Athanasius to an­swer their Charge. If these be not A [...]ts of Legal Jurisdiction; if this be not the formal and proper Process of an Appeal, we are, as yet to Learn the meaning of these Terms.

Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, in the Life of St. Chrysostom, tells us, that this great Pa­triach sent four Bishops to Rome to plead his Cause; and we have two Letters of Theodore­tus, setting forth his Appeal to the Bishop of Rome; the first, to the Pope; and the second, to Renatus, Dean or Arch-Deacon of the Church of Rome; in which he has these Words: They have spoil'd me of my Bishoprick; they did not reverence my Age consum'd in Re­ligion, nor my Gray Hairs: Wherefore I be­seech you to perswade the most Holy Arch-bishop to use his Apost [...]lic Authority, and to command us to come to your Consistory; for that Holy See sitteth at the Helm, and hath the Government of the whole World.

Besides all these, we have an express Canon of the General Council of Sardica held in, or about the Year 347. wherein it is manifestly Decreed, That, if any Bishop be accus'd, or [Page 91] condemn'd, or depriv'd of his Bishoprick, by the Bishops of his Province; and that the Bishop thus depriv'd will Appeal, or fly to the Bishop of Rome, and desire to be heard; the Bishop of Rome may either commit the Cognizance of his Cause to the Bishops of the Neighbouring Pro­vince, or send Legats cl [...]ath'd with his own Au­thority to be present at the Judgement, or do whatever shall seem best, in that behalf, to his own most prudent Counsel. Now let any Im­partial Man judge, if the single Authority of this Council be not sufficient to establish the Pope's Authority, in Point of Appeals, tho' there were nothing else to prove it.

That the Bishop of Rome exercis'd Juris­diction over the Eastern Bishops, by way of Confirmation, and Deposition is too well known to need much Proof. St. Leo tells us, Epist. 13. That he was earnestly desir'd by Theodo­sius the Emperor, to confirm Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, which yet he refus'd to do, unless Anatolius had first profess'd the same Doctrine with Cyrillus, and the Rest of the Catholic Bishops, in Opposition to the Heresie of Nestorius. The same Pope gives us to un­derstand in his Epist. 82. That he had con­stituted the Bishop of Thessalonica, as his Vice­gerent in that part of the East, for the Corfir­mation, and Dep [...]sition of Bishops, and for such other Acts of Jurisdiction as depended of the Apostolic See. I might bring more In­stances to this purpose, from the most ap­prov'd Writers of ancient and modern Histo­ry; but let these suffice for the Proof of a thing so universally attested by all Antiqui­ty.

[Page 92]And now, if neither plain Texts of Scrip­ture, declaring this Prerogative to have been confer'd upon St. Peter, and plainly shewing his exercising of it on several Occasions; nor the Authority of so many Holy Fathers, and Councils of the Primitive Times, mani­festly defferring the same Privilege to his Successors; nor the Testimony of two of the most celebrated Historians of Antiquity, pub­licly witnessing, that the Church of Rome had the Priviledge to hear and restore the Patri­archs, and Bishops of the East; and that the Bishop of Rome follow'd, or acted according to the Laws of the Church, when he command­ed or cited the Eastern Bishops, Patriach and all, to appear before him; nor yet the Con­sent, which the Evidence of the thing has extorted from some Ingenuous, and Learned Protestants in favour of this Truth: If all this, I say, will not open our Adversaries Eyes, to see the Pope's Supremacy; all I can do for their Service, is to pray to Al­mighty God, that he wou'd be pleas'd to take away from their Hearts that vail of Prejudice, which hinders them to see so ma­nifest a Truth. But of this enough; let us now see the Obj [...]ctions.

Against this Tenet the Doctor objects, ‘1. That the Bishop of Rome, as Successor of St. Peter there, Vol. 6. pag. 155. cannot be the Supreme and universal Pastor of Christ's Church by Di­vine Appointment; because, saith he, there is not the least mention of this in Scripture. 2. That it is against reason to found the Pope's Supremacy in being Successor of St. Pe­ter pag. 156. [Page 93] at Rome; whereas it shou'd rather per­tain to the Bishop of Antioch, where Peter was first Bishop.’

To the first, I answer, that, by all these Titles, is only meant, that the Pope is Head of the Church, and the Center of Catholic Unity; and no more is requir'd of any Man to believe concerning this Point. Now, that there is not only mention, but even Texts of Scripture clearly proving St. Peter, (whose undoubted Successor all the World knows to be the Bishop of Rome) to have been made the Head of the Church of Christ, is already made out. 'Tis true, the Scripture makes no mention of these Words, supreme and univer­sal. Pastor, no more does it of the Word con­substantial, yet the Fathers of the Nicene Council did not scruple to make a Fundamen­tal Article of Faith of it, and carefully in­serted it in their Creed; because they judg'd it very proper to express their Belief, con­cerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

In like manner, tho' some Catholic Wri­ters call the Bishop of Rome, Supreme and Ʋniversal Pastor, &c. yet I do not see what Grounds the Doctor had to quarrel with them for that; since all Catholics agree, that they mean nothing else by these Words, but that the Pope is Head of the Church, and use them for no other end, than to express more fully what it is to be Head of the Church. But 'tis very remarkable that no Sect ever se­parated from the Church, who did not fol­low this Maxim. They take hold of some words invented by the Church, to declare [Page 94] more expresly such Articles of Faith, as were contested; and because these very Terms are not found in Scripture, they cry immediately Victory; as if our Faith con­sisted meerly in Words, and not in what is meant by them.

To the Second, I answer, That it is much more against Reason, nay altogether absurd, to imagine, that St. Peter (whom the Dr. as well as I, must, in this case, suppose to be Head of the Church) shou'd come to Rome, place his Chair in that City, and yet leave his Authority behind him at Antioch. This aiery Notion, I am sure, none of the Holy Fathers and Councils in the Primitive Times ever thought of; on the contrary, they have always consider'd the Bishop of Rome as Successor of St. Peter, Head of the Church, and Principle of Catholic Unity.

There are several Objections more of this Nature in the same Volume, Pag. 244, 245. &c. And tho' most of them are levell'd at the Church of Rome, yet I chuse to take no­tice of them under this Head, rather than the former; both because of their Affinity with this, and for the Reader's Satisfaction, who, I suppose, won't be sorry to find them answer'd in the same order they lie.

1. The Doctor grants that, If the Roman Church be the Catholic Church, it is necessary to be of that Communion, because (saith he) out of the Catholic Church there is ordinarily no Salvation to be had. But how do they prove (continues he) that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church? They wou'd fain have us to [Page 95] be so civil as to take it for granted, because if we do not, they do not well know how to go about to prove it. And after some pleasant Sal­lies of Rallery, he concludes, that to prove a part to be the whole, is all one, as to prove, that the Roman Church is the Catho­lic Church.

To answer this Objection, I say, first, that the Doctor here does very courteously justi­fie the Roman Catholics from that odious Imputation of Uncharitableness, wherewith he elsewhere most grievously charges them, for not allowing Protestants Salvation out of their Communion. He grants, that out of the Catholic Church there is ordinarily no Salvation to be had: Now the Roman Catho­lics do sincerely believe that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church; consequently, when they say, that there is ordinarily no Salvation out of it, they cannot justly be charg'd with the least Uncharitableness; since they have, as it is already prov'd, the greatest Assurance for that Belief, that any thing of that Na­ture is capable of. And if it be True, as most certainly it is, that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church; then surely the Roman Ca­tholics are so far from being uncharitable in this particular, that it is one of the greatest Marks of their Charity to have that Love for their Erring Brethren, as to mind them of the Hazard they run, and exhort them to avoid it; tho' they are sure they shall be hated for their Pains. 2dly. That he must be a great Stran­ger to our Divines and Controve [...]tists, if he thinks as he here writes; they do not well [Page 96] know how to go about to prove it. Surely he must have been very ill read in the Writings of Bellarmin, Peron, Richelieu, and hundreds of Catholic Divines, who wrote on this sub­ject, when he advances so groundless (shall I call it) a Story: And what as yet ren­ders the thing more intollerable is, that this is spoken out of a Pulpit, where nothing but Truth and Sincerity, shou'd as much as be mention'd. In short, this is matter of Fact: The Catholic Divine's Books, on this sub­ject, are still extant; and let even our Ad­versaries be the Judges, whether this be not one of the most groundless Mistakes that ever any serious Man cou'd fall into. 3dly. That he is as far out, when he says, that to prove a part to be the whole, is all one, as to prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church. Had we said, that the particular Church, and Diocess of Rome were the Catho­lic Church, his Comparison wou'd then indeed, have been Reasonable; but, surely, he cou'd not be ignorant, that we understand, by the Roman Church, all the Christian Churches over the World in Communion with the particular Church and See of Rome; which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome being the Seat of St. Peter's Successor, is the Center and Principl [...] of Catholic Unity.

If the Doctor had a mind to make good his Thesis, he shou'd have prov'd, that all other Societies of Christians, who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome, are notwithstanding their Heresies and Schisms [Page 97] a Part of the Catholic Church; he shou'd have prov'd, that the Nestorians and Eutychians, which take up the greatest part of the Eastern Christians, are a Part of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding they were excommunicated, and cut off from the Body of the Catholic Church, by the lawful Authority of two Gene­ral Councils, whose Decrees he, and all other learned Protestants do profess to embrace; that the Grecians are still Members of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding their will­ful Schism from its Communion; their anci­ent Error concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost; their having been so often re­concil'd and united to it, yet still returning to their Vomit; but more especially, their self-condemn'd Perverseness in their late Se­paration from the Communion and Fellow­ship of the Church of Rome, which they so­lemnly, and in the most Authentic manner, gave under their Hands, in the Council of Florence, they wou'd hold and maintain; he shou'd have prov'd, that Luthor, Calvin, and all those, who adher'd to their new broach'd Opinions, are a part of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding their being excommunicated by the Church, and their own Confession of holding these Opinions in Opposition to all the World besides: All this, I say, the Doctor shou'd have prov'd to shew, that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church: But neither he, nor any Body else did ever so much as attempt it; on the con­trary, most of the learned Men of the Church of England have readily given up the Cause [Page 98] in regard of all the aforesaid Sects; and most of all other Sects do as censoriously condemn those of the Church of England: With what colour of Reason then can the Doctor suggest, that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church? Nay, can any thing be more plain, than that the Roman Church, as it is understood by Catholics, is the whole Catholic Church; since none of the aforesaid Sects can, with the least colour of Reason, pre­tend to be a part of it; since they themselves do unchurch one another; since they own, that the Church of Rome is a Part, at least, of the Catholic Church, and that one Faith and one Communion are equally essential to the being, or Constitution of the one Catholic Church; in both which Essential they own themselves to be different from the Church of Rome. So that, if we had no other Proof besides, this last Reason is a plain Demon­stration, that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church, or that it is no part or member of it.

'Tis a known Truth, and even vouch'd by all Protestants whatsoever, that the Church of Rome is, at least, a Part of the Catholic Church: That one Faith, and one Communion are equally essential to the Constitution of the Catholic Church of Christ, is a Doctrine ge­nerally receiv'd by the Church of England; and, I suppose, by all the Divines in the World besides; now there is none of all the aforesaid Sects, as they all unanimously agree, that holds either the same Faith, or Commu­nion with the Church of Rome, which yet they [Page 99] hold to be a Part of the Catholic Church, and which together with the said Sects make up the whole Body of Christians. It is then most evident, that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church, or that it is no Part or Member of it. But the latter no Protestant ever yet durst affirm; for if they shou'd affirm, that the Church of Rome is no part of the Catholic Church, this would vacate all their Pretences to be a Church; since it is from the Church of Rome they pretend to de­rive their Mission, Ordination, and spiritual Power, if any they have. We are then sure, even to a Demonstration, that, if what the Protestants say be true, the Roman Church is the whole Catholic Church; and no less sure, that neither the Protestants, nor any other Sect whatsoever, can be any part or member of the Catholic Church whilst they continue out of the Communion, and Faith of the Ro­man Church.

2. To prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, the Doctor requires the following Particulars shou'd be clearly shewn, and made out.

1. A plain Constitution of our Saviour, whereby St. Peter, and his Successors at Rome, are made the Supreme Head, and Pastors of the whole Christian Church, Of this, says he, we have not the least Intimation in the Gos­pel, nor in the Acts, and Epistles of the Apo­stles; nay, there is clear Evidence, adds he, to the contrary, that in the Council of Jerusa­lem, St. James was, if not superior, at least equal to him. And St. Paul, upon several Oc­casions, [Page 100] declares himself equal to St. Peter. But suppose it were true, continues the Doctor That St. Peter were Head of the Church; where doth it appear, that this Authority was deriv'd to his Successors? And if it were; why to his Successors at Rome, rather than at Antioch, where [...]e was first, and unquestionably Bishop?

Answ. Touching a plain Constitution, &c. methinks a modest good Christian might well be content with one plain Text of Scripture produc'd to that purpose, much more with a great many; and this surely is already done a hundred times over, both from the Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles; where we plainly find this Charge committed to St. Peter, and his frequent Exercise of it as oc­casion offer'd.

'Tis true, the Scripture makes no mention of his Successor at Rome: Nor do we say, it is necessary, he shou'd be there rather than any where else: For St. Peter might, if he pleas'd, for ought we know, have as well plac'd his Chair in Canterbury; but it is matter of Fact, that he did not place, it there, but in Rome. His making St. James equal, if not superior to St. [...]eter in the Counc [...]l of Jerusalem, needs no other Confu­tation than a bare recital of the matter of Fact, which pass'd there. I am sure it is as plain, as words can make it, that St. Peter rose up first, open'd the Subject of their Meeting, discours'd upon the Conversion of the Gentiles by his Ministry, shew'd the Un­reasonableness of that Yoke the Jews wou'd fain put upon them, and concluded with a [Page 101] peremptory Sentence to that purpose; which, 'tis manifest, St. James, and the rest did but follow; and if this be not sufficient Evidence of his Superiority, even over St. James, let the World judge. As for St. Paul's decla­ring himself equal to St. Peter, it moves me not: For so may any Bishop lawfully or­dain'd do to the Pope, without the least di­minution of his Supremacy; the Equality meant by St. Paul respecting only the Power of preaching the word of God to those, to whom he was sent; of administring the Sacraments, and of ordaining Ministers for the use and benefit of the Faithful: To do all which, I readily grant, every Apostle's Power to be equal to St. Peter's; and every lawfully ordain'd Bishop's, to that of the Pope's As to his Question; Where doth it appear that St. Pe­ter 's Power was deriv'd to his Successors? I am almost unwilling to honour it with a Confutation; being, in my sense, one of the simplest Expressions that ever drop'd from a Man of his parts. If I shou'd ask, where doth it appear, that he was by Divine In­stitution, Archbishop of Canterbury; I believe he wou'd be puzel'd a little, to give a good Answer? Yet he did not scruple to stile himself John, by the Grace of God, Arch-Bi­shop of Canterbury. Did ever any Man que­stion, whether the Authority and Power of the Bishop of any See was deriv'd to his Suc­cessor? Was not Christ's Power deriv'd to his Apostles? As the Father hath sent me, even s [...] s [...]nd I you. Was not the Apostle's Power deriv'd to their Successors? Else how [Page 102] cou'd we pretend to be Christians? In short, that Heirs and Successors shou'd Inherit the Power and Authority of their Ancestors, un­less there be a positive Law, or Exception to the contrary, is surely a self evident Maxim grafted in our Hearts by the Law of Nature, and confirm'd by the Common Con­sent of Mankind: What shou'd then hinder Peter's Authority to be deriv'd to his Suc­cessors, whom all the World, before the rise of Protestanism did believe to be the Bishops of Rome, and not those of Antioch, as the Dr. seems here to suggest.

2. To make good, that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, they are oblig'd to affiirm, says the Dr. ‘That the Churches of Asia, and Affrica, which were Ex­communicated by the Bishops of Rome, for celebrating Easter after the Jewish man­ner, and upon the point of Rebaptizing Heretics, were cut off from the Catholic Church, and from a possibility of Salva­tion. This the Church of Rome themselves will not affirm, continues he, and yet if to be cast out of the Communion of the Roman, and the Catholic Church be all one, they must affirm it.’

Answ. This Argument is grounded upon a Fallacy; and therefore the Inference is False. Had the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Church been convertible Terms, the Inference wou'd then, indeed, have been Right, and the Argument True; but surely Dr. Tillotson knew very well, we never un­derstood these Terms so. The Fallacy then [Page 103] consists in this, that he joyns together the two different Notions of Roman Church, and Bishop of Rome, and makes them pass for one and the same thing; and so, by a cunning piece of Sophistry, concludes that whatever is done by the Bishop of Rome, is likewise the Act and Deed of the whole Roman Church.

3. ‘In consequence of this Proposition, that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, they ought to hold, that all Bap­tism out of the Communion of their Church, is void and of none effect. For if it be good, pursues the Dr. then it makes the Persons Baptiz'd, Members of the Catholic Church; and then those, that are out of the Communion of the Roman Church, may be true Members of the Ca­tholic Church: And then the Roman, and the Catholic Church are not all one. But the Church of Rome holds the Baptism of Heretics to be good; consequently the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church.’

Answ. His Inference is likewise here false, and so is his Consequence. The Roman Catholics following the Ancient Fathers, and Councils of the Primitive Church, do believe, that the Baptism confer'd by Here­tics with due Matter, and Form is good, and vallid; and that it makes the Bap­tiz'd True Members of the Catholic, and consequently of the Roman Church; provi­ded there be no impediment of Heresie, or Schism on the part of the Persons thus Bap­tiz'd; but if they are engag'd in any He­resie, or Schism, they hold, indeed, that they [Page 104] receive a true Character of Baptism; but this alone neither makes them Members of the Catholic Church, nor availes any thing to their Salvation: For, as St. Austin says, all the Sacraments may be had out of the Church, but Salvation cannot. Now the Doctor, to make good this Inference, shou'd do these two things. 1. He shou'd have prov'd, that Infants, and such as are not capable of Heresie, or Schism, being Bap­tiz'd by Heretics, are out of the Communion of the Roman Church: For this we utter­ly deny, and on the contrary, affirm they are true Members of it, untill they forsake or renounce it, by actual Profession of He­resie, or by Schism. 2. That those who are actually engag'd in Heresie, or Schism, being Baptiz'd in that State, and persisting in it, are notwithstanding, by virtue of their Baptism, made true Members of the Catho­lic Church. Cou'd the Dr. but prove this, he wou'd, I own, both gain his Point, and render glorious Service to several Thousands of Ancient Heretics, who denied the Divi­nity of Jesus Christ, as well as to the pre­sent Protestants, by making them all True Members of the Catholic Church, in spite of all the General Councils, and their Authori­ty. But alas! This is what neither he, nor any body else will ever attempt. And indeed, if it were possible to be effected, we shou'd, I am sure, be as glad of it, and as willing to contribute to the Salvation of these Men, as he, or any body else; but we have learn'd from the Word of God, [Page 105] and from the Principles of true Charity, not to flatter any Society of Men with a false Peace, and Security, when we have no grounds for it.

4. ‘In consequence of this Proposition, all the Christians in the World, which do not yield Subjection to the Bishop of Rome, and acknowledg his Supremacy, are no true parts of the Catholic Church, nor in a possibility of Salvation. And this does not only exclude those of the Reform'd Religion from being Members of the Ca­tholic Church; but the Greeks, and the Eastern Churches; (i. e.) four of the five Patriarchal Churches of the Christian World.’ Hence the Dr. concludes, that the Roman Church, is not the Catholic Church; because it has not more Charity than this comes to.

Answ. This Argument is founded upon an Inconveniency; and a great Inconveni­ence, I confess, it is; but if we shou'd con­clude the Existence, or non-Existence; the Truth, or Falshood of things from their conveniency or inconveniency; the World wou'd be brought to a sine pass. 'Tis ve­ry inconvenient, that God shou'd condemn all Mankind to death, & to all the other miseries, and infirmities to which human Nature is now obnoxious, for the eating of one single Fruit; yet it is never the less True. 'Tis very inconvenient, that a Man shou'd be con­demn'd to eternal Flames for one only Sin wherein he dies unrepented; yet no Man ever question'd this Truth. We must not [Page 106] then conclude, from the inconvenience that attends a Thing, that is therefore false; but we ought to weigh the Reasons, and Mo­tives, whereby we are induc'd to believe it is so: Now the Roman Catholics believe, that those among the Greeks and Eastern Churches, which are not in communion with the Church of Rome, together with the Pro­testants, are no true Members of the Ca­tholic Church; because they have the most Authentic Records, and the most invincible Proof that any matter of Fact is capable of, that the said Greeks, Eastern Churches, and Protestants fell into Heresie and Schism, in which they do as yet actually persist. What allowance God-almighty may make, for the invincible Ignorance and want of Capacity in a great many of these People; and how far he will be merciful and pardon the other defects of those, who endeavour to live up to what they know, and want necessary means to come to the knowledg of the Truth, He alone knows. None, I am sure, is more willing to judge favourably of their Salvation, than Roman Catholics: But to flatter them with hopes of Salvation, whilst they persist in their Errors, and have ne­cessary means to come to the knowledg of the Truth; and to tell them they may be saved with such Errors, when we are con­vinc'd in our Consciences they cannot, is surely no Christian Charity, but the greatest of Heathenish Cruelty.

5. ‘In consequence of the Truth of this Proposition, and of the importance of it [Page 107] to the Salvation of Souls; they ought to produce express mention of the Roman Catholic Church in the ancient Creeds of the Christian Churches. But this, says the Dr. they are not able to do, on the con­trary, Aeneas Sylvius (who was after­wards Pope Pius the second) says, that before the Council of Nice, little Respect was had to the Roman Church.’

Answ. Just so the Arians used to object to the Catholics, that if the word Consub­stantial were of that importance, as it was pretended, they ought to produce express mention of it, in the ancient Creed of the then present Church; but as the Catho­lics then answer'd, that it was enough, the thing meant by that Word was in the Creed, tho' not the Word it self; so say we to the Protestants, that in these Words of the Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church, is implied what we mean by the Words, Roman Catholic Church; tho' the Word Roman be not there. What Aeneas Sylvius might, in passion, or upon some private quarrel with the Pope, have Written, against the Roman Church, consider'd with respect only to the Diocess of Rome, I am not much concern'd: For I am sure he never said, nor writ, that the Roman Church, as it includes all the Christian Churches in communion with the See of Rome, (in which sense the Dr. cou'd not be ignorant, we always take it) was not the true Catholic Church. Besides, if it be true, that Aeneas Sylvius said what the Dr. makes him here [Page 108] speak; let the Holy and Learn'd Martyr St. Irenaeus, who liv'd very neer two hun­dred years before the Council of Nice; teach him the contrary. Every Church, says he, that is, the Faithful on every side, must have recourse to this Church, (the Roman) by Reason of her more powerful Principallity. Loco. sup. cit.

CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation.

WHat we hold to be of Faith con­cerning this Point, is this: That the whole Substance of the Bread and Wine is, after Consecration, chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ; without any Alteration in the Accidents, or outward Forms.

This is to all our modern Sectaries, a Stone of Stumbling, and Rock of Offence. Against this they have whetted their Pens, and Tongues; and pointed all the Shafts of their Art, and Eloquence, in order to pull down an Edifice, whose Builder and Ma­ker is God himself.

But however they agree to destroy this mysterious Fabrick; yet what to substitute in its Room, or how to expound those Texts of Scripture on which it is founded; none can with greater Heat and Passion, even to the most injurious and provoking Language, [Page 109] be divided; nor fall into more manifest Absurdities and Contradictions, than these Pretenders to Reformation.

And indeed, if the Disagreement of Wit­nesses be an Argument of their Falshood, as the Evangelists assure us it is; we have all the Reason in the World to conclude, that these are false Witnesses: For, I am sure, none ever disagreed more, not only in the Circumstances, but even in the very Nature, and Substance of their Evidence.

