A Modest and True Account OF THE Chief Points IN CONTROVERSY Between The Roman Catholics, And the PROTESTANTS: TOGETHER With some Considerations upon the SERMONS of a Divine of the Church of England.  
By N. C.  Corripiet me Justus in Misericordia, & increpabit me; Oleum autem Peccatoris non impinguet caput meum, Psal. 141. 
ANTWERP: Printed in the YEAR, 1696.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHen first I thought of this Work, my Design was only to answer the most material Objections in Dr. Tillotson's Sermons; without offering any Reasons or Arguments, to prove the Tenets which He impugns. But upon second Thoughts, considering that the Weaker, and more Ignorant sort of People, for whose Use I chief designed it, might be easily shaken in their Faith, by the specious Arguments of this Ingenious Man; and not a little startled at his Pretence to Evidence of Sense and Reason, against the Doctrine of R. Catholics; and that perhaps they had not the leisure, nor happily the will, to read over other Controversies, where the said Doctrine is largely proved: I judged it would contribute more to their satisfaction, and strengthen them more effectually in their Faith, if I should lay down some of the Grounds on which their Belief is founded; than barely to solve the Objections, and refer them to other Books for the Proof of their Faith: Weak Capacities being commonly loath to take much pains; and, what is worse, apt to forget what they read in one Place, before they join it to that which they read in another: Whereas a brief Account of their Faith, and some Considerations upon the Objections laid together, would render the Task more easy, and the satisfaction more full.  
But what influenced me most to take that Method, was this: A certain R. Catholic Gentlewoman being very uneasy with her Friends, upon account of Religion, was very much solicited by One, to whom she had some special Obligations, to read Dr. Tillotson's Sermons, as the most effectual means to make her see the Truth of the Protestant Religion, and the Errors of her own: And to engage her the more in the matter, he read some of the said Sermons to her, and highly commended them; concluding that nothing could be more plain, than that she was very much wanting to her own Interest, if she should refuse to read those Sermons, which (as he said) made out as clear as the Day, that she was in an Error. Which when she told me, and withal added, that she should be glad to have the Scruples, which these Sermons gave her, removed; and not a little pleased to find that her own Faith was founded in Scripture, and in the Authority of the Primitive Fathers, which it seems, she had not taken pains to inquire into before: I promised her to contribute my Endeavours to her satisfaction in both.  
And this, in a word, is what chief determined me to prefix the Proof of each Controverted Point to the Dr's Objections. How well I have succeeded in the Performance, let others judge. This (with many other Defects) I am Conscious of, that the apprehension of being too tedious, has made me contract my Arguments and Reasons; and bring them within a narrower Compass than the Rules of Discourse will well allow of. My Business it to instruct the Weak, and Ignorant, not to please the Curious; and therefore, if I have delivered my Thoughts plain and easy, I am content. 'Tis the Fate of Great Volumes scarce ever to be read all out, at least, by such as most need them; and so, by multiplying of Reasons and Arguments, and dilating upon them, the whole is made useless. Whereas small Treatises, of two or three days reading, are commonly perused by every body, upon this sole Consideration, that if the Advantage be not great, at least the Labour is but little.  
For this Reason, in quoting the Fathers, I have multiplied their Number, nor their Passages to that degree as might otherwise be expected. But to make Amends, I took special care to bring no one Passage, to which any Learned Protestant can justly except; being such as the most Judicious Critics do acknowledge to be the Genuine Works of those Fathers, in whose Names they are quoted. My Passages are, indeed, Small in Number, but Great in Authority. I judged, that five or six of the Fathers, the most Eminent for Piety and Learning, were sufficient Witnesses of the Faith of their Times; especially when not contradicted by others. These Great Men I look upon as so many Flaming Torches, set up to give Light to all future Ages. Their vast Learning and Knowledge in Sciences, especially in the Law of God, is enough to persuade any Man, that they could not be ignorant of any the least Point of their Faith; and their Piety and Zeal for God's Honour, and His Holy Religion, sets them above the suspicion of even Malice itself, of Writing, or Teaching, or Practising any thing that should appear to be contrary to the Faith and Discipline of the Church; especially, since their learned Works do still demonstrate how suddenly they were alarmed at the least Errors, or Innovations in these Matters, and how zealously they wrote against, and branded the Broachers and Promoters of Novelty. So that we may confidently assert, That what these Fathers taught and believed, was undoubtedly the Catholic Faith; and pronounce upon the strength of their Reasons and Authority, tho' we had no other Arguments to prove it.  
As to Dr. Tillotson's Sermons, because there are several Editions of them in different Sizes, it will be requisite to let the Reader know what Edition and Size I make use of. I have all that has been hitherto published of them, in Eight Volumes, in a large Octavo; whereof, the two first are of the Eighth Edition; the third, of the Fourth; and all the rest, of the First Edition. But the Three Last being published by Dr. Barker, after the Decease of the Author, are Marked on the Back, and in the Title Page, 1st. 2d. 3d. Vol. which in my Citations I point at thus. Vol. 1st. 2d. or 3d. Edit. post Obits. to distinguish them from the Rest, which are Cited without Addition, only that of Volume and Page.  
Two things more seem to require I should here speak to, in order to bespeak the Reader's Favour: The First, that it may seem to need some Apology, that in Answering the Books of an Arch Bishop, I do not treat him with that Civility and Respect, that is due to his Person and Character. The Second, that it may seem very hardy and bold for a R. Catholic to engage in a Controversy, which must needs offend many, especially at this time of day, when the most Innocent of our Actions are liable to sinister Constructions: For it seems to carry a face of Rashness and Presumption to provoke our Superiors, when we know it is in their Power to crush and destroy us.  
To the First I Answer; That I have endeavoured, (as far as the Nature of the Cause would allow it) to keep within the Compass of Civility and Respect; and would have given no Man cause to complain, if his Conduct had not (as I conceive) extorted some hard Words from me. 'Tis true, no manner of Dispute, or Controversy, can Justify a Man's being Rude or uncivil; yet, I believe every one will allow, that it is not possible to manage a Controversy of this Nature, and, at the same Time, to show the Respect that might be expected upon other Occasions, without betraying the Cause. I have, indeed, on purpose, forborn to give him any other Title than that of Doctor; because my Dispute with him is not, as he was an Archbishop, but as a Dr. of Divinity; and because I conceived, I might with less Disrespect use the necessary freedom of speech under that Notion. However, if any of my Readers will please to do me the favour, to let me know wherein I have unnecessarily exceeded the Limits of due Moderation, I shall take it very kindly, and endeavour to make amends for my Fault.  
To the Second; That I never intended to provoke or exasperate any Man; much less would I provoke any of the worthy Members of the Church of England, whom I am in Duty bound to Honour and Respect: And if I wrote any thing that looks that way, 'twas the necessity of the Subject, not my Inclination, that forced me upon it.  
My Design was only to lay before those of my own Persuasion, the Truth of that Doctrine, which they, and their Ancestors, have believed since Christianity was planted among Them; and which I see now they have many Temptations to quit: And in this, I think, I do but follow the Example of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers, who, in the greatest Heat of Persecutions and Fiery Trials, (as the Scripture phrases it) took more care than ever, to inculcate to the Christians the Truth of their Religion; and to Arm them with the Hopes of a future Life, that they might, the better, be able to bear up against the Temptations, and Rage of the World; and suffer with Joy, as St. Paul saith, the Pillage and Plunder of their Goods. Rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis. However, if I have sinned on that hand, I have that confidence in the Equity and Goodness of the Church of England, that my Fault, which is peculiar to myself, will not be required at the hands of Those of my Persuasion, whose Consent, or Approbation I never desired.  
I am not ignorant, That our Lives, and Fortunes, are at the Mercy of the Law, and may be deprived of Both, when it shall please our Magistrates to put them in Execution: But such is their Lenity and Goodness, that they overlook us, and suffer us to live; which we accept always, and in all places, and with all Thankfulness; and earnestly beseech Almighty God to bless and prosper them for it.  
The Better Sort, (which, blessed be God, are also the Greater) are sensible, that our only Crime is our Conscience, which we cannot help; and which, I trust in God, we shall ever prefer to all that is most dear to us in this World. They desire our Conversion, because they think us in an Error; and we likewise desire, and earnestly pray for theirs, because we are persuaded they are in the wrong. They know we have made no Innovations in Religion, nor broached any New Doctrines; but only stick to, and (to use St. Paul's Words) hold fast the Profession of that Faith, which we received from our, and their Ancestors: A Plea which secured the very Pagans in the Possession of their Lives and Fortunes, when the Christians got the better of them; and which, I trust in God, and in the Goodness of our Governors, will ever secure us.  
We are not therefore insensible of the Clemency and Good Nature of the Worthy Men of the Church of England, nor are we so dull as not to take notice of the Connivance and Liberty they are pleased to allow us; but we think we cannot make them a more suitable Return, (a more charitable I am sure we cannot) than to lay before them the Dangerous Consequences of their Errors, and the desperate State of their Souls. We see the horrid Sacrileges committed by their Ancestors, and the Schism and Heresy into which they fell; and we conceive it our Duty to them, (who, tho' they should use us never so ill, are still our Brethren) to mind them of the great Danger and Hazard they run, in following the Steps of their Forefathers; and in persisting in those Things, which we conceive are very great Impieties. And if, in handling these Matters, we are forced to use such Expressions, as may seem to give Offence; 'tis the Necessity of the Subject, not our Inclination, that extorts them from us. Bad Things must have bad Names, and Words must bear some Proportion with the Things they are put to signify; else they would not give us a just Idea of them: And therefore, in speaking to things, that are confessedly Bad, namely Heresy and Schism; if any Expressions, in this Treatise, may seem to shock, or give Offence, I hope they will be looked upon as necessary and unavoidable; and consider d as Vinegar intended only to Cleanse the Wound; but not to Vex the Patient, tho' it should prove Uneasy to him; which I call the Great GOD of Heaven to Witness, was the Author's Design.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 2. Line 3. read Ingenious. p 6 l 12. r seemingly. p 7. l 19 r Patrlarches. p 1●. l 33. r demonstration. p 17. l 30. r according. p 25. l. 1. r ●●●ebians. p 39 l ult. r Homin●m. p 52. l 1●. r Catera●. p 55. l 17. r as. p 8. l 28 r prayed. p 106. l 2. add it. p 119. 16. r this is. ibid. l 13. r be. p 129. l 34. r re●●●'d. p 131. l. 24. r Scurrilous. p 157 l. 29. r too. p 158. l 10. r Incredulous. ibid. l 15. r Divest. p 174. l 24. r added. p 175. l 33 r tell. p 183. l 26. r was. p 184. l 28. r practice. ibid. l 30. r given. p. 100 l 1. r Question. p 193. l 2. r left. p 200. l 21. deal must. p. 204. l 27. r Calvinists. p 207. l 33. r Captivity. p 208. l 14. r Eastern. ibid. l 18. r Common. p 215. l 14. r hundred. p 216. l 24. r probity. p 220. l 18. add it is. 222. l 24. r Test. p 225. l 32 r appear. p 228. l 20. r Solemn. p 251. l 3. 〈◊〉. p 261. l 18. r proportion. p 262. l 15. r gra●eful, p 297. l 32. for these r the.   

A Modest and True ACCOUNT OF THE Chief Points in Controversy, etc.  

The Introduction.  
IT is commonly said, and our own Experience teacheth it us, that good Language goes far in gaining Credit to whatever is said; and that a smooth polished Discourse, when Gravely delivered, seems to carry the Face of Truth, though it should happen to be otherwise. Words, when handsomely laid together, have I know not what of Charming in them, and do challenge the Attention of the most obstinate, especially when delivered by a Man in a High Station. This, with some other Considerations, moved me to examine the Sermons of Doctor Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury; to see if the intrinsic Value of his Coin be answerable to the Lustre, and outward Appearance of it.  
This ingen●ous Man has taken a great deal of Pains to convince the World of his Skill in Controversy, and has delivered his Thoughts in such fine smooth Language, that, in my Opinion, very few of his Brethren can equal him in the Elegancy of his Style. We have eight Volumes in 8vo. of his Sermons, in which he seems to have exhausted the Treasure of his Eloquence, in combating the most essential Points controverted betwixt Catholics and Protestants; viz. The Infallibility of the Church, the Pope's Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, Prayers in an unknown Tongue, as he is pleased to call it; Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, (his own words) Purgatory, and Indulgences. Tho' this be not the Order, I find he observes in handling these Points, but treats of 'em a little confusedly, as suited best with his Texts; yet, for method Sake, I chose to lay 'em down in this order, being, as I suppose, the more natural to treat of the most material Points, before I come to those that seem to be of less Importance. In the handling then of this important Piece of Controversy, I shall, with God's Assistance, observe this Method.  
First, I will lay down what the Roman Catholics believe, as of Faith, concerning these Points.  
Secondly, I will prove their Tenets with Reason, Scripture, and Authority of Fathers; tho' of this there should seem little need, considering that it has been so often already done; were it not that my Business is with the simple and ignorant, whom I would willingly instruct in the Grounds of their own Faith, as well as to caution them against the Subtleties of their Adversaries.  
Thirdly, I will answer all the material Objections, which Dr. Tillotson brings against the said Tenets; and do faithfully promise, that where I do not quote his own words, (for that I cannot always do, by reason they are in many places very long) I shall not extenuate nor diminish, to the best of my Knowledge, the Force of his Arguments; nor wrist his Words to any other Sense, than what they naturally bear in any other Man's Mouth, or Writings.  
But before I begin, it will not be amiss to lay down the Foundation on which this Ingenuous Man builds his Controversy; a Foundation, indeed, whose Superstructure had it been so true and solid, as it is artificially contrived, would in a great measure justify the Church of England, and all other Protestant's Separation from their ancient Brethren, and silence the R. Catholics from fastening the Imputation of Schism and Heresy upon them. But how far this is from what it seems to be, let the Reader judge when the Mask is taken off.  
Dr. Tillotson's Fundamental Principle than is this. Whatever is plain and evident to our Senses and Reason, is to be believed, tho' all the Churches and Men in the World should persuade us to the contrary. Thus far, I own, he is in the right; but what he infers from thence, namely, that this is the Protestants Case in regard of the Papists, (as he is pleased to call the R. Catholics) requires something more than Herculean Labours to prove. He owns, indeed, (and that for Reasons well known to the World) that in things doubtful and obscure, every private Man ought to hear the Church, and receive her Interpretation; but in things that are plain and evident, nay, as evident, as that twice two make four; I would stand alone, says he, against all the World: His own Words are thus, as I find them in the fifth Volume of his Sermons, pag. 16.  
In all matters of Faith and Practice, which are plain and evident, either from Natural Reason, or from Divine Revelation, this Resolution seems to be very reasonable: But in things doubtful, a modest Man (and every Man hath Reason to be so) would be apt to be staggered by the Judgement of a very Wise Man; and much more of many such, and especially by the unanimous Judgement of the Generality of Men.  
But in things plainly contrary to the evidence of Sense or Reason, or the Word of God, a Man would compliment no Man, or Number of Men; nor would he pin his Faith upon any Church in the World; much less upon any single Man, no not the Pope; no, tho' there were never so many probable Arguments brought for the Proof of his Infallibility.  
In this Case, a Man would be singular, and stand alone against the whole World; against the Wrath and Rage of a King, and all the Terrors of his fiery Furnace; as in other matters, a Man would not believe all the Learned Men in the World against the clear Evidence of Sense and Reason. If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages, Archimedes, and Euclid, and Apollonius and Diophantus, etc. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council, and should there declare in the most solemn manner, and give it under their Hands and Seals, that twice two did not make four but five; this would not move me in the least to be of their mind; nay, I who am no Mathematician, would maintain the contrary, and would persist in it, without being in the least startled by the positive Opinion of these Learned Men; and would most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits, or that they were biased by some Interest or other, and swayed against the clear Evidence of Truth, and the full Conviction of their own Reason, to make such a Determination as this. They might, indeed, overrule the point by their Authority; but in my inward Judgement, I should still be where I was before.  