Martin Luther, and his Adherents, ex­pound these Words, This is my Body, litterally, and therefore believe the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; but being however resolv'd to Incommode the Pope, Epist. ad Calvin. as Luther says; they add, that the Substance of the Bread, and Wine, is likewise there. And to extricate themselves from a diffi­culty which attends the Real Presence, they affirm moreover, that the Body of Christ is every where. And thus they have brought forth two New Points of Faith, never be­fore heard of, namely Consubstantiation, and Ʋbiquitie: And this the Church of England Writers call an absurd and monstrous Doc­trine.

Calvin, and his Sectators, in Contradic­tion to this, expound the same Words Fi­guratively; and therefore believe a Real Ab­sence, or, which is all one, that the Eucha­rist is but a Type, or Figure of the Body, and Blood of Christ. Zuinglius tells us, him­self was the first, that found out this Exposi­tion, by the help of a certain Angel, which [Page 110] appear'd to him; but whether he was black or white, he says, he cannot tell. So that, for ought he knew, it may be the Doc­trine of a Devil; I am sure Luther, at least, did think it so; for he calls Calvin a De­vil, Epist. ad Calvin. and worse than a Devil, for offering to obtrude this Doctrine upon the World; and for wresting the plain Words of our Saviour to such a Sense.

The Church of England neither expounds those Words litterally, nor yet figuratively; for She neither believes Transubstantiation, nor Consubstantiation; neither Real Presence, nor yet Real Absence. And to deal ingenu­ously, I do not well know what she believes in this particular: And what is worse, to the best of my Understanding, nor she her­self. For in the Catechism, which is put into the Children, and common people's Hands, (where surely the Articles of Faith, must, if any where, be clearly and plainly expounded) she teaches, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper; which, I am sure, is the very same with the Doctrine of the Council of Trent; her verily and indeed being the self same thing with that Council's verè & realiter. Yet if you shou'd ask any of her Divines, whether the Body and Blood of Christ be, verily and indeed, in the Sacrament? They will answer you no: If you ask them further; how can you then, verily and indeed, take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, if it be not there? Some will answer you, that tho' his [Page 111] Body and Blood be not there; yet when you take the Bread and Wine, you take at the same Time the Body and Blood of Christ, to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacra­ment; but this is such a Riddle as passes my Skill to unfold. Others say, that by an Act of Faith you do verily and indeed, take, and receive the Body and Blood of Christ, when you receive the Elements. But if you urge the Difficulty farther, and tell them, that to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, by Faith, is no more to receive it verily and indeed, than to receive an Idea, or Re­presentation of a Thing to which you give assent, is to receive the thing it self: Or suppose it were, you still admit of Christ's Body his being in several places at once, which is the Inconvenience you wou'd fain avoid, by rejecting the Real Presence in the Sacrament; for if one, in London, and ano­ther in York, shou'd at the same Time, (which is very possible) verily and indeed take the Body and Blood of Christ; then, surely the Body of Christ must needs be in two different places at once; if you urge, I say, the Diffi­culty thus far, you are like to get no An­swer, which either you, or any Body else can understand. So that, tho' the Church of England has in other things, many sig­nal Advantages of the Lutherans and Cal­vinists; yet in this, she is neither so Rea­sonable as they; nor so consistent with her self, nor yet with common Sense.

Now to establish the Roman Catholic's Be­lief on this Subject, and to shew the Unreaso­nableness [Page 112] of the said Opinions (tho' of this last there is little need, their own Author's having in a great measure by their manifest Contradictions, and Absur­dities, already done it to my Hand) I shall endeavour to prove as clear, and as brief, as I can.

1. That the Words of Scripture on which Transubstantiation is grounded, are to be un­derstood in a litteral Sense.

2. That such a Sense does necessarily infer Transubstantiation: And

3. That from the Begining, all the Ortho­dox Christians in the World were of that Belief.

I begin with the first.

The Words on which Transubstantiation is grounded, are these, This is my Body which a given for you, Luke 22.19. Now that these Words are to be taken in a litteral Sense, nothing can be more plain, both from Christ's Promise of giving his Body, as we read St. John Chap. 6. from St. Paul's Sense of these Words, in his Epistle to the Corinthians; and from the very Sense which the Words themselves must necessarily bear. From Christ's Promise:

I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven: If any Man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever: And the Bread that I will give, is my Flesh, which I will give for the life of the World, Joa. 6.51. Christ promises to give his Disciples a certain kind of Bread, which they were not as yet acquainted with: And to let them un­derstand, [Page 113] what sort of Bread it was, he tells them, that it is his Flesh; The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh. This so unusual a thing, as eating human Flesh, cou'd not but startle them; however they cou'd not doubt, but he meant to do as he spoke; since he af­firm'd, that the B [...]ead he wou'd give them was his Flesh: And therefore they strove among themselves; saying, how can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? But how d [...]es Christ here disabuse them? Does he say his Words are not to be taken lirerally? Does he tell them, they must understand him in a Figura­tive Sense? No, He is so far from it, that with a repeated Oath He confirms them in the Sense they understood his Words: Ve­rily verily, says He, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye shall have no Life in you. When Christ said, I am the Door; I am the true Vine, &c. His Disciples were nothing offended at these Expressions, because they knew them to be Metaphors, and figurative Sayings com­monly us'd; but here, you see, they are a­maz'd and confounded. Had Christ only said, I will give you heavenly Bread; or, I will give you my Body; perhaps they might have taken this in a figurative Sense too. But when He assures them, that the Bread He wou'd give them is his F [...]esh; and protests with a repeated Oath, that except they eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, they shall have no Life in them; he must surely renounce his Reason, who does not see, that he spoke and meant literally. In a word, if those [Page 114] Words be not understood in a literal Sense, it is utterly impossible to know how any Phrase may be literally meant, the Words, is my Flesh, being by Christ affirm'd of the Bread for no other End, and his confirming with an Oath that it was so, for no other Reason, than to perswade them that he meant as he spoke.

This is no less manifest from St. Paul's Sense of the said Words. The Cup of Bles­sing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? 1 Cor. 10.16. Here the Apostle, agreeably to what Christ said, puts the Question, as if the Corinthians doubted it; is not the Cup of Blessing which we bless, the Communion of the Blood of Christ? &c. Now what is it to communicate, or partake of the Body and Blood of Christ? Surely it is to eat and drink of his Body and Blood; as, to com­municate, or partake of Bread and Wine, is to eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine.

Again, Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, or drink this Cup of the Lord unwor­thily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examin himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup, for he that eateth and drinketh un­worthily, eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's Body, Cap. 11.27, 28, 29. This, surely, is too severe a Sentence, if St. Paul understood Christ's Words in a figurative Sense. If that Bread, [Page 115] and that Cup be only a Type and Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ; whosoever a­buses, or takes them unworthily, ought, in Reason, to be somewh [...]t less guilty, than if he had, in reality, abus'd his Body and Blood. But the Apostle declares, that such a one shou'd be guilty of no less than the Body and Blood of Christ; which, surely, is to be guilty of the greatest Crime that can be imagin'd.

When a Man murders, or spills the Blood of an other, he is but guilty of his Blood: This is the common Language of Mankind, and no Man, in his W [...]its, did ever so much as imagin, that a Man, who shou'd abuse the Figure or Picture of another, shou'd be therefore guilty of his Body or Blood: Seeing then St. Paul affirms, that those, who abuse, or take unworthily that Sacred Bread and Cup, are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ; it is a perfect Demonstra­tion, that he did not believe them to be a Type or Figure, but his Real Flesh and Blood.

The Jews crucified Christ, spilt his Blood, and abus'd his Body; yet the Scripture says no where, that they were in that particu­lar, guilty of more, than of the Blood of Christ; and of more I cannot tell how they cou'd. For neither human, nor Angelical Wit can invent a heavier Charge. With what propriety of Speech then? nay, with what Reason can it be affirm'd, that Men shou'd be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, as were the Jews, for doing no more, [Page 116] than taking unworthily the Type or Figure of his Body and Blood? In a word, no Man can be guilty of the Blood of another, un­less he spills his Blood, or takes away his Life; but St. Paul here affirms, that, whoso­ever shall eat this Bread, or drink this Cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and shall besides, eat and drink Damnation to himself: Consequent­ly he believ'd, and was perswaded, that this Sacred Bread and Cup were the True and Real Flesh and Blood of Christ. And this is so plain from his last Words, that I wonder any Man in his Senses can entertain the least doubt concerning it: For he con­cludes, that the Reason, why they do eat, and drink Damnation to themselves, is, be­cause they do not discern, that that spiri­tual Food, which they abuse, is the Lord's Body; non dijudicans Corpus Domini.

This is yet more plain from the Sense, which the Words of the Institution must necessari­ly bear. [...]. This is my Body, which is given for you, Luke 22.19. The Evangelist tells us, a little be­fore these words, that Christ took Bread, and gave Thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his Disciples; and to let them understand what sort of Bread it was, or rather, what he intended to make it, he says, that it is his Body; and to take away all occasion of doubt, whether he had meant his true and Real Body, or else the Figure of it; he adds, which is given for you; so that they, who be­liev'd the Omnipotent Power of Christ, cou'd [Page 117] no more doubt, but that that, which he ten­der'd them, was the Body, which was to be given for them. Now, if that Body, which was given for them, be the True and Real Body of Jesus Christ; we are sure, that the Body which Christ gave his Disci­ples, was his true and Real Body: For he says, it is that Body which is given for us; this is my Body which is given for you. But all the World, as well Protestants, as Catho­lics, agree, that it was the true and real Bo­dy of Christ, which was given, and suffer'd upon the Cross for us. It is then a Demon­stration, that what Christ tender'd to his Apostles was his true and real Body; conse­quently his Words must necessarily be taken in a literal Sense.

Had Christ only said, to what he held in his Hand, this is my Body; perhaps such a proposition, to one, who never heard a­ny thing of the matter before, might seem Figurative; but when he adds these other Words, which is given for you, he takes a­way all occasion of doubt, and determins the Understanding to a literal Sense. The first part of the Phrase, this is my Body, is indifferent of it self, and may be capable of either Sense; but add the rest to it, which is given for you, and the Sense is plain­ly determin'd. So that Christ's Words can no more allow of a figurative Sense, than, if a Man had said, this is my Arm, which sticks to my Shoulder, he can be understood to mean any thing else but his true and real Arm. In a Word, these Gentlemen, who [Page 118] are resolv'd to deny things so evident, wou'd in my opinion, be less obnoxious to Cen­sure, and more excusable in human Appea­rance, if they had either question'd the Truth of these Texts; or, like the Socinians, deni­ed the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ to effect this Miracle, than thus to subvert the very Foundation of human Reason.

2. Christ's Words understood in a lite­ral Sense, must necessarily imply Transub­sta [...]tiation, that is, a Change of one sub­stance into an other: For Christ having said of the Bread, this is my Body which is given for you: And it being visible to our Senses, that there is no Alteration, or Change, in the Accidents, or outward Forms; It is impossible to understand those words in a literal Sense, but we must at the same Time necessarily conclude, that there must be a Change in the Substance. For the Bread consisting of Substance, and Accidents on­ly, we cannot believe the veracity of Jesus Christ, when he affirms of the Bread, that it is his Body; nor his Omnipotent Power to effect, by his Word, what he says; unless we likewise believe, that the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ; but it is evident to our Senses, that there is no change, as to the Accidents: Consequently the change must be in the Substance. Be­sides, it is impossible to verifie those Words of Christ, in a literal Sense, without a sub­stantial Change: For the Greek Demon­strative [...], the Latin Hoc, or the English, This, cannot with any propriety of Speech, [Page 119] be refer'd to the Accidents of the thing whereof it is affirm'd; but must necessari­ly be refer'd to the thing it self, which, surely, is the Substance, and not the Acci­dents: So that the Sense of these Words, This is my Body, must necessarily be, this sub­stance, Cloathed with these Accidents, is my Body; and then, if we believe those Words, we must consequently believe, that that Substance is his Body; and then this ne­cessarily implies Transubstantiation.

Hence it is evident, that those Words cannot with any colour of Reason, be un­derstood in a Sense of Consubstantiation, as the Lutherans wou'd have it: For the demonstrative Hoc, This, as aforesaid, de­noting the Substance affirm'd by Christ to be his Body; common Sense shews, it wou'd be absurd to interpret these Words, this is my Body, so as to mean, that Christ's Bo­dy is there together with the Substance of the Bread, as the Lutherans grosly maintain; whereas, if Christ had so meant, he wou'd most certainly have said, here is my Body, and not, this is my Body. But this is so publickly exploded by all the Rest 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 [Page 120] 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 [...]ar­nem communem, suscipimus, absit hoc, neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati, & dignitatis unitate verbo consociati; sed tan­quam verè vivificam ipsius (que) 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; [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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 'tis 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 [Page 123] 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 [...]lood; that tho' it appears to our [Page 124] 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 Ma [...], 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 125] 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.

[Page 126]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 [Page 127] 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. [Page 128] 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 the main End and Design of their meeting; and, what is more, to the eternal damnation of their own Souls: they shou'd unanimously agree to declare as an Article of their Faith, what they neither receiv'd, nor knew, [Page 129] nor believ'd before? In a word, is it pos­sible, that any Man of sense cou'd imagin, that in any Age of the Church, the Pope, Patriarchs, Bishops, Kings, Princes and Peo­ple shou'd all agree to receive, as an Arti­cle of Faith, that which the Apostles never deliver'd to their Ancestors, nor their An­cestors to them? And if this be absurd, and not to be suppos'd, as most certainly it is; with what colour of Reason can a­ny Man refuse the Evidence of this Coun­cil? What shall we believe, if we do not believe so great, and so grave an Assem­bly? Here are, from all parts of the Chris­tian World, so many hundreds of Learned Prelats, attesting on no less penalty than their eternal Damnation, if false, that this is the Faith, which the Apostles deliver'd to the Church; that this is the Doctrine, which they receiv'd from their Fore-fathers. Here are all the Rest of the Prelats, and Peo­ple of the whole Catholic Church, likewise declaring, by their ready Acceptance, and Submission to this Doctrine; that it is the same they receiv'd from their Predecessors. And now, if after all this, Men will be so much in love with their fancies as to be­lieve, that the whole Catholic Church, both in its Representatives, and in the diffusive Body of Christians, cou'd be induc'd to conspire together to deceive their Posteri­ty; against their own plain and True Inte­rest; against the Trust and Confidence re­pos'd in them; the Duty, and Piety of Pa­rents to their Children; the tender Care [Page 130] they ought to have for their Welfare; and contrary to the main End and Design of the Divine goodness, who put his Word into their Mouths, to the end they might faithfully deliver it to succeeding Generati­ons; and all this, notwithstanding the ter­rors of the Lord, and the wrath of God reveal'd from Heaven, against all impious Lyars; notwithstanding the dreadful Woes and Curses pronounc'd in Scripture against false Seducers, and the horrible aggravation of their own Guilt, for having led so many millions into Error and Perdition. Add to this the promise of the Holy-Ghost's guiding the Church into all Truth, the assistance of the Divine Spirit with it to the End, and consumation of the World; the dear and tender Love of the great Shepherd of our Souls for his Flock; and the great care and concern, he has for the preservation of his Church, for which he shed his most precious Blood: If after all this, I say, Men will be so far deluded, as to believe such dreams; I shall only say to them, as Joshua did to the Children of Israel; If it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, chuse you this day whom you will serve— but for me and my House, Josh. 24. we will serve the Lord, and believe his holy Word. Thus much concerning the Proof of this Mystery: Let us now see what the Doctor Objects.

Never Roman Conqueror sung more P [...]ans after Victory, nor insulted over his Enemy, with more Ostentation, than Dr. Tillotson has on this Subject, over the Roman Catholics, [Page 131] and the Church of Rome; and (to com­pleat the Parallel) if his Railing E­loquence, and Unchristian Contumelies (I am sorry he extorts such Words from me) were of equal force to bind, with that of Roman Chains; no Barbarous Captives were ever worse us'd, by their Insulting Con­querors, than the Sons of that Mother, whose Piety, and Zeal brought forth, in Christ, his Ancestors, have the fortune to be trea­ted by the Unchristian Slanders, and Ca­lumnies of his bitter Tongue and Pen. Be­sides, that invincible Argument, (if we be­lieve him) that Achilles, the Evidence of Sense, which he pretends to be against this My­stery; and which he repeats over and over, in more places of his Sermons, than I can at present reckon; he has oblidg'd us with a Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject, which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation. It begins vol. 3. pag. 297.

In this Piece, I meet with as copious a Collection of scrurrilous, injurious Lan­guage; of Notorious and Manifest Impositi­ons; with so much disingenuity in citing of Authors, and managing their Authorities, as I believe, was ever possible for any Man, who had never so little esteem for his Cre­dit, to bring within so narrow a Com­pass.

Now to Answer all this Discourse, and to lay open all its Disingenuity; to set these Passages of the Fathers, which he mangles, and dismembers, in their due Light; and [Page 132] to shew the Scope and End, at which those Fathers aim'd; woud alone require a vo­lum of no small bulk, which in no wise a­grees with my design'd Brevity; nor yet will my present Affairs. I shall therefore be content at present, to answer his main Objection taken from the Evidence of Sense, which is the only Objection I find in all his Sermons; but with as many faces as Pro­theus, was said to have; and some three, or four more, taken out of this Discourse, which are the only Real Difficulties in it; being resolv'd however to lay hold on the next Opportunity to answer the whole, Pa­ragraph by Paragraph.

Vol. 3. pag. 80, 81. Vol. 5. p. 20. &c. Vol. 6. pag. 165.1. His main Objection is this: Transub­stantiation is contradicted by Sense: The Evi­dence of our Senses is against it: 'Tis contrary to the common Sense, and Reason of Mankind, &c.

Answ. This He repeats over and over; and to enforce the Belief of it, he tells us in se­veral places, that it destroys the External Means of Confirming the Truth of Christia­nity. But he only repeats it; for I cou'd never yet find in all his Books, that he has made the least offer to prove it. He wou'd have us, it seems, be so civil as to take it for granted: For without this, I believe, nay, I am sure, he did not well know how go about to prove it. And 'tis a thing I of­ten admir'd, with how much Confidence his Good Man and Others, wou'd press this Argument upon us, without ever offering the least Proof for it; when at the same time, [Page 133] they knew very well, we firmly deny it. And this seems so much the more strange; be­cause the more Evident any thing is, as they pretend this to be, the easier it is to find Mediums to prove it. But neither He, nor all the Philosophers that ever were, or are to come, shall ever be able to make one good Argument to prove that Transubstanti­ation is contradicted by Sense. For, what is Transubstantiation? The Change of one Substance into another. Of what Sense then is Substance the Object, that such a Change may be discover'd by it? 'Tis of no Sense sure, but of the Ʋnderstanding, as all the World knows. How can that then contra­dict Sense, which is not the Object of any Sense; since no Faculty can be employ'd, but about its proper Object? They might as well 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.

[Page 134]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 [Page 135] 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 [Page 136] 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; [Page 137] 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, [Page 138] 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, [Page 139] 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 [Page 140] 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 Soci [...]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, [Page 141] 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 Ʋnderstanding, 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 'tis 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.

[Page 142] 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 Invocation of the Priest, but after the Invocation are chang'd, and be­come an other thing; so the Body of our Lord, after his Ascension, is chang'd into the Divine Substance. To which the Catholic Orthodoxus answers thus; thou art caught in thine own Net; because the Mystical Symbols after Con­secration, do not pass out of their own Nature; for they remain in their former Substance, Figure and Appearance; and may be seen, and handled as before.

pag. 325.4. Pope Gelasius seems to be of the same mind: Surely, says he, the Sacraments, which we receive of the Body, and Blood of our Lord are a Divine Thing; so that by them we are [Page 143] made partakers of a Divine Nature, and yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance, or Nature of Bread, and Wine; and certainly the Image, and resemblance of Christ's Body, and Blood are celebrated in the Action of the Mysteries. Bib Patr. tom. 4.

These and some more of less moment are, by the Dr. very much magnified and cry'd up; and, to do him justice, he spares no Art, nor Industry to improve them to the best Advantage; peremptorily conclu­ding at the Foot of each Passage, that Transubstantiation was unknown to Anti­quity. But before I answer them, it will be requisite, for the better Understanding of these Fathers, to observe,

1. What Conduct the ancient Fathers ge­nerally held, when they treated of the My­stery of the Lord's Body and Blood, in the Sacrament.

2. What was the ancient Father's Belief concerning this Mystery; and

3. Whence these Passages objected are ta­ken: Which if well consider'd, I doubt not to make it appear, that these Objections, notwithstanding their plausible appearance, do not, in the least, prejudice the Truth of Transubstantiation, nor clash with the Fa­ther's Opinions, who Favour this Doc­trine.

1. The Fathers here objected, and most of the Ancients, were very cautious how they spoke any thing on this Subject, which might increase the Suspicion the Gentils had conceiv'd of them, as if [Page 144] they us'd to eat Human Flesh, in the Ce­lebration of their Mysteries; which, no doubt, was occasion'd by the Information of some Apostat Christians, who, upon renouncing of their Faith, declar'd, that the Christians us'd to eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ. They were therefore, to avoid the Reproach and Odium, which they must hereupon ne­cessarily incur, (the Gentils thinking they eat this Flesh, as Men do that, which is fold in the Shambles) very careful to conceal this Mystery; and to write nothing, that was to be expos'd to the Infidels, which might seem to insinuate any such Doctrine; being content to glance at it, and (when they must) to deliver their Thoughts obscurely; know­ing very well, that, by this prudent Conduct, the Pagans wou'd have no just Reason to re­proach them, and the Christians, who were carefully instructed in this Point, wou'd easily understand what they hinted at. So that, in their Treatises against Heretics, in the Books they must have expos'd to public view, for the comfort, and instruction of the Christians, and the conversion of the Gentils; but more especially, in their public Sermons and Homi­lies, where they apprehended any Pagans were present, they were very careful to speak nothing out, touching this Point; but by hints and glances, to insinuate their meaning to the Christians, so as the Pagans cou'd not understand what they meant. Thus Tertulian, in the Book, which he wrote to diswade his Wife from Marrying after his Decease; Non sciet Maritus quid ante omnem cibum gustes, & [Page 145] si sciverit, Panem esse credet, & non quod dici­tur. Your Husband will not know that, which you taste before all other Meat; and if he does, he will think it is Bread, and not what it is call'd. Here a Pagan knows not what he means, but his Wife, and all other Christians might easily understand, that he means the Body of Christ. Thus St. Austin, in several pla­ces, insinuates this Mystery in obscure words, and then adds, these fam'd Words; Nôrunt fideles, Nôrunt fideles quod dico: The Faithful know, the Faithful know what I say. Thus Theodoret, in that very Dialogue objected by the Doctor, puts these Words in Orthodoxus his Mouth; Oro te ut obscurius respondeas, ad­sunt enim fortasse aliqui Mysteriis non initiati. I beseech you answer more obscurely; for there are some perhaps here present, who are not ini­tiated in the Mysteries. This he said, because they were about to talk of the Eucharist, as appears by the Words of the Dialogue. E­ranistes answers him; sic audiam, & sic re­spondebo: So I will hear, and so I will answer.

It were needless to bring any more Autho­rities from Fathers to prove this Truth, it being evident from the Conduct observ'd in respect of the Catechumens, that this was the universal Practise of the primitive Church. These Catechumens were Candidates for Chri­stianity; they were taught, and instructed in all the other Mysteries of the Christian Faith; but not one Word did they hear of, or relating to the Eucharist, till they had, by long Tryal and Experience, given sufficient Proof of their Good Resolutions; and so­lemnly [Page 146] promis'd to believe, whatever the Catholic Church taught and profess'd. Tho' they were taught the Mystery of the Trinity, and Incarnation; tho' they were allow'd to hear the Gospel read and expounded, and to assist at the Rest of the Divine Service; yet, when the Consecration, and Communi­on of the Eucharist was to be perform'd, they were by no means admitted to be pre­sent, nor as much as know any thing of it; but were dismiss'd, and excluded from that part of the Service, till by long, and care­ful Instructions they were deem'd competent hence the name of Compe­tentes & missa Ca­techume norum so often mention'd by the Canons. to assist at it, as they then phras'd it. So careful were the Primitive Fathers, that none, shou'd come to the Knowledge of this Myste­ry, but such as were very well dispos'd to believe, and embrace it.