Just so in Matters of Religion, if any Church, tho' with never so glorious a pretence to Infallibility, should declare for Transubstantiation; that is, that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest, are Substantially changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ; this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind, that a Man would choose to stand single in the opposition of it, and laugh at, or rather pity the rest of the World that could be so servilely blind, as seeming to conspire in the Belief of so monstrous an Absurdity.  
And in like manner, if any Church should declare that Images are to be worshipped; or that the Worship of God is to be performed in an unknown Tongue; and that the Holy Scriptures which contain the Word, and Will of God, and teaches Men what they are to believe and do in order to their eternal Salvation, are to be locked up and kept concealed from the People in a Language which they do not understand, lest, if they were permitted the free use of them, in their Mother Tongue, they should know more of the Mind and Will of God, than is convenient for the common people to know, whose Devotion and Obedience to the Church does chief depend upon their Ignorance: Or should declare that the Sacrifice of Christ was not offered once for all, but is and aught to be repeated ten millions of times every day; and that the people ought to receive the Communion in one kind only, and the Cup by no means to be trusted with them, for fear the profane Beards of the Laity should drink of it; and that the saving Efficacy of the Sacraments doth depend upon the Intention of the Priest, without which the Receiver can have no Benefit by them: These are all of them so plainly contrary to Scripture, and most of them in reason so absurd, that the Authority of no Church whatsoever can oblige a Man to the Belief of them. Thus far the Dr.  
Here you see, Christian Reader, a Great Orator and Divine, teaching from the Pulpit and Press, that Sense, Reason, and Scripture are all on the Protestant's side in the aforesaid controverted Points, as clear and evident as that twice two make four. Here you see him arraign all the Patriacks, Primats, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Doctors, Universities, and even all Kings, Princes, Peers, Magistrates, together with the common people of all Countries and Provinces of the West; as also the Greek Church, and all the Countries and Provinces in Communion with it; all these Learned and Pious Christians, I say that flourished in, and Governed this part of the World, when Martin Luther appeared upon the Theatre, this worthy Man arraigns for Fools and Madmen; I say, for Fools and Madmen; for all these Patriarches, Primats, Kings, Princes, etc. professed, in those days, to be guided by their Senses, by natural Reason, and by the Word of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures; and yet all of them believed the very same, concerning the said Points, the R. Catholics do now. Surely then, they must have been all Fools and Madmen, if Sense, Reason and Scripture be as clear and evident on the Protestant's side, as that twice two make four. For, who ever in his wits denied, that twice two do make four? Or in his right Senses, ever affirmed, that white was black, or black white? Or that any of our Senses, when they are perfect, do not give irrefragable Testimony of their proper Objects? Or that plain and evident Texts of Scripture were not to be believed? These monstrous Absurdities the Dr. fastens upon all the Eminent and learned Men of the Eastern and Western Churches, which flourished not only when Martin Luther risen up, but also, by his own Acknowledgement, for, at least, several Ages before him; which is in effect to Brand them all with the Ignominious Character of Fools and Madmen.  
If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages, saith the Dr. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council, and there declare in the most solemn manner, that twice two did not make four but five, I should most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits, or biased by some Interest or other. But good God What should bias any Man in his Wits, much less any Society of learned Men to declare against a thing so clear and evident? Nothing surely less than Frenzy or Madness. But let us hear the Application. Just so in matters of Religion, (continues the Dr.) if any Church should declare for Transubstantiation, that is, that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest, are Substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ; this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind, that a Man would choose to stand single in the opposition, and laugh at, or rather pity the rest of the World, etc. The Dr. knew very well, and so do all the learned Protestants in the World, that the Latin and Greek Churches, and all in Communion with them, have not only declared for, but have always believed, at least, for several Ages, Transubstantiation, as aforesaid: If it be then so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind, as the Dr. would suggest; all those Men, whereof a great number had, at least, the Reputation of being both Learned and Virtuous, must necessarily have been all of them out of their wits, or biased by some prejudice, which most certainly could be nothing else, but the extremity of Madness and Folly, their eternal Damnation being necessarily consequent upon such a Belief. He pursues the same comparison, instancing in the rest of the Controverted Points aforesaid.  
But what Man in his right Senses would believe, that any one Nation, much less all Europe should conspire to renounce all those means, which God has given them to acquire the Knowledge of things, viz. Sense, Reason, and the Word of God, without which it is impossible to know any thing; especially in a matter which so highly concerns them: Or who would not rather believe, that Dr. Tillotson was mightily mistaken, than that the best part of Mankind should make Shipwreck of that which alone distinguishes them from Beasts? nay, who would not rather believe, that either he himself had been out of his Wits? Or that he designed to impose upon Mankind so strange a paradox, as that hundreds of millions of Learned and Ingenious Men should conspire to declare against that which is, both their everlasting Interest, and constitutes them Men; since neither he nor any Man else, could ever instance in one single Man in his wits, that ever was guilty of such a Folly.  
This, I must confess, is one of the most surprising, nay the most intolerable Charges that ever was laid to Mankind; and yet how monstrous and absurd soever it appears, 'tis no less than what was absolutely necessary to support the Cause the Dr. had undertaken. He was it seems, well read in that famous Dispute betwixt Dr. Hammond and Mr. Serjeant concerning Schism. The former wrote a Book in Vindication of the Church of England from the Imputation of Schism, which the R. Catholics charge her with: The latter answers his Book in an other, entitled, Schism disarmed: Dr. Hammond writes a Reply to this, and Mr. Serjeant adds a Rejoinder to that, which he calls Schism dispatched.  
Now to know what relates to our purpose in this Dispute, you must understand, that Dr. Hammond in the first Chapter of his Defence of the Church of England, in his Description of Schism, paints it in its own horrid and dreadful Shape; as the Scripture, and Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church, had done before him, viz. That it is Carnality, Self-condemning, contrary to Charity, bereaving one of the benefit, both of Prayers and Sacraments; as bad as, and the Foundation of all Heresies; that there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism, not Sacrilege, Idolatry, Parricide, that it is obnoxious to peculiar Marks of God's Indignation, Antichristianism, worshipping or serving the Devil, not expiable by Martyrdom, very hard, if not impossible to receive such an Injury or Provocation from the Governors of the Church, as may make a Separation excusable; impossible, according to St. Austin, that there should be any just cause for any to separate from the Church truly Catholic. Thus far the Dr. and, indeed, very right, only where the Fathers condemn him and his party; he is so much a Friend to his Cause, as to alter the Phrase a little: For instance, whereas St. Ireneus says absolutely, It is impossible to receive such an Injury or Provocation from the Governors of the Church, as to make a Separation excusable; he saw very well, that if no kind of Injury or Provocation could justify a Separation, himself and his Party stood condemned in that Holy Father's Opinion; and therefore he changed the word Impossible, into very hard, if not impossible; tho' in the Greek, (which some will have to be the original) or Latin Translation, there is not the least colour for it. So, where St. Austin saith, That it is impossible there should be any just Cause for any to separate from the Catholic Church; He softens the Expression, changing, Catholic Church, into, the Church truly Catholic; pretending, if I may presume to spell his meaning, that they did not separate from the Church truly Catholic, tho' they had separated from all other Societies and Congregations in the World; upon a ridiculous Pretence, as if the Catholic Church and the Church truly Catholic were two different things; or where the Expression seems too harsh, he thinks himself sufficiently entitled to moderate it; as, where the Holy Father St. Austin says, There is no Crime so great as Schism; he makes bold with his Words rendering them thus; there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism.  
Mr. Sergeant, to whose great Wit, and indefatigable Labour we are obliged for several other Learned and Ingenious Works, in these two excellent Treatises, presses his Antagonist to purge himself and his party of the guilt of Schism; since he owns they had made a separation from that Church, in whose communion they, and their Ancestors were, since they embraced the Christian Faith. But among other pressing Arguments, he urges this, which in my opinion is enough to open any man's eyes that has not sworn never to see the Sun. Dr. Hammond gathers from Fathers and Scripture, that Schism is so horrid a sin, that there is scarce any crime (I give you his own words) so great, not Sacrilege, Idolatry, parricide; not expiable by Martyrdom; very hard, if not impossible to receive such an injury or provocation from the Church, as may make a separation . Impossible according to St. Augustin, that there should be any just cause for any to separate from the Church truly Catholic; whence Mr. Sergeant reasons thus: No Man in his Wits, much less any body of Learned Men ought to separate from the Church, or withdraw themselves from its Authority, unless they had a clear and evident Conviction, both that this Separation wa● absolutely necessary, and that the Authority pretended by the Church, was a manifest usurpation; because they would else incur that horrid guilt of Schism: But Dr. Hammond and his Party are so far from having any such Evidence or Conviction for either the one or the other, that nothing is pretended but bare probabilities and conjectures: Consequently, it is the last of madness and folly in Dr. Hammond and his Party to persist in their Separation. Now, Dr. Tillotson, who was a very acute Man, foreseeing what effect so plain a Demostration was like to have upon such as tendered the Salvation of their Souls; being however resolved to maintain the Cause at any rate, could bethink himself of nothing sufficient to justify so dangerous a Separation, less than a clear and evident Demonstration of the necessity of it: And this, in my opinion, was the Reason why he undertook to demonstrate that, in regard of the aforesaid controverted Points, the common sense of Mankind, natural Reason, and the Scripture, were as clear and evident on the Protestant's side, as that twice two make four. But what if I show that he is so far from having any such Evidence on his side, that there is not one of all these Points in which he instances, but what is destitute of even the least probable Argument to support it? Nay, I go farther, what if I demonstrate that the R. Catholics have all the Evidence and Reason that the nature of such things will bear, for what they hold concerning these Points? Then surely I may reasonably hope, that Rational Men, who ought to tender the welfare of their Immortal Souls, will be so just to themselves, as seriously to consider, into what horrible and dangerous crimes they are drawn by the wilfulness of Men, who are resolved to maintain a Separation, which all the world knows, was begun for no other end than to countenance Things that I am unwilling to name, but are too well known to be concealed.  
This I shall endeavour, by the assistance of God's Grace, to perform in the following Chapters; when I have first laid down that chief and fundamental Point of all Controversies, namely the Infallibility of the Church.  

CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of the Church.  
THE R. Catholics hold, that the Church is infallible, that is, cannot err in delivering the Doctrine she received from Jesus Christ, nor mistake in her Explanation thereof, when by Heretics wrested and perverted to a wrong sense.  
The ground of which Tenet I conceive to be this; that Christ has provided such efficacious means for the conveyance of Truth to all succeeding 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 satisfy men's Reasons, and, if it be possible, to make this Truth so clear and evident, that those whose Interest and Prejudices make them unwilling to own it, may, at least, be ashamed to deny it: And methinks I have this peculiar advantage in this undertaking, that every Pious Christian, who tenders the welfare of his Soul, cannot choose but wish me success; because I undertake the Proof of that which it is every Man's Interest, it should be true; for, if I can show that there is an Infallible Church, and that such a Congregation of Faithful is that Church, than 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, threatened 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 show, 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 show, 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 could effect; and that in order 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, 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 writ. 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 not 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, 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 shows 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 show good Reason for what they say; because it is easy for such a Body of Men, 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 persuaded 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 succeeding 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 persuade its Belief in the beginning, but even contrary to the Light of Nature, the very Philosophers and learned Men, that seemed to promote its Profession, gave no Credit to it. Thus a small number of Saracens persuaded 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 through many spacious Countries, and planted their Religion in most parts of Asia and Africa. 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, 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 Understanding; 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 happened a great Conflagration in London in the Year 66. we have no other Evidence, but the Testimony of the People of England; yet, whoever should deny that Fact, would be looked upon as a Fool, or a Madman. If it be then so incredible, that one Nation, who speak all the same Language, and have daily intercourse one with an other, should be so disingenuous as to deliver to their Posterity as a Truth received from their Ancestors, what they had not received; how should it ever sink into the Heart of any Man in his wits, to believe that Hundreds of Nations of different Humours, Tongues, Customs and Interests, should unanimously agree together to do that, which is so incredible of one single Nation? This indeed is plainly impossible; unless we can suppose, that so many Nations should meet together, or communicate their Thoughts to one another by Writing, and so all agree to tell what they knew not, to the Prejudice of Truth, and their own and Posterities eternal Damnation, than which nothing on Earth is more absurd: Or that God should put it into their Hearts to deceive their Posterity, which, even to imagine, is horrid Impiety.  
The Sum of all that I have said is this, That it is impossible the universal Consent of the Pastors and People of so many different Nations, should concur and agree in declaring any Article or Articles of Faith, unless they had received the same Articles from their Ancestors; and it is equally impossible, that these Ancestors should have so delivered them, unless they had received them from their Ancestors, and these from others their Ancestors, and so up till you come to the first People who took up these Articles: And if it be found, that these people had evident Conviction of the Truth of these Articles, such as true and real Miracles, it is equal to a Demonstration that the same Articles are true; because (as 'tis said before) the working of real Miracles requires an Omnipotent Power; and the Light of Nature shows us, that God would not put his Seal to an Untruth. And if it be asked, how come we to be certainly sure, that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles? I answer, because it is impossible that all the Nations to whom the Apostles and their Disciples preached the said Articles of Faith, should all agree to deliver to Posterity, that they had received such Articles upon a clear Conviction of their Senses and Reason by true Miracles, unless it were true that they had so received them. And this is an Advantage whereof all Heretics are destitute; no Sect that ever yet sprung up in the Church being able to derive its Heretical Opinions from the Apostles, or first Planters of the Christian Faith; but have all a certain Period, beyond which they cannot ascend to derive their Doctrine. To instance in some: The Arians for near 200 Years might claim the General Consent of some Nations, asserting they had received their Doctrine from their Ancestors; but when they went back as far as the Beginning of the fourth Century, all their Ancestors are reduced to miserable Arius, who at that time contrary to the unanimous Consent of the whole Christian World, denied the Divinity of the Son of God.  
In like manner, the Nestorians and Eutychians may pretend to a General Consent of some Nations, for a great many Ages; but when they ascend as far as the latter End of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth Century, they are forced to stop there, and reduce their Ancestors, the first, to Nestorius; the second, to Eutyches a Monk, and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria. The Waldenses likewise may say for themselves something like the rest; but if we look back as far as the twelfth Century, we shall find them all terminate in one single Merchant of Lions 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, 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 Plain of many Souls; most of those People, that followed these Ringleaders, 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 looked 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 adhered to the Heads of each Sect, be they never so many, amounts to no more than that of those One or Two who first opposed it.  
III. That these Authors of Sects did not all oppose this universal Consent at the same time; but some in different Ages, and all at different Times.  
iv That they did not all oppose the same Points of Faith.  
1. That the Contradiction of each of the said Sects began first in one or two at most. This is so manifest in History, and in all Records both innocient and Modern, that it were superfluous to go about to prove it.  