And now can any Man of Sense imagin, that these Holy and Learned Fathers shou'd keep such a stir about the Eucharist, or be so careful to conceal it; were it but a Type, or Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ? What is more easie to be believ'd, than that Bread represents the Body of Christ; and Wine, his Blood; and that both are ta­ken in remembrance of his Death, and Pas­sion? Surely, there is nothing in the world so easie to be perswaded; since all Mankind knows, that such arbitrary Signs or Repre­sentations, depend meerly of the Will of him that institutes them; and that there is nothing to be done to perswade their Be­lief, but to tell, that they are so. Certain­ly no Pagan, or Gentil cou'd ever be offend­ed [Page 147] at a thing so plain, or offer the least Re­proach to the Christian Religion upon the account of it: Consequently there wou'd be no need to conceal, or speak obscurely of it; nor to hinder, not only Catechumens, but even Pagans, or Infidels, to hear it taught and deliver'd. But to proceed:

2. What 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 [Page 148] 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. 'Tis 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 149] 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 [Page 150] 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 [Page 151] 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. 'Tis 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 'tis He whom I here seek, and I find, how without impiety the Earth may be a­dor'd. For he took Earth of Earth; be­cause flesh is of Earth; and he took Flesh of Mary's Flesh; and because he here walk'd in that Flesh, and gave us that flesh to eat for our Salvation. But no Man eats it ex­cept he first adores it. It is found how [Page 152] such a Footstool of the Lord may be a­dor'd; and we do not only not sin, in adoring it, but we shou'd sin if we do not adore it.’ Enar. in Psal. 98.

Here St. Austin says, that Christ gave us that Flesh to eat, in which He walk'd here on Earth; and that we are so far from sin, in adoring that Flesh, that we sin if we do not adore it. Christ walk'd here in the flesh, and he gave us that flesh to eat; and we shall sin if we do not adore that flesh, says this Fa­ther. What flesh did Christ here walk in? Was it in the Sign or Figure of His Flesh? No sure, 'twas in his real Flesh. 'Tis evi­dent then, that Christ gave us his Real Flesh, in this Father's sense. Here St. Austin speaks plainly, and familiarly to the common Peo­ple; here is no Dispute in the Case, no Ad­vantage to be taken of a Sophistical Heretic; no fear of expounding the Mystery to the full: Consequently he spoke his mind plain­ly. In a word; he must have lost his Rea­son, who does not see, that it is from such Passages as this, where the Fathers speak to their Flock, and expound the Scriptures, and the Mysteries of our Religion, that we are to Learn, what they hold concerning a­ny Point of Faith; and not from some Ab­struse, and dark Expressions cull'd out of their Disputes with Hereties; where the Fa­thers purposely design to conceal the depth of this Mystery, when ever they must men­tion it. But the truth of the matter is; the Doctor's Cause wou'd afford him no better Arguments, and rather than fail, he was re­solv'd to catch at any thing.

[Page 153]3. Theodoret, and Gelasius their Words are likewise to be understood of the Acci­dents, or outward Forms of the Sacrament.

That these Fathers gave the Name of sub­stance, and nature to the Accidents will ap­pear, if we consider the Equivocation of the Word Symbol, here mention'd by Theo­doret. This Word is somtimes taken for the Bread and Wine it self before Conse­cration, and somtimes, but most properly, for the External Form, and Appearance of Bread and Wine, which remain after Con­secration. Eranistes, or the Eutychian Here­tic took it in the first sense; and therefore affirm'd, that, as the Symbols after Conse­cration are chang'd into an other thing; so the Body of our Lord, after his Ascension, is chang'd into the Divine Substance. This he said of the Sacrament, because he was so taught, and because he knew there was no difference between him, and the Orthodoxus on that Subject. But what does the Ortho­doxus, to take advantage by that similitude? Why, he takes the Word Symbol in its more proper meaning, namely for the Accidents, or outward Forms, and tells the Heretic, he is caught in his own Net; because, says he, the Mystical Symbols after Consecration, do not pass out of their own Nature; for they remain in their former Substance, Figure, and Appea­rance, and may be seen and handled as before. Now, that by the Mystical Symbols, he meant the Accidents, methinks 'tis plain; for the Reason he gives, why these Symbols are not chang'd, is, because they may be seen and [Page 154] handled as before. But this proves plainly, that he must have meant the Accidents; since only Accidents can be seen and felt. Nor does it move me, that he seems to give partly for his Reason, that the Substance of the Symbols remain; for that is said gratis, and cou'd never be prov'd, if he had meant the real Substance of the Bread. Besides, there is nothing more common in human Language, than to give the Denomination of Substance to meer Accidents; as we u­sually say, the Substance of his Discourse was this; the Substance of what he said, &c. tho' all Discourses and Sayings, are pure Acci­dents. And however this Solution, at first sight, may seem strange; yet, whoever will take the pains to examin well the Sayings of both these Disputants, and believes they were in their Wits, he cannot possibly deny what I say to be True. The one positively affirms of the Symbols, that they are chang'd into an other thing; the other as stifly main­tains, that they do not change at all. I ask now, whether these Symbols are Objects of Sense, or not? If you say they are. I ask again; whether two Men in their Wits, and Senses, can be so mistaken in a plain Object of Sense, as to affirm contradictory things of it at once? For instance: Can two Men be so mistaken about a white Wall, which they plainly see; as that one shou'd affirm it is white, and the other, that it is not? 'Tis plain they cannot: 'Tis then manifest, that if the Symbols be Objects of Sense, Eranistes and Orthodoxus, did not both [Page 155] consider them as such; otherwise they must have lost their Reason, to affirm such con­tradictory things of them at once. 'Tis then evident, that Eranistes, who affirm'd, the Symbols were chang'd, did not consider them as they are Objects of Sense; other­wise he must have spoken contrary to the Evidence of his own Senses: Consequent­ly his meaning was, that the Change hap­pen'd in the Substance of the Bread, and not in the Accidents. 'Tis no less evident, on the other hand, that Orthodoxus consider'd the Symbols, as Objects of Sense; else he cou'd, with no Colour of Reason, affirm, that they did not pass out of their Na­ture, Substance, &c. For, let us suppose with the Doctor, that he meant the real Substance of the Symbols, or Bread and Wine: How does he prove that there is no real Change in them? Because the Mysti­cal Symbols, says he, do not pass out of their own Nature, for they remain in their former Substance, &c. this is only said, but wants to be be prov'd. Well! How does he prove it? Because, continues he, they may be seen, and handled, as before. Why this the Heretic Eranistes acknowledges; and yet he affirms, that the Symbols are chang'd: And, which is more, he therefore believes, that it is the real Substance of the Symbols, and not the Accidents that are chang'd; be­cause the Accidents may be seen, and hand­led, as before. And now, wou'd it not be a very pleasant way to perswade him, that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was [Page 156] not chang'd, for that very Reason, for which he believ'd it was? Or let us sup­pose, that they both consider'd the Symbols as the true, and real Substance of the Bread and Wine, and not as Accidents, or Objects of our Senses: Well! What follows? The Heretic Era [...]istes affirms, that the Symbols, in this Sense, were chang'd, [...]ho' he saw with his Eyes the Accidents were no [...]; and then how cou'd the Orthodoxus convince him by his own Words, or tell him, he was caught in his own Net; unless he cou'd prove to him, that the Symbols taken in that Sense were not chang'd? But this he is so far from doing, that the Reason he offers, to evince that he was so caught, proves no more, than that the Accidents, or Objects of Sense still remain, namely, that which may be seen and handled; which the Hetetic Eranistes never denied. 'Tis then evident, that he understood the Word Symbol in a different Sense from that of Eranistes. Con­sequently his meaning must have been, that the Accidents, which he calls Symbols, did not pass out of their Nature, &c. And all his Advantage consisted in the Equivocation of the Word Symbol, which his Adversary took in a vulgar Sense, and, by that, gave him an Opportunity to perplex him, and tell him he was caught in his own Net. And, God knows, he must be hard put to it, who would fain squeez Proof for his Faith from such intricate Disputes.

I have nothing to add, in answer to Ge­lasius his Passage, to what is here said: For [Page 157] 'tis plain from the Scope and Design of this Father, (who likewise disputed with an Entychian Heretic) that he meant, by sub­stance or nature of Bread, the Qualities of it, which (we confess) remain still in the Sacrament; nothing being more usual in common Discourse, than to give the name of Nature to the Quality, as we common­ly say, a Man of ill nature, that is, of ill Qualities.

One Word more with the Doctor, and I take leave of this Subject.

He tells us: Discourse against Transub­stantiation, pag. 328, 329. That Transub­stantiation was first introduc'd into the Ca­tholic Religion, about the latter End of the Eight Century in the Second Council of Nice. And pag. 333. that it was almost 300 Years before this Mishapen Monster, as he Religi­ously terms it, cou'd be Lick'd into that Form in which it is now settl'd and establish'd in the Church of Rome.

What I shall say to the matter of Fact here mention'd (leaving the Doctor to his own Master to account for his civil Language) is, that I cou'd wish he were alive, that he might now, at least, consult his own Pro­testant Authors to correct his Error; since he was then in two much haste to do it. Doctor Humfrey, a Famous Divine of his own Country, and perswasion, wou'd better inform him; that Austin the great Monk, as he calls him, Jesuiti [...] ­mi part [...] sent by Gregory the Great Pope, taught the English a Burthen of Cere­monies— Purgatory, Mass, Prayer for the [Page 158] Dead, Transubstantiation, Reliques, &c. Now all the World knows, that Austin the Monk taught the English about the latter end of the sixth Century, and the Begining of the seventh; almost two hundred Years before the Second Council of Nice. Cent. 6. de. Oper. Sti. Greg. The Centuriators of Magdeburg, the Doctor's own good Friends, wou'd tell Him, that the same Gregory the Great wrought a Miracle in the presence of an uncredulous Woman, to confirm her in the Belief of the substanti­al Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ, as the Centurists Phrase it. And, surely, it was no less these Gentlemens In­terest than his (cou'd they but d [...]vest them­selves of all honesty and sincerity) to make it of a Fresher Date, than even the Coun­cil of Nice. But the Doctor was so intent upon baffling Monsieur Arnauld's Demonstra­tion, of the Impossibility of obtruding this Doc­trine upon the Faithful, without Great, and Vi­olent Commotions, both in Church and State; which, he saw, he cou'd not well effect, unless he had fix'd a certain Epocha, whence this Doctrine shou'd take its rise; that ra­ther than fail, he wou'd hit at a venture upon the Second Council of Nice, and there fix his Foot: Being perswaded, as he says, that this was the fittest Time for such a Change. And is not this a miserable Shift to which this Ingenious Man is reduc'd, when he is forc'd, (to make good his undertaking) to have recourse to such known, and ma­nifest (I am asham'd to say it) falshoods? Which surely do better become Impostors [Page 159] than Grave Divines, whose very Names, and Character, shou'd prompt them to candor and sincerity; it being evident, that disingenu­ity, and false dealing (whatever they may do for a time) serve to no other end at last, than to discredit the Cause, and con­found its Patrons.

CHAP. V. Of the Communion in one kind.

TO give the Communion in one, or in both kinds, is no matter of Faith, but respects the Discipline of the Church, which, according to the different Circum­stances, and Exigencies of Affairs, for the increase of Piety and Devotion; and in Con­descension to the Infirmity of her Children, is often necessitated to alter some things in her Discipline; it being Evident, that what in one Age was good and profitable, an o­ther Age will in no wise bear. And since it is agreed upon, that the care of feeding the Flock was committed to the Church; that she alone is Commission'd to dispence the Divine Mysteries, and hath a peculiar pro­mise of the Assistance of the Holy Spirit to guide her into all Truth; none can reasona­bly doubt, but She is the most Competent Judge, what in her Discipline to change, what to retain.

[Page 160]Now the main stress lyes upon this, whe­ther or no it be in the Power of the Church to alter her Discipline, in a matter of this Importance, so as to restrain the Faithful to the receiving of the Sacrament in one kind only? It being acknowledg'd by our selves, that, in the Primitive Times, this Sacrament was indifferently administred, sometimes in Both, sometimes in one kind: Tho 'tis hard to conceive, why Men shou'd rather conclude, that it is not in the Power of the Church to restrain the Faithful to one kind; because the Communion was somtimes given in Both, than the contrary, that it is in the Power of the Church so to do; because it was likewise sometimes given in one kind? To justifie then the conduct of the Church in this particular, I shall only examin, whether the Receiving of the Eucharist, in both kinds, be Essential to a True, and Real Participa­tion of the Sacrament? For if both kinds be Essential, then 'tis certain, the Church cannot take away any Essential part of the Sacrament without destroying the whole; and consequently in giving but part, wou'd give nothing at all: Therefore cou'd not restrain the Faithful to one kind; it being evident, that the Church is only impower'd to dispense, and not to destroy the Myste­rys of God. But if I can make out, that the Participation of the Euchurist, in Both Kinds, is not Essential to the worthy recei­ving of the Sacrament, then it will evident­ly follow, that the Church may lawfully command the forbearance of one kind. For [Page 161] if you shou'd ask any of our Learned Pro­testants; why they do not give the Commu­nion at night, or after Supper, or sitting down, or lying on Couches, as, 'tis con­fess'd, Christ gave it? They will tell you; because 'tis not Essential to the Sacrament to give it so. Or why they do not plunge the Children into the Water, when they baptize them; as the Apostles, and primi­tive Church have done? They answer, as before, that it is not Essential to the spiri­tual Lotion of the Soul, that the Body shou'd be wash'd by Plunging, rather than any o­ther way; but that, whether it be perform'd by Immersion, or Aspersion, or in any other manner, 'tis the same thing to all the In­tents, and Purposes of the Sacrament: So that it is plain, and even confess'd by our Adversaries, that the Church has Power to alter, and change all the Circumstances, which are not of the Essence, and Nature of the Sacraments. All the Difficulty then consists in this, whether it be Essential to the Communion to receive it in both kinds? Or whether One kind be not sufficient? And if it be made out, that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive both; but that it is enough to receive it in One kind; then the Protestants must confess, that the Church may lawfully command the Forbearance of the other.

Now, that the receiving of the Eucharist in Both Kinds, is not Essential to the True, and Real Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, to all the Intents, and Purposes [Page 162] of the Sacrament; but that One Kind alone is sufficient, I shall endeavour to shew;

1. From several Texts of Scripture which affords us sufficient Grounds to conclude, that for the due Participation of the Sacra­ment, it is not necessary to receive it in Both kinds.

2. From the General Practice of the Church in all Ages; even in those days, in which the Protestants do own, the pure Word of God (as they speak) was preach'd, and the Sacraments duely administred.

3. From the Consent of our Adversaries, if consistent with themselves. I begin with the first.

And that our Adversaries may not think, I design to impose upon them; I will quote those places of Scripture, that seem to make against, as well as for me. Christ says, John c. 6. ver. 50. This is the Bread which com­eth down from Heaven, that a Man may eat thereof, and not die. Ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven: If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever; and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. Ver. 53. Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you. Ver. 54. Who so eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal Life. Ver. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in Him. Ver. 58. This is that Bread, which came down from Heaven— he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever. Here are six Passages, whereof three seem to [Page 163] be expresly for the Communion in one kind; and the other three seem to be against it. What shall we say to this? Must we believe all? Or shall we believe but three of them? For they seem to contradict one another. One says; Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. An other; If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever: If it be True, that the Man, who eateth of this Bread shall live for ever; how can it be at the same time true, that he cannot live, except he eat the Bread, and drink the Cup? Must we then hold to three of these Passages and reject the rest? As to the Protestants, I do not see, how it shou'd stand with their Prin­ciples to do otherwise: For they are so far from believing, that the Man, who eats of this Bread shall live for ever; that they constantly assert, that except he drinks also of the Cup, he is guilty of a Horrid Sacri­ledge; Vol. 2. pag. 70. 'tis what Dr. Tillotson expresly affirms. This is no Addition to Christianity (says he, speak­ing of the Communion in One Kind) but a sacrilegious taking away of an Essential Part of the Sacrament; they must then necessarily deny three of these Passages, if they be True to their own Principles. But for R. Catholics, they are not in the least perplext at this seeming Contradiction; they believe them all to be both true in themselves, and agreeable to their Principles: For they be­live, that whosoever eateth of this Bread, the same eateth and drinketh the Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man, in the Sense he [Page 164] meant they shou'd eat and drink his Flesh and Blood; which is not to be understood (as Protestants as well as Catholics must con­fess, tho' upon different Grounds) in the strict, and proper meaning of the Words, as if eating, and drinking his Flesh and Blood were to be perform'd by two different Acts, whereof one is conversant about a sol­lid, and the other about a liquid Thing, as the Words usually and properly import; but that to eat, and drink his Flesh and Blood, signifies no more than to participate of, or to take by the Mouth his Flesh and Blood, whether with one or different Acts it mat­ters not. R. Catholics then find no Difficul­ty in reconciling these places; they believe the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the Flesh of a Living Man, which cannot be so without Blood; and therefore, when they take it, they are sure, they eat and drink his Body and Blood; that is, they are Partakers of his Body and Blood. And hence it is, they do most certainly conclude, that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive it in both Kinds; because they receive in one, all that Christ requires of the Faithful to receive, that is, his Body and Blood. I say Protestants as well as Catholics must con­fess, that in this Passage, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, the Words eat, and drink, are not to be taken in the strict, and usual Sense they commonly bear: For seeing they believe, that, in the Eucharist, there is neither Flesh nor Blood, nothing but Bread and Wine; [Page 165] and that in eating and drinking these Ele­ments to the Letter, they do eat, and drink the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith, as it is said in the 39 Articles, it cannot be said, that they eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ, in the literal and usu­al Sense of the Words; it being impossi­ble to eat and drink in the Elements, in a literal Sense, that, which, in a literal Sense, they do not really contain, as Protestants hold. They must then necessarily conclude, that to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, is not to be understood in a li­teral, but in a figurative Sense; and then the meaning of these Words must be, To [...], and drink the Body and Blood of Christ; that is, to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ; and if so, then 'tis cer­tain, that in eating only the Body of Christ, which, being a living Human Body, must needs contain his Blood; we eat and drink his Flesh and Blood, that is, we are made Partakers of his Flesh and Blood, which sure­ly, is all that is requisite to the Essence or Nature of the Sacrament.

And now, who wou'd believe, that the R. Catholics had such grounds, in Scrip­ture, for the Communion in one kind; con­sidering the loud, and clamorous accusati­ons, yea and the horrible Sacrileges they are charg'd with, upon this Subject? Well! And who are those, who charge us thus? Why they are Great, and Eminent Men: Great indeed, not only for the Rank, and Station wherein the Powers of this World [Page 166] have placed them; but also Great for their Learning, and other Excellent Endowments. But then, 'tis that they must so do: The Protestant Religion (as all the World knows) was planted in these Kingdoms by open Force and Violence. These Gentle­men's Predecessors possess'd Themselves of the Rich Benefices of the Church; and when Men's Interest, and Honor, are once engag'd, 'tis hard, if they do not stand by them.

Now there is no way left to justifie these Proceedings, but by railing at the Church of Rome, and exposing her pretended Cor­ruptions; and therefore 'tis no marvel, they shou'd lay these, and a great deal more to her charge. But take away these Fatal By­asses: Let Benefices be laid a side: Let the Riches of the Church be propos'd, as the Reward of Virtue, and Merit; and then we shall see how many Eyes this will open; then we shall see the Scales fall off, and those, who have been hitherto our Greatest Persecutors, become, like St. Paul, the most Zealous Assertors of our Faith and Religi­on. But this by the way.

There is an other Passage in St. Luke, which favours the Communion in One Kind. 14 This Evangelist tells us, that Christ, after his Resurrection, appear'd to two of his Disciples, as they went to Emans, who, adds St. Luke, constrain'd Him to a [...]ide with them; and when he sate at Meat, He took Bread, and bless'd it, and brake and gave to them, and their Eyes were open'd, and they knew him, [Page 167] and he vanish'd out of their sight. Now, 'tis certain, that, if this Bread, which Christ bless'd and brake, was the Eucharist, we have, at least, one instance in which Christ himself gave the Communion in one kind: For 'tis said, that after he had broke the Bread, and gave it to them, he vanish'd out of their sight. And indeed, it is very hard to conceive how the breaking of or­dinary Bread, as 'tis usually done at Meat, shou'd open these Disciples Eyes, so as to know him that did it to be Christ. Besides, the breaking of Bread, in the Acts of the Apostles, is always understood of the Com­munion: and St. Chrisostom, St. Augustin, venerable Bede, and Theophilactus, in their comments upon this place, teach us, that this Bread, which Christ brake, was the Eucharist; which surely they wou'd not have done, had there been the least doubt of the lawfulness of the Communion in one kind. However, because it is not thus in­terpreted by the universal consent of the Church, I shall lay no more weight upon it, than it can reasonably bear; leaving the Reader to judge, what impression the Au­thority of four such Great Men, so well read in Antiquity, is apt to make upon an unprejudic'd Mind. I now proceed to shew, that the Communion, in Both Kinds, is not Essential to the Sacrament.

2. ‘from the general practise of the Church in all Ages, even in those days wherein the Protestants do confess, the Pure Word of God was preach'd, and the [Page 168] Sacraments duly administred.’

The Protestants do pretend to pay a great deal of Respect, and veneration to Antiqui­ty; and in all their Debates, and Contro­versies of Religion; whether with Us, or a­mong Themselves, they are willing to Ap­peal to the Primitive Church, which they look upon as the Rule and Measure of their Faith and Practice. Now, if it appears by the Practice of the Primitive Church, that the Communion was given in One Kind without the other; and that this was neither prohibited by the Governours of the Church, nor found fault with by the People, nor yet wrote against by any Man whatsoever; then 'tis but reasonable to hope, that eve­ry Ingenious Protestant will easily be perswa­ded, that neither the Pastors, nor the Peo­ple of the Primitive Church did ever believe, that both kinds were Essential to the worthy participation of the Sacrament. This I shall, by God's Assistance, endeavour to evince from the best Records, and the most un­questionable Witnesses, and Writers of the Primitive Times.

And here I find four sorts of Communion; the Communion of the Sick, the Communion of Infants, and little Children; the Commu­nion of Private Families, commonly call'd the Domestic Communion; and the Public, and Solemn Communion of the Church. And in regard of all these, I shall undertake to prove, that, for the first six hundred Years, the Eucharist was given, 1. in the Com­munion of the Sick, under the Species of [Page 169] Bread alone. 2. In the Communion of In­fants, and little Children, under the species of Wine alone. 3. In the Domestic, or Private Communion, under the species of Bread; but so as to be sometimes given, tho' seldom in both kinds: And lastly, in the public, and solemn Communion of the Church, sometimes in one, sometimes in both kinds; as the Piety and Devotion of the People carry'd them to participate of one or Both.

Touching the Communion of the Sick- Eusebius, One of the Best, Hist. Ec­cles. lib. 6. cap. 44. and most Ce­lebrated Historians of the Primitive Church, gives us an intire Letter of the Great Di­onysius Bishop of Alexandria upon this Sub­ject. In this Letter, Dionysus relates the Story of a certain Old Man call'd Serapion, who being under Publick Pennance, and falling Sick, sent a Boy to a Priest, that was at some distance from him, to desire him to come to him, and give him the sacred Communion before he had departed this Life; but the Priest happening at the same time to be sick, and not able to go so far, gave a Piece of the sacred Bread to the Boy, and order'd him to carry it to Serapion, and enjoyn'd him more­over to moisten it in some Liquor, and then to give it to him as his last Viaticum; which when he had done, saith Dionysius, the good Old Man immediately gave up the Ghost.

Here is a Communion in one kind rela­ted by a Man, who was as Great a Saint [Page 170] as he was a Bishop; and Recorded by an other Great, and Learned Bishop: Both very ancient Witnesses, both much celebra­ted by Antiquity: Yet neither the one, nor the other finds any fault with the Priest, nor with Serapion for this Communion, which our Adversaries wou'd now abhor as sacri­legious and detestable; on the contrary, they both admire the Goodness of God, as the said Letter witnesseth, in sparing this poor Man's Life 'till he had receiv'd the sa­cred Pledge of his Redemption. And now, can it be imagin'd, that these two Great Men, who liv'd so near the Times of the Apostles, and were so well instructed in the Faith and Discipline of the Church, shou'd not rather be surpris'd at the Rashness of the Priest, than admire the Mercy of God in this Affair, if the Practice and Discipline of the Church had not authoriz'd such a Communion? Nay that Eusebius, who was so Nice, and Severe in his Remarks, and Censures upon the least Slips, and Mistakes of other Clergymen, shou'd be silent in a bus'ness of this Weight, is sure what no Man can Reasonably suppose. This the Protestants cou'd not but see; and therefore the most Ingenuous among them, as Bishop Jewel, Answ. to Hard. Mr. Smith Epist. de Eccles. grac. hod. stat. pag. 107. and others have free­ly confess'd, that the Communion here men­tion'd, was given only in one kind: But o­thers, who resolve to say any thing ra­ther than acknowledge the Truth, wou'd maintain, that that Liquor wherein the Boy was order'd to moisten the Piece of the sa­cred [Page 171] Bread, was the consecrated Wine; whereas, it is plain from the Words of the Letter, the Priest gave him no Liquor at all, but order'd him to steep the sacred Bread in any Liquor he cou'd find at Home. Besides, suppose he had dipt the Bread in the sacred Wine, and gave it so to the sick Man; no Protestant, who understands the Principles of his Religion, will say, that this is to eat, and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ, For Protestants hold, that it is therefore necessary to eat, and drink the Elements apart; because in so doing, they shew the Death of our Lord, whose Body was Broken, and separated from his Blood. But this Evasion is so Vain and Ground­less, that it merits no farther Confutation.

An other Instance of this Communion, is that of St. Ambrose, We have this Great Bishop's Life written by Paulinus his own Deacon, who was present at his Death, and dedicated his Life to St. Austin, at whose Request he wrote it; so that his Authori­ty is beyond all Exception. This Deacon tells us, that St. Honoratus Bishop of Ver­ceil, who came to visit St. Ambrose, as he lay on his Death Bed; Heard, in the dead of the Night, a Voice say to him thrice, Arise, delay not; for he is going to depart. He came down, adds Paulinus, gave him the Body of our Lord, and the Saint no sooner receiv'd it Eoque reveren­tissimé accepto. when he gave up the Ghost. Here the Bo­dy of our Lord is given to St. Ambrose, but no mention of his Blood: Here 'tis said, he no sooner receiv'd it when he gave up [Page 172] the Ghost. The word It is remarkable; for being of the Singular Number, and denoting only one thing, it cannot be understood but of the Body to which it refers; whereas if Paulinus had meant, that he had receiv'd the Body and Blood, under both Species, he shou'd have spoken in the Plural Number, and said; he no sooner receiv'd them, when he gave up the Ghost. Well, what say our Adversaries to a Decision so plain? For something must be said. Some say, St. Am­brose receiv'd the Communion as well as he cou'd; being prevented by a sudden Death before he cou'd receive the Sacred Cup. Vain fancy! As if the Divine Power, which sent a Voice from Heaven to order the Communion to be given to him, cou'd not keep him alive 'till he had receiv'd the Sacrament Intirely. Others, not satis­fied with this Answer, say, St. Ambrose re­ceiv'd both kinds, tho' one only is ex­press'd, by the Grammatical Figure Synec­doche, where a part is taken for the whole. But this is as groundless as the former: For, besides, that the precise and express Terms in which that Phrase is conceiv'd, will admit of no figurative Sense; such Grammatical Figures are not us'd by any Ecclesiastical Writers, when they speak of the Communion; nor did any Protestant ever yet instance in one single Passage wherein it is so taken; which is an Evi­dent Argument that they had none to Instance in. I might farther instance in the Coun­cil of Carthage, in the Communion of St. [Page 173] Basil; but let this suffice for the Communion of the sick; for I wou'd not be tedious.

The same Practice we find observ'd in the Communion of Infants and little Children, only with this difference, that, whereas the Communion was given to the Sick, under the Species of Bread; here it is given un­der the Species Wine. And the Reason of this Difference, I conceive was this. In the Begining, whilst the Church groan'd un­der the Tyranny, and Persecution of the Pa­gan Emperors, and their Magistrats; the Bishops, and Priests, being forc'd to wander from place to place, when they light up­on any Christians with little Children, or new-born Infants, being uncertain, whether they shou'd ever return that way again, they us'd to administer the Sacraments to them; the Bishops, the Sacraments of Baptism, Con­firmation, and the Eucharist; and the Priests, the First and the Last. And because the new-born Babes were not capable of re­ceiving any thing that was sollid, they gave them always the Eucharist under the Form of Wine. And this Custome, thus settled in the first Persecutions, continu'd in the Church until the latter end of the Tenth Century; yet all this while it never en­ter'd into any Man's Head, to say, that this was an Imperfect, much less a Sacrilegious Communion.

The first Instance we find of this Com­munion, is in St. Cyprian's Time, about the Year of our Lord 240. This holy Martyr tells us what happen'd in his own Presence [Page 174] to a little Girl, Trat. de Lapsis. who had eaten a little of the Bread, that was offer'd to the Idols. Her Mother knowing nothing of what She had taken, carry'd her, as the custom was, to the place where the Christians were as­sembl'd. During the the time of Prayer, adds this Father, this Child was troubled, and disorder'd, as if for want of Words, (which her tender Age was not capable of) she wou'd by this means, declare the Mis­fortune which befell her. After the usual solemnity, the Deacon, who presented the sacred Cup to the Faithful, continues St. Cy­prian, coming to the rank where this Child was; she turn'd her face aside, not being a­ble to bear the presence of such a Majesty. She shut her Mouth, she refus'd the Cup. But being compell'd to swallow some drops of the Pre­tious Blood, she was not able, pursues this Father, to hold it in her sullied Entrals, but violently gave it up; so great is the Power and Majesty of our Lord.

Here is a fact so plain, that nothing can be adedd to it; all the Circumstances of it are attended with such Marks of a Com­munion in one kind, that nothing but meer Prejudice, or rather Blindness, can make any Man doubt it. I know some Protestants have been so vain as to pretend, that this Child did receive the Body of Christ, be­fore the Deacon came with the sacred Cup; but this is so contrary to St. Cyprian's Design, in relating this surprising Story, that I wonder any Man, in his Senses, shou'd ima­gin it. What, a Child, that eat of the [Page 175] Sacrifice of Devils, is troubled and confoun­ded (by the Instinct, [...] doubt, of the Holy-Ghost, for Reason she was not capable of) because she was to partake of the Cup of our Lord! And wou'd she not, think you, be in the same Trouble and Confusion, were she to receive the Lord's Body? At the presence of the sacred Cup, she turns her face aside, and shuts her mouth, and that by divine instinct, for Reason she had not; her sullied Entrals are not able to bear the Majesty of our Lord in his Blood, but are forc'd to give it up. And wou'd She have done less, at the Presence, and Par­ticipation of the same Lord's Body? Is the Majesty, or Power of the Lord's Bo­dy less than that of His Blood, that it shou'd not cause the like Disorder? At the re­ceiving of the Lord's Blood, here are a great many surprising Accidents; and why not the like at the Receipt of His Body? Truly the Reason is plain; because, in ve­ry deed, She neither did, nor was to receive the Lord's Body otherwise, than in the sacred Cup.

This Practice of giving the Commmuni­on to Children, under the Species of Wine, was not confin'd to the three first Ages, but is still in force in the Greek, and con­tinu'd in the Latin Church to the 12th Cen­tury. Touching the Greek Church; Al­latius Trat. de Cons. utr. Eccles. Annotat. ad Com. orient. a R. Catholic, and Mr. Smith Epist de Eccles. graec. hod. statu. p. 104. ed. 1. a Church of England Divine, tells us, Children are still communicated in that Church un­der the Species of Wine. As to the Gene­ral [Page 176] Practice of the whole Church; Jobius, a Learned Author of the sixth Century, gives us this Account of it, [...]ib. Pho. Cod. 222. lib. 3. de Verb. Inca [...]n. cap. 18. where he speaks of the Three Sa­craments confer'd upon little Children all at once. We are (says he) first Baptiz'd, then we are Anointed, that is, Confirm'd, afterward, the precious Blood is given to us. Erud. Theo. l. 3. c. 20. Hugo de Sanc­to Victore, a Learned Writer of the 11th Century, and much commended by St. Ber­nard, says expresly, that the Practice of the Church was, to give the Children after Baptism, the Sacrament under the Form of Wine only; and teaches afterward, that the Body and Blood of Christ are wholely, and intirely receiv'd in either kind. Thus much concerning the Communion of Infants.

As to the Domestic, or Private Commu­nion: For the three first Centuries, whilst the Fervour of the Primitive Devotion last­ed; and the Blood of Jesus Christ (as the Fathers speak) was reeking Hot: The Chri­stians, who being led like Sheep to the Slaugh­ter, considering the Sacred Eucharist, as the best, and most efficacious Armour and Sup­port, to enable them to bear up against the Fiery Tryals they must undergo; were very careful, when they met, on great Fe­stivals, at their pious Assemblies, to carry home, every Man and Woman, as much of Sacred Food, as wou'd suffice to take some part of it every day; that being thereby united to Jesus Christ, they might be the better prepar'd for the Assaults of their Violent Persecutors. And because these [Page 177] Holy Assemblies cou'd not be very frequent, in the Rage of Persecutions; nor the dis­pers'd Christians, who liv'd far off, come easily to them; and that the Species of the Sacred Wine was apt to be soon alter'd, especially in so small a quantity, as they must have taken it; and besides, subject to other Accidents, which, in those troublesome Times, they cou'd not well prevent; they were content to carry along with them the Sacred Body of our Lord, under the Form of Bread only; being perswaded, that when they eat of this Bread, they were Parta­kers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and of the Grace and Sanctification thereunto an­nex'd. And here I shou'd tire the Readers Patience, shou'd I bring all, that can be said in Confirmation of this Truth; but I shall instance only in some few of the best, and most approv'd Authors; for I perceive I have been longer upon this Subject than I design'd. Tertullian, a Learned Author of the second Century speaks thus of the Pri­vate Communion, in the Book, which he wrote to his Wife to diswade her from marrying after his Death. Thy Husband (says he) will not know that, which thou ta­kest before all other meat, and if he shou'd, he will think it is Bread, and not what it is call'd; that is, the Body of Christ. Here Tertullian tells us, that his Wife, after the manner of other Christian Women, us'd to take a certain Thing, before she tasted any other Food; and that her future Husband, whom he supposes a Pagan, if he shou'd [Page 179] know it, wou'd think it to be Bread; be­cause it was so in Appearance, tho' in Re­ality it was the Body of Christ; but un­der the Form of Bread, and no other.

The great St. Basil, a Greek Father of the fourth Century, Epist. 289. delivers this Practice more at large in his Letter to Cesaria, who, it seems, wou'd know, whether it was law­ful to receive the Communion otherwise, than by the Hands of a Priest, or Deacon. To which He answers thus; As to this, that it is not grievous to take the Communion with one's own Hands, when there is no Priest nor Deacon present, being forc'd thereunto in Time of Persecution, 'tis needless to tell you; because it has been confirm'd by long Ʋse and Custom: For all those, who lead solitary Lives in De­sarts, where no Priests are, keep the Commu­nion in their Houses, and communicate them­selves. Besides, in Alexandria and in Egypt, all the People do commonly keep the Communion at home; for when the Priest consecrates the Host, and distributes it; we may reasonably believe, they partake of it, and carry it with them.

I need not go about to prove, that this Communion was nothing else but the Sa­cred Bread; for 'tis plain, St. Basil speaks only of that which is touch'd with the hand. Besides, 'tis certain he cou'd not mean the Sacred Cup, when he speaks of the Commu­nion in the Desarts; it being evident, that the Species of Wine cou'd not be preserv'd, for any time, in so small a Quantity, as they must have taken it.

[Page 178]St. Ambrose gives us much such an other Account of this Communion: He tells us, how his Brother Satyrus was miraculously say'd from drowning, de Obit. Satyr. by the Faith he had in the Sacred Host. For being in a Storm, where all were given for lost, he begg'd of one of the Christians, who were aboard, to give him a piece of the Sacred Bread which he had; and having, by the Earnest­ness of his Prayers, obtain'd that Favour, he wrapt this Divine Sacrament (saith St. Ambrose) in a Cloath, and ty'd it about his Neck, (for being a Cathecumen only, he wou'd not eat it) cast himself into the Sea; and God, to recompense the Greatness of his Faith, brought him safe from that boiste­rous Element. Here you see the Christians, agreeably to what St. Basil saith, us'd to carry the Sacred Bread about them, that they may eat of it, in Case of any Hazard or Danger: But of this enough.

Touching the Public and solemn Commu­nion of the Church; I own we have no in­stances from Fathers or Ecclesiastical Writers, for the first four Centuries to prove, that the Communion was publickly given, in one kind, to any, except Infants and little Chil­dren; nor can our Adversaries instance in any, who says it was not so given: And so far we are upon the Level. But me­thinks (the Scales being thus even) the Prac­tice and Custom of the Church, expresly Recorded and Deliver'd by the Writers, and Liturgies of the Fifth, Sixth, and all other succeeding Ages, in Favour of the [Page 180] public Communion in one, as well as in both kinds, ought to weigh down the Bal­lance, and determin any reasonable Man to conclude, that this same Practice was deriv'd from the foregoing Ages.

We find, indeed, in the latter End of the fifth Age, a Decree of Pope Gelasius, which forbids certain People to receive the Com­munion in one kind; but if we attend to the Motives and Circumstances of this De­cree, and to the Persons there meant, we shall find, it is so far from destroying our Hypothesis, that it plainly confirms it. What gave Occasion to it was this: In the Time of St. Leo, Pope Gelasius his Prede­cessor, there were a great many Manichees in Rome, who, the better to spread their wicked Errors, feign'd themselves Catholics, and frequented the Churches and Sacraments like others; but it being part of their Be­lief, that Wine was created by the Devil, and that Jesus Christ did not spill his Blood for us; but that his Passion was Fantastick, not Real, they abhorr'd Wine above all things, and therefore abstain'd from the Sacred Cup in the Communion.

St. Leo complains of the Disorders, which they caus'd in the Church; He declaims a­gainst their wicked and hellish Devices; He tells us, they were so bold, as to presume to mix themselves with the Faithful, and receive the Lord's Body, but abstain'd from the Sacred Cup; and gives that, as a Mark to discern them by. But because the Faith­ful were at Liberty to take One, or both [Page 181] Kinds, and that many devont Christians re­ceiv'd the Body, without the Sacred Cup; it was hard to find out by that Mark, who these Manichees were. However, St. Leo did not think fit to alter the Discipline of the Church, nor take away their Liber­ty from the Faithful; but was content to insinuate, that whosoever shou'd refuse to take the Sacred Cup, as abhorring Wine, or in Detestation to the Blood of Christ, shou'd be reputed of that Sect. But this Remedy proving ineffectual, Pope Gelasius was forc'd to Decree, that whosoever abstain'd from the Sacred Cup, upon any such superstiti­ous Pretence, shou'd be altogether depriv'd of the Communion. It may not be amiss to subjoin his very Words: Gr. Dist. 2 can. comper. de conse­crat. We have found out, that some People do take, only the Body, and abstain from the Sacred Blood, who, see­ing they are engag'd in I know not what Super­stition, must either take both parts, or be de­pri [...]'d of both; because the Division of one, and the same Mystery, cannot be done without great Sacriledge.

Now, to give you my Thoughts upon this Decree; I think it is plain,

First, that there was no need of making such a Decree, if all the Catholics, in those days, had receiv'd the Communion in both kinds: For this being made, on purpose, to discover the Manichees, who never drank Wine, there was nothing so easie as to find out, who they were, upon their refusal of the Sacred Cup; consequently there needed no Decree to discover them. But since it [Page 182] is confess'd, that these Heretics did mix themselves with the Catholics, and receiv'd the Communion only in one kind, and that notwithstanding all St. Leo's Care, and Di­ligence to find them out, they were still undiscover'd; I think it is a Demonstrati­on, that some Catholics, as well as the Ma­nichecs, did receive the Communion in One Kind only. And this being all that I un­dertook to evince, I might now take leave of this Decree. But I shall observe,

Secondly, that the prohibition here made affects only those, who were engag'd in a certain Superstition; who, seeing they are en­gag'd in I know not what Superstition, must either take both parts, or be depriv'd of both: For the Reason why they are to be depriv'd of both parts of the Sacrament, unless they take both, is because they were engag'd in a certain superstition, which tended to de­stroy the Sacrifice of our Redmption, by the Belief they had, that Christ's Blood was only an Illusion; and to divide that Mystery, which, Gelasius says, cannot be done without great Sacriledge, by the like wicked opinion, that Wine being created by the Devil, Christ wou'd never have instituted the Memorial of his passion in that Liquor Whence 'tis evident, that the Catholics, who were in no manner engag'd in these super­stitious Errors, are nothing concern'd in this Decree; nor barr'd of the liberty, they al­ways had of receiving the Sacrament in one, or both kinds, as suited best with their Devotion. And this is so true, that we find [Page 183] the practice of it recommended by a Canon of a very Famous, if not General Council, held in Constantinople in the sixth Century, Can. 52. known to the Ancients, by the Name of Concilium Trullanum. This Council confirms the An­cient Custom of the Greek Church, which was to celebrate Mass in Lent only on Satur­days and Sundays; it being by the Ancients Judg'd improper to consecrate on any of those Days, on which they fasted; because they wou'd not (as they commonly speak) mix the solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sadness of the Fast. But on these two days, in which they did not fast, they us'd to consecrate, and reserve as much of the sacred Oblation, as wou'd suffice for the Clergy, and Laity to take every day, till the Saturday following; and this they call'd the Mass of the Presanctified, than which nothing is more frequently mention'd in the Greek Church.

Now, to know what was offer'd, and di­stributed to the People in this Mass: All the Ancient Greek Liturgies tell us, that there was nothing reserv'd, but the sacred Bread; that this Bread was carried in Pro­cession, from the Sacrifice into the Church; Eucho. Goar. Bib. P. P. Paris, T. 2. expos'd to be ador'd by the People, and, after some Ceremony, distributed to all the Faithful. So that here is a Public, and So­lemn Communion given in One Kind, for five Days every Week Yearly, while Lent holds. But this Practice was not peculiar to the Greek; for we find it as early, and as solemnly us'd in the Latin Church. The [Page 184] Roman Ordinal, Bib. P. P Var. T. de Div. Off. whose Antiquity, I suppose, no body will question, being that, which St. Gregory the Great made use of, in the sixth Century, gives us the same Account of Good, Friday-Service with that, which is express'd in the Rubrics of our present Mass-book. Alcuinus; De Div. Off. a Famous Author of the eigth Cen­tury, relates the same thing: So doth Ru­pertus, Lib. 2. c. 9. de Div. Off. Hugo de Sancto Victore, and other Writers of the Eleventh Century. They tell us, that, on Good-Friday, there was no Con­secration made; but that the Body of our Lord, which was consecrated the day before, was reserv'd for that day's Communion; that the Priest took the Lord's Body, and some unconsecrated Wine and Water, and then gave the Communion to the People, under the Form of Bread alone. So that there has been a perpetual Practice in the Latin Church, of giving the Communion, in one kind solemnly once every Year, both to Clergy and Laity, even to this very Time.

I might, further, bring the Authority of Sozomenus, Evagrius, Authors of the sixth Century, and of several Great, and Learned Men of the Gallican Church, to confirm this Practice; but I think it is sufficiently evident from what is said, that the Com­munion was publicly giv [...]ng in one kind e­ver since Christians had Churches for pub­lic and solemn Service. I shall therefore proceed to shew, in the last place;

That to take the Communion, in both kinds, is not Essential to the Sacrament, from the [Page 185] Consent of our Adversaries, if consistent with Themselves.

I suppose Martin Luther's Opinion in this Matter, is of no small Authority; for 'tis but reasonable to suppose, that those, who have follow'd the Scheme, which he drew, shou'd pay their just tribute of Respect to his Opinion in this Point. Let us then hear him speak. If any Council (says he) shou'd chance to Decree (the Communion in both kinds) we shou'd by no means make use of Both, De Miffa Ang. nay, we wou'd sooner, in contempt of the Council, take one, or neither, than both; and curse those, who shou'd, by the Authority of such a Coun­cil, make use of both kinds. Here, I think, it is very plain, Luther was of opinion, that both kinds was not essential to the Sacra­ment, else, surely, he wou'd not have said, that he wou'd sooner make use of neither, than of both; nor curse those, who shou'd take both kinds. But the Discipline of the French Pro­testants will afford us a more ample Testi­mony in this Matter.

In a Synod held in Potiers, Anno. 1560. and in an other, in Rochel, 1571. It is pro­vided, that those, who cannot drink Wine, may receive the Communion under the Form of Bread. It may not be amiss to subjoin their very Words, as they are read in the 12th. Chapter of their Discipline, Tit. Of the Lord's Sup. Art. 7. The Bread of the Lord's Supper ought to be administer'd to those, who cannot drink Wine, upon their making Pro­testation, that it is not out of Contempt; and upon their endeavouring, what they can, to ob­viate [Page 186] all Scandal, even by approaching the Cup, as neer their Mouths, as they are able. Now 'tis not to be imagin'd, that these Gentle­men shou'd think both kinds essential to the Communion, and yet make such a Decision: For there is no Body, who is never so little Read in Philosophy, but knows, that the Es­sence of Things is indivisible; that, by se­parating one essential Part from the other, you destroy the nature of the whole; that in giving only an essential part of a thing, you give nothing, in regard of that, whose essential part it was; consequently he that gives but part of the Sacrament, gives no Sacrament at all: Therefore these Gentle­men, who knew better Things, in ordering the Bread alone to be given to those, who cou'd not drink Wine, cannot, in Reason, be suppos'd to believe, that the Cup was Essen­tial to the Communion; else they wou'd have absolutely refus'd the Sacrament to those, who cou'd not receive it in both kinds; since to give it in one kind, were to give nothing at all, but rather to pro­phane, and abuse that, which is most Sa­cred and August in the Christian Religion; whereas the natural disability of those, who cannot drink Wine, might reasonably ex­cuse them from taking either kind. And thus I have endeavour'd, as briefly as I cou'd, to prove from the practice and discipline of the Church in all Ages; from public, as well as private Communion; from Liturgies, Fathers and Historians; and even from the consent of our Adversaries, manifestly im­ply'd [Page 187] in their Discipline, and Practice; that neither the Primitive Christians, nor the Catholic Church, in any Age; nor yet any Orthodox Believer did ever think, that to take the Sacrament in both kinds, was essen­tial to the Communion. And if so, then it is plain and evident, that the Church hath Power to, and may lawfully, restrain the Faithful from the Cup, and confine them to One kind only. Let us now see what Dr. Tillotson objects to all this.

And here I shall not abuse the Reader's Patience, by repeating the same thing over again; for, since all that can, with any co­lour of Reason, be objected, is contain'd in one short Paragraph (tho' the things there insisted on are often repeated in several of his Sermons, but with no material Ad­dition) I will only transcribe it, and offer my Exceptions to it.

‘And then (says he) the Communion, in One kind, is plainly contrary to our Savi­ours Institution in both kinds; as they themselves acknowledge. And therefore the Council of Constance being sensible of this, was forc'd to decree it with an ex­press non Obstante to the Institution of Christ, and the Practice of the Apostles, and the Primitive Church. And their Doctrine of Concomitancy (as if the Blood were in the Flesh, and together with it) will not help the matter; because, in the Sacrament, Christ's, Body is represented as broken, and pierc'd, and exhausted, and drain'd of his Blood; and his Blood is repre­sented [Page 188] as shed and poured out; so that one kind can by no means contain and exhibit both.’