2. That the Contradiction of all such as adhered to the Heads of each Sect, be they never so many, amounts to no more than that of those one or two, who first opposed it. This is evident; for, if Arius, for instance, erred in denying the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; no number of Adherents to his Opinion can make it True. Now that Arius erred 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 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 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 Ringleaders of Sects, to wit, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Luther, etc. 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 differed from the rest of the World; and have therefore got the Apellation of Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Lutherans, etc. whereas, if any Churches, or Societies of Christians had held these Opinions before; they would have continued in Communion with them, and not have separated, from all the World, as 'tis manifest they have, even by the acknowledgement of their own Writers. Secondly, By an Induction of all these Sects in particular, and of the Councils held in several Ages, wherein they were proscribed: But in this I am happily prevented, by the ingenuous confession Dr. Tillotson was pleased to make of this Truth, as far, at least, as relates to my purpose. Thus (says he) in the height of Popery, 
Ser. 1. Vol. 5.  Wickliff appeared 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 overrun the Western Parts of the World, and subdued her Enemies on every side, and Antichrist sat 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 happened 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 risen in the Church. Wickliff, says he, appeared here in England; and Hierom of Prague and John Huss (two of Wickliff's Disciples) in Germany and Bohemia: There was none then of their Opinion before them, Luther stood alone for a long time; all the World was then against him. And must this single Man be believed upon 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 enjoined 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 expressly commanded them, to observe and do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid them: 
Mat. 23.2.  And that, because they sat 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 departed from that Religion which they received from their Ancestors, the Truth whereof was at several times confirmed by True and Real Miracles; nor sinful not to hear his Doctrine to the prejudice of their own, unless he had done greater 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 abandoned 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 woeful experience; we should rather believe, the whole frame of nature would dissolve, and all things run counter to their usual course, than that any man in his wits should 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 could hear or learn, never shown 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, should 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.  
But did the first Authors of the Reformation work no Miracles? As for true Miracles I do not find they did any; but something 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 something 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 money, on condition he would feign himself dead, that he might come to Resuscitate him; and when all things 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 should likewise pass for a Fable. But to return.  
Luther arose, saith the Dr. and appeared 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 preached to his Ancestors at their first Conversion to Christianity, as the best of his own Protestant Writers do confess; the Truth whereof was confirmed, 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 would freely yield him the Palm, for I own I have no Talon 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 liable 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 proved, it is as impossible, that the Universal Consent of so many Nations should conspire to declare, they had received that Faith from their Ancestors; if they had not, as that a Wall, for example, should 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 gives Experience. But this is easily answered, viz. That the Obscurity of Faith is well consistent with Evidence, that the Faith was revealed, tho' not with the Evidence of the Thing revealed by Faith; that is, one may have Evidence of the Existence of a Thing, tho' his Reason can neither understand, nor comprehend the Thing itself; 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. How was the Lord's Body, after the Resurrection, a true Body, that could 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 could 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 revealed by Jesus Christ; yet the Reward of our Faith is nothing diminished, 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, declared 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 threatened with eternal Damnation all those, who would not believe them; and that, not only for a Time, but also unto the End of the World: Is it not then very reasonable, that this mysterious Doctrine should always be attended with such Characters and Credentials of Truth, as may convince the most obstinate Gainsayers of it; which, I am sure, nothing less than either Evidence of Sense, or Reason can effect: For, if the Evidence be less, than 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 aught 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 would 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 could make them, if they were capable of any. In a word, the Apostles and their Disciples delivered the Christian Faith to several Nations, and convinced 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 acknowledged 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 proved 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 derived to us by this Universal Tradition, or common Consent of all Nations, as afore explained; 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 affirmed without Impiety, that it should permit her to fall into Error.  
2. That General Councils are Infallible in all their Definitions and Decisions of Faith For, tho' a General Council be but a Representative of the whole Church; yet, because General Assemblies of the chief Pastors of the Church have been always looked 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 Controversy 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 pleased to term it; it won't be amiss to examine what is meant by a Circle, and when it is to be admitted in Reasoning.  
When two things bear witness mutually the one of the other, we call this a Circle; and when they have nothing else to support the Truth of their Evidence, but their mutual Affirmation, than 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 confirmed it; and Jesus Christ his Works proved 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 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, baptising 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 always, 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 thyself 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, can show 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 myself highly obliged 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 prevailed, 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 should suffer it to fall into Error, since we cannot suppose him to have any other business 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.  
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 delivered 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. count. 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 myself 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; persuaded as I am, that no Comment, or Gloss whatsoever can make them speak plainer, or more to my purpose: I will only mind him, that these Great and Eminent Men, who shined in the Church like so many Lights, as well by the Lustre of their extraordinary Piety, as by the profoundness of their Learning, could not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church of their Time: Consequently would 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 Subtlety 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 called, 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 called a Member of the Church.  
1. In the Catholic Church there is, and shall be a Continued Succession of Bishops, Priests and Teachers, from Christ, to the End of the World. This is manifest from these Words of St. Paul. He gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, Pastors, and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the Work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, etc. 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 practising the same Things with due Subjection, and Subordination to their Lawful Pastors. This Truth the Gentlemen of the Church of England are very loath 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 derived from the Church of Rome; and that, if Unity in Communion, which, as aforesaid, implies a Due Subjection and Subordination to Lawful Pastors, be essential to the Being of the Catholic Church, they quite unchurch themselves; since it is Manifest, that in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, They shook off all Obedience and Subjection to their Bishops, who were all R. Catholics, and Drove them all away; and in some Years before, in King Henry the VIII. his Time, what with Death, and other Cruelties, they compelled most of Them to divide and separate from the Pope, and all other Bishops in the World besides. They would 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, Entitled, Aerius Redivivus, and the History of the Reformation, by the same Author; but more especially an Ingenious Treatise, lately published by a Learned Divine of the Church of England, under this Title, The Principles of the Cyprianic Age. In this, the Author proves excellently well the Necessity of One Communion as well as of One Faith, for the being of One Church. I will transcribe some of his Words, and leave the Reader to judge how well he proves my Postulatum. Now they were thus united (saith he, speaking of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church) by the Great and Fundamental Laws of one Faith, and one Communion. That the One Holy Catholic Faith is essential in the Constitution of One Holy Catholic Church, is, even this day, a received Principle, I think, amongst all sober Christians: But then, I say, that the Christians, in St. Cyprian's Time, reckoned 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 could not understand, how there could 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 could be but one true Catholic Church, there could be likewise but one true Catholic Communion. All other Churches or Communions were false, i. e. not at all Christian Churches or Communions. Thus far this Learned Man, and indeed very right: For it was the constant Principle as well of all, as of the Primitive Ages of the Church, that One Communion was no less Essential to the being of One Church, nor less necessary to Salvation than One Faith. And here I cannot but observe two things by the way. 1. How unjust that intolerable charge of uncharitableness is, wherewith the Protestants incessantly Traduce the R. Catholics, for denying them Salvation out of their Communion; since it is manifest, as this Learned Man says, that one Faith and one Communion are equally necessary to Salvation: And no less evident, that the Protestants separated themselves from that Communion and Faith, which the R. Catholics believe, and maintain to be the true Church. How is it then consistent with their Principles to allow Salvation to the Protestants whilst they persist in their Separation? Or how can they be deemed 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 forced 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 called a Member of the Church. This is Self-evident, as to the first part; for to separate from the Church, is to go away from it, as the very Word imports; and by consequence to be no more a Member of it. It is likewise no less evident, as to the second; for to Excommunicate is to put out of Communion, or to cut off from the Body of the Church: So that whoever is Excommunicated for the Denial of any Article of Faith, can no more be said to be united to the Church, than an Arm cut off from a Man, or a Branch from a Tree, can be said to be united to the same Man or Tree. All such then, who wilfully separate from the Communion of the Catholic Church, let their Pretence be never so plausible, are properly Schismatics: I say, let their pretence be never so plausible; for Dr. Hammond tells us, as aforesaid, that it is Impossible, the Church should give them such Provocation, as might justify a Separation. in like manner, All those who are excommunicated by the Church, for their obstinate Refusal to assent to any Truth, declared to be an Article of Faith, are properly called 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 Heresy 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 called the Catholic Church.  
Now all the Societies of Christians, who, with any colour of Reason, can pretend to the Name of Catholic, are these: 1. The Nestorians and Eutychians. 2. The Greek Church. 3. The Church of England; And lastly, the R. Catholics. I have on purpose omitted the Waldenses, Socinians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, and all those, almost Innumerable Sects continually shooting out of the Trunk of the Reformation, and spreading far and near, over our own unfortunate Lands; as Anabaptists, Independents, Quakers, Mugoltonians, Seekers, Familists, Philadelphians, etc. 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 called Christian, unless he is Baptised; Baptism cannot be conferred but by such, who have Authority to administer the Sacraments; no Man can have this Authority, but by lawful Ordination; and this is not conferred, nor cannot, without Imposition of Hands by Lawfully ordained 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 retained the Hierarchy of the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, at least, have pretended to it; and think it Essential to the being of the Catholic Church: But since this is not enough, unless they have likewise the Catholic Faith and Communion, which, together with the said Hierarchy, make up the essential parts of Catholic Religion; our present Business 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 adhering to the Roman, or Greek Church. What I have to say concerning these Sects, shall be dispatched 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 condemned, 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 Controversy betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants, viz. Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers for the Dead, Invocation of Saints, etc. they are as firmly believed by the said Sects, as by the R. Catholics.  
2. As for the Greek Church: It is notoriously known, that the Chiefest Reason of their Separation from the Church of Rome, was, because this Church asserted the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which yet the Protestants hold to be Orthodox Doctrine: And no less evident, that the Greek Church did Recant their Error concerning this Point, and all other things wherein they differed 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 Lions, 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 Union drawn up, wherein the Grecians do acknowledge the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, the Pope's 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 owned by this Authentic Instrument to be the Catholic Church, and themselves likewise to be Members of it.  
Touching the main Points in Controversy 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 Worshipping of Pictures. Thus far Sandys. So that, tho' the Greeks were a true Church, it would but very little help the Protestant Cause, nay rather, it would 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 Controversy, or rather the only necessary Point to be Rightly understood, that it is requisite it should be handled with all the clearness and perspicuity imaginable: And if it be possible to make it Evident, that this Church is branded with Heresy and Schism, (two things sufficient to unchurch any Society of Christians whatsoever) I hope I may, without vanity, say, that I have gained my Point. To prove then, that the Church of England is both Heretical and Schismatical (I am hearty sorry I must use such hard Expressions to so many Ingenious and Great Men, whose Learning and other good Qualities I very much honour 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 would be ashamed to deny.  
As to the first; That the Church of England is Heretical, I prove thus: Whatsoever Society of Christians obstinately denies any Doctrine, believed by the Catholic Church to be of Faith, is Heretical; but the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines, believed 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 not 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 believed by the Catholic Church to be of Faith: Therefore the Church of England denies obstinately some Doctrines believed by the Catholic Church to be of Faith. That the Church of England obstinately denies the said Doctrines or Points, is matter of Fact, and what She very much glories in: That the same Points or Doctrines were all, in the beginning 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 would never have told a thing so favourable to their Adversaries; if it had not been manifestly True. And to show, 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 Leprosy 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 Doctrines is what this good man is pleased to call Popery, as all the World knows.  
Bishop Jewel: The Whole World, Princes, Priests, and People, were overwhelmed 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. Controu. 4.9, 5. c. 3.  
Bucer: All the World erred 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 Heresy had spread itself over the Whole World. Exposit. symb. p. 266.  
The Sum of this cloud of Witnesses, which yet is not the twentieth Part of what may be brought from the Reformation-treasure; amounts to this; that before the Reformation, there was no other Religion in the Whole Christian World, but the Roman Catholic, or, as they are pleased to term it, the Papistical; and that the aforesaid Points, and many more, which they call Popery, Leprosy, 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 believed 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 wilful 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 beginning of the Reformation, was acknowledged by all the World to be, at least, Patriarch of the West; and by the Protestants themselves, to have exercised Jurisdiction over the Church of England for 900 years and more; even from the time of its Conversion to Christianity; and surely, so long a prescription is a sufficient Title, tho' no other could be shown.  
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 would force that Island 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 could make out, that the Patriarch of Antioch, had never conferred Orders upon their Metropolitan, it was unjust to pretend to it now. And the Business being fairly proved in favour of the said Bishops; the Council decreed, That the Patriarch of Antioch had no Jurisdiction over them, nor aught to pretend to any. Whence it is manifest, that if the Patriarch of Antioch could, prove that he had conferred Orders upon their Metropolitan, at any time; or exercised Lawful Jurisdiction over them, the Council would have Decreed the said Island 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 could prove to have ever had it; so likewise, it would be perfect Rebellion and Schism in them to withdraw from his Jurisdiction, if he were Legally possessed 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 would think of it? Pope Eleutherius sent some of his own Clergy to Convert the Britain's in King Lucius his Time. St. Gregory sent Augustin the Monk, and others to convert the Saxons, and exercised 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 would 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 would look upon them to be Rebels against the Authority the best established 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 imagined, whence such an Ecclesiastical Authority can be derived to a Secular Prince; we have an express Decree to the contrary in the fourth General Council held at Chalcedon: What gave Occasion to it, was this. The Bishop of Tyre was anciently Metropolitan of Phoenicia, 
Concil. Calced. Act. 6.  and as such, exercised Jurisdiction over all the Bishops in that Province. Marcianus the Emperor (contrary to the Canon of the Council of Nice, by which it was provided, That there shall be but one Metropolitan in each Province) made a Pragmatic Sanction, whereby he Constituted the Bishop of Berithum Metropolitan in the same Province, and submitted a great many of the former Metropolitan's Suffragans to him; which when the Bishop of Tyre exposed to the Council, it was unanimously Decreed, That the said Bishop of Tyre should be restored to all his Privileges and Jurisdiction, notwithstanding the Emperor's Sanction, which the Council declared 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 should 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 dignified, was to have the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops in the Province, (the former Metropolitan being reduced 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 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 should 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 would 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 assumed to himself, the Title of Head of the Church of England, persecuting and putting to death all such, who opposed his Supremacy. After the Death of Queen Mary, in whose Reign the Church of England was again reconciled to Rome; Queen Elizabeth called a Parliament in order to settle Matters of Religion. In this Parliament, all the Bishops of England were deprived of their Episcopal Seas; some cast into Prison, others banished the Country, all violently forced 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 deprived, because they would not take the Oath of Supremacy revived by that Parliament. For, beside that, it is an unheard of Thing, that any Society of Laymen should take upon them to determine Spiritual Matters (for such was the Tenure of that Oath) and to impose them upon Bishops, to whom it chief belonged to determine 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 determined 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 referred to both Houses of Parliament, to pass into Law. But here is a Spiritual Matter passed into a Law, which vests the Supreme Spiritual Power in the Queen; and which all the Bishops in the Kingdom solemnly protest against, as a thing as monstrously absurd, as it was ever before unheard of. And yet they must be all deprived, because they would not swear to the Truth of, nor assert this Spiritual Power lodged in a Person, whose very Sex rendered her incapable of. Indeed, they might as well deprive them, for not believing and swearing to the truth of the Koran: 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 show as much as one single Bishop in the whole World, who professeth to be of their Communion. Now if all this be not Schism, I confess, I know not what is. To separate from the Pope, and all in Communion with him: To separate from their own Bishops, and raise Altars against their Altars, or rather to pull down all Altars, as they have done; to separate from all the Bishops in the World: If this be not in the highest degree Schismatical, farewel Reason and Religion. And here I may justly make the same Intercession (as St. Paul calls it) against the Church of England, with that of Elijah against the Schismatical Church of Israel, whose perfect Image I am sorry they bear. Lord, they have killed thy Bishops and Priests, and digged down thine Altars; and we poor persecuted Sheep are left alone, and they seek our lives to take them away.  
4. As to the Roman Catholics, I need not urge any more Reasons than what has been already offered, to prove that this Society of Christians is the True Catholic Church: For since it is manifestly proved, 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 would all agree in them.  
3. All other Sects separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome, beginning, each Sect, in One, or Two in opposition to the whole World: And we are able to point at the Age, and Year of their Separation; and at the Name and Character of each Sect's Author and Promotor. An Argument that She is the Mother Church, or Root of the Tree, and those Sects some Branches fallen, or cut off.  
4. The Roman Catholic Church was never Condemned 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 Condemned by several General Councils, as every Learned Man can tell.  
5. It could never be made, out in what Age, or Year, or in whose Reign, or by Whom, any of the Points in Dispute were introduced into the Catholic Belief. An Evident Argument, that they were believed from the Beginning; it being impossible to conceive how all the Christian World could be induced 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 should not be alarmed at the Novelty of a Doctrine, which, if we believe the Protestants, shocks so, much both Sense and Reason; whereas the New Doctrine of Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, and the Rest of his Tribe, so violently shook the whole Earth, that to this very day, our own woeful 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 proved, 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 confessed 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, etc.  