Three things the Doctor here insists up­on. 1. That We our selves acknowledg the the Communion in one kind to be contra­ry to our Saviour's Institution. 2. That the Council of Constance was forc'd to de­cree it with a non obstante to the Instituti­on of Christ. 3. That the Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter; be­cause, in the Sacrament, Christ's Body is represented as broken, and exhausted, and drain'd of His Blood.

I may say, of these three Propositions; the first is neither True, nor to the purpose. The second is something to the Purpose, but not True. The third is like the first, nei­ther True, nor to the Purpose. I begin with the first:

‘We our selves acknowledge, that the Communion in one Kind is contrary to our Saviour's Institution.’ For my own part, I have read, at least, some of the best R. Catholic Casuists and Divines, up­on this Subject; and have convers'd with many more. Yet I declare, I neither read, nor heard any of them say, that to give the Communion in one kind, was contrary to our Saviour's Institution; nay, I think, all R. Catholics do believe, that the Admi­nistration of the Communion, whether in one, or both kinds, is quite an other thing from the Institution of it. We say, indeed, that when Christ instituted the Sacrifice of his [Page 189] Body and Blood, He consecrated not in One, but in both Kinds; because He design'd to leave these Symbols to his Church, as a per­petual and everlasting Memorial of His Bo­dy broken; and Blood shed upon the Cross, which is express'd by the Separation of one Symbol from t'other; and this, I hope, we are careful to do, as often as we offer that Sacrifice: But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice it self, in one, or both kinds, is, sure, no part of the Institution, but belongs to the Modus, or manner of administring it.

Christ instituted the Sacraments of Bap­tism, Confirmation, and Matrimony; yet we do not find, that ever he gave, or admini­stred any of these Sacraments to any Body; which, surely, he wou'd not have omitted, were it any part of their Institution: 'Tis then plain, that to give the Communion in One, or both kinds, is neither for, nor a­gainst our Saviour's Institution, but respects meerly Administration and Use. But let us suppose with the Doctor, that to admini­ster the Communion in One kind, is contra­ry (I do not say to Christ's Institution, for that it cannot be, but) to the manner in which our Saviour gave it; yet still I do not see how this can help the matter: For the Question is not whether Christ gave it in both kinds, but whether we ought ne­cessarily to give it in both kinds; because he did so? This the Doctor affirms, and we deny. But how does He prove it? Why, because Christ gave it in both kinds. This [Page 190] is begging the Qustion: Well, because Christ gave it in both kinds, we ought to do so too: This is to say, (if it be to purpose) that we are bound to do all those things, that Christ did, at the institution and administration of the Communion. If so; then we must fall to wash the Disciples Feet, to eat Suppers before the Sacrament, to administer the Communion at Night; and (which is more strange) we must command all those to whom we give the Communion, to do the same thing we do, that is, to con­secrate and administer the Sacrament, and consequently make them all Priests; all these things, I say, we are bound to do: For Christ did all, and every particular here mention'd to all those, to whom he gave the Communion in both kinds. But since neither He, nor any Man in his Wits will say, that we are bound to do all these Things; be­cause the Discipline and Practice of the Church, and the Living Members of it have determin'd, that all those particulars are now neither Necessary, nor Expedient, I hope he will give us leave to conclude, that we are not bound, to give the Communion in both kinds neither.

Touching the second Proposition, ‘The Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ.’

The Doctor is not the only Man, who affirms this; for I find it in the Works of one, or two more of his Brethren, upon this Subject. But Good God! What may [Page 191] not Men undertake, who have the Confi­dence to give out such Calumnies for Truth? 'Tis a vulgar Observation, but a True one, that when Mountebanks pretend most to infallible Cures, they are then furthest from them; just so 'tis with these Gen­tlemen (for there are Mountebanks in Reli­gion, as well as in Physick) when they pre­tend most to Evidence and Demonstration, in matters of Religion, then they have the least Colour, or reasonable Pretence to it. But the best way to refute this Calumny, is to cite the very Words of the Council; and then let the Reader judge what Faith is to be given to Men, who vend such Im­postures for Truth.

‘In the In no­mine sanctae & individu­ae Trini­tatis, Pa­tris & Fi­lii & Spi­ritus sancti, A­men— Licet Christus post Cae­nam in­stituerit & suis di­scipulis admini­straverit, sub utraque Specie Panis & Vini, hoc venerabile Sacramentum; tamen hoc non obstante, Sacrorum Canorum Authoritas, laudabi­lis & aprobata Ecclesiae consuetudo servavit & servat, quod hujus­modi Sacramentum non debet confici post Caenam, neque a f [...]le­libus recipi non jejunis, nisi in casu Infirmitatis aut alterius ne­cessitatis, a jure vel ab Ecclesia, concesso vel admisso. Name of the Holy and undivi­ded Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Amen— Tho' Christ hath instituted this venerable Sacrament after Supper, and hath administred it to his Disciples under both Kinds of Bread and Wine, tamen hoc non obstante, yet this notwithstanding, the Au­thority of the sacred Canons, the Lauda­ble and Approv'd Custom of the Church, hath held, and doth hold, that this Sa­crament ought not to be made after Sup­per, nor receiv'd by the Faithful not [Page 192] fasting; except in case of Infirmity, or some other Necessity, approv'd and al­low'd by Law, or by the Church.’

This is all, in this Decree, that has any Relation to the Dr's. Non obstante. And now, I appeal to the most partial of our Adver­saries, whether he had the least Colour, or Pretence to what he here suggests? There is, indeed, a Non obstante to the making of this Sacrament after Supper, and giving it to those, who were not fasting, and no more: And if this be a sin, sure, he is not qua­lified to throw the first Stone at us for it: For he, and his Brethren, are confessedly involv'd in the same Crime; seeing they do not make the Sacrament after Supper, nor give it (to the best of their knowledge) to any, but such as are fasting.

As to the third Proposition: ‘The Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter; because in the Sacrament, Christ's Body is represented as broken, and exhausted, and drain'd of his Blood.’ Hence the Doctor infers, that the Sacred Bread, which represents his Body under these cir­cumstances, cannot be said to contain, or exhibit his Blood. But methinks he shou'd have prov'd his Postulatum, before he wou'd perswade us of the Truth of this Inference: For, I suppose, he was too well acquainted with us, to think we shou'd believe it, upon his Word. That our blessed Lord shed a great deal of His Precious Blood, as much as was sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind, we readily grant; but that His Body [Page 193] was exhausted, and drain'd of His Blood, so as to have none at all left in it, we can by no means assent to. If Christ's Body had been drain'd of His Blood, He wou'd have died of Weakness, and Loss of Blood; but the Centurion, who, it seems, was a better Naturalist than the Doctor, thought quite otherwise: For he concluded from the Force and Vigour, wherewith our Blessed Lord gave up the Ghost, that he was the Son of God; Vere Filius Dei erat iste. Nor will it avail the Doctor, that, when the Souldier pierc'd his side with a Spear, there came out Blood and Water: For Christ being then dead, and the Blood, as Anatomists, and Experience teach us, being, by the last motion of the Heart, convey'd from the Arteries into the Veins, where it stands still, when there is no more Circulation; it is impossible to conceive, how all the Blood in his Body shou'd come out of his Side, especially in the Posture he then lay in: So that that, which the Doctor wou'd have us take for granted, has no Degree of Truth in it. Well, but suppose we shou'd grant, that Christ's Body was exhausted, and drain'd of his Blood; will this destroy the Doctrine of Concomitancy? by no means: For since we believe, that under the Species of Bread, is really, or (as his own Cathe­chism says) verily and indeed, contain'd the Body of Christ, which (being now a human li­ving Body) must necessarily have Blood in it; though we shou'd suppose it had none when it was [...]ead; we have all the Rea­son [Page 194] in the World to believe, that when we take the Lord's Body, we do, at the same time, by Concomitancy, that is, together with it, take the Blood which it contains. So that, tho' it were true, that the Body of Christ was exhausted, and drain'd of his Blood, in his Passion; yet it wou'd not at all prejudice our Doctrine of Concomitancy, nor make any thing for the Doctor's Pur­pose.

But, you will say: If the Communion, in One Kind, be sufficient; If it contains the Body and Blood of Christ; why did the Christians heretofore sometimes receive it in both kinds? I answer, because the Re­presentation of the Death of our Lord is more fully express'd in both kinds, than in One. But then we must consider, that this Representation is not of that Importance, as to ballance all the weighty Considerati­ons, that mov'd the Church to command the use only of One kind. We have the Death of our Lord sufficiently represented to us, when we take the Communion in One kind; because we believe, and are put in mind, that it is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord, which we receive in Remembrance of his Death and Passion; and we have this Representation fully express'd in the Sacri­fice of the Mass, where his Body and Blood are shewn Mystically separated under diffe­rent Forms; and that, almost, as often as we receive the Communion. So that there is nothing wanting in our Communion to give us a lively Representation of the Death [Page 195] and Passion of our Blessed Lord; and if there were, 'tis not of that moment, as to make amends for the Horrid Prophana­tions and Abuses, which must inevitably attend the Communion in both kinds, in a degenerate Age, in which all Piety and God­liness are almost extinguisht; and whereof we have sad Instances in our Adversaries Practice, it being frequently boasted by many of their Libertins, that after hard drinking over Night, they come in the Mor­ning to receive the Communion, and drink off whole Communion-Cups of consecrated Wine, to quench their brutish Thirst. Be­sides, the Manner of administring the Sacra­ment of Baptism at present, which our Ad­versaries do also follow and practice; tho' very different from that of the primitive Church, doth sufficiently justifie our Con­duct in this Particular.

'Tis certain, that the Regeneration of the Faithful is more lively express'd, and repre­sented by Immersion, or plunging into the Water, as the Primitive Church did always Baptize, than by Infusion or Aspersion as we now do: For the Faithful, being plung'd into the Water of Baptism, Rom. 6. [...]. is (as St. Paul saith) buried with Christ; and in rising out of it, he seems to rise out of the Tomb with his Saviour; and therefore fully repre­sents that Mystery by which he was rege­nerated; whereas a simple Infusion or As­persion, such as we use, doth scarce shadow it. Moreover, when the Faithful is immers'd or dip'd into the Water, or Four, where [Page 196] all the Parts of the Body are wash'd, this Lotion does more fully express the cleansing of the Soul from all its sins, than if one part only had been wash'd: Yet no body doubts, but that the Baptism conferr'd by Infusion, or sprinkling of Water upon one Part only of the Body, is sufficient to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament; because the main thing is there represent­ed, namely, the washing of the Soul. So that it is enough to express the Mystery as to the Substance, and the Effect, and the Grace that is annex'd to it; and not scru­pulously to inquire after every minute-Cir­cumstance of it, especially when there are weighty Reasons and Motives, to diswade us from it.

In like manner, tho' we do not so fully represent the Death of our Lord, when we take the Communion in One kind, as we shou'd by taking it in Both; yet we are perswaded, that there is nothing ( Essential to the Sacrament) wanting to it; because we do both express and receive the Sub­stance, the Effect, and the Grace of the Sa­crament; that is, the Body and Blood of Christ, the spiritual Food of our Souls, and that strict Union with Christ, which (as he himself saith) maketh us dwell in Him, and Him in us. And if the Church did for­bid the Laity the Use of the Sacred Cup, 'twas not with an Intent to rob them of any thing, that might tend to increase their Devotion, as our Adversaries do most in­justly suggest; but in Respect to the Preci­ous [Page 197] Blood of Christ, for which, surely, we cannot have too much Veneration. She saw, that, as the Piety and Devotion of the people diminish'd, so their Negligence to receive the sacred Cup, in such a manner as may secure it from spilling, abounded. She found by Experience, that many In­firm and Old, and even Folks in perfect Health, what with coughing, or other Con­vulsions, as they receiv'd the Sacred Cup, gave up their Stomacks into the Chalice, or shed the Precious Blood, to the great Hor­ror of the Spectators, and their own great­er Confusion; that others, what with tremb­ling and quaking, did very often, notwith­standing all their care, spill some Drops of the Sacred Blood; in fine, that in Ci­ties, where some thousands use to commu­nicate at a time, Crouds of People pressing upon the Priest, have sometimes spilt the Sacred Chalice in his Hands; and (which I cannot mention without Horror) Trod upon that Precious Blood, by which they were Redeem'd. These and the like Consi­derations mov'd the Church, or rather the People (for the Church did only confirm the Custom, which was introduc'd for ma­ny Years before) to abstain from the Sacred Cup; and to content themselves with the Body and Blood of Christ, under the Form of Bread, which is easily receiv'd with due Respect, and without Danger; and to which nothing is wanting, only a more full Repre­sentation of the Mystery, which yet is sup­ply'd by other means, and which (in the [Page 198] Opinion of any Reasonable Man) is not suf­ficient to attone for the aforesaid Propha­nations.

CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an Ʋnknown Tongue.

I May Reasonably presume it will not be expected, I shou'd speak much to this Head; for the Scandal, which our Adver­saries wou'd here fasten upon us, is so Gross and Palpable, that it were to abuse the Reader's Patience to insist long upon our Vindication. They say, we pray in an Ʋnknown Tongue; and we say, and are ready to prove, that we pray in the Tongue the best known in Europe. And we farther say, that therefore we pray in it; because it is so. And I am sure, They Themselves (what ever they may say in the Heat of Disputes) are, upon all other Occasions, ready to acknowledge this Truth. However, be­cause we are commanded by St. Peter to be ready always to give an Answer to every Man, 1 Pet. 3.15. that asketh us a Reason of the hope that is in us; I shall endeavour to offer some of the Reasons, why we pray in that Tongue which they call Ʋnknown; and leave the Reader to judge, whether our Adversaries have all the Reason, they pretend, to cry so loud.

[Page 199]1. We make use of the Latin Tongue in our Liturgy, because we wou'd not Recede from the Example and Practice of our An­cestors, who, from the first planting of Christianity to this Day, whether in Rome, or in any other Part of the Western Church, us'd no other Language in the Liturgy, than Latin. And thus to follow the Model, our Holy and Pious Fore-fathers left us, the Scripture not only warrants, but commands us to do. Remember the Days of Old; Deut. 32.7. con­sider the Years of many Generations; Ask thy Father, and he will shew thee; thy Elders, and they will tell thee. 'Tis certain, and e­ven acknowledg'd by our Aversaries, that when the Christian Religion was first Preach'd in the West, every Country had then, as well as now, its own peculiar Language dif­ferent from the Latin; which (tho' it was cultivated by Men of Letters and Bus'ness, in all Countrys to which the Romans exten­ded their Conquest, yet) the common people, or Natives, were generally Ignorant of: And 'tis no less Evident, that the A­postles and Apostolical Men, who preach'd, and Propagated the Christian Religion in these Countrys, were endued with a Pow­er of working Miracles in Confirmation of the Truth of it; and by their readiness to lay down their Lives, and to shed their Blood for it, gave sufficient Testimony of their Zeal and Charity for the common People, as well as for the great Ones; yet all the Records of Antiquity, all the Ancient and Modern Liturgies, together with the [Page 200] Universal Tradition of the Western Church, and even the Consent of our Adversaries; all these, I say, bear witness, that neither the Apostles, nor the Apostolical Men, who first planted the Christian Faith in these Parts, nor any succeeding Generation of Catholics, did ever use in the public Litur­gy of the Church, any other Language than the Latin; which, 'tis confess'd, the common People, Generally Speaking of all Countries (except Italy) are, and have always been Ignorant of. And therefore, I think we may very safely tred in the steps of these our Holy Ancestors, and be content with the Liturgy and Language, they left us; at least, if we must be condemn'd for so doing, we have the comfort to be condemn'd in Com­pany with these Great and Holy Men, to whose Doctrine and Practice, God Himself was pleas'd to put His Seal.

2. We must make use of this Language, because we conceive it very necessary to have an Uniformity, as much as is possible, both in Faith and Practice, that we may with one Heart, and one Tongue, Praise the Lord, and Magnifie His holy Name.

The Catholic Church is One in Commu­nion, as well as in Faith. Now, how much one common Tongue, in which the public Service of the Church is perform'd, con­tributes to foment this Union, the misera­ble Distractions and Divisions of our mo­dern Reformers, who have as many different Religions, as they have different Tongues, do but too manifestly Evince. All the Mem­bers [Page 201] of the Catholic Religion ought to have Communion, and Fellowship one with ano­ther: They shou'd all be united in one common Faith, and one uniform Worship of one God; they ought all to be qualified for the Participation of the same Sacrament, and to assist together at the same Public Di­vine Service wherever they meet; else, how can the Unity of their Faith and Communion subsist? Now, 'tis hard, to conceive, how all this can be perform'd, if we have our Liturgy, in as many different Tongues, as there are Countrys in the Catholic Church: For how can I have fellowship with a Man whose Language I do not understand? How can I joyn in Prayer, or in God's public Worship with any Society of People, when I cannot discern by any thing they do or say, whether they are Catholics, or Heretics? Or how shall I receive the Sacrament in the Society of those, who, for any thing I can see or understand, may be Jews, or Blasphe­mers of my Holy Religion? So that if we take away that Common Band, that Com­mon Language, that unites, and Cements all the Members of Christ's mystical Body, the whole Frame of the Catholic Church will dissolve and falls to Pieces; and we shall have as many different Churches, as we have Tongues.

3. We do not see what great loss the Common People suffer by not having the Liturgy in vulgar Tongues; and if we had, we are sure the good, that might acrew to them by having it so, is not so valuable as [Page 202] to be purchas'd at the Expence of the com­mon Union, and Peace of the whole Catho­lic Church, which, as experience shews, is necessarily consequent upon such an Indul­gence. The most Part of the common People are taught, at least, to read in their own Language; and if we except some of the Commonality of Ireland, and the Highlands of Scotland, who are industriously barr'd all sort of Education; there is not one in a hundred, even of the meanest of the Com­mon sort, who want this Help. And then they have the whole Mass, the Epistles, and Gospels, and Collects of all the Sundays in the Year, together with all the Psalms in vul­gar Languages, in their Prayer-books; which they may read to themselves in their own Tongue, whilst the Priest reads them, in Latin; and which no doubt, contributes more to their Edification, than if the Priest had spoke in their own Tongue; conside­ring, that in Catholic Countries, where some Thousands are assembled, it is not possible for the hundreth part of the Au­dience to hear what is said, in what ever Language he speaks. Add, that the great­est part of the Mass is pronounc'd so low, that scarce any, that is present, hears what is said; the Rubric so commanding, that the Priest may, in the Silence of Recol­lection and Meditation, be the better dis­pos'd to perform the Office in that Au­gust and Adorable Mystery, with the Gra­vity and Decency that becomes it. Be­sides, on all Sundays, and great Festivals [Page 203] throughout the Year, there are, in Catholic Countries, public Sermons and Exhortations perform'd in Vulgar Language; yea, and public Prayers read in the Pulpit, either before or after the Sermon, in which the people are instructed in their Duty to God and their Neighbours; and excited to do Works of Charity, to forgive their Ene­mies, and to repent of their Sins; to pray for the King and his Magistrats, and for one onother: In a word, in which all the Duties and Obligations of a Christian are duly inculcated; and all this, I am sure, they are, at least, in the Countries where I have been, as careful to perform, as they are to say the Mass. So that (not­withstanding what Protestants say) all the Difference between them and us, in this particular, is, that we do in vulgar Lan­guage very near all, that they do; and, o­ver and above, give the people an Op­portunity of adoring Jesus Christ, and of quickning their Memory by the Represen­tation of his Death and Passion, which is perform'd in the Latin Mass.

Lastly, (If there were no other Reasons) the Difficulty of translating the Liturgy into vulgar Languages, and preserving it, in its purity, is enough to diswade us from the Undertaking. The uniformity of our Liturgy is the best standing Monument we have of the Faith and Practice of our An­cestors: 'Tis it that shews us, how they us'd to administer the Sacraments, and what sort of Ceremonies they judg'd most pro­per [Page 204] to excite, and stir up Devotion; and to perform God's Service with that Gra­vity and Decency suitable to His Holy Re­ligion. Now, if this Liturgie were transla­ted into all the Vulgar Languages, which Catholics use, and which is so much sub­ject to Alteration and Corruption, even to that degree, that what is spoken in one Age, is scarce understood in an other; at least, is so nauseous and grateing, that none but the meaner sort of People will hear it with­out disgust; What endless Labour wou'd it prove to be thus every Age modeling, and reforming, and changing our Liturgies? What Confusion and Disorders wou'd the Unskilfulness, or the Fancy of Translators occasion? Nay, what Tumults and Uproars wou'd such frequent Alterations create both in Church and State; whilst some (to use King Henry VIII. his Phrase) stood up for their Old Mumpsimus, and others for their New Sumpsimus, is not easily Imagin'd. And, whatever our Adversaries may think on't, Experience shews us, that this is no Imagi­nary, but a Real and, almost, insuperable Difficulty. For instance:

The Calvinist [...] in France, made use of Ma­rot's Translation of the Psalms, and Sung them in their Temples, (as the French call them) for a considerable Time; but some of their Learned Ministers, finding that this Translation was not agreeable to the Origi­nal, nor even to decency and good beha­viour; but, on the contrary, was full of ri­diculous, lew'd, and prophane expressions, [Page 205] resolv'd to give the People a better, and more perfect Translation. Now what con­fusions and divisions this last created among the Brethren, whoever is curious to know, may consult the Writers of those Times. Again, The Church of England, which, with­out doubt, is the best (because the least Re­form'd) of the Protestant Party, Translated the Scripture, Compos'd a new Ordinal, and a set Form of Prayer in Vulgar Lan­guage, in Edward the Sixth's Time; but these being found in Queen Elizabeth and King James's Days, (if we believe their own Writers) deficient in many things, and in others not agreeable to the then Pro­testant Religion, which was not, as yet, per­fectly lick'd into Shape and Form, other new Translations are undertaken; but how much confusion and trouble these also oc­casion'd, the said Writers can best inform us. Farther, The Church of England is the Richest, and (if we may judge by their Works) the most Charitable of all the Re­formation; yet there pass'd a hundred Years of the Reign of Protestanism before the Welsh were provided of a Liturgy in their own Language; tho' most of the common People of that Country do not understand any other Tongue. And to this day, they have not furnish'd the Irish with a Liturgy in their own Language, tho' many thousands in the North of Ireland, and in the High-lands of Scotland, go to Church, which yet understand nothing but the Irish Tongue. So that it is no such easie matter to furnish e­ven [Page 206] the Subjects of one Crown with Litur­gies in their own Language. Now, if it be so difficult to supply a few People with Liturgies in their own Tongue, and so hard to contain them in their Duty, when the said Liturgies must be alter'd; Who can imagin all the Difficulties that wou'd at­tend the attempt, shou'd the Catholic Church propose to translate her Liturgy into all the several Languages us'd in Europe? Or who can conceive, how it were possible for her to keep an Uniformity in Practice and Ceremony, or to contain the People in their Duty, if she must change her Liturgy eve­ry hundred Years or less, and speak a new Language?

The Gentry, and Better sort of People can­not abide to have their Ears grated with Obsolete, Antick Expressions; and the com­mon People, who think the Substance chang'd with the Words, will not part with their old Mumpsimus. And then, what fine work wou'd this make! Marot, in one of his Psalms, gives us this Ridiculous Phrase; I will cast my Slipper at him. The common People, who minded only the Rime and Gingle of the Words, no sooner under­stood, that this Phrase was alter'd, tho' in­deed for the better; when they were so in­cens'd upon the matter, that the Ministers were like to have (not slippers but) sticks, and stones, and such Arms, as a popular Fury administer'd, cast at them. And what, do you think, shou'd happen in in the Church of Rome, where there are [Page 207] so many different Languages; so many dif­ferent Humours, so hard to be satisfied; so many uncouth, unpolish'd people, so diffi­cult to be govern'd; shou'd she undertake to give them the Liturgy in their own Tongues, and continue, changing and alte­ring the same, as often as the Languages change. Truly for my part, as I am per­swaded, that the Design is as vain, as it is needless; so I may reasonably presume, the Holy Catholic Church will never attempt it. And thus I have endeavour'd to touch up­on some of the Reasons, that mov'd the Church in all Ages, to hold to one Univer­sal Language, which is always the same, not subject to Alteration or Corruption, no more than the Faith and Religion which it teacheth; nor less Pure and Perfect now, than it was seventeen hundred Years since. And, surely, such a Language, so lofty, in its Expressions; so beautiful and Majestie, in its Numbers; so Energic and Expressive, in its Sense; and, as I may say, so immor­tal and indefectible, in its Duration; is the fittest to have the public, and solemn Service of the Immortal, and Eternal God perform'd in it. And in this, methinks, we do but what the Light of Nature teacheth all Nations; and what our Adversaries cou'd not but see, wou'd they but devest Them­selves of their Prejudices.