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 adhered 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 explained) for the Truth of its Doctrine: This Society, and no other, is the True Catholic Apostolic Church. I shall now proceed to answer Dr. Tillotsou's Objections to this Point.  
The first is taken out of Vol. 2. Serm. pag. 50, 61, 62. which in Substance is this. Tho' the R. Catholics be very Stiff, and Peremptory in asserting their Infallibility; yet they are not agreed among themselves, where it is seated, whether in the Pope alone, or in a Council alone, or in both together, or in the Diffusive Body of Christians. They are sure they have it, says he, tho' they do not know where it is. Then he adds, There is not the least Intimation in Scripture of this Privilege conferred upon the Church of Rome; and it is strange, the Ancient Fathers, in their Disputes against Heretics, should 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 satisfy him, that, in those days, no such thing was believed in the World.  
Answer. I may say of these Three Propositions; the first is neither True in itself, 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, etc. For my own part, I never yet read, or heard of any Catholic Divine, that ever said, That the Catholic Church, taken for the Diffusive Body of Christians, was not Infallible in declaring Matters of Faith; Therefore, I think, All agree, that the Infallibility is seated in the Diffusive Body of Christians: And I challenge any Protestant in the World, to name me One, who says the contrary. The Pope is One, and the Chief Member of that Diffusive Body. The Pope, and Council together, make a Great many Members; and if you add to these All the Rest of the Faithful, they make up the entire 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 ascribed 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 should ask where my Lord Major of Lond●n is, at this Time? And that some should 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 would willingly know whether these three sorts of People do not all agree that my Lord Mayor is in England? Certainly they do; because the assent of the two former is necessarily implied in the Latter.  
In like manner, tho' some say, the Pope is Infallible; Others, not the Pope alone, but together with a General Council; and others, neither Pope nor Council alone, without the Concurrence of the Diffusive Body of Christians; yet all do 〈◊〉 in this, that the Diffusive Body of Christians is Infallible. The Dr. than 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 Privilege conferred upon the Church of Rome; and it is strange the Ancient Fathers, in their Disputes against Heretics, should never Appeal to this Judge, etc. That there is not only Intimation, but even plain Texts of Scripture, which denote the Church's Infallibility, is what, I think, is already sufficiently Proved. And since it is likewise Proved, that the Roman Church, or (which is the same thing) the Congregation of Faithful in Communion with it, is the Catholic Church; I think it is a necessary ' Consequence, that there are plain Texts of Scripture, that prove the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. Nor is it less certain, that the Ancient Fathers, in their Disputes against Heretics, did Appeal to this Judge. For in those days, there was no other Means to convince Heretics of their Errors, but by the Authority of the Church. In the primitive Times, New Heresies sprung up, as many, if not more than in any of our latter Ages; yet there was no other Rule, or Standard to judge these Errors by, the Canonical Books of Scripture not being collected, or put together, at least, in 150 Years after the Foundation of the Church; and then not one Book of it all, whose Authority, or Credit was not questioned by some Heretic or other. How was it then possible for the Ancient Fathers to confute these Hereties, unless they had Appealed to the Authority of the Church, and told them, that this is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; this is what we received from our Forefathers; 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 received as the Word of God: Read but St. Ireneus Contra Haeres. Tertul de Prescript. Epipha. de Haeres. St. Austin count. Epist. Fund. and many more; and you shall find how much the Doctor was mistaken in this business. 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 would not believe the Gospel, 
Cont. Epist. Funda.  were it not that the Authority of the Church moves me to it.  
The second Objection is in Answer to a Certain Passage in the Canon Law, 
Vol. 3. pag. 94.  where it is said, That if every Man may judge for himself; there will be nothing but Confusion in Religion; there will be no End of Controversies: And that our Lord had not seemed 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 would, doubtless, contribute very much to the Peace and Tranquillity of the World, if He were Obeyed; 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 Trials, and make them pass through 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 should spoil us of our Faith, or err in Judging for us, it would cause our Eternal ruin, our Damnation being necessarily consequent upon a False Belief. And for that Reason, the goodness of God seems to be so much the more engaged 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 should chance to Err.  
Christ threatens Damnation to all those that will not believe his Doctrine, which, how it can stand with his Infinite 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 Tranquillity 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 Unity 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 would be still a Controversy 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 Controversy concerning an Infallible judge can never be ended. And there are two Controversies actually on foot, about an Infallible Judge; One, whether there be an Infallible Judge, or not? Which is a Controversy between Us and the Church of Rome: And the other, who this Infallible Judge is? Which is a Controversy among themselves, which could never yet be decided: And yet till it be decided, Infallibility, if they had it, would 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 proved: Who that Judge is, I have likewise manifestly shown, namely, the Living Voice of all the Catholic Pastors and People agreeing in the same Points of Faith. And if it be farther asked, who those Pastors and People are? I answer, The same in Communion with the Pope, as it is proved 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, than a Controversy 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 Controversy whatsoever? If the Church be Infallible, and assisted by the Spirit of God for no other End, than to guide it into all Truth, surely it will not be wanting to it in this Point, which is the most material of all others. But I suppose the Dr. grounds his Argument upon this Axiom; no Man ought to be Judge in his own Cause. If he should hence conclude that the supreme Judge cannot decide a Controversy 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 should Dispute that Prerogative; this Controversy, 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 should 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, aught 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 Judged by None. As to what he says, that a Controversy, Who this Infallible Judge is, could never yet be decided in the Church of Rome. I answer, there never was any Controversy 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 not Roman Catholic ever disputed.  

Vol. 3. Edit. post obit. pag. 32.  Object. 4. If God had thought it necessary, That there should be an Infallible Church, he would have revealed 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 believed by the Faithful, he would have revealed this very Thing more plainly than any particular Point whatsoever, because it is looked upon to be the Chiefest Mystery of Christianity; but this He has not done; Therefore he did not think it necessary to be believed. 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 revealed, that the Church is Infallible? Tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee, as an Heathen and Publican. When the Spirit of Truth cometh, He shall guide you into all Truth. Go teach all Nations— And lo I am with you always 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 Apostles revealed all These concerning the Church? Surely then, he judged the Infallibility of the Church necessary to be believed. 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 established, would 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 would not be voluntary else: For if we cannot abstain from it, it is no more voluntary, but necessary, and therefore no Sin; and have not we, in several places of the Scripture, a promise of the Assistance of God's Grace, which is never wanting to our sincere Endeavours; and if we have God's Grace, and are able, at least, by this assistance to abstain from sin; certainly we have an infallible Security against Sin and Vice; or if we have it not, how can it stand with the infinite goodness of God to condemn us eternally for that, which we cannot avoid? In short, as it is most agreeable to his infinite goodness, and mercy to condemn no Man for what he cannot help; so it is but reasonable we should 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 , without which there can be no reward or punishment, by not cooperating with Grace, falls into Sin and Vice; whereas the assistance of the holy Ghost depending of no such condition, as to its effect, infallibly attains its end, and preserves the Church from Error in matters of Faith.  
Object. 6. All things necessary to be known either in Faith or Practice, are clear and plain in Scripture; therefore there is no need of an Infallible Church.  
Answ. This is a Fundamental Principle, I think, I may truly say, with all Protestants▪ The Dr. I am sure, repeats it several Times, and lays great Stress upon it. But in establishing this Principle, he does two things, which, I suppose, he would not willingly allow of, had he but well considered 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 ascribed to a learned assembly of Divines composed of the whole Church: The Dr. is then forced 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 judgement; 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 imagine they would 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 Mystery, 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 declared, to believe the Mystery of the Trinity, if it could be made out, that it is clearly, and plainly contained 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 acute and Ingenious Pamphlets of these Heretics, proclaim loudly to the World, that the Socinians have got the better, and fairly beat them at their own Weapons. And thus in rejecting the Authority of the Church, which Christ commands us to hear, on no less penalty, than of being reputed Heathens and Publicans; they have opened 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:  
What 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 questioned, that I could 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 Business than is to show, that this Prerogative was conferred upon St. Peter. And for this we have several Texts of Scripture, in which it is plain,  
1. That Christ conferred 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 conferred 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 Ionas, 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 desired to have you, that he may sift you as Wheat; but I have praised 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 Controversy) have rendered it, strengthen thy Brethren; because a Charge of Confirming others does too plainly denote a Superiority.  
I shall make no other Reflections upon these Texts, only desire the Reader to observe, that this particular pointing out of Peter, as a Rock to build the Church upon; the especial Charge of feeding Christ's Lambs and Sheep, by which the Holy Fathers have always understood both People and Pastors; and the Confirming of his Brethren, viz. The Rest of the Apostles, must, surely, denote some particular Mark and Character above the Rest.  
2. The Evangelist, in giving the Names of the 12 Apostles, marks particularly St. Peters' 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 filled 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 Speech 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 Volume, are convincing Proofs of this Truth; but more especially that famous Council of the Apostles related, cap. 15. Where after much disputing, Peter, rose up first, showed the Apostles what conduct they were to keep in regard of the converted Gentiles, 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, etc. So that if we had never been taught any thing else, concerning Peter's Primacy, his conduct in these affairs were enough for any unprejudiced 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 would make the World believe; but a Real Truth grounded upon the Word of God. And if this was conferred 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 publicly taught, and professed by the Primitive Fathers and Councils, as a necessary and fundamental Truth, that many Learned Protestants have been forced 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 Protestant's also do confess, that it has been believed, and that it might indeed be, that he was the Precedent 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 acknowledged to be the Head of the College Apostolic, having been honoured with the Title of the Seat of the Apostle St. Peter, might without Difficulty, be considered, 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, could extort so ingenuous a Confession from an Adversary, in favour of ●●me, whose Supremacy he chief aimed 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 Bishops of Rome, to be by virtue of this Prerogative; St. Peter, Head, and Chief amongst the Apostles; and the Bishop of Rome, the same among all other Bishops, and Centre of Catholic Unity; and that the Bishop of Rome did exercise Jurisdiction, as occasion offered, 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, etc. 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 should never end, if I should 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, — 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. Andrea's prius secutus est Dominum quam Petrus, tamen principatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus. Andrew followed 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 flourished 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 observed to be very ambitious to advance their own See above all others, and to have procured in two General Councils, viz. in the first Council of Constantinople, and in that of Chalcedon, to have that See preferred to Alexandria, and Antioch, and placed 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 persuaded, and convinced, 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 alleged for this Point.  
Now I would 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 Weakness (to say no worse) in the Protestants, now, fifteen hundred Years after, to dispute that Prerogative, which is so manifestly acknowledged by so many Eminent Martyrs and Confessors, and great Doctors of the Primitive Church?  
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 theophilus 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 beginning of the Second, and about the middle 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 would not be induced to celebrate Easter, after the Roman Custom. And St. Irenaeus in his Letter 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 Proceed in this Business; because they looked 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 his too great Severity, as he thought, in this matter; so, no doubt, he would have told him, that he exceeded his Commission by such a Procedure, if he had not been convinced, that the like Power had been vested in him. And most certainly, Eusebius, who was an Asiatic Bishop himself, would never have complemented the Bishop of Rome, but would 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 Controversy between Pope Stephen, and St. Cyprian, touching the Baptism conferred by Hereties. Many learned Writers are of opinion, that St. Stephen Excommunicated St. Cyprian, and his Adherents; and all do agree, that he threatened 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 dissuaded from the Opinions they once undertake to maintain; but the Council of Nice has Justified the Pope's Conduct in both these particulars, branding with Heresy such as maintained 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 of Constantinople, appealed to Pope Julius for redress of the Violence offered 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 complained to Julius of the Violence offered 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 Privilege, 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 turned them out.  
The Learned Theodoretus informs us, 
Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 4.  that St. Athanasius, being a second Time, turned out by the Arians, appealed 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 of the East violently thrust out of their Bishoprics, 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 Privilege 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 Aliens to appear before him, and summoned 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 Archdeacon of the Church of Rome; in which he has these Words: They have spoiled me of my Bishopric; they did not reverence my Age consumed in Religion, nor my Grey Hairs: Wherefore I beseech you to persuade the most Holy Archbishop to use his Apostolic 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 accused, or condemned, or deprived of his Bishopric, by the Bishops of his Province; and that the Bishop thus deprived 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 Legates clothed 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 exercised 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 desired by Theodosius the Emperor, to confirm Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, which yet he refused to do, unless Anatolius had first professed the same Doctrine with Cyrillus, and the Rest of the Catholic Bishops, in Opposition to the Heresy 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 Deposition 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 approved Writers of ancient and modern History; but let these suffice for the Proof of a thing so universally attested by all Antiquity.  
And now, if neither plain Texts of Scripture, declaring this Prerogative to have been conferred upon St. Peter, and plainly showing 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 Privilege to hear and restore the Patriarches, and Bishops of the East; and that the Bishop of Rome followed, 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 would be pleased to take away from their Hearts that veil of Prejudice, which hinders them to see so manifest a Truth. But of this enough; let us now see the Objections.  
Against this Tenet the Doctor objects, 1. That the Bishop of Rome, as Successor of St. Peter there, 
Vol. 6. pag. 155.  cannot be the Supreme and universal Pastor of Christ's Church by Divine Appointment; because, saith he, there is not the least mention of this in Scripture. 2. That it is against reason to found the Pope's Supremacy in being Successor of St. Peter 
pag. 156.  at Rome; whereas it should 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 Centre of Catholic Unity; and no more is required 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 judged 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 Universal Pastor, etc. 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 more expressly 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 merely 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) should come to Rome, place his Chair in that City, and yet leave his Authority behind him at Antioch. This airy Notion, I am sure, none of the Holy Fathers and Councils in the Primitive Times ever thought of; on the contrary, they have always considered 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. etc. And tho' most of them are levelled at the Church of Rome, yet I choose 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 answered 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 would fain have us to be so civil as to take it for granted, because if we do not, they do not well know how to go about to prove it. And after some pleasant Sallies of Raillery, 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 justify the Roman Catholics from that odious Imputation of Uncharitableness, wherewith he elsewhere most grievously charges them, for not allowing Protestant's 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 charged with the least Uncharitableness; since they have, as it is already proved, 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 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 intolerable is, that this is spoken out of a Pulpit, where nothing but Truth and Sincerity, should as much as be mentioned. 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 could 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 Diocese of Rome were the Catholic Church, his Comparison would then indeed, have been Reasonable; but, surely, he could 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 Centre and Principle of Catholic Unity.  
If the Doctor had a mind to make good his Thesis, he should have proved, that all other Societies of Christians, who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome, are notwithstanding their Heresies and Schisms a Part of the Catholic Church; he should have proved, 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 wilful Schism from its Communion; their ancient Error concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost; their having been so often reconciled and united to it, yet still returning to their Vomit; but more especially, their self-condemned 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 would hold and maintain; he should have proved, that Luthor, Calvin, and all those, who adhered to their new broached 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 should have proved to show, that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church: But neither he, nor any Body else did ever so much as attempt it; on the contrary, most of the learned Men of the Church of England have readily given up the Cause in regard of all the aforesaid Sects; and most of all other Sects do as censoriously condemn those of the Church of England: With what colour of Reason then can the Doctor suggest, that the Roman Church is but a part of the Catholic Church? Nay, can any thing be more plain, than that the Roman Church, as it is understood by Catholics, is the whole Catholic Church; since none of the aforesaid Sects can, with the least colour of Reason, pretend to be a part of it; since they themselves do unchurch one another; since they own, that the Church of Rome is a Part, at least, of the Catholic Church, and that one Faith and one Communion are equally essential to the being, or Constitution of the one Catholic Church; in both which Essential they own themselves to be different from the Church of Rome. So that, if we had no other Proof besides, this last Reason is a plain Demonstration, that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church, or that it is no part or member of it.  
'Tis a known Truth, and even vouched 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 received by the Church of England; and, I suppose, by all the Divines in the World besides; now there is none of all the aforesaid Sects, as they all unanimously agree, that holds either the same Faith, or Communion with the Church of Rome, which yet they hold to be a Part of the Catholic Church, and which together with the said Sects make up the whole Body of Christians. It is then most evident, that either the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church, or that it is no Part or Member of it. But the latter no Protestant ever yet durst affirm; for if they should 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 should be clearly shown, and made out.  
1. A plain Constitution of our Saviour, whereby St. Peter, and his Successors at Rome, are made the Supreme Head, and Pastors of the whole Christian Church, Of this, says he, we have not the least Intimation in the Gospel, nor in the Acts, and Epistles of the Apostles; nay, there is clear Evidence, adds he, to the contrary, that in the Council of Jerusalem, St. James was, if not superior, at least equal to him. And St. Paul, upon several Occasions, declares himself equal to St. Peter. But suppose it were true, continues the Doctor That St. Peter were Head of the Church; where doth it appear, that this Authority was derived 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, etc. methinks a modest good Christian might well be content with one plain Text of Scripture produced 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 offered.  
'Tis true, the Scripture makes no mention of his Successor at Rome: Nor do we say, it is necessary, he should be there rather than any where else: For St. Peter might, if he pleased, for aught we know, have as well placed 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 Councils of Jerusalem, needs no other Confutation than a bare recital of the matter of Fact, which passed there. I am sure it is as plain, as words can make it, that St. Peter risen up first, opened the Subject of their Meeting, discoursed upon the Conversion of the Gentiles by his Ministry, showed the Unreasonableness of that Yoke the Jews would fain put upon them, and concluded with a 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 ordained 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 administering 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 ordained Bishop's, to that of the Pope's As to his Question; Where doth it appear that St. Peter 's Power was derived to his Successors? I am almost unwilling to honour it with a Confutation; being, in my sense, one of the simplest Expressions that ever dropped from a Man of his parts. If I should ask, where doth it appear, that he was by Divine Institution, Archbishop of Canterbury; I believe he would be puzeled a little, to give a good Answer? Yet he did not scruple to style himself John, by the Grace of God, Archbishop of Canterbury. Did ever any Man question, whether the Authority and Power of the Bishop of any See was derived to his Successor? Was not Christ's Power derived to his Apostles? As the Father hath sent me, even s● s●nd I you. Was not the Apostle's Power derived to their Successors? Else how could we pretend to be Christians? In short, that Heirs and Successors should 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 confirmed by the Common Consent of Mankind: What should then hinder Peter's Authority to be derived 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 obliged to affiirm, says the Dr. That the Churches of Asia, and Africa, which were Excommunicated by the Bishops of Rome, for celebrating Easter after the Jewish manner, and upon the point of Rebaptising 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 would then, indeed, have been Right, and the Argument True; but surely Dr. Tillotson knew very well, we never understood these Terms so. The Fallacy than consists in this, that he joins 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. than it makes the Persons Baptised, 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 conferred by Heretics with due Matter, and Form is good, and vallid; and that it makes the Baptised True Members of the Catholic, and consequently of the Roman Church; provided there be no impediment of Heresy, or Schism on the part of the Persons thus Baptised; but if they are engaged in any Heresy, or Schism, they hold, indeed, that they receive a true Character of Baptism; but this alone neither makes them Members of the Catholic Church, nor avails 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, should do these two things. 1. He should have proved, that Infants, and such as are not capable of Heresy, or Schism, being Baptised 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, until they forsake or renounce it, by actual Profession of Heresy, or by Schism. 2. That those who are actually engaged in Heresy, or Schism, being Baptised in that State, and persisting in it, are notwithstanding, by virtue of their Baptism, made true Members of the Catholic Church. Could the Dr. but prove this, he would, 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 should, 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 learned from the Word of God, 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 acknowledge 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 Reformed 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 should conclude the Existence, or nonexistence; the Truth, or Falsehood of things from their conveniency or inconveniency; the World would be brought to a fine pass. 'Tis very inconvenient, that God should 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 should be condemned to eternal Flames for one only Sin wherein he dies unrepented; yet no Man ever questioned this Truth. We must not 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 induced 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 Heresy 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 knowledge 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 knowledge of the Truth; and to tell them they may be saved with such Errors, when we are convinced 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 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 Silvius (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 answered, that it was enough, the thing meant by that Word was in the Creed, tho' not the Word itself; 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 Silvius might, in passion, or upon some private quarrel with the Pope, have Written, against the Roman Church, considered with respect only to the Diocese of Rome, I am not much concerned: 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. could not be ignorant, we always take it) was not the true Catholic Church. Besides, if it be true, that Aeneas Silvius said what the Dr. makes him here speak; let the Holy and Learned Martyr St. Irenaeus, who lived very near 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 principality. Loco. sup. cit.   

CHAP. IU. 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, changed 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 Fabric; 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, 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 Falsehood, 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, literally, and therefore believe the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; but being however resolved 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 Ubiquity: 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 appeared to him; but whether he was black or white, he says, he cannot tell. So that, for aught 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 literally, 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 should 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 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 itself: Or suppose it were, you still admit of Christ's Body his being in several places at once, which is the Inconvenience you would fain avoid, by rejecting the Real Presence in the Sacrament; for if one, in London, and another in York, should 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 herself, nor yet with common Sense.  
Now to establish the Roman Catholic's Belief on this Subject, and to show the Unreasonableness 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 literal Sense.  
2. That such a Sense does necessarily infer Transubstantiation: And  
3. That from the Beginning, 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 literal 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, 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, could not but startle them; however they could not doubt, but he meant to do as he spoke; since he affirmed, that the B●ead he would 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, etc. His Disciples were nothing offended at these Expressions, because they knew them to be Metaphors, and figurative Say commonly used; but here, you see, they are amazed 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 would 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 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 affirmed of the Bread for no other End, and his confirming with an Oath that it was so, for no other Reason, than to persuade 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? etc. 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 examine 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, 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 somewhat less guilty, than if he had, in reality, abused his Body and Blood. But the Apostle declares, that such a one should 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 imagined.  
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 Waits, did ever so much as imagine, that a Man, who should abuse the Figure or Picture of another, should 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 abused 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 could. For neither human, nor Angelical Wit can invent a heavier Charge. With what propriety of Speech then? nay, with what Reason can it be affirmed, that Men should be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, as were the Jews, for doing no more, 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 believed, and was persuaded, 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 broke 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 believed the Omnipotent Power of Christ, could no more doubt, but that that, which he tendered 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 suffered upon the Cross for us. It is then a Demonstration, that what Christ tendered 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 itself, and may be capable of either Sense; but add the rest to it, which is given for you, and the Sense is plainly determined. 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 are resolved to deny things so evident, would in my opinion, be less obnoxious to Censure, and more excusable in human Appearance, if they had either questioned 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 Transubstantiation, 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 changed 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 verify 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, be referred to the Accidents of the thing whereof it is affirmed; but must necessarily be referred to the thing itself, 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, Clothed 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 would have it: For the demonstrative Hoc, This, as aforesaid, denoting the Substance affirmed by Christ to be his Body; common Sense shows, it would 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 grossly maintain; whereas, if Christ had so meant, he would most certainly have said, here is my Body, and not, this is my Body. But this is so publicly exploded by all the Rest of the Protestants, that it needs no farther Confutation.  
3. All the Orthodox Christians, from the beginning, understood those Words of Christ, both in a literal Sense, and in a Sense of Transubstantiation.  
I should fill up a Volume, were I to bring all the Passages of Councils, and Fathers, which make for this Truth; no Mystery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated, and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies, Catechisms, and familiar Discourses to the common People; and that, no doubt, for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it. But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it, but what may suffice to evince the truth of it; I shall content myself with the Testimony of a few Councils, and Fathers, whose Authority and Weight however, I hope, shall make sufficient amends for the smallness of their number. And,  
1. That the Orthodox Christians, from the beginning, understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense, or, which is the same thing, believed 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 ipsiusque verbi propriam. God forbidden we should 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 truly is, the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself.  
This Letter was read, and approved in the third General Council, 
* Concil. Ephes. puncto 7.  which, no doubt, would never have been, had it contained any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith; so that having received 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 imagined, that this Council, which represented the whole Catholic Church, should 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 imagined, that the Catholic Church, in those fair Days of her Youth, as the Calvinists speak, should 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 received the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors? Or can it be imagined, that these Ancestors should be of this Belief; unless they had likewise received it from their Ancestors, and so up to the very Apostles? This is, surely, to any Man of Sense, but more especially aught 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 beginning 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 beginning, understood those Words of Christ, (this is my Body) in a sense of Transubstantiation, we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church; many whereof, in their familiar Discourses to the common People, Illustrate this Conversion, by the change of the Water, into Wine; of Aaron's 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, would 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 affirmed, 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 changed Water into Wine, which has a certain likeness to blood; and shall not we think him worthy to be believed, that he could 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 flourished 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 Catechising 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 changed into his Body and Blood. He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water, which Christ changed into Wine; and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other, by the actual Existence of this change, which they both read, and believed. 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 changed 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 Eyes, to our Taste, to our Smell, that the thing is otherwise, yet we must not, in this business, 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 required to believe? All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril. Now what the Protestants may think of this great Ma●, I shall not determine; but this I am sure of, that had he written this, since the Reformation, they would have all reckoned 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 changed 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 Aaron's Rod into a Serpent; of the Creation of the World out of nothing, etc. 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 entirely read; I hope the Reader will pardon me so necessary a Fault. Panis iste (says he) ante Verba Sacramentorum Panis est, etc. That Bread, before the Sacramental Words, is Bread; but when the Consecration comes to it, of the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ. Let us prove this. How can that, which is Bread be the Body of Christ? By Consecration. By what, and by whose Words, is the Consecration performed? By the Words of the Lord Jesus. For all other things, which are said, do give Praise to God, there is a Prayer premised 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 engendered. 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 changed 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 Style 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 near his Time, who dilates upon what St. Ambrose wrote concerning the Eucharist.  I say unto you, that it is then the Body of Christ; He said, and it was made; He commanded, and it was created, Lib. 4. de Sacra. Cap. 4.  
I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon this Passage, being, in my Opinion, so plain, and so much to the purpose, that it cannot possibly need any thing to strengthen it. Nor will I tyre 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, would never have believed 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 outrageously 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 examine 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 confused assembly of some Bishops met together without any authority from the Chief Pastor, and other Patriarches of the Church; in order to broach new Doctrines in opposition to the Faith, which was once delivered unto the Saints; than it will be but reasonable, we reject their Authority: But if, on the contrary, it appears to have been an Ecumenical, or General Council, representing the whole Catholic Church; and that all the individual Members of the Catholic Church, at that. Time, received, and acquiesced 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 examined 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 Ecumenical Council ever yet had. I find, that this Council was called 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 Prelates in this Council; that the Patriaches of Constantinople, and Jerusalem, were there in Person; that the Patriarches of Alexandria, and Antioch, being under the Yoke of the Sarazen, and Turkish Tyranny; because they could not come in Person, sent their Deputies instructed with Power to represent their Persons and Churches. As to Europe, the great number of Prelates there assembled show, even to a Demonstration, that there were more than sufficient Representatives of the Western Churches. And what more can be desired to complete a General Council?  
Now can any Man imagine, that so August an Assembly as this, so man Grave and Learned Men of different Humours, Interests, and Manners, should 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 received from their Ancestors; and that not one Honest Man should be found among them all to discover the Imposture? Or that all Mankind should acquiesce to such a Doctrine, and none say; this is contrary to what we have been hitherto taught? Can it be imagined, that the Bishops who met here on purpose to hear every Individual Prelate tell his own Story; and to declare what Faith he had received from his Ancestors on this Subject; who aimed 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 should 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 should unanimously agree to declare as an Article of their Faith, what they neither received, nor knew, nor believed before? In a word, is it possible, that any Man of sense could imagine, that in any Age of the Church, the Pope, Patriarches, Bishops, Kings, Princes and People should all agree to receive, as an Article of Faith, that which the Apostles never delivered to their Ancestors, nor their Ancestors to them? And if this be absurd, and not to be supposed, 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 Prelates, attesting on no less penalty than their eternal Damnation, if false, that this is the Faith, which the Apostles delivered to the Church; that this is the Doctrine, which they received from their Forefathers. Here are all the Rest of the Prelates, and People of the whole Catholic Church, likewise declaring, by their ready Acceptance, and Submission to this Doctrine; that it is the same they received 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, could be induced to conspire together to deceive their Posterity; against their own plain and True Interest; against the Trust and Confidence reposed in them; the Duty, and Piety of Parents to their Children; the tender Care 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 revealed from Heaven, against all impious Liars; notwithstanding the dreadful Woes and Curses pronounced in Scripture against false Seducers, and the horrible aggravation of their own Gild, 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 consummation 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, choose 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 Paeans after Victory, nor insulted over his Enemy, with more Ostentation, than Dr. Tillotson has on this Subject, over the Roman Catholics, and the Church of Rome; and (to complete 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 used, 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 obliged us with a Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject, which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation. It gins 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 to show the Scope and End, at which those Fathers aimed; would alone require a volume of no small bulk, which in no wise agrees with my designed 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 resolved however to lay hold on the next Opportunity to answer the whole, Paragraph by Paragraph.  

Vol. 3. pag. 80, 81. Vol. 5. p. 20. etc. 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, etc.  
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 could never yet find in all his Books, that he has made the least offer to prove it. He would 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 admired, with how much Confidence his Good Man and Others, would press this Argument upon us, without ever offering the least Proof for it; when at the same time, 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 discovered by it? 'Tis of no Sense sure, but of the Understanding, as all the World knows. How can that then contradict Sense, which is not the Object of any Sense; since no Faculty can be employed, 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. would then, indeed, have been in the right to press his Argument; Accidents being the proper Objects of our Senses; but surely, we never said any such thing; consequently we never contradicted our Senses upon that Subject. We see with our Eyes, that the Accidents remain the same as before; we therefore conclude, that the Change must be in the Substance, which we cannot see; because Christ told us it was his Body, and because we are sure, he was able, by his Omnipotent Power, to make it his Body.  
But, says the Doctor, there are all the Accidents of the Bread; and where ever the proper Accidents of any Substance is, there the Substance must necessarily be.  
Answ. 1. Suppose this were true, there is still no contradicting of Senses in the Case; since we own the Accidents are there, which alone are the Object of our Senses.  