'Tis well known, the Jews lost their Mo­ther Tongue in the Capativity of Babylon; yet they never read the Law of Moses, or the Psalms, in their public Prayers, from [Page 208] 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' 'tis 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.

[Page 209]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 [Page 210] 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 211] 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! 'Tis 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 [Page 212] St. Pau [...]'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, Ʋnknown, 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, Ʋnknown, in small Italic Characters, to distinguish it from what is truly Scrip­ture. The Second, from St. Paul's own Words, in the same place; where he says, I wou'd that ye all spake with Tongues, Ver. 5. But sure he wou'd not condemn that in them which he wou'd have them do.

But to take away all doubt, I shall tran­scribe those words of St. Paul from the O­riginal, on which the Doctor lays all the [Page 213] Stress, and examin the whole Scope and Design of this Chapter; and then let even Malice it self judge, whether he has any Grounds for this Objection. St. Paul's words are thus; [...], Ver. 2. he that speaketh with a Tongue. This the English Translati­on renders, he that speaketh in an unknown Tongue. The Latin Vulgat, agreeable to the Greek; qui enim Lingua loquitur, non homini­bus sed Deo loquitur. Again: Ver. 13. [...], wherefore he that speaketh with a Tongue. The English Version says, wherefore he that speaketh in an unknown Tongue. Farther; [...], Ver. 14. for if I pray with a Tongue, in the English Version 'tis; for if I pray in an unknown Tongue. And thus 'tis render'd four or five Times more, as often as St. Paul seems to speak against this Prac­tice (tho' 'tis evident from the Tenure of the whole Chapter he does not speak against it, but prefers prophesying to it) but where he seems to favour it; they alter their Stile, leave out the word Ʋnknown, and render St. Paul's words as I do; tho' St. Paul uses the self same Terms in both places. For in­stance, [...]. This they render, I wou'd that ye all spake with Tongues. I wonder they did not render it thus; I wou'd that ye all spake with unknown Tongues! Ay, but that will take away all the Force of the Objection! Again; [...]. This they render. I thank my God I speak with Tongues more than you all. In these two Verses where praying or speaking with [Page 214] Tongues is commended, the same Word is in­terpreted, with Tongues, which in the former Verses must signifie unknown Tongue. And thus St. Paul is made to speak what these Gen­tlemen please. When the Word Ʋnknown seems to make for them, it must be inser­ted; but when it is against them, it must be left out. Well, but what are these Tongues whereof St. Paul here speaks? And why does he hold forth to the Corinthians so long upon upon this Argument.

I Answer. 1. St. Paul here speaks of those Extraordinary and Surprising Tongues where­with the first Believers were inspir'd, by the Holy Ghost, which was Pour'd down upon them, as appears from several places in the Acts of the Apostles, where 'tis said; The Holy Ghost fell upon them— and they spake with Tongues. Secondly, St. Paul holds forth to the Corinthians so long upon this Argu­ment, in order to give some cautions concerning these Tongues. He know, that such Extraordinary Tongues were intended rather as a Sign to the Unbelievers, than for the Instruction of the Faithful. He foresaw, the said Tongues wou'd occasion a great deal of Confusion and Disorder a­mong the Christians, if all those, who were inspir'd with them, were allow'd to rise up, and speak all at once; and that the Pro­gress of the Gospel wou'd be very much retarded, if such Proceedings were not mo­derated. Therefore he instructs the Corin­thians in what they were to do upon this Occasion: He tells them, that tho' he wou'd [Page 215] have them all speaks with Tongues; yet that he had rather they shou'd Prophesie; and upon this Argument he takes up more than half the Chapter, to enforce the Ne­cessity of Prophesying more than of Speak­ing with Tongues. But that if they wou'd speak with Tongues, he desires it shou'd be done by two, or at most by three, and that by course. And now let even the most partial of our Adversaries judge, whether there be any thing in all this, which doth, in the least, insinuate, that St. Paul condemns pray­ing, or speaking with Tongues; nay, doth not he positively say; that he wou'd have them all speak with Tongues; Ver. 5. or whether these Surprising Tongues, which were the Effects of the Impulse of the Holy Ghost, and which many hundred [...] Years since have ceas'd, are any way applicable to our present Latin, than which no Tongue on Earth is better or more universally known?

As to the third, viz. ‘That we lock up the Scriptures in an unkown Tongue, and forbid the Common People the Use of them, which is contrary to Christ's own Design, who exhorts the Jews to search the Scriptures, &c.’

Answ. This Proposition, as to the first Part, is notoriously false, and unworthy the Cha­racter, and Reputation Dr. Tillason was o­therwise deservedly possess'd of: For He might as well have said, that it is Midnight when the Sun shines over our Heads, as tell us we lock up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue; when 'tis evident in Fact, that we [Page 216] have them in all the vulgar Languages spoken in those parts of the World, pub­lish'd and set forth in all Catholic Countries, by, and for the Use and Benefit of Roman Catholics. Sure a Man that was so Curi­ous, and Inquisitive how Affairs went both at Home and Abroad, cou'd not, at least, be Ignorant, that the Roman Catholics in England have the Striptures in their own Tongue: Did he never hear of the Doway Bible, or the Rheim's Testament? Are not these Books in their Hands, and read, and us'd with all the Freedom and Liberty ima­ginable? As for the French Bible; who­ever desires it, may find enough, done not only by Protestants, but by Catholic Di­vines also; at the French Stationer's Shops in London, without being a [...] the Trouble of going any farther for it. Touching, Spain, Germany, Italy, and other Catholic Countries; the Enquiry is not very difficult, whether they have the Scriptures in vulgar Languages: For we may easily meet with Men of Credit and Probility out of these Countries, who can assure us, they have the Scriptures in their Native Tongues. So that it is hard to imagin, what shou'd put him upon asserting a thing so bare-fac'd, and destitute of the least colour of Truth; and so peremptorily affirming what the Evidence of our Eyes and Ears, and even daily Experience, can so easily contra­dict.

I know, He, and Others of his Mind, do vouch the Decree of the Council of Trent [Page 217] concerning Prohibited Books, for what they say; and found all the Railing Accusations they bring against the R. Catholics there­upon: Which is as much as to say, that, tho' we have the Bible in all Vulgar Lan­guages, and see, and read it in the same Languages; yet we must believe it is lockt up in an unknown Tongue, which we do not understand; because these Gentlemen will have it, that the Council of Trent hath so decreed. But, besides that it is a hard Case to which these Gentlemen wou'd reduce us, viz. that we must not believe what we see, feel, hear, and understand; contrary to their own Ordinary Rule; the Council of Trent, does not in the least favour their Pretension. I shall subjoin the very Words of that Council, and leave it to speak for it self. ‘Since Experience sheweth, that, Cum ex­perimen­to mani­festumsit si Sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine dis­crimne permit­tantur, plus inde, ob Hominum temeritatem, detrimenti quam utilitatis oriri; hac in parte, Judicio Episcopi aut Inquisitoris stetur: ut cum consilio Patochi vel Confessarij Bibliorum a Catholicis authoribus verlorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere possint, quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione non damnum, sed fidei atque pietatis augmentum capere posse: quam fa­cultatem in scriptis habeant. De lib. proh. Reg. 4. if the Sacred Bible were permitted In­differently, and without Distinction, in vulgar Language; such a Liberty (by rea­son of Men's Rashness) wou'd occasion more hurt than good; Be it left to the Bishop's, or Inquisitor's Judgment; by, and with the Advice of the Parish priest, or Confessor to give leave to read the Ver­sions of Catholic Authors in vulgar Lan­guage, [Page 218] to such, as may, in their Opinion, receive not a Loss, but an Increase of Faith and Piety thereby: Which Leave they are to have in Writing.’ De lib. prob. Reg. 4.

Hence I think it is plain, the Council is so far from locking up the Scripture in an unknown Tongue, that it gives free Leave to every one, whom the Bishop, or Inqui­sitor, with the Advice of the Parish priest, or Confessor, shall judge meet to read it in vulgar Language. And since there is no­thing so proper, nor so powerful to increase Faith and Piety, in a Meek and Humble Soul, as the Sacred Scripture; 'tis plain, that no sincere Christian is barr'd, by this De­cree, from the use of it in vulgar Language. And if any such shou'd happen to be re­fus'd leave to read it, which we have no Rea­son to suppose; 'tis contrary to the Spirit, and Intention of the Council, who orders that Persons so dispos'd, may have the free use of them. And however this (no great) Restraint was necessary in those Days, when Mens minds were in a Ferment, and the Itch of Novelty had seiz'd them, as it com­monly happens when any new Opinions are broach'd; yet, when they began to see with their own Eyes, and became more Still and Calm, the Governors of the Church were so far from hindring them the use of the Scrip­ture, or putting this Decree in execution, that they exhort all Persons to Read and Meditate upon them, as the most effectual means to bring them acquainted with the [Page 219] Will of God, and their Duty to Him. And now methinks, Dr. Tillotson and his Party are, of all Others, the unfittest to reproach us this Conduct; considering that most of the Learned Men of his Church do ingenu­ously own, that the promiscuous use of the Scripture allow'd to all sorts of Persons, and their private Interpretations thereof, was, in a great measure, the cause of all the Dif­ferent Sects, that sprung up, and divided themselves from their Communion.

As to what he says, that Christ exhorts the Jews to search the Scriptures; that St. Luke commends the Ber [...]ans, for so doing, and that the Holy Fathers do earnestly, re­commend the Reading and Study of the Scrip­tures, I acknowledge the truth of this saying; I will add to it, that all the Art and Industry, all the Rhetoric and Eloquence in the World have not that Force and Ef­ficacy upon Pious and Virtuous Souls, that the serious Reading, and Meditating upon the Holy Scriptures hath: yet this notwith­standing, since Experience hath taught us, that, as the Spider extracts Poison out of the same Flower, whence the Bee gathers Honey; so I believe, no Man can doubt (considering all the Schism, and horrid Im­pieties now maintain'd) but that the rank­est Soul-killing Poison, has been often ex­tracted out of the sacred Scriptures; not out of any Defect in them, but thro' the deprav'd Disposition, and Supercilious Pride of the Readers: And therefore, I think, it is the least the Church cou'd do in a time [Page 220] of confutation and disorder; such as was that of the Council of Trent, when so many were gapeing after Novelty, and setting up for Heads of new Sects, to moderate the Use and Reading of those Sacred Writings: But still so as not to shut up the Fountain of Life, nor hinder all Good and Virtuous Christians to drink of that Living-Water; which (tho' little) Restraint was yet by Degrees abated, as Men began to entertain Thoughts of Peace, and Quiet; and, in a few Years after, was insensibly taken away in ma­ny Countries, by a Tacit Admission of the Reading of Scripture in vulgar Languages to all sorts of people. And this I am sure no Body can justly deny to be the Case of the R. Catholic Church in regard of the present Debate; which how agreeable to Sense and Reason, and to the Piety and Care of a Tender Mother, let even the most Inveterate of our Adversaries judge.

Touching the fourth, viz. ‘It cannot be imagin'd how people shou'd square, or measure their Faith by this Rule, unless they were allow'd to Read and Understand it.’

Answ. The Answer to this Objection, is sufficiently imply'd in what I spoke to the former: I shall therefore add these few Words only; That the Word of God is the Rule of our Faith, but whether it be convey'd to us by Writing, or by Word of Mouth; methinks the Scripture it self declares in favour of the latter: For Christ our Lord, as the Evangelists say, command­ed [Page 221] his Disciples to go and preach the Gos­pel; but we do not find, that He gave any Injunction about giving his Word in Wri­ting to the people, in order to learn their Faith. However, since it is confess'd, that the Sacred Scriptures are excellent Means to edifie our Faith, and compose our Manners; we do earnestly and heartily recommend them to the Study and Meditation of the People.

Concerning the last, viz. ‘That we therefore lock up the Scripture in an unknown Tongue; because it is certain, that if the common people were once brought to understand the Scripture, they wou'd soon quit us, and go over to them.’

Answ. This Proposition is false in all its Circumstances. 1. That we do not lock up the Scripture in an unknown Tongue, is already prov'd. 2. That the common Peo­ple wou'd not quit our Religion, &c. will easily appear, if we consider, that, by the same Rule, our Scholars, and Men of Let­ters, who understand the Scripture in that Language, which they call unknown, shou'd have quitted us, which he well knew, they do not. Men of Breeding and Sense, are less apt to be pleas'd with Superstition and Error, than the common ordinary People; and we cannot suppose, they shou'd have less Regard for the good of their Souls, than ordinary people; and yet, since those Men from whom we cannot, if we wou'd, conceal any thing in our Faith or Practice, do not go over to them, but persist in [Page 222] our Communion; I think I may reasonable conclude, that the common people wou'd do the same were they never so well read in the Scriptures; unless we suppose, that the Protestant Religion has some Virtue to attract the common people, upon the read­ding of Scripture, in a vulgar Tongue, which is incommunicable to Men of Let­ters when they read the same.

But, methinks, the stand the Protestant Religion has been at, now upwards of an hundred Years, without gaining one Foot of Ground; nay, hardly, keeping what it had, notwithstanding, all the liberty and In­dulgence it gives to Flesh and Blood, is an evident Argument, that it was not a seri­ous Meditation and Study of Scripture; but rather a popular fury, and something like madness, that brought over so many of the common People to embrace it in the Be­gining. And indeed, if the Fences, and Bulworks, wherewith the Protestant Religi­on is fortified, were taken away; if the Tests, and Penal-Laws, and other grievous Burdens laid upon R. Catholics, were taken off; if all the scandalous and opprobrious Language, which Ministers thunder out in their Pulpits against the Church, and Bishop of Rome; all the False and Ridiculous Te­nets, which are ascrib'd to R. Catholics, and manag'd with all the Art and Industry pro­per to inflame the People's hatred, and to give them a perpetual aversion to R. Catho­lics, and their Religion; all the marks of Infamy and Dishonour put upon them, be­ing [Page 223] not permitted to bear any Civil, or Military Office; nay, scarce allow'd, in some Countries, to exercise such honest Professi­ons, or Callings, as may enable them to get their Bread; if all these fatal Engins, I say, were laid aside, and every Man left to chuse his Religion, without the hopes of Reward, on the one side, or the Fear of loss of Goods and Temporal Punishment on the o­ther; I doubt, the Protestant Religion wou'd soon fall to pieces, and many a Prodigal Child wou'd return to their Father's Houses, whence they have so long stray'd. But these Fences, and Barriers (shall I call them) of Religion, being so Rivetted, and inter­woven with the Temporal Laws, and Con­stitutions of most Governments, where the Protestant Religion sways; I fear, all Reasons and Arguments, tho' never so Evident, are too weak to encounter them; unless God of His Mercy be pleas'd to put His Hand to the Work: To whose infinit Goodness and Mercy, I do from my Heart most ear­nestly recommend it.

CHAP. VII. Of the Invocation of Saints.

WHat we believe to be of Faith, on this Head, is thus declar'd by the Council of Trent: That the Saints, who Reign [Page 224] with Jesus Christ, offer up to God their Pray­ers for Men; that it is Good and Profitable to Invocate them after an Humble Manner, and to have Recourse to their Prayers, Aid, and Assistance, to obtain of God His, Benefits thro' our Lord Jesus Christ His Son, who is our only Saviour and Redeemer, Sess. 25. This the Council declares to be the Faith of the Church concerning this point; but does not Command, or Oblige any of the Laity to pray to the Saints, or Invocate them. 'Tis a Practice receiv'd from the Primitive Church, and us'd by the Greatest, and most Learned, and virtuous of the Holy Fathers of those Times; as appears by their Works; and handed Down to us by an uninterrupted Tradition. But, because, it is not absolute­ly necessary, the Church leaves every one the liberty to make use of it, or not, a [...] they think fit: Yet, to see how Dr. Tillotson lays about him, upon this Subject, and what pains he takes to confute it; one wou'd think, we have nothing in our Liturgies, and pub­lic Prayer-books, but Prayers to Saints; and that we do nothing else, in the public and so­lemn Service of the Church, but pray to Saints, and worship them.

Here it may be expected, I shou'd give a Specimen of his Laborious Endeavours in this matter; but I think a Pattern wou'd not do, and therefore I shall refer the Rea­der to three intire Sermons, Vol. 2. edit post obit. Ser. 2, 3, 4. where this Bus'ness is handled to some purpose.

Now to justifie our Proceedings from these imputations, and to shew the Reaso­nableness [Page 225] of this Practice, as by us us'd; I shall do these Four Things:

1. I will endeavour to shew, that to in­vocate the Saints, by which Words we pro­test and declare (and 'tis hard if we may not be allow'd to interpret our own Words) that we mean nothing else, but to desire them to pray for us; is not repugnant to the Word of God.

2. that in the public and solemn Service of the Church, (excepting the Litanies of the Saints, which are read, or sung solemn­ly four times a Year; the General Con­fession of Sins, in the begining of the Mass, a few Hymns, Anthems and Versicles, which are not Prayers strictly and properly so call'd; and most of which are read only once a Year, excepting these I say) we put up no Prayers to Saints, or Angels; but all our Prayers are address'd to Almighty God, and to Jesus Christ our Mediator and Redeemer. Not but that we hold it law­ful, even in the public, and solemn Service of the Church, to pray to the Saints, that is, to desire them to pray for us; since all the Addresses we make to the Saints, do finally Terminate in Jesus Christ, in virtue of whose Death and Passion, we believe the Saints are enabled to pray for us; but be­cause it is matter of Fact, that we do not address our Prayers in the solemn Service of the Church, but to God alone.

3. I will make it appear from the very Words of the Holy Fathers, that the Prac­tice of praying to Saints, was us'd in the Primitive Church. And

[Page 226]Lastly, I shall endeavour to return a brief Answer to what the Dr. thought fit to bring against this Point.

1. I will endeavour to shew, that to in­vocate the Saints, or (which is the same thing) to desire them to pray for us; is not repugnant to the Word of God. The Texts of Scripture, which seems to be a­gainst this Practice, and which the Doctor urges, are taken out of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 2.5. where he says; There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. And again, Heb. 9.15. For this Cause, He (Christ) is the Mediator of the New Testament, &c. Hence the Doctor concludes, that it is contrary to the Word of God, and (which he mostly insists upon) derogatory to the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ, to pray to any Saint, or Angel; since to do so, were to constitute them Me­diators between God and Men, contrary to the Express Words of St. Paul.

But, sure he was not aware how far this Inference wou'd carry him, else he wou'd be a little more reserv'd. We are exhorted by the Scriptures, and by the Rules of Cha­rity, we are bound to pray to God for one another: Eph. 6.19. 1 Tim. 2. Yea, and St. Paul himself desires the Ephesians to pray for him, and exhorts Timothy to have Prayers, and Supplications put up for all Men. Do not we then con­stitute one another Mediators between God and our selves? Does not St. Paul make the Ephesians Mediators between God and himself? Most certainly, as much as we make [Page 227] the Saints; for we only desire the Saints to pray for us, and St. Paul desir'd the Ephesians to pray for him; and we desire every Day the same thing of our Brethren. And do these Mediators derogate from the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ? God forbid! Ay but, says the Doctor, the Saints are in Heaven, and these Men were on Earth: Well, and does their being Present, or Absent, their being in Heaven, or on Earth, make them the more or less Mediators, when they are made such, or do the Office of Medi­ators? Is any Man the less a Mediator, who sues for the Pardon of an other; be­cause he is present, or in the same Town, or Country with him, for whom he sues? Sure there is not (to use the Doctor's own Phrase) a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason; but of down right Imp Dis­course against Transub. Vol. 3. p 299.— against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the Sense and Reason of Man­kind: I forbear that uncivil Word; the Reader may find it at Length with the Dr. in the place pointed at in the Margin. Well! But the Saints are in Heaven. What then? Why, if we desire them to pray for us, we make them Mediators. But do not the Saints in Heaven pray for us? Yes, the Dr. grants they do: Vol. 2. 2. edit. obit. pag. 93. They make themselves Me­diators then. No, says he, they are not Me­diators and Intercessors properly so call'd; for (continues He) all Intercession, strictly and pro­perly so call'd, is in virtue of a Sacrifice of­fer'd by him that intercedes. Here He pulls down all that He built before, and justifies [Page 228] our Practice, as fully as we cou'd desire. All Intercession strictly and properly so call'd, is in virtue of a Sacrifice offer'd by him that intercedes: Say you so! Why then the Saints can by no means be Mediators, or Intercessors properly so call'd, whether we desire them to pray for us, or they do it of themselves; since they did not offer any Sacrifice by virtue whereof they may, in a strict and proper sense, be called Mediators, or Intercessors; and then we may desire them to pray for us, or they may do it of them­selves; and yet be no Mediators, or Interces­sors; and consequently not derogate from the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ. And thus the Doctor has very judiciously, and, in my Opinion, very truly interpreted St. Paul's Words, and justified us into the bargain.

2. ‘That in the public and solemnly Ser­vice of the Church, excepting the Lita­nies, &c. as aforesaid, we put up no Pray­ers to Saints, or Angels; but all our Pray­ers are address'd to Almighty God, and to Jesus Christ, our only Saviour and Redeemer.’

This will appear by a thoro' Examina­tion of those Books, wherein the public Ser­vice of our Church is contain'd; which are the Mass-book, and the Breviary; the first, containing the solemn Service of the Mass; and the latter, the Canonical Office, namely Matins, Hours, Even-song, and Compline. And here I can in truth aver, that I have [Page 229] read both these Books, at least ten Times; yet, excepting the Litanies, the general Confession, some few Hymns, Anthems and Versicles; whereof, one or two are read in the Breviary on the Feasts of B V. Mary, and other Saints; which yet are not pro­perly Prayers, and which only mention these Words, ( Pray for us, intercede for us, or the like) I do profess I do not know one single Prayer appointed for the public, and solemn Service of the Church, in either of them address'd directly to either Saint, or Angel, or the B. V. Mary. As for the Mass-book, which is the public Liturgy of the Church, excepting the General Confession, there is not one Prayer in it aderess'd to any but God-Almighty; no, not on the Feasts of Saints, or of the B. V. Mary; no, nor in the Book at all, excepting this one Versicle, (which is, I think, four times read) Mo­ther of God, intercede for us. Which yet is seldom read in any public and solemn Ser­vice of the Church; and one single Anthem wherein the like Words are found on the Feast of St. Michael. And for the Truth of all this, I appeal to the Books themselves. There is indeed a Little Office of the Virgin Mary annex'd to the Breviary, wherein the aforesaid Words, Pray for us, intercede for us; or the like, are some nine, or ten times repeated in Hymns, Anthems, and Versicles; but this being read neither Publicly, nor Pri­vately in the Church Service, cannot Reaso­nably be said to pertain to it.