2. Will the Dr. himself say, that this is, and always was, necessarily True? No, for he tells us, Vol. 2. Pag. 67. That God may impose upon our Senses, and if he tells us the thing is otherwise than it appears, we must believe him. All that this Argument proves then is, that ordinarily, and for the most part, the matter is so; but why may not God, notwithstanding this, do otherwise upon extraordinary Occasions; especially in Mysteries of Faith, which are not subject to the ordinary Rules of Nature? And why may not we believe, that the Accidents of Bread may exhibit an other Substance to us; especially since we have the Word of the Son of God for it, as well as the Accidents of a Dove, and the Appearance of Men could 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 believed it was not a Real Dove; because he was told by him that sent him (God,) that it was the Holy Ghost, that was to descend, and remain upon him. And why may not we likewise believe the same God, when he tells us, that that which appears to us to be Bread, is his Body? John the Baptist, says, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a Dove, and it abode upon him, and I knew him not. But he that sent me to baptise 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 appeared 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 should see the Holy Ghost descending, etc. I gave Credit to my Hearing, by which I perceived your Words; and now, I must contradict my Sight, which tells me, this is a Dove. Or, if I believe it is the Holy Ghost, why may not I as well question my Hearing, and doubt whether you said any such thing to me; as I must now disclaim the Evidence of my Sight, which surely, is a Sense every whit as Infallible, as my Hearing. May not all these Questions, and Reasonings, be urged 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 could divest 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 pleased to interpose. Nor does it, in the least, shake the External Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity, as the Doctor would bear the World in Hand it does. For, when our Saviour bade 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 allowed to follow the Evidence of our Senses, (for that we always uncontrollably do) but also may safely believe; that the Substance, which such Accidents, or Objects of our Senses, usually represent, is infallibly there; how can that Doctrine, which is warranted by the same Divine Word, in that, wherein it seems to be repugnant to Sense, destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity; it being evident, that wherever Christ appealed to the Evidence of Sense, for the Proof of any of his Miracles, he never disclaimed 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 believed to be the Holy Ghost, and two Angels. There is Bread, in appearance, yet it is believed to be the Body of Christ. Is not the Evidence of our Senses equally disclaimed 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 affirmed, 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 grossly the Common People are abused, on the one hand; when they are made to believe, that Transubstantiation is so monstrously absurd, as the Dr. would 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 would be very apt to be staggered by the judgement of a very Wise Man; and much more, of many such, and especially by the unanimous Judgement of the Generality of Men, the General Voice and Opinion of Mankind, being next to the Voice of God himself. And, a little after, He giveth 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 obliged to obey the lawful Commands of lawful Authority. Since then the falsehood of Transubstantiation is not only doubtful, but the Truth of it is established upon the firmest Foundation, either in Heaven, or on Earth; even upon that Word, which shall never pass away, tho' Heaven and Earth shall; and since the belief of it, when the Reformation began, was grounded upon the General Voice and Opinion of the Generality of Mankind, as the Doctor, and all those of his Persuasion do acknowledge; and upon the lawful Commands of lawful Authority, if any such thing were on Earth; I appeal to his own Judgement, 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 established.  
And now, if, after all this, any Man will undertake to justify 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 pleased to say, 
Vol. 3. pag. 299.  that in the business of Transubstantiation, it is not a Controversy of Scripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of down right Impudence (civility spoken) against the plain meaning of Scripture, and the Sense, and Reason of Mankind: If He, I say, or any body else will bring but one single Argument in Mood, and Figure, to prove that Transubstantiation does either contradict Sense or Reason, I do sincerely promise him, I will be of his Opinion the very next Moment. And this I do the more confidently affirm, because I am sure, Transubstantiation cannot possibly contradict, or be against Sense or Reason. Sense it cannot; for it is not the Object of any of our Senses; and, surely, it is not against Reason, that one Substance should be changed into an other; since all Generations, and Corruptions are thus performed; and even daily Experience teaches us, that the Meat, on which we feed, does not nourish us, but in as much, as it is changed 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 Entitled; Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity, etc. Pag. 21. He citys 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 bodies these two things; the Accidents (such as the quantity, figure, colour, smell, taste, and such like) which are Objects of our Senses: And the Substance which bears, and is clothed (as it were) with these visible, and sensible Accidents; but is itself invisible, and the Object of our Understanding, not of our Senses. They say hereupon, our Saviour having called 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 grossly he abuses Mankind, when alluding to Transubstantiation, he tells them, they do not come to learn from their Guides, or Pastors the difference between Sea, and dry Land, 
Vol. 3. pag. 100  or between North and South; as if they had the same Evidence, that there is no Transubstantiation in the Eucharist, as they have of the difference of Sea from dry Land, or of North from South.  
2. The four Objections taken out of the Dr's Discourse against Transubstantiation, are these.  

Vol. 3. pag. 315.  1. Tertullian speaks thus of the Eucharist: The Bread, which our Saviour took, and distributed to his Disciples, he made his own Body, saying; this is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body; but it could not have been the Figure of his Body, if there had not been a True, and Real Body. Advers. Martion. 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 changed, and become an other thing; so the Body of our Lord, after his Ascension, is changed 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 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 cried 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 considered, 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 Gentiles had conceived of them, as if they used to eat Human Flesh, in the Celebration of their Mysteries; which, no doubt, was occasioned by the Information of some Apostate Christians, who, upon renouncing of their Faith, declared, that the Christians used to eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ. They were therefore, to avoid the Reproach and Odium, which they must hereupon necessarily incur, (the Gentiles 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 exposed 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 would have no just Reason to reproach them, and the Christians, who were carefully instructed in this Point, would easily understand what they hinted at. So that, in their Treatises against Heretics, in the Books they must have exposed to public view, for the comfort, and instruction of the Christians, and the conversion of the Gentiles; 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 could not understand what they meant. Thus Tertulian, in the Book, which he wrote to dissuade his Wife from Marrying after his Decease; Non sciet Maritus quid ante omnem cibum gusts, & 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 called. 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 famed 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 observed in respect of the Catechumen, that this was the universal Practice of the primitive Church. These Catechumen 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 Trial and Experience, given sufficient Proof of their Good Resolutions; and solemnly promised to believe, whatever the Catholic Church taught and professed. Tho' they were taught the Mystery of the Trinity, and Incarnation; tho' they were allowed 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 performed, they were by no means admitted to be present, nor as much as know any thing of it; but were dismissed, and excluded from that part of the Service, till by long, and careful Instructions they were deemed competent 
* hence the name of Competentes & missa Catechume norum so often mentioned by the Canons.  to assist at it, as they then phrased it. So careful were the Primitive Fathers, that none, should come to the Knowledge of this Mystery, but such as were very well disposed to believe, and embrace it.  
And now can any Man of Sense imagine, that these Holy and Learned Fathers should 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 easy to be believed, 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 easy to be persuaded; since all Mankind knows, that such arbitrary Signs or Representations, depend merely of the Will of him that institutes them; and that there is nothing to be done to persuade their Belief, but to tell, that they are so. Certainly no Pagan, or Gentil could ever be offended at a thing so plain, or offer the least Reproach to the Christian Religion upon the account of it: Consequently there would be no need to conceal, or speak obscurely of it; nor to hinder, not only Catechumen, but even Pagans, or Infidels, to hear it taught and delivered. But to proceed:  
2. What the ancient Fathers believed, touching the Eucharist, was this; that the Substance of the Bread and Wine, was changed into the Body and Blood of Christ; as appears by the passages produced from their Works, where the Fathers, in their Catechisms and Homilies, make it their Business to explain this Mystery to the Faithful. And because their Senses gave them to understand, that the outward Forms, or Accidents remained; these they called the Sign, or Figure of Christ's Body; because they represent unto us the Body of Christ, which is, as it were clothed with these Accidents. So that the ancient Fathers believed this Sacrament to be both the Figure, and Reality of the Body of Christ, according to the two different things they discovered in it; viz. the outward Signs or Simbols, and the Body and Blood of Christ, which are veiled and covered 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, etc. This is what we say, and what by all means we endeavour to prove; that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things, consists of two Things; of the visible Appearance of the Elements, and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; of the Sacrament, that is, of the External and Sacred Sign; and of the thing of the Sacrament, Re Sacramenti, that is, of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Again, Caro ejus est, etc. 'Tis his Flesh, which we receive, in the Sacrament, veiled 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 should 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 called 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 declared. So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages, much more, to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions. Whereas the Passages, which we allege 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 supposed:  
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 admired 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 contained 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 denied, that Christ had a Real Body; because it proved, that the Sacrament could not be called the Figure of Christ's Body, unless he had a True and Real Body; and therefore he insisted upon it, without declaring what was contained under that Figure; Which (tho' it may be  in a Sermon, or Discourse designed for the Instruction of the People, yet) may very well be allowed 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 would 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, etc.  
2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense: For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean, who affirmed 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 signify, that that Sign of Christ's Body, contained his true Body; as the blood, which is the Sign of the Soul, or Life in Animals, contains their Life or Soul.  
But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing, that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body; I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms, where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction. '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 elsewhere, 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 expressly 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 should 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 adored. For he took Earth of Earth; because flesh is of Earth; and he took Flesh of Mary's Flesh; and because he here walked 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 such a Footstool of the Lord may be adored; and we do not only not sin, in adoring it, but we should 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 walked 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 walked 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 culled 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 would afford him no better Arguments, and rather than fail, he was resolved to catch at any thing.  
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 mentioned by Theodoret. This Word is sometimes taken for the Bread and Wine itself before Consecration, and sometimes, 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 affirmed, that, as the Symbols after Consecration are changed into an other thing; so the Body of our Lord, after his Ascension, is changed 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 changed, is, because they may be seen and 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 could never be proved, 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 mere Accidents; as we usually say, the Substance of his Discourse was this; the Substance of what he said, etc. tho' all Discourses and Say, are pure Accidents. And however this Solution, at first sight, may seem strange; yet, whoever will take the pains to examine well the Say 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 changed into an other thing; the other as stiffly 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 should 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 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 affirmed, the Symbols were changed, 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 happened in the Substance of the Bread, and not in the Accidents. 'Tis no less evident, on the other hand, that Orthodoxus considered the Symbols, as Objects of Sense; else he could, with no Colour of Reason, affirm, that they did not pass out of their Nature, Substance, etc. 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, etc. this is only said, but wants to be be proved. 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 changed: And, which is more, he therefore believes, that it is the real Substance of the Symbols, and not the Accidents that are changed; because the Accidents may be seen, and handled, as before. And now, would it not be a very pleasant way to persuade him, that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was not changed, for that very Reason, for which he believed it was? Or let us suppose, that they both considered 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 changed, ●ho ' he saw with his Eyes the Accidents were no●; and then how could the Orthodoxus convince him by his own Words, or tell him, he was caught in his own Net; unless he could prove to him, that the Symbols taken in that Sense were not changed? 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, etc. 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 squeeze 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 '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 introduced 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 misshapen Monster, as he Religiously terms it, could be Licked into that Form in which it is now settled and established in the Church of Rome.  
What I shall say to the matter of Fact here mentioned (leaving the Doctor to his own Master to account for his civil Language) is, that I could 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 Humphrey, a Famous Divine of his own Country, and persuasion, would 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 Burden of Ceremonies— Purgatory, Mass, Prayer for the Dead, Transubstantiation, Relics, etc. Now all the World knows, that Austin the Monk taught the English about the latter end of the sixth Century, and the Beginning 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, would 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 gentlemen's Interest than his (could 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 could not well effect, unless he had fixed a certain Epocha, whence this Doctrine should take its rise; that rather than fail, he would hit at a venture upon the Second Council of Nice, and there fix his Foot: Being persuaded, 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 reduced, when he is forced, (to make good his undertaking) to have recourse to such known, and manifest (I am ashamed to say it) falsehoods? Which surely do better become Impostors than Grave Divines, whose very Names, and Character, should prompt them to candour 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 dispense 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.  
Now the main stress lies 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 acknowledged by ourselves, that, in the Primitive Times, this Sacrament was indifferently administered, sometimes in Both, sometimes in one kind: Thomas 'tis hard to conceive, why Men should rather conclude, that it is not in the Power of the Church to restrain the Faithful to one kind; because the Communion was sometimes 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 justify then the conduct of the Church in this particular, I shall only examine, 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, would give nothing at all: Therefore could not restrain the Faithful to one kind; it being evident, that the Church is only impower'd to dispense, and not to destroy the Mysteries of God. But if I can make out, that the Participation of the Euchurist, in Both Kind's, is not Essential to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, than it will evidently follow, that the Church may lawfully command the forbearance of one kind. For if you should 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 confessed, 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 baptise 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 should be washed by Plunging, rather than any other way; but that, whether it be performed 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 confessed 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 than 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 Kind's, is not Essential to the True, and Real Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, to all the Intents, and Purposes of the Sacrament; but that One Kind alone is sufficient, I shall endeavour to show;  
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 preached, and the Sacraments duly administered.  
3. From the Consent of our Adversaries, if consistent with themselves. I begin with the first.  
And that our Adversaries may not think, I design to impose upon them; I will quote those places of Scripture, that seem to make against, as well as for me. Christ says, John c. 6. ver. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a Man may eat thereof, and not die. Ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven: If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever; and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. Ver. 53. Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you. Ver. 54. Who so eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal Life. Ver. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in Him. Ver. 58. This is that Bread, which came down from Heaven— he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever. Here are six Passages, whereof three seem to be expressly 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 should 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 Sacrilege; 
Vol. 2. pag. 70.  'tis what Dr. Tillotson expressly 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 perplexed at this seeming Contradiction; they believe them all to be both true in themselves, and agreeable to their Principles: For they believe, that whosoever eateth of this Bread, the same eateth and drinketh the Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man, in the Sense he meant they should 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 performed by two different Acts, whereof one is conversant about a solid, 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 Kind's; because they receive in one, all that Christ requires of the Faithful to receive, that is, his Body and Blood. I say Protestants as well as Catholics must confess, that in this Passage, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, the Words eat, and drink, are not to be taken in the strict, and usual Sense they commonly bear: For seeing they believe, that, in the Eucharist, there is neither Flesh nor Blood, nothing but Bread and Wine; and that in eating and drinking these Elements to the Letter, they do eat, and drink the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith, as it is said in the 39 Articles, it cannot be said, that they eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ, in the literal and usual Sense of the Words; it being impossible to eat and drink in the Elements, in a literal Sense, that, which, in a literal Sense, they do not really contain, as Protestants hold. They must then necessarily conclude, that to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, is not to be understood in a literal, but in a figurative Sense; and then the meaning of these Words must be, To 〈◊〉, and drink the Body and Blood of Christ; that is, to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ; and if so, then '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 would 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 charged with, upon this Subject? Well! And who are those, who charge us thus? Why they are Great, and Eminent Men: Great indeed, not only for the Rank, and Station wherein the Powers of this World have placed them; but also Great for their Learning, and other Excellent Endowments. But then, '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 Gentleman's Predecessors possessed Themselves of the Rich Benefices of the Church; and when Men's Interest, and Honour, are once engaged, 'tis hard, if they do not stand by them.  
Now there is no way left to justify these Proceed, but by railing at the Church of Rome, and exposing her pretended Corruptions; and therefore 'tis no marvel, they should 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 proposed, as the Reward of Virtue, and Merit; and then we shall see how many Eyes this will open; then we shall see the Scales fall off, and those, who have been hitherto our Greatest Persecutors, become, like St. Paul, the most Zealous Assertors of our Faith and Religion. But this by the way.  
There is an other Passage in St. Luke, which favours the Communion in One Kind. This Evangelist tells us, that Christ, after his Resurrection, appeared to two of his Disciples, as they went to Emans, who, adds St. Luke, constrained Him to a●ide with them; and when he sat at Meat, He took Bread, and blessed it, and broke and gave to them, and their Eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight. Now, 'tis certain, that, if this Bread, which Christ blessed and broke, 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 vanished out of their sight. And indeed, it is very hard to conceive how the breaking of ordinary Bread, as 'tis usually done at Meat, should 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 broke, was the Eucharist; which surely they would 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 unprejudiced Mind. I now proceed to show, that the Communion, in Both Kind's, is not Essential to the Sacrament.  
2. from the general practice of the Church in all Ages, even in those days wherein the Protestants do confess, the Pure Word of God was preached, and the Sacraments duly administered.  
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 Governors 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 persuaded, 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 called the Domestic Communion; and the Public, and Solemn Communion of the Church. And in regard of all these, I shall undertake to prove, that, for the first six hundred Years, the Eucharist was given, 1. in the Communion of the Sick, under the Species of Bread alone. 2. In the Communion of Infants, and little Children, under the species of Wine alone. 3. In the Domestic, or Private Communion, under the species of Bread; but so as to be sometimes given, tho' seldom in both kinds: And lastly, in the public, and solemn Communion of the Church, sometimes in one, sometimes in both kinds; as the Piety and Devotion of the People carried 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 entire Letter of the Great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria upon this Subject. In this Letter, Dionysus relates the Story of a certain Old Man called Serapion, who being under Public Penance, 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 ordered him to carry it to Serapion, and enjoined him moreover to moisten it in some Liquor, and then to give it to him as his last Viaticum; which when he had done, saith Dionysius, the good Old Man immediately gave up the Ghost.  
Here is a Communion in one kind related by a Man, who was as Great a Saint as he was a Bishop; and Recorded by an other Great, and Learned Bishop: Both very ancient Witnesses, both much celebrated by Antiquity: Yet neither the one, nor the other finds any fault with the Priest, nor with Serapion for this Communion, which our Adversaries would 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 received the sacred Pledge of his Redemption. And now, can it be imagined, that these two Great Men, who lived so near the Times of the Apostles, and were so well instructed in the Faith and Discipline of the Church, should not rather be surprised 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 authorised 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, should be silent in a business of this Weight, is sure what no Man can Reasonably suppose. This the Protestants could 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 confessed, that the Communion here mentioned, was given only in one kind: But others, who resolve to say any thing rather than acknowledge the Truth, would maintain, that that Liquor wherein the Boy was ordered to moisten the Piece of the sacred Bread, was the consecrated Wine; whereas, it is plain from the Words of the Letter, the Priest gave him no Liquor at all, but ordered him to steep the sacred Bread in any Liquor he could find at Home. Besides, suppose he had dipped 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 show 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; Herd, in the dead of the Night, a Voice say to him thrice, Arise, delay not; for he is going to departed. He came down, adds Paulinus, gave him the Body of our Lord, and the Saint no sooner received 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 received it when he gave up 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 received the Body and Blood, under both Species, he should have spoken in the Plural Number, and said; he no sooner received 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 received the Communion as well as he could; being prevented by a sudden Death before he could 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, could not keep him alive till he had received the Sacrament Entirely. Others, not satisfied with this Answer, say, St. Ambrose received both kinds, tho' one only is expressed, 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 conceived, will admit of no figurative Sense; such Grammatical Figures are not used 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. Basil; but let this suffice for the Communion of the sick; for I would not be tedious.  
The same Practice we find observed 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 Beginning, whilst the Church groaned under the Tyranny, and Persecution of the Pagan Emperors, and their Magistrates; the Bishops, and Priests, being forced to wander from place to place, when they light upon any Christians with little Children, or newborn Infants, being uncertain, whether they should ever return that way again, they used 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 newborn Babes were not capable of receiving any thing that was solid, they gave them always the Eucharist under the Form of Wine. And this Custom, thus settled in the first Persecutions, continued in the Church until the latter end of the Tenth Century; yet all this while it never entered 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 happened in his own Presence to a little Girl, 
Trat. de Lapsis.  who had eaten a little of the Bread, that was offered to the Idols. Her Mother knowing nothing of what She had taken, carried her, as the custom was, to the place where the Christians were assembled. During the the time of Prayer, adds this Father, this Child was troubled, and disordered, as if for want of Words, (which her tender Age was not capable of) she would 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 turned her face aside, not being able to bear the presence of such a Majesty. She shut her Mouth, she refused the Cup. But being compelled to swallow some drops of the Precious Blood, she was not able, pursues this Father, to hold it in her sullied Entrails, 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 mere 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, should imagine it. What, a Child, that eat of the 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 would 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 Entrails are not able to bear the Majesty of our Lord in his Blood, but are forced to give it up. And would 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 should 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 communion to Children, under the Species of Wine, was not confined to the three first Ages, but is still in force in the Greek, and continued 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 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 conferred upon little Children all at once. We are (says he) first Baptised, than we are Anointed, that is, Confirmed, 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 expressly, 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 wholly, and entirely received 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 Trials 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 would suffice to take some part of it every day; that being thereby united to Jesus Christ, they might be the better prepared for the Assaults of their Violent Persecutors. And because these Holy Assemblies could not be very frequent, in the Rage of Persecutions; nor the dispersed Christians, who lived far off, come easily to them; and that the Species of the Sacred Wine was apt to be soon altered, especially in so small a quantity, as they must have taken it; and besides, subject to other Accidents, which, in those troublesome Times, they could not well prevent; they were content to carry along with them the Sacred Body of our Lord, under the Form of Bread only; being persuaded, that when they eat of this Bread, they were Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and of the Grace and Sanctification thereunto annexed. And here I should tyre the Readers Patience, should 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 approved Authors; for I perceive I have been longer upon this Subject than I designed. Tertullian, a Learned Author of the second Century speaks thus of the Private Communion, in the Book, which he wrote to his Wife to dissuade her from marrying after his Death. Thy Husband (says he) will not know that, which thou takest before all other meat, and if he should, he will think it is Bread, and not what it is called; that is, the Body of Christ. Here Tertullian tells us, that his Wife, after the manner of other Christian Women, used to take a certain Thing, before she tasted any other Food; and that her future Husband, whom he supposes a Pagan, if he should know it, would 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, would 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 forced thereunto in Time of Persecution, 'tis needless to tell you; because it has been confirmed by long Use and Custom: For all those, who lead solitary Lives in Deserts, 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 touched with the hand. Besides, 'tis certain he could not mean the Sacred Cup, when he speaks of the Communion in the Deserts; it being evident, that the Species of Wine could not be preserved, for any time, in so small a Quantity, as they must have taken it.  
St. Ambrose gives us much such an other Account of this Communion: He tells us, how his Brother Satyrus was miraculously said from drowning, 
de Obits. satire.  by the Faith he had in the Sacred Host. For being in a Storm, where all were given for lost, he begged 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, obtained that Favour, he wrapped this Divine Sacrament (saith St. Ambrose) in a Cloth, and tied it about his Neck, (for being a Cathecumen only, he would 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, used 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 publicly 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, expressly Recorded and Delivered by the Writers, and Liturgies of the Fifth, Sixth, and all other succeeding Ages, in Favour of the public Communion in one, as well as in both kinds, aught to weigh down the Balance, and determine any reasonable Man to conclude, that this same Practice was derived 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, feigned 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 Fantastic, not Real, they abhorred Wine above all things, and therefore abstained from the Sacred Cup in the Communion.  
St. Leo complains of the Disorders, which they caused 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 abstained 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 Kind's, and that many devont Christians received 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 should refuse to take the Sacred Cup, as abhorring Wine, or in Detestation to the Blood of Christ, should be reputed of that Sect. But this Remedy proving ineffectual, Pope Gelasius was forced to Decree, that whosoever abstained from the Sacred Cup, upon any such superstitious Pretence, should be altogether deprived 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 engaged in I know not what Superstition, must either take both parts, or be deprived of both; because the Division of one, and the same Mystery, cannot be done without great Sacrilege.  
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 received the Communion in both kinds: For this being made, on purpose, to discover the Manichees, who never drank Wine, there was nothing so easy 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 is confessed, that these Heretics did mix themselves with the Catholics, and received the Communion only in one kind, and that notwithstanding all St. Leo's Care, and Diligence to find them out, they were still undiscovered; 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 engaged in a certain Superstition; who, seeing they are engaged in I know not what Superstition, must either take both parts, or be deprived of both: For the Reason why they are to be deprived of both parts of the Sacrament, unless they take both, is because they were engaged 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 Sacrilege, by the like wicked opinion, that Wine being created by the Devil, Christ would never have instituted the Memorial of his passion in that Liquor Whence 'tis evident, that the Catholics, who were in no manner engaged in these superstitious Errors, are nothing concerned in this Decree; nor barred 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 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 Judged improper to consecrate on any of those Days, on which they fasted; because they would 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 used to consecrate, and reserve as much of the sacred Oblation, as would suffice for the Clergy, and Laity to take every day, till the Saturday following; and this they called the Mass of the Presanctified, than which nothing is more frequently mentioned in the Greek Church.  
Now, to know what was offered, and distributed to the People in this Mass: All the Ancient Greek Liturgies tell us, that there was nothing reserved, 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.  exposed to be adored 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 used in the Latin Church. The Roman Ordinal, 
Bib. P. P Var. T. de Diu. 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 expressed in the Rubrics of our present Mass-book. Alcuinus; 
De Diu. Off.  a Famous Author of the vl Century, relates the same thing: So doth Rupertus, 
Lib. 2. c. 9 de Diu. 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 reserved 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 show, in the last place;  
That to take the Communion, in both kinds, is not Essential to the Sacrament, from the Consent of our Adversaries, if consistent with Themselves.  
I suppose Martin Luther's Opinion in this Matter, is of no small Authority; for 'tis but reasonable to suppose, that those, who have followed the Scheme, which he drew, should pay their just tribute of Respect to his Opinion in this Point. Let us then hear him speak. If any Council (says he) should chance to Decree (the Communion in both kinds) we should by no means make use of Both, 
De Miffa Ang.  nay, we would sooner, in contempt of the Council, take one, or neither, than both; and curse those, who should, 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 would not have said, that he would sooner make use of neither, than of both; nor curse those, who should 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 administered to those, who cannot drink Wine, upon their making Protestation, that it is not out of Contempt; and upon their endeavouring, what they can, to obviate all Scandal, even by approaching the Cup, as near their Mouths, as they are able. Now 'tis not to be imagined, that these Gentlemen should 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 could not drink Wine, cannot, in Reason, be supposed to believe, that the Cup was Essential to the Communion; else they would have absolutely refused the Sacrament to those, who could not receive it in both kinds; since to give it in one kind, were to give nothing at all, but rather to profane, 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 endeavoured, as briefly as I could, 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 employed 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, than 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 contained 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 Saviour's Institution in both kinds; as they themselves acknowledge. And therefore the Council of Constance being sensible of this, was forced 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 pierced, and exhausted, and drained of his Blood; and his Blood is represented as shed and poured out; so that one kind can by no means contain and exhibit both.  
Three things the Doctor here insists upon. 1. That We ourselves acknowledge the the Communion in one kind to be contrary to our Saviour's Institution. 2. That the Council of Constance was forced 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 drained 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 ourselves 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 conversed 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 Body and Blood, He consecrated not in One, but in both Kind's; because He designed 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 expressed by the Separation of one Symbol from tother; and this, I hope, we are careful to do, as often as we offer that Sacrifice: But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice itself, in one, or both kinds, is, sure, no part of the Institution, but belongs to the Modus, or manner of administering it.  
Christ instituted the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Matrimony; yet we do not find, that ever he gave, or administered any of these Sacraments to any Body; which, surely, he would 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 merely 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 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 mentioned 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 determined, 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 forced 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 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 Physic) when they pretend most to Evidence and Demonstration, in matters of Religion, than 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 administered it to his Disciples under both Kind's of Bread and Wine, tamen hoc non obstante, yet this notwithstanding, the Authority of the sacred Canons, the Laudable and Approved Custom of the Church, hath held, and doth hold, that this Sacrament ought not to be made after Supper, nor received by the Faithful not fasting; except in case of Infirmity, or some other Necessity, approved and allowed 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 involved 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 drained 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 should have proved his Postulatum, before he would persuade us of the Truth of this Inference: For, I suppose, he was too well acquainted with us, to think we should 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 was exhausted, and drained 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 drained of His Blood, He would 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 Soldier pierced 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, conveyed 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 should come out of his Side, especially in the Posture he then lay in: So that that, which the Doctor would have us take for granted, has no Degree of Truth in it. Well, but suppose we should grant, that Christ's Body was exhausted, and drained 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, contained the Body of Christ, which (being now a human living Body) must necessarily have Blood in it; though we should suppose it had none when it was ●ead; we have all the Reason 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 drained of his Blood, in his Passion; yet it would 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 expressed in both kinds, than in One. But then we must consider, that this Representation is not of that Importance, as to balance all the weighty Considerations, that moved 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 expressed in the Sacrifice of the Mass, where his Body and Blood are shown 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 and Passion of our Blessed Lord; and if there were, 'tis not of that moment, as to make amends for the Horrid Profanations and Abuses, which must inevitably attend the Communion in both kinds, in a degenerate Age, in which all Piety and Godliness are almost extinguished; and whereof we have sad Instances in our Adversaries Practise, 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 administering 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 justify our Conduct in this Particular.  
'Tis certain, that the Regeneration of the Faithful is more lively expressed, and represented by Immersion, or plunging into the Water, as the Primitive Church did always Baptise, than by Infusion or Aspersion as we now do: For the Faithful, being plunged 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 immersed or dipped into the Water, or Four, where all the Parts of the Body are washed, this Lotion does more fully express the cleansing of the Soul from all its sins, than if one part only had been washed: Yet no body doubts, but that the Baptism conferred 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 annexed to it; and not scrupulously to inquire after every minute-Circumstance of it, especially when there are weighty Reasons and Motives, to dissuade 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 should by taking it in Both; yet we are persuaded, 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 Blood of Christ, for which, surely, we cannot have too much Veneration. She saw, that, as the Piety and Devotion of the people diminished, 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 received the Sacred Cup, gave up their Stomaches 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, Crowds 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 Redeemed. These and the like Considerations moved the Church, or rather the People (for the Church did only confirm the Custom, which was introduced 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 received with due Respect, and without Danger; and to which nothing is wanting, only a more full Representation of the Mystery, which yet is supplied by other means, and which (in the Opinion of any Reasonable Man) is not sufficient to atone for the aforesaid Profanations.   

CHAP. VI Of Prayers in an Unknown Tongue.  
I May Reasonably presume it will not be expected, I should speak much to this Head; for the Scandal, which our Adversaries would 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 Unknown 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 Unknown; and leave the Reader to judge, whether our Adversaries have all the Reason, they pretend, to cry so loud.  
1. We make use of the Latin Tongue in our Liturgy, because we would 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, used no other Language in the Liturgy, than Latin. And thus to follow the Model, our Holy and Pious Forefathers 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 show thee; thy Elders, and they will tell thee. 'Tis certain, and even acknowledged by our Aversaries, that when the Christian Religion was first Preached in the West, every Country had then, as well as now, it's own peculiar Language different from the Latin; which (tho' it was cultivated by Men of Letters and Business, in all Countries 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 preached, and Propagated the Christian Religion in these Countries, 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 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 confessed, 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 tread 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 condemned for so doing, we have the comfort to be condemned in Company with these Great and Holy Men, to whose Doctrine and Practice, God Himself was pleased 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 Magnify 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 performed, 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 of the Catholic Religion ought to have Communion, and Fellowship one with another: They should 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 performed, if we have our Liturgy, in as many different Tongues, as there are Countries in the Catholic Church: For how can I have fellowship with a Man whose Language I do not understand? How can I join 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 Jew's, 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 accrue to them by having it so, is not so valuable as to be purchased at the Expense of the common Union, and Peace of the whole Catholic Church, which, as experience shows, 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 barred 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 pronounced 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 disposed 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 throughout the Year, there are, in Catholic Countries, public Sermons and Exhortations performed 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 Magistrates, and for one another: 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 quickening their Memory by the Representation of his Death and Passion, which is performed 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 dissuade 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 shows us, how they used to administer the Sacraments, and what sort of Ceremonies they judged most proper 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 Liturgy 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 would it prove to be thus every Age modeling, and reforming, and changing our Liturgies? What Confusion and Disorders would the Unskilfulness, or the Fancy of Translators occasion? Nay, what Tumults and Uproars would 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 Imagined. And, whatever our Adversaries may think on't, Experience shows 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, lewd, and profane expressions, resolved 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 Reformed) of the Protestant Party, Translated the Scripture, Composed 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' Days, (if we believe their own Writers) deficient in many things, and in others not agreeable to the than Protestant Religion, which was not, as yet, perfectly licked into Shape and Form, other new Translations are undertaken; but how much confusion and trouble these also occasioned, 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 passed 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 furnished the Irish with a Liturgy in their own Language, tho' many thousands in the North of Ireland, and in the Highlands of Scotland, go to Church, which yet understand nothing but the Irish Tongue. So that it is no such easy matter to furnish even 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 altered; Who can imagine all the Difficulties that would attend the attempt, should the Catholic Church propose to translate her Liturgy into all the several Languages used 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, Antic Expressions; and the common People, who think the Substance changed with the Words, will not part with their old Mumpsimus. And then, what fine work would 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 Rhyme and Jingle of the Words, no sooner understood, that this Phrase was altered, tho' indeed for the better; when they were so incensed upon the matter, that the Ministers were like to have (not slippers but) sticks, and stones, and such Arms, as a popular Fury administered, cast at them. And what, do you think, should happen in in the Church of Rome, where there are so many different Languages; so many different Humours, so hard to be satisfied; so many uncouth, unpolished people, so difficult to be governed; should 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 persuaded, 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 endeavoured to touch upon some of the Reasons, that moved 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 Majesty, 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 performed in it. And in this, methinks, we do but what the Light of Nature teacheth all Nations; and what our Adversaries could not but see, would they but divest 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 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 changed a Syllable in their Liturgy; but do still say their Mass in the same Pure Greek, which was used when they first embraced 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 used; tho' the Communion People do not understand them. And (if I may be allowed to borrow an instance from Infidels) the Turks still retain the Arabic Language in their Koran; nor did they ever permit it to be read in any other Tongue, in their public Prayers; tho' 'tis confessed 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 intent to pursue him in all the Repetitions, He makes of the same thing, without any material Addition; for than I should transcribe several, almost, entire Sermons; but shall for the Reader's ease, and my own, bring all his Real, or Apparent Difficulties within the compass of these few Heads.  