[Page 230]Now these two Books are an Extract, the Mass-Book, of what is most Moving, and Ravishing, in the Psalms of David; of what is most Edifying and Instructive, and most sit to declare the Praises of God, and to shew his loving Kindness and Mercy to Mankind, in the Old Testament; and of the most useful, and necessary Precepts and In­structions of Faith and Good Manners, con­tain'd in the New; suited, and adapted to all the Seasons of the Year; together with many Devout and Fervent Prayers, all tend­ing to praise Almighty God, to thank him for His Benefits and Blessings, and to im­plore Mercy and Pardon for our Sins. The Breviary, of all the Psalms; most of the History of the Old Testament; a Summary of all the Epistles of the Apostles, and the Revelations; some Verses of the Gospel of every Feast and Sunday in the Year, with the Homilies of the Ancient Fathers of the Church upon these Texts; together with a Brief Account of the Lives of the most Eminent Saints, and Martyrs, that flourish'd in the Church; with a great many Pious and Godly Prayers, Anthems, Hymns, and Versicles, address'd to God-Almighty; and put up in the Name, and thro' the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. We do, indeed, Commemorate the holy Apostles, the B. V. Mary, and the Saints in the Public Ser­vice of the Church; because we have suf­ficient Warrant for it in the Scripture and Practice of the Primitive Church. David says; the Righteous shall be in Everlasting Re­membrance, [Page 231] Psal. 112. and Dr. Tillotson him­self has a Sermon upon this Subject, where­in he proves from the Practice of the Fa­thers, and from Reason, that it is Lawful to give due Honor, and Respect to the Saints; but we do not put up any Formal Prayers to them in the public Service. And this will appear from the Collects in the Mass-Book and Breviary, where their Names are mention'd. I will transcribe two, or three of them, and leave the Reader, who desires farther Satisfaction, to consult these Books; whether all the Rest of the Collects where the Saints are mention'd, be not of the same Tenor.

CHAP. VIII. Of Images.

WHat the Council of Trent declares concerning Images is this: That the Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints are to be had, and kept, especially in Churches; and that due Ho­nor and Respect is to be given them; not that we believe any virtue, or Divinity to be in them, for which they ought to be worship'd; or that we shou'd ask any thing of them, or put any trust or confidence in them; as was formerly done by the Gentils, who put their trust in Idols; but because the Honor done to them, is refer'd to the Originals, which they [Page 261] represent. So that by those Images, which we kiss, and before which we uncover our Heads and bow down, we adore Christ, and reverence the Saints, whose likeness they bear. Ses. 25. Dec. de invocat. Sanct.

Here, you see, this Council only requires, that we give du [...] honor and respect to Ima­ges; which signifies no more, than that we ought to give them the honor which is due to them. But this is not all; for the Coun­cil adds, that when we uncover our Heads, or bow towards Images, we adore Christ and reverence the Saints, whose likeness these Ima­ges bear. So that it is not so much the Ima­ges we honor, as Christ and His Saints. And since 'tis confess'd, that the Types and Figures of all sacred things, are worthy of some Re­spect, in propotion to what they represent; how mnch more ought the Types and Figures of Jesus Christ, who is the Source and Foun­tain of all Holiness and Sanctification; and of the Saints, (to whose Charity and goodness we owe under God our Faith and Religion) to be had in Honor and Esteem. We honor and respect the Bible more than ordinary Books, tho' it is but Paper and Ink like other Books; because the Characters therein contain'd are sacred Signs, which represent to us the Word and Will of God: And even Nature teaches us to honor and respect the Pictures and Ima­ges of Kings and Princes, and of our Friends, for the Excellency of these Persons, and the Benefits we receive by them. And why may not we likewise honor and respect those Signs or Images, which represent to us that, [Page 262] which is most Excellent, and most August in the Christian Religion namely Christ and His Saints.

The Chief End of Images, and Pictures, is to adorn our Churches, to put us in mind of the Passion of Christ, and of the Piety and Virtue of the Saints; and to be Books to the Ignorant. And what Ornament so pro­per for the Church of God, as the Picture of Jesus Christ, who planted it with His Blood? What, in the next Place, as the Pictures of Saints, who water'd it with their's; and are now, in their own Degree, the great Orna­ments of the Heavens? What can be more powerful to excite us to a greatful Remem­brance of the Passion of Jesus Christ, then to behold a Crucifix, which represents Him to us, with Arms stretch'd out, as it were, to embrace us, and Hands, and Feet, and Side pierc'd for our Sins? What pious Chri­stian can then abstain from expressing the Sense of his Heart, by some exteriour Act of Honor and Respect to such a Representation, if not for its own, at least, for the sake of that, which it represents? And, as to the Ignorant, it cannot be denied, but that when they are taught, that such a Picture represents Jesus Christ, who in that posture Sacrific'd Himself for their Sins; that such other Pictures represent the Apostles and Saints, who preach'd, and deliver'd that Faith and Religion to them, by which they are to be e­ternally happy; it cannot be denied, I say, but that such lessons are easily retain'd, and create in their Minds a greatful acknowlede­ment [Page 263] of the Mercies of their Redeemer, and a desire to imitate the Virtue and Piety of the Saints. And then the Respect which they shew to these Pictures, is but the Natural Re­sult of their Sense of the Benefits they receive by the Passion of Christ, and by the Piety and Charity of the Saints.

These were the chief motives, that induc'd the Church in all Ages, to have, and to keep the Pictures of Jesus Christ, and His Saints. I say in all Ages. Eusebius the Great and Fa­mous Ecclesiastical Historian, [...]ist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 18 edit. vol. who flourish'd in the Begining of the fourth Age, tells us, that the Christians had from the Begining, the Pictures of Christ, and of St. Peter and St. Paul; that he himself had seen the Statue, which the Woman, whom Christ had heal'd of the bloody flux, erected for Him at Pa­neas; & that, at the Foot of this Statue, there grew an Herb, which, when it touch'd the Skirt of the Statue, had a virtue of curing Diseases. And Helena's seeking and finding the Cross, on which our Lord suffer'd; and the Miracle by which it was discover'd, are too well known to be question'd.

But what need I insist upon proofs of the lawfulness of Pictures and Images in Churches, or of the respect that is due to them; since the Protestants themselves acknowledge both. They say, they only exclaim against the A­buses committed in the Church of Rome, up­on this account: But for the Thing it self, they say, they willingly own it. This is the Declaration, The Ingenious Author of The Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of [Page 264] England, in answer to the Bishop of Meaux, makes in the Name of that Church. page 18. It may not be amiss to subjoin his very Words: We will honor, says he, the Relicks of the Saints, as the primitive Church did: We will respect the Images of our Saviour, and the B. Virgin: And as some of us now bow towards the Altar, and all of us are enjoy'd to do so, at the Name of Jesus; so will we not fail to testifie all due Respect to this Representation. Now we do-likewise declare, and have upon all occasi­ons done, that we neither mean, nor intend to give any more to the Images of Christ, or the V. Mary, or the Saints, but due Ho­nor and Respect. But if neither the ex­press Decree of the Council of Trent, which commands us to give them no more; nor the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition of our Doctrine, in which this is so manifestly de­clar'd; nor our own often repeated Prote­stations to that Effect, will prevail upon them to believe us; all we can say is, that we are sorry for their Incredulity, but can­not help it. As to those Abuses, which this Ingenious Man says have crept in upon Ac­count of Images: If there be any such, we protest and declare, that we abhor and de­test them, no less than he, or any of his Perswasion; or (to use the Council of Trent's Phrase) we earnestly desire, they shou'd be intirely abolish'd. But sure he was too rea­sonable to think, that the abuse of a thing was a good Argument against the use of it.

[Page 265]Nor will his Example of Hezekiahis de­stroying the Brazen Serpent help the matter: For he may please to consider, that the Chil­dren of Israel liv'd in a Country, where they were surrounded, and as I may say, hedg'd in, on every side, with Idolatry, and the Worship of false Gods; and not only so, but they themselves were very much given to that Worship, as appears by the Groves, and high Places, and Idols set up among them, by their wicked Kings and Rulers; and which this pious King pull'd down and destroy'd; and therefore is deservedly commended in Scripture for breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent, to which the People, no doubt, sacrific'd. But, blessed be God, we have no such thing to fear: We have no Ido­laters among us, nor near us; we have no Groves nor high Places, nor Idols in the land. We do not burn Incense to any false Gods, nor worship them. We make only the Images, and Pictures of the true God, and his Saints; and it cannot be denied, but these same Pictures and Images, have been kept in our Churches; and have had the same respect given them, which we now give, at least these nine hundred years; and, in the Opinion of many learned Pro­testants, for four hundred Years before. Yet all this while no Heathen Idolatry was ever introduc'd into the Church, upon Account of our Images: No Defection from Chri­stianity to Pagan Worship was heard among us. So that the Example of Hezekiah is not to the purpose, the Parallel is not just, [Page 266] we are nothing concern'd in it. Besides, the Brazen Serpent was a Monument of no such great Moment to be long preserv'd: 'Twas only kept, to put the Children of Israel in mind of the Miraculous Cure of those, who were bitten by the Serpents in the Wil­derness; and when they left that Land, and were no more vex'd by these Serpents, it was of no great use. But the Remembrance of the Death and Passion of our Lord, by whom the Sins of the World was taken a­way; and of his Holy Apostles and Saints, by whom his Doctrine was propagated and transmitted to us, is of that high Importance and Concern to all the World, that these Monuments, which put us in mind of them, ought to be for ever most carefully pre­serv'd.

Page 14.As to what he says, that, in the Hymns for the day of the Invention of the Cross, & Good-Fryday, we desire the Cross to strength­en the Righteous, and give Pardon to the Guilty, &c. And that in the Service on Good-Fryday we say, Behold the Wood of the Cross! Come let us adore it. I answer,

First, That Poetical Hymns and Verses have, in all Writings, a greater Latitude than Prose.

Secondly, That these Expressions are A­postrophes and Exclamations address'd to Jesus Christ upon the Cross, whom we represent to our minds as there hanging, when we salute the Cross. And that this is our mean­ing (whatever the words may import up­on any other occasion) I think is plain, from [Page 267] the Words of the Council of Trent, which expresly forbids us to believe, that there is any Virtue or Divinity in Images, or to de­mand any thing of them; which if we be­lieve (as we profess and declare we do) it cannot, with any colour of Reason, be pre­sum'd, that we shou'd ask Strength or Par­don of the Wood of the Cross, contrary to the express commands of the Council, and to the Faith, which we profess.

Touching the Words in the Service, on Good-Frida [...]: Behold the Wood of the Cross! Come, let us adore it. I am sorry to see so Ingenious a Man, and who otherwise professes to be so great a Friend to Sincerity and Truth, swerve so manifestly from both, in this Point. He gives us here an Anthem sung on Good-Fryday maim'd, in the middle; and added to, in the End. The Words in the Roman Missal are thus; Ecce Lignum Crucis in quo salus mundi pependit! Venice A­doremus. Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung! Come let us a­dore. Here is no (It) as he adds. And sure, it is more reasonable, and more agreeable to Grammatical Construction, to refer the word Adore, to Saviour of the World, which imedi­ately goes before it, than to Wood of the Cross, which goes before that: And then the sense is plainly this; Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung! Come let us adore Him. And that this, and no o­ther, is the Sense, in which the Roman Catho­lic Church takes these Words; I wonder any Man, that ever read the Council of Trent [Page 268] shou'd be ignorant of; seeing the Church, in that Council, has expresly declar'd, that by the Images, which we kiss, and before which we uncover our Heads and bow down, we adore Christ, and reverence the Saints. Here is a Crucifix propos'd to us, a Representation of Jesus Christ upon Mount Calvary; we kiss it, and bow to it; and when we say, Come let us adore; we must surely mean, come let us adore Christ; else we shou'd contradict the express words of the Council. I own indeed, that we mean likewise by Kissing the Crucifix, and bowing to it that day, to give it due Honour and Respect; and that we make use of the words, Crucem A­doramus, several Times on Good-Fryday, to express the Respect we give it. But then we are warranted so to do by the Scripture, which uses the same Term to express the Honor exhibited to several Creatures; as appears by these Texts, Adorem te Filii Matris tuae; Let thy Mother's Sons adore Thee, says Isaac to his Son Jacob, Gen. 27.29. Et omnis Mul­titudo— inclinantes capita adoraverunt Domi­num & Regem; and all the Congregation— bowing their Heads, ador'd the Lord and the King, 1 Chron. 29.20. Adorate Scabellum podum ejus, Psal. 99. Adore ye His Footstool. Here is Adoration with a Witness, and all, to one, given to meer Creatures; and tho' in all these Phrases, the very Term is u­sed in the Hebrew and Greek, as well as in the Latin, which the Scripture uses to express the Supream Adoration given to the true God; yet no Man ever said, that these [Page 269] Creatures ought to be ador'd in the strict Propriety of Adoration or Supream Wor­ship; but the Sense is, that they ought to be worship'd with the Honor and Respect, that is due to Them. In like manner; tho' we say (in Scripture Language) Crucem A­doramus, we do not mean, nor intend to give the Cross any other Worship than that, which is due to a Type or Figure, which repre­sents our Saviour and Redeemer to us. Thus much concerning this Ingenious Man's Exceptions to Images. I now come to Dr. Tillotson's Objections.

And here his Difficulties are neither great, nor many in number. Two things only I observe in his Sermons, that deserve some consideration. The first; ‘that worship­ing of Images is as point blank against the Second (He shou'd have said the First) Commandment, Vol. 2. pag. 7 [...] as a deliberate and mali­cious killing of a Man is against the Sixth; Fifth wou'd have been more true. The Second, [...] edit post. ob. pag. 291. That to secure the People from discerning our guilt in this matter, we are put upon that shameful shift, (as he is pleas'd to term it) of leaving out the Se­cond Commandment in our common Cate­chisms and Manuals; lest the People, seeing so plain a Law of God against so common a Practice of our Church, shou'd, upon that discovery, have broken off from us.’

As to the First, I answer: If He means by Worship, to give the Supream Worship and Adoration to Images, which is d [...]o only to God; he is very much in the right, and, I [Page 270] hope, shall never be contradicted by me. But if He understands by Worship; to give Ima­ges that Honor and Respect, which is due to Things, that represent Jesus Christ and His Saints; he is contradicted by Scripture, by all Antiquity, and even by his own Church, as well as by us. Now that we give Images no other Worship than the latter; or that the Decrees of our Church enjoin no more, I think I have already sufficiently prov'd.

Touching the Second; I answer, that we never left out any of God's Commandments, either in Catechism, or Manual; and that that, which he says is left out (which yet is not the Second Commandment, but part of the First) is to be found in hundreds of Manuals and Catechisms in England it self. And at this Time, I have, upon my Table, a Manual and Catechism, wherein all, He says we left out, are contain'd: The first bears this Title; a Manual of Prayers, and Chri­stian Devotions; the later, An Abridgment of Christian Doctrine with Proofs out of Scripture. &c. The first Edition printed, Anno. 1649. Now a Man that can dispense with his Consci­ence and honor so far, as to publish, from Press and Pulpit, untruths so easily discover'd; what Paradox may not he undertake to main­tain? 'Tis true, there are some Manuals and Catechisms, in which the Ten Command­ments are comprehended, as it were, in so many Verses; that Children, and People of weak Capacity may learn them with more case: But in no Manual or Catechism, that pretends to give the Commandments, was [Page 271] ever the Second Commandment left out. That which he calls the Second Commandment, viz. Thou shalt not Make to thy Self any graven Image, &c. is undoubtedly part of the First; & only added to inculcate to a Gross Ignorant People, what they were to avoid, in conse­quence of the One God, which the First Com­mandment obliges them to have: For 'tis evident, that in these Words, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, is necessarily imply'd, that they shou'd not make to themselves any Graven Images, or Idols to Worship them; which to do, were to have other Gods: And therefore these two Negatives make but one Commandment. Unless the Dr. will have it, that it is a distinct Commandment from the first; because it begins a Verse, or contains some Words, which are not express'd in the first. But he may please to consider, that the Law of Moses was extant, at least a Thousand Years, before it was digested into Verses, or that any Points were added to it; during which Time, there was nothing to di­stinguish one Commandment from an other, but the very Reason and Nature of the things commanded; and then, since this, which the Dr. wou'd have to be the Second Command­ment, is altogether of the same Nature with the First, and prohibits nothing but what the First prohibits, namely, the having or worshiping more than one God; we have all the Reason in the World to conclude, that it is but One, and the same Commandment with the First. And thus all our Ancestors, and all the Ancient's Comments upon this Chapter [Page 272] of Moses, at least, as many as I have seen, understood it; and even Martin Luther in those Books, which he wrote against the Church of Rome, makes but one Command­ment of the Doctor's First and Second. But if He will have it, that it is a distinct Command­ment, because it has a distinct prohibition; then it will follow, that we must have as ma­ny Commandments as we have distinct Prohi­bitions in that Chapter, besides the affirma­tive Precepts; and then we shall have 13 or 14 Commandments at least. Thou shalt not make to thy Self any graven Image, must be the Second; thou shalt not how down to them, the Third; thou shalt not take the Name of thy Lord thy God in vain, the Fourth; remem­ber to keep holy the Sabbath Day, the Fifth; thou shalt do no manner of Work, the Sixth; and so on. But as the Dr. wou'd not, I sup­pose, allow of this distribution, so He may please to give us leave to stick to the Old Ten Commandments, in the same order & manner, we receiv'd them from our Ancestors of Blessed Memory.

CHAP. IX. Of Purgatory.

WHat we hold, as of Faith concerning this Point, is thus declar'd by the Council of Trent: That there is a Purgatory, [Page 273] and that the Souls there detain'd, are help'd by the Prayers of the Faithful, but especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Mass.

Here the Council do's not determine what sort of Place Purgatory is, or what manner of Pain Souls endure in it; nor whether they are purg'd by material Fire, or by other Torments or Anguishes of Mind; but is con­tent to declare with the Ancient Fathers, that there is a Place, wherein Souls departed are detain'd, without entering upon curious & need less Questions concerning the Manner, or Du­ration of the Pains they there suffer. In hand­ling therefore this Argument, I shall endea­vour to tred in the Steps of the Ancient Fathers, and follow the Pattern of this Coun­cil, waving all superfluous and needless Questions relating to this Subject; which, that I may the more plainly and distinctly do, I shall proceed in this Method.

1. I will endeavour to shew, that the Doc­trine of Purgatory is founded in Scripture, as interpreted by the Ancient Fathers of the Church.

2. But more especially, that it is founded in the Practice observ'd in the primitive Church, of Praying for the Dead. This I take to be an unanswerable Argument; for if it ap­pears, that the Primitive Church did pray for the Dead, that their Sins might be for­given them; then it will necessarily follow, that they believ'd those Souls, they thus pray'd for, to be in a place, where they might be help'd, and benefited by their Prayers. This is evident; for, if the Pri­mitive [Page 274] Church were of Opinion, that all Souls departed, did go strait to Heaven, or to Hell; it were vain and superfluous to pray for them. They knew, there was no getting of Souls out of Hell; for, out of Hell there is no Redemption: And therefore it were in vain to attempt it. And it were superfluous to pray for the Souls in Heaven, for the Remision of their Sins: For, why shou'd they pray for that, which they knew they had no need of. So that, if they did pray for the Remission of Sins of Souls de­parted, the Consequence is inevitable, that they did believe, there was a Third Place, were some Souls were detain'd, and might be assisted by their Prayers, which is what we call Purgatory.

3. I shall answer what Doctor Tillotson brings against this Point.

1. I shall endeavour to shew that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded in Scripture, as inter­preted by the Ancient Fathers of the Church. To prove this Head; I will produce some Texts of Scripture, with the Readings of the Fathers upon Them. 1. Agree with thine Ad­versary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him: Lest at any time, the Adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cost into Prison. Ve­rify I say unto thee, thou shalt not come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost Farthing, Mat. 5.25.26. Tertullian, a Father of the Second Age, [...]. de Anima. cap. 58. re [...]ds thus upon this Text. Seeing we understand that Prison which the Gospel demonstrates to be places below; and the [Page 275] uttermost Farthing, we interpret every small fault there to be punish'd by the delay of the Resur­rection; no Man can doubt but the Soul may pay something in the places below. St. Cyprian, a Father of the third Age: It is one thing to be cast into Prison, not to go out thence, till he pays the uttermost Farthing; an other, Epist. 52. ad An­ton. presently to receive the Reward of Faith; one thing to be afflicted with long pains for Sins to be mended and purg'd long with Fire; another, to have purg'd all Sins by sufferings. Here this Father, allud­ing to the foregoing Text, says, that some Souls are cast into Prison 'till they pay the uttermost Fathing; that others immediately receive their Reward, that is, Heaven. Some are afflicted and purg'd by Fire, in order to their Amendment, whilst others have purg'd all their Sins by Sufferings or Martyrdom; The very Language of the present R. Catho­lic Church. St. Jerom, a Father of the fourth Age, who, for his extraordinary Learning and Knowledge in the Scriptures, was call'd Magister Mundi, the Master of the World, in his comment upon the said Text, has these Words; This is that which he says, Com­ment. in 5. Matt. thou shalt not go out of Prison till thou pay, even thy little Sins, There is then such a Prison, in this Great Master's Opinion.

2. Every Man's Work shall be made manifest; for the Day shall declare it, because it shall be reveal'd by Fire; and the Fire shall try every Man's Work of what sort it is. If any Man's Work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a Reward. If any Man's Work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he him­self [Page 276] shall be saved; yet so as by Fire, 1 Cor. 3.13.14, 15. St. Ambrose, or the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul annex'd to his Works, which the ablest Critics do, with good Reason, ascribe to Hilary, Deacon of the Church of Rome, and Contemporary to St. Ambrose; speaks thus of this Passage: But when he (St. Paul) saith; Yet so as by Fire; he shews indeed, that he shall be saved; but yet shall suffer the Punishmen [...] of Fire; that being purg'd by Fire, he may be sav'd, and not tormented for ever, as the Infidels are, with Everlasting Fire. In cap. 3. Epist. 1. ad Cor. St. Gregory of Nisse is so plain and full upon this Subject, that no R. Catholic can at this Time speak plainer. [...]. A Man is cleans­ed, says he, either in this present Life by Pray­er and the Love of Wisdom, or after his Death by the Furnace of a Purging Fire. And a little after. [...]. After his Departure out of the Body, knowing the Difference between Virtue and Vice, it is im­possible to be Partakers of the Divinity, unless Purgatory Fire doth cleanse the Soul from the Spots that stick to it. Orat. pro. Mortuis pro­pe Fin.

St. Austin speaks much to the same pur­pose: Purge me (O Lord) says he, in this [Page 277] Life, and make me such, as shall not need that Pu [...]ifying Fire. And a little after he adds; He shall be saved, yet so as by Fire: And because it is said, He shall be saved; this Fire is contemn'd; yet it will be more grievous, than any Thing that a Man can suffer in this Life. Enar. in Psal 37.

I might insist upon several other Passa­ges of St. Austin, and bring more Texts of Scripture with the Sense of the Fathers upon them, with Respect to this Subject; but, I think what is here offer'd is sufficient to shew, that our Doctrine concerning Purgato­ry, is founded in Scripture; and that the An­cient Fathers did believe it to be so. I shall now proceed to shew,

2. That the Doctrine of Purgatory is found­ed in the Practice, observ'd in the Primitive Church, of praying for the Dead, for the Remission of Sins. This, as I said before, if made out, will plainly establish our Te­net: For, if the Primitive Church did pray for the Dead, for the Remission of their Sins; it follows necessarily, that they sup­pos'd them capable of being assisted by their Prayers; and consequently neither in Hea­ven, nor in Hell, but in a third Place, which is what we believe, and call Purgatory.

Now, that the Primitive Church, and all succeeding Generations us'd to pray for the Dead, for the Remission of their Sins; no one Point in the Christian Religion is more Universally attested. St. Epiphanius tells us, that Aerius was reputed an Heretic for de­nying the Lawfulness of it; and besides him, [Page 278] I do not find since Christianity began, till the Begining of the last Age, any one sin­gle Person, that ever denied or question'd it. Never was there found any Liturgy without it; nothing so frequent in the Fa­thers, and Ecclesiastical Writers, as the Re­commendation of it: In a Word, there is not one Doctrine or Practice of the Catho­lic Religion deliver'd with so full, and un­questionable a Tradition; no not the My­stery of the Trinity, no nor the Incarnation, nor the Necessity of Baptism, nor even the Truth of the Scriptures. So that a Man may, lib. de Cor. Mi­litis. lib. de Monog. de vita Const. lib. 4. c. 71. In En­chir. cap. 110. lib. 9. Confes. cap. 13. as well, make an Apology for being a Christian, as for this. Tertulian tells us, that, in his Days, they made yearly Oblati­ons for the Dead, and pray'd for their Souls. Eusebius, that all the Congregation pray'd for the Soul of the Emperor Constantin the Great. St. Austin, that it is not to be denied, that the Souls of the Dead are eas'd by the Pitty of their living Friends, when the Sacrifice of the Me­diator is offer'd for them. That his Mother Monica her last Injunctions to him was to remember her at the Altar. That the Tra­dition of the Fathers is observ'd by the whole Church, Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost. viz. That they shou'd pray for those who dy'd in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, in that place of the Sacrifice, where the Dead are recommended. In short, I shou'd ne­ver end, shou'd I relate all the Sayings of Fath rs, and Councils, and Eccl siastical Wri­t [...]rs upon this Subject; so that I may confi­dently affirm, there is not one Point in the Christian Religion more unanimously believ'd, [Page 279] or more religiously practic'd over all the Ca­tholic Church, in all Ages, than this of praying for the Dead, and offering the S [...] ­crifice of the Mass for their Souls. And this is so well known, that [...]o Sober and Learned Protestant ever yet denied the im­memorial Antiquity of it, at least, that e­ver I met with. But being sensible how ne­cessarily, and inevitably the Belief of Purga­tory, or a Third Place, where Souls are de­tain'd for a Time, is consequent upon this Practice, they have recourse to certain su [...] ­terfuges and Evasions. They tell us, that Prayers were made from the second Age for the Apostles and Martyrs, and Confessors, Exposit. of the Doctrine of the Church of England. pag. 31. and even for the Blessed Virgin Mary; all which they thought in Happiness, and never touch'd at Purgatory; that therefore it does not fol­low, there is a Purgatory; because they pray­ed for the Dead. To which I answer, that these Gentlemen wou'd very much oblige us, if they wou'd be so good, as to instance in some of those Prayers, which they say were put up for the Apostles and Martyrs, and the Virgin Mary; which I never yet met with, in any of their Writings. And this ve­ry thing gives me a shrewd Suspicion, that they are not able to produce any Examples of that kind, at least, to the purpose; con­sidering how liberal, and even prodigal, they are of Quotations of Fathers, and Ecclesi­astical Writers, when they seem to make for them. This I am certain of, that the pri­mitive Church did only believe their Pray­ers available for those, whom they thought [Page 280] not to have so well lived, as that they shou'd not need their Charitable Assistance. 'Tis what St. Austin says; De Civit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 24. Pro defunctis quibus­dam Ecclesiae exanditur oratio, quorum in Christo regeneratorum, nec usque adeo vita in corpore malè gesta est, ut tali Misericordia judicentur digni non esse, nec usque adeo berè, ut talem Misericordiam reperiantur necessariam non ha­bere. The Prayers of the Church are heard for such as are regenerated in Christ, whose Lives have not been altogether so bad, as not to be thought worthy of such a Mercy, nor altogether so good, as not to need such a Mercy. And the same Father tells us, that it were to in­jure the Martyrs to pray for them, to whose Prayers we ought rather to have our selves com­mended.

But do not the Ancient Liturgies make mention of Prayers and Thanksgivings put up to God for, or in Honor of the Apostles and Martyrs, and the Virgin Mary? And does not the Roman Missal, we now use, do the same? Yes, most certainly; for we pray to God, and thank Him for, and in Honour of the Apostles and Martyrs, and the Virgin Mary; and so did all Antiquity: But then these Prayers are not intended for the Delivery of their Souls from any Pains, but to thank Almighty God for crowning the Martyrs and Saints; and to praise his Holy Name for bringing them to that happy State they how are in; as the Prayers and Oblati­ons of the Pr [...]ative Church, and those we new make for the Souls of such as die in the Communion of the Church, of whose per­fect [Page 281] Innocence and Holiness we are not as­sur'd; are intended to beg of God, that he wou'd be merciful to them; and forgive them those sins, for which they did not fully sa­tisfie in this Life. And this St. Austin tells us was the Design and End of all the Pray­ers put up for the Dead, whether Apostles or Martyrs, or other Christian Souls. These are his Words; The Oblations and Alms usu­ally offer'd in the Church for all the Dead, De En­chiridio ad Lau. cap. 100. who receiv'd Baptism, were Thanksgivings for such as were very Good, Propitiations for such as were not very Bad; but for such as were very wick­ed, tho' they gave no Relief to the Dead, yet were they some Consolation to the Living. And is not this the very Doctrine we hold this Day? Do not we offer the Sacrifice of Christ's Body, as this Father calls it, on the Feasts of the Apostles and Martyrs, &c. in Thanksgi­ving to God for the blessed Estate of the Saints in Heaven? And do not we pray, and give Alms and offer the same Sacrifice for the Propitiation of those, whom we chari­tably believe to have died in the Peace, and Communion of the Church? Does our pray­ing to God for the Apostles and Martyrs, and the Virgin Mary, as aforesaid, hinder us to believe, that there is a Place wherein other Souls are detain'd till they have satisfied the Divine Justice? No sure: And why must the like Prayers hinder the Primitive Church to believe the same? Nay rather does it not necessarily follow, that the Primitive Church, as well as We, did believe there was such a place; because they put up Prayers to God [Page 282] for Pardon and Forgiveness of Sins, for such as they reasonably believ'd to have died in the Communion of the Body of Christ (as the Fathers speak) but not so perfect, as that they shou'd not need their Prayers; since it were both vain and superfluous to have pray'd for them upon this Score, had they believ'd, they were immediately receiv'd into Heaven, or thrust into Hell. This I am confident no Man of Sense can reasonably deny: So that it is a most shameful Evasion, to conclude, that the Primitive Church did not believe Pur­gatory; because they pray'd for the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles and Martyrs, &c. else why do they not conclude, that we do not believe it; because we do the same?

To sum up all these Evidences then, I rea­son thus: The Primitive Church pray'd to God for some Souls departed, that they might be deliver'd out of Prison; that their Faults, and Sins might be forgiven them; that they might be eas'd of their Pain; that they might be sav'd from the Punishment of Fire; that they might be receiv'd into Heaven; but such Prayers are inconsistent with a Be­lief, that the Souls departed are immediate­ly taken into Heaven, or condemn'd to Hell. Therefore the Primitive Church believ'd there was a Third Place, wherein some souls departed were detain'd, and were capable of being assisted and better'd by their Prayers.

The first Proposition is taken from the ve­ry Words of the Fathers, and acknowledged by our Adversaries to be true. The second, a very small portion of Natural Reason, with [Page 283] never so little insight in Scripture, and Chri­stian Religion (which assure us that Prayers of that nature, for those that are in Heaven or Hell, are needless and vain) will easily discover to be likewise True. And I think, the consequence is rightly infer'd; I now proceed to the Objections.

3. The Doctor objects first, Vol. 2 Pag. 63. ‘that the Doctrine of Purgatory is not founded in Scripture, nor can be prov'd from it; and that some of our own Eminent Men do ac­knowledge it cannot.’ To which

I answer, that I have produc'd two Passa­ges from Scripture, and cou'd produce as many more; which the most Eminent Fa­thers of the Primitive Church have interpre­ted of Purgatory, and therefore I think, I may safely tell the Dr. that, with submission, He was mistaken. As to those Eminent Men of our Church, who say, that the Doctrine of Purgatory cannot be prov'd from Scrip­ture; when any one, in his behalf, names them, and points at the place in their Works where they say so, I will return him as satisfactory an Answer as I can. In the mean time, I may reasonably presume, they say no such thing: Seeing he was never backward in giving cita­tions, when they made any thing for him. All the Eminent Men, He vouches for this, is Estius, who, by the Dr's. own confession, only says, that, in his Opinion, the Passage of St. Paul above cited, does not evince Pur­gatory; but does not say, that other Passages of Scripture do not; and if he had, I shou'd oppose to his Opinion that of Tertulian, St. [Page 284] Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, St. Austin, and many more of the Ancient Fathers, whose Authority, in this matter, ought I think, to weigh more with any reasonable Man, than that of any modern Writer whatsoever.

Vol. 2. edit. post ob. pag. 307.His second Objection is borrow'd from a Text in the Revelations: Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from hence forth: Yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their La­bours, and their Works do follow them, cap. 14.13. ‘Here, says the Dr. the Spirit pro­nounces them happy who die in the Lord, because they rest from their Labours, which, adds He, they wou'd not do, were they to be tormented in Purgatory Fire: Ergo, &c.’

Answ. This Passage is confessedly obscure, as to the meaning of some Words in it, and the Time whence the blessing there mention'd is to Commence; and the Doctor's bestowing six full Pages, upon the Explication of it, shews it to be so; and for that Reason, I think it is against the Rules of Logic, to pre­tend to more Evidence in the conclusion, than the Premises will afford. But it seems he for­got in his second Sermon upon this Text, that in his First, he had told us, that the Dead, which die in the Lord, in Scripture Phrase, are those who die, or are put to death for the Lord's Cause, that is, as he expresly says, suffer Martyrdom for the Lord; I say, he must have forgot this, else he wou'd not have objected that Text against Purgatory; since he cou'd not be ignorant, that we be­lieve, that all the Martyrs, who suffer for the Faith of Christ, and even other Eminent [Page 285] Saints, who do not suffer Martyrdom, but live the life of Martyrs, do rest from their Labours, and pass not thro' the Fire of Purgatory. Wherefore in my opinion, he shou'd have given us an other Interpretation of this Text, or have let Purgatory alone, but 'tis no new thing to find the Doctor pulldown in one place what he had built in an other; and therefore I am not surpriz'd to see Purgatory brought in by Head and Shoulders, and spoken against in Season, and out of Season. 'Tis Purgato­ry that reproaches the Sacrileges, and Depre­dations of the Doctor's Ancestors of worthy Memory, and Bears hard upon their Posteri­ty; and upon that account, it must be Cry'd down, lest the horrid guilt of the Sacrileges of the Fathers, shou'd fly in the Face of their Children, and give them that Purgatory in this Life, which, He wou'd perswade them, they shall not meet with, in the next.

For a third Objection, the Doctor tells us, Vol. 2. Edit. Post. ob. Pag. 310. we have a very considerable, and substantial Reason to exempt as few, as possibly we can, from going to Purgatory; because, says he, the more we put in fear of going thither, the Market of Indulgences (as he calls it) riseth the higher, and the profit thence accruing to the Pope's C [...]ffers; and the more and greater Legacies will be less [...]o the Priests, to hire their saying of Masses for the delivery of Souls out of the Place of Tor­ments.

Answ. After my hearty thanks to the Dr. for his Charitable Opinion of us, I must ob­serve, from what is above said, that, it seems, this Market of Indulgences is of a very long [Page 286] standing; and that the Ancient Fathers of the Church, took great care it shou'd not sink. But to be serious: 'Tis well known, and even acknowledged by the Learned of his Church, that in the Time of Gregory the Great, now a Thousand Years since, the Doc­trine of Purgatory, and all the Practices con­sequent upon it, were believ'd and us'd, as they are now. And did that great Saint ex­empt as few as he cou'd from Purgatory, only to raise the Market of Indulgences? Did all the Bishops of the Western Church, nay and of all the World, concur with him in this, on­ly to fill his Coffers? Alas! The good Holy Man had but few Coffers, and as little Money to fill them with: Conversion of Souls, not Money was his bus'ness. Did St. Austin de­sign the raising of the Market of Indulgences, or the putting of the People into a fear of go­ing to Purgatory, when he earnestly desires, the Readers of his Confessions to pray for his Mother Monica's Soul for the remission of her Sins? And had St. Jerom any thoughts of filling the Pope's Coffers, when he wrote, that much benefit wou'd accrue to the Souls depar­ted, by the commemoration made of them in the venerable and dreadful Mysteries? For shame Doctor! Away with such unchristian Scan­dals, and do not put us upon exposing your Credit and Character any farther. But per­haps the Legacies left for the bireing of Priests (as he odly phrases it) to say Mass, for the delivery of Souls out of the place of Torments, will mend the matter. Indeed, if the Priests were allow'd to determin matters of Faith, [Page 287] the thing (comming from the Doctor) wou'd not appear altogether so unreasonable; for, considering how very remarkable his Charity is to Priests, I do not question, He wou'd judge they wou'd deal well for themselves, had they but the handling of these matters. But, it is no less evident, that no simple Priest has ever yet had any Vote in declaring mat­ters of Faith, than that no other is hired (as He calls it) or will receive any Money for saying Masses for the Living, or the Dead; but the poorer, or more indigent sort of Priests, who have not a sufficient Patrimony, or Maintenance to subsist without it. And the matter being undeniably so; where is the Conscience in saying, that the Councils and Prelates of the Church, shou'd possess the People with the fear of Purgatory, only to oblige them to hire some indigent Priests to say Mass for their Souls? But the Scandal is so gross and palpable, that the best answer I can make it is to contemn it.

The Doctor has some two, or three Ob­jections more upon this Subject; but they are either solv'd in the Proofs brought for this Point, or coincident with those Objections already spoken to; or else have no particular Difficulty: And so I take leave of him for this Time.

CHAP. X. Of Indulgences.

THE Power of Indulgences is founded in the Power of the Keys wherewith Je­sus Christ was pleas'd to intrust the Pastors and Governours of the Church; by which Emblem of Keys, is denoted the Power of opening and shutting the Kingdom of Hea­ven; of letting in, and keeping out, as Chri­stians shall be found worthy, of the one, or the other. This Power is promis'd to Saint Peter, in a special Manner, and in his Per­son to all his lawful Successors, in these Words: I say unto thee, that thou art Peter [...] (i. e. a Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church; and the Gates of Hell shall not pre­vail against it. And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatso­ever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, Mat. 16.18.19. Again, the Promise of binding and loosing is made, in another Place, to all the Apostles, in the same Words: Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven: And whatsoever ye loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven, Matt. 18.18. And Christ, a little before his Ascension, actu­ally confer'd this power upon them, and told [Page 289] them wherein it consists. Receive ye the Holy-Ghost; whosoever Sins ye remit, they are re­mitted unto them, and whosoever Sins ye retain, they are retain'd. Joa. 20.22, 23. So that the Power of the Keys consists in remitting of Sins, and retaining them; that is, in loosing Men from those Bands of Iniquity, wherewith they tye themselves, and in bind­ing them up, or keeping them bound, till they have satisfied for their Sins, according to the Rules prescrib'd for that purpose. In a Word, in opening the Gates of the King­dom of Heaven, and letting some in; and in shutting the same, and excluding others, as they shall be found to have deserv'd it.

But, whereas our Blessed Saviour did not intend, that the Apostles, and their Succes­sors shou'd bind Sinners so, as finally to ex­clude them from the Kingdom of Heaven; but only to keep them under Discipline for a Time, till they had fulfill'd the Terms of the Covenant upon which he offers them Sal­vation; which consists in Obedience to His Laws, in Repentance and Satisfaction for their Sins, and Amendment of Life for the Time to come; so the Church in all Ages never retain'd the Sins of Men for any other End, than to keep them in a wholesome and sa­ving Discipline; till, by penitential and la­borious Works, they had given Marks of their Sorrow and Repentance, in Proportion to the Greatness of their Sins. And as the A­postles and their Successors are commission'd by Christ to retain Sins, so likewise are they to loose them: And therefore may re­mit, [Page 290] abate, or alter these penitential and laborious Works, as their Prudence and Wis­dom shall judge it most expedient.

Now Indulgence is nothing else but a Re­laxation, or Remission of some part of (or all) these penitential Works to which a Sin­ner is lyable by the Canons of the Church; which Remission is granted by the Pastors, but especially by the Chief Pastor of the Church, upon some weighty Considerations, for the greater Benefit, and Advantage of the Faithful in general: Which that we may the better understand, it will be requi­site, to lay open some part of the Discipline of the Primitive Church with Respect to this Matter.

We have 50 Canons, that go under the Name of the Apostles; which, if not of them, are undoubtedly of some Apostolical Bishops of the first or second Age; their Use and Au­thority being very great since that Time. We have likewise the Canons of several Provincial Councils of the third and fourth Age, which have been in great Esteem and Veneration among the Ancients; and for the pure and wholesome Discipline contain'd in them, have been inserted in the Codex Canonum, or Book of Canons of the Ʋniver­sal Church, as the Ancient Writers term it. These Canons, among other Matters of Dis­cipline, prescribe the different Penances, which were to be impos'd upon Sinners in proportion to the greatness of their Sins; whence came the Name of Penitential Can­ons, so famous in Antiquity. Some Canons [Page 291] prescribe seven Years Penance to certain Sins; others, eight Years to other sins; some pre­scribe ten Years, some fifteen, some to the Hour of Death. Some Penitents, by order of these Canons, fasted three Days every Week, during the Time of their Penance; using no other Sustenance, during that Time, but Bread and Water; others stood co­ver'd with Sackcloath at the Church Doors sub dio, in the open Air, on Sundays and Festivals, while their Penance lasted; others stood within Doors cloathed in the same Raiment, weeping and lamenting their sins; some lay prostrate upon the Floor begging and praying their Brethren to intercede for them; others were admitted to hear divine Service, in the Weeds of Penitents after they had gone thro' the foremention'd Stations; whence the Names of Hyemantes, Flentes, Pro­strati, Audientes, so often mention'd in the Canons.

Now these Rigorous Penances (very Rigo­rous I am sure they wou'd appear in our Days) or Exomologeses, as some of the Fa­thers call them, were sometimes abated and remitted; partly upon Account of the Fer­vor of the Penitents, who, before they had gone thro' all their Stations, gave such Marks of sincere Repentance, that, to encourage o­thers to follow their Examples, they were ad­mitted to the Communion and Fellowship of the Faithful; tho' they had not compleated, the Time prescrib'd by the Canons: Part­ly, but more especially, at the Intercession of the Martyrs: For when any Martyrs were [Page 292] to be executed, and had begg'd of the Bi­shops to indulge those Penitents, whom they recommended to them; the Bishops, who cou'd not in Reason, refuse any thing in their Power, to Men, who were ready to lay down their Lives, and shed their Blood for the Christian Faith; did commonly grant their Requests. And this the Fathers call'd (as in very deed it is) Indulgence.

It were endless to instance in all the Ex­amples, which might be brought from the Fathers of the second and third Age upon this Subject. St. Cyprian is most remarkable in this Bus'ness. We have several of his Epistles, wherein he tells us, that having ve­ry often granted Indulgences to Penitents, at the request of Martyrs; he was forc'd at last (being too much importun'd for Peo­ple, who did not deserve that Favor) to write to the Martyrs themselves, to beg of them, that they wou'd not recommend, but such as were worthy of that Grace; at least, that they shou'd not take it ill, if he shou'd not grant their Request; lest the Discipline of the Church shou'd be enervated upon that Score. The same Father complains in his Letters to the Clergy of Rome, and to others, that some of his own Priests, in his Absence, had presum'd to give Indulgences, which the Bishops only cou'd do. In short, there is nothing more frequently mention'd both by Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers; or more universally practic'd for the four first Ages, than these Indulgences.

[Page 293]Now the Roman Catholic Church neither means by Indulgences. nor pretends to any more than the same Power, which the Pri­mitive Fathers both had and practic'd; that is, of dispensing with, or remitting the Ro­nances prescrib'd by the Canons; nor did she ever pretend to dispense with any Man from Repentance for Sins, or Obedience to the Law of God. On the contrary, the R. C. Church teaches, and has always taught, that all the Indulgences in the World do signifie nothing, without a hearty Contrition and sincere Sorrow for Sin, which is the Spirit and Essence of Christian Devotion. But Canonical penances being meerly of Eccle­siastical Institution, and pertaining to Dis­cipline; it cannot be denied, but that the Church has Power to Intend, or Remit them, according to the different Circum­stances of Time, Place and Persons; espe­cially since Christ himself has given her Power to remit and retain Sins, in which Power this Relaxation is manifestly implied.

'Tis true, the R. C. Church does not now impose such rigorous Penances upon Sinners, as the primitive Church did. Nor does she expose them publickly in the Church in Pe­nitential Weeds, as was practic'd in the pri­mitive Times; but then the Reason on't is, because no Body now wou'd undertake these Penances; because she is convinc'd, that Men wou'd sooner break off with Christ, and turn Heathens, than purchase Heaven at so dear a Rate: So far has Wickedness and Dissolution prevail'd in the World!

[Page 294]In the Infancy of the Church, Piety, De­votion, Mortification, Austerity were lovely Things: Christians affected them very much of themselves, and therefore readily under­took them, when they had the misfortune to fall into any grievous Sin. Besides, they had before their Eyes frequent Examples of the Constancy and Resolution of their Pastors. They saw them expose their Lives with the greatest contempt of the World, and bear the Torments of Racks, Gridirons, Wheels, and other hellish Instruments (Episcopacy in those days being but one remove from Mar­tyrdom) with as much chearfulness, and as little concern, as if these cruel Engins had been Bays and Laurels; and therefore it is not to be admir'd, that the Blood of Martyrs, then reeking hot, shou'd warm their inclina­tions to sufferings and mortification; and stir them up to a contempt of the allurements and pleasures of a wicked World; not knowing how soon they themselves shou'd be call'd to the like Fiery Tryal. But no sooner did the Blood of Martyrs grow cold, and the Ter­rors of Death were taken away, by the Peace and Quiet, which Constantine the Great re­stor'd to the Church, when the Primitive Piety and Devotion began to decay, and Christians multiplied their Sins, as they did their Riches. No sooner were the San­gninary Laws, and cruel Edicts of Pagan Em­perors repeal'd; and Christians put in Pos­session of great Fortunes, and promoted to Honors and Dignities; when they forgot their former Condition, wax'd wanton a­gainst [Page 295] Christ, and spurn'd at Discipline. So that, in a few Ages after, you might as well expect Grapes from Thorns, or Figs from Thistles, as the primitive Penances from modern Christians: And therefore it was necessary to mitigate the Severity of that Discipline, lest the generality of (I may say all) Christians shou'd throw off all care of their Salvation, and either return to Pagan Idola­try, or follow the Delusions of their own Fancies.

However, since the Apostles, and Aposto­lical Bishops (whose Conduct ought to be the Rule and Measure of all future Ages) have prescrib'd, and declar'd what Penances ought to be impos'd upon Sinners, according to the degree of their Sins; the Church hath always taught, that all Christians, who have been, or are so unfortunate as to fall into grievous Sins; are still lyable to these Penan­ces, unless they are dispens'd with by the Church, or Commuted for some other Works of Piety. And, that the discipline of the Church, might be preserv'd and upheld, as much as the Wickedness of the Times will bear; all Pastors and Confessors are command­ded to impose such Penances upon Sinners as will bear some proportion with the greatness of their Sins; tho' not to that degree as the primitive Canons require: Leaving the rest to be dispens'd with, or Indulg'd by the Chief Pastors of the Church, according to the power which Christ has given them, and as general Councils have determin'd. And this, in as few Words as I cou'd well deliver [Page 296] it, is truly and plainly the Case of Indulgences; and the reason, why they are so often given, is the great decay of Piety and Devotion in Christians, and the tender affection of the Church for their eternal Welfare; not a de­sire of Money, or any filthy Lucre, as our Adversaries do most injustly suggest. On the contrary, I am confident that there is not one Divine or Casuist in our Church, who does not hold, that it is Sinful and Diabolical, even the Sin of Simon Magus, to give, or re­ceive any Money for Indulgences. And seve­ral General Councils and Pope's Decrees have expresly declar'd that to give, or receive any sort of Gift, either directly, or indirectly, for either Indulgences, or any other Spiri­tual Grace is perfect S [...]mony; which, surely, is sufficient to justifie us from any sinister dea­ling in this particular.

As to the Abuses of Indulgences, which I do not deny to have sometimes happen'd; we 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 Jubile [...]s, and Plenary Indulgences; shou'd think on their way, in the bitterness of their S [...]als; shou'd repent, and be sorry for their Sins; shou'd have a strong hope and confidence in the Mercy of Almighty God; gi [...] Al [...] to the Poor, and, by their [...] and servent Prayers, dispose themselves, [...] God is Grace, to receive the Indul [...], of Permissi­on of those Canonical Penances, which, [Page 297] 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?

[Page 298]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 [Page 299] 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 [Page 300] 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, Eu [...]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: 'Tis 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.

[Page 301] 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.