First, he saith, That the celebrating of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church; and the Great Design, and End of Religious Worship; which (being a Reasonable Service) ought to be Directed by our Understanding, and accompanied with our Hearts and Affections.  
Secondly, That to pray in an unknown Tongue is contrary to St. Paul's Doctrine, who has no less than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes and condemns this Practice.  
Thirdly, 
Vol. 1. edit. post. obit. pag. 126, 161.  That we lock up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue, and forbidden 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 imagined, how People should square, or measure their Faith by this Ride, unless they are allowed 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 would soon quit our Religion, and go over to them. This is the Sum of what he says upon this Subject, to which I shall return my Exceptions as plainly, and briefly as I can.  
First, he saith, That the celebrating of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church. I answer, if he means, by unknown Tongue, such a Tongue as no body understands; it is very True, but not to the purpose: For the Tongue, in which we celebrate divine Service, is not such, but, on the contrary, the Tongue in the World, I believe, the best known. But if he means by it, a Tongue unknown to most of the common people, his Assertion has no Degree of Truth in it: For, first, he himself acknowledges, and so doth all Mankind, that the Primitive Church, and all succeeding Generations (I mean in the Latin Church) till the Reformation appeared, did celebrate divine Service in the same Latin Tongue we now use. And secondly, even Malice itself 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 could 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 shows what the Wit of Man is capable of, when he must, and will maintain a thing. What, the common people of Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, England, Ireland, Scotland, etc. spoke all Latin! 'Tis indeed confessed, all these People were in Communion with the Church of Rome; all received 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 should 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 touched upon before.  
Touching the Second, viz. That to pray in an unknown Tongue is contrary to 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; would 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, Unknown, is an Addition of their own. Secondly, St. Paul does not condemn speaking or praying with Tongues, which is the only thing there mentioned. 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, Unknown, 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 would that ye all spoke with Tongues, Ver. 5. But sure he would not condemn that in them which he would 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 Stress, and examine the whole Scope and Design of this Chapter; and then let even Malice itself 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 rendered 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 altar their Style, leave out the word Unknown, 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 would that ye all spoke with Tongues. I wonder they did not render it thus; I would that ye all spoke 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 Tongues is commended, the same Word is interpreted, with Tongues, which in the former Verses must signify unknown Tongue. And thus St. Paul is made to speak what these Gentlemen please. When the Word Unknown 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 inspired, by the Holy Ghost, which was Poured 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 spoke 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 would occasion a great deal of Confusion and Disorder among the Christians, if all those, who were inspired with them, were allowed to rise up, and speak all at once; and that the Progress of the Gospel would be very much retarded, if such Proceed were not moderated. Therefore he instructs the Corinthians in what they were to do upon this Occasion: He tells them, that tho' he would have them all speaks with Tongues; yet that he had rather they should Prophesy; 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 would speak with Tongues, he desires it should 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 would 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 ceased, 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 forbidden the Common People the Use of them, which is contrary to Christ's own Design, who exhorts the Jews to search the Scriptures, etc.  
Answ. This Proposition, as to the first Part, is notoriously false, and unworthy the Character, and Reputation Dr. Tillason was otherwise deservedly possessed 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 have them in all the vulgar Languages spoken in those parts of the World, published 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, could not, at least, be Ignorant, that the Roman Catholics in England have the Scriptures in their own Tongue: Did he never hear of the Douai Bible, or the Rheim's Testament? Are not these Books in their Hands, and read, and used 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 imagine, what should put him upon asserting a thing so barefaced, 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 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 locked 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 would 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 Pretention. I shall subjoin the very Words of that Council, and leave it to speak for itself. Since Experience showeth, 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) would occasion more hurt than good; Be it left to the Bishop's, or Inquisitor's Judgement; by, and with the Advice of the Parish priest, or Confessor to give leave to read the Versions of Catholic Authors in vulgar Language, 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 barred, by this Decree, from the use of it in vulgar Language. And if any such should happen to be refused leave to read it, which we have no Reason to suppose; 'tis contrary to the Spirit, and Intention of the Council, who order that Persons so disposed, may have the free use of them. And however this (no great) Restraint was necessary in those Days, when men's minds were in a Ferment, and the Itch of Novelty had seized them, as it commonly happens when any new Opinions are broached; 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 hindering 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 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 allowed 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 maintained) but that the rankest Soul-killing Poison, has been often extracted out of the sacred Scriptures; not out of any Defect in them, but through the depraved Disposition, and Supercilious Pride of the Readers: And therefore, I think, it is the least the Church could do in a time 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 imagined how people should square, or measure their Faith by this Rule, unless they were allowed to Read and Understand it.  
Answ. The Answer to this Objection, is sufficiently employed 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 conveyed to us by Writing, or by Word of Mouth; methinks the Scripture itself declares in favour of the latter: For Christ our Lord, as the Evangelists say, commanded 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 confessed, that the Sacred Scriptures are excellent Means to edify our Faith, and compose our Manners; we do earnestly and hearty 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 would 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 proved. 2. That the common People would not quit our Religion, etc. 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, should have quitted us, which he well knew, they do not. Men of Breeding and Sense, are less apt to be pleased with Superstition and Error, than the common ordinary People; and we cannot suppose, they should have less Regard for the good of their Souls, than ordinary people; and yet, since those Men from whom we cannot, if we would, conceal any thing in our Faith or Practice, do not go over to them, but persist in our Communion; I think I may reasonable conclude, that the common people would 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 Beginning. 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 ascribed to R. Catholics, and managed 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 not permitted to bear any Civil, or Military Office; nay, scarce allowed, in some Countries, to exercise such honest Professions, or Callings, as may enable them to get their Bread; if all these fatal Engines, I say, were laid aside, and every Man left to choose 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 would soon fall to pieces, and many a Prodigal Child would return to their Father's Houses, whence they have so long strayed. But these Fences, and Barriers (shall I call them) of Religion, being so Riveted, 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 pleased to put His Hand to the Work: To whose infinite 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 declared by the Council of Trent: That the Saints, who Reign 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 through 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 received from the Primitive Church, and used 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 would 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 should give a Specimen of his Laborious Endeavours in this matter; but I think a Pattern would not do, and therefore I shall refer the Reader to three entire Sermons, 
Vol. 2. edit post obit. Ser. 2, 3, 4.  where this Business is handled to some purpose.  
Now to justify our Proceed from these imputations, and to show the Reasonableness of this Practice, as by us used; I shall do these Four Things:  
1. I will endeavour to show, that to invocate the Saints, by which Words we protest and declare (and 'tis hard if we may not be allowed 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 beginning of the Mass, a few Hymns, Anthems and Versicles, which are not Prayers strictly and properly so called; 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 addressed 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 used in the Primitive Church. And  
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 show, 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, etc. 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 ware how far this Inference would carry him, else he would be a little more reserved. 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 ourselves? Does not St. Paul make the Ephesians Mediators between God and himself? Most certainly, as much as we make the Saints; for we only desire the Saints to pray for us, and St. Paul desired 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 forbidden! 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 Controversy 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 called; for (continueth He) all Intercession, strictly and properly so called, is in virtue of a Sacrifice offered by him that intercedes. Here He pulls down all that He built before, and justifies our Practice, as fully as we could desire. All Intercession strictly and properly so called, is in virtue of a Sacrifice offered by him that intercedes: Say you so! Why then the Saints can by no means be Mediators, or Intercessors properly so called, 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, etc. as aforesaid, we put up no Prayers to Saints, or Angels; but all our Prayers are addressed 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 contained; 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, Evensong, and Compline. And here I can in truth aver, that I have 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 addressed 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 aderessed 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 annexed 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.  
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 show 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, contained 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 flourished in the Church; with a great many Pious and Godly Prayers, Anthems, Hymns, and Versicles, addressed to God-Almighty; and put up in the Name, and through 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, 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 Honour, 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 mentioned. 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 mentioned, be not of the same Tenor.  

A Collect on the Annunciation of the B. V Mary.  
O God, who hast been pleased, that thy Word should take Flesh in the Womb of the B. V Mary, when the Angel declared it; grant us thy humble Petitioners, who believe Her to be truly the Mother of God, that, by Her intercession, we may with Thee be assisted; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. Amen.   

A Collect on the Feast of St. Peter, and St. Paul.  
O God, who hast consecrated this Day by the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, grant to thy Church to follow their Example in all things, by whom the Religion began; through our Lord Jesus, etc. Amen.   

A Collect on the Nativity of St. John Baptist.  
O God, who hast Honoured this Day with the Nativity of St. John, give to thy People the Grace of Spiritual Joy; and guide the Minds of all the Faithful in the way of eternal Salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.  
Here, you see, all these Prayers are addressed to God alone. And thus, indeed, are all the Collects in the Mass-Book and Breviary, which I willingly submit to any Man's Trial ad Paenam libri. As to the Office and Litanies of the B. V Mary, which are found in Manuals, and read by some R. Catholics; there is no Reason to charge them upon the Public Office, and Service of the Church; since they are not used by the Church, nor published by public Authority. The Church does, indeed, allow such Prayers to be said, as far as they hold within the Compass of mere Intercession; because they are founded in the Practice of the Primitive Church, and all succeeding Ages. But if any of them contain any Terms or Expressions bordering upon the Prerogative of the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ; she does as hearty, and as earnestly, desire they should be abolished as any Protestant whatsoever.  
Touching the Rosary, or Beads, in which the Dr. reproaches us for saying ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster: I believe every one knows the Church obliges no body to say it; I am sure there are Millions of R. Catholics who never do. Besides, there is nothing in the Ave Maria, but the very Words of Scripture, except these last, pray for us now and in the Hour of our Death; and if it be a good thing to desire the Mother of God to pray for us, sure, the oftener we desire it, the better it is. As to the Disproportion between the Pater Nosters, and the Ave Maria's; I must confess it were something, if those, who use the Rosary, made all their Devotion to consist in it. But it is well known, that such as say it, do to their Power, discharge all other Christian Duties; at least do pretend to no Exemption, upon the Score of their Beads, or Rosary, from Praying to Almighty God, from Adoring and Worshipping Him, and giving Him their Humble and Hearty Thanks for his Benefits and Blessings; from commemorating the Death and Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having recourse to the Merits thereof, for Mercy and Pardon of their Sins. And now when they have endeavoured to discharge all these Essential Duties, where lies the harm, if they spend some part of their spare Hours, in saying, over and above, so many Ave Maria's, especially since they are founded in the Merits of the Death and Passion of our Lord and Saviour; in Virtue whereof, all Catholics do hope and trust, that the Virgin Mary and all the Saints, will pray for them? Or how can it be counted a Fault to desire the Virgin Mary to do that for us, which even the Dr. himself, and all the Learned Protestants in the world, do acknowledge, She, and all the Saints in Heaven, constantly do; tho' we should not ask it of them? Now this is plainly the Case: All R. Catholics are taught and exhorted by the Church, to discharge first their Duty to God, to worship and adore him, to put up their Prayers to Him, to thank him for His Benefits, to be sorry for their sins, to beg Mercy and Forgiveness through the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ; and when this is done, if they will take the Lady's Office, or the Litanies of the Saints, or the V Mary, or their Beads, and beg those great Friends and Favourits, of Jesus Christ, who shed their Blood, and lay down their Lives for the Truth of His Gospel; to recommend them to Him, and his Heavenly Father, is it not better, (since the mind of Man must always be in Action) than spend the Time in Idleness, or, perhaps, in Evil Conversation? In a Word, these are Devotions, which certain Fraternities, and Regular Societies have taken upon them to discharge over and above the necessary, and Essential Duties of Christianity; and which other Catholics, (to be Partakers of the Prayers of the said Fraternities and Societies) do also perform. But in saying their Beads, they do not always, as the Dr. would suggest, say ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster: For several Fraternities and Catholics, say all Pater Nosters without ever an Ave Maria. But of this enough. I proceed to show,  
3. From the very Words of the Holy Fathers, that this Practice of praying to Saints was used in the primitive Church.  
St. Ambrose delivers his Thoughts in these Words: We ought to pray to the Angels in our own Behalf, who are given as a Guard to Us: We ought to pray to the Martyrs, whose Bodies remaining with Us, seem to be, as it were, a Pledge of their Protection. Lib de Viduis prope Fin.  
Gregory Nissen, speaks thus to the Martyr St. Theodorus; Intercede and Pray for your Country with our Common Lord, and King. Orat. in St. Theodor.  
St. Austin: We do not Commemorate the Martyrs at the Lord's Table, as We do those, who die in the Peace of the Church; but We do Commemorate them, that they may pray for Us, that we may follow their Steps. Tract. 84. in Joa. Again: Holy Mary 
* Note, that the Sermon, whence this Passage is taken, is ascribed, by some Critics, to St. Fulgentius; but whether of the two it belongs to, it matters not, being both Fathers of Great Renown, and of the same Age.  secure the Distressed, help the Pusillanimous, cherish those that Mourn, pray for the People, mediate for the Clergy, intercede for the Devout Female Sex, let every one perceive thy Assistance, who celebrate thy Commemoration. Ser. 18. de Sanctis.  
Theodoret: We do not address ourselves unto the Martyrs, as unto Gods, but we pray unto them as Divine Men, that they would please to become Legates (or Intercessors) for us. Ser. 8. de Martyr. lib. Curate. Grae●. Affect.  
The Council of Chalcedon. Act. 11. has these Words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Flavianus Liveth after his Death; the Martyr will pray for us; or, as the Translators render it, Let the Martyr pray for us; it being usual with the Orientals to put the Future Tense for the Imperative.  
Here is a General Council of more than 600 Bishops desiring the Martyr Flavianus to pray for Them. This Council was held in the Year 451, and is one of the four first General Councils, whose Acts and Decrees the Church of England Divines do profess to receive. So that it cannot be enough admired, what should induce them to reject the Invocation of Saints.  
I should never end, if I should bring all the Say of the Fathers on this Subject. St. Austin has a long Discourse upon it against Faustus the Manichean, where He gives at large the Reasons why the Catholic Church gives due Honour to the Martyrs, and desires the Assistance of their Prayers: And St. Jerom wrote a Book against Vigilantius upon this Subject, and calls him Heretic for denying the Lawfulness of praying to Saints.  
I shall therefore conclude with this Reflection; that it is not reasonable to believe, nay 'tis incredible, that these Holy Fathers, who took so much pains to propagate the Faith and Gospel of Jesus Christ; who wrote so many Learned and Voluminous Works, which breath so much Piety and Christian Devotion; spent all their Lives in Holy, and Religious Exercises; consecrated their Time and Labour to the Service of the True and Living God, and were ready to lay down their Lives for the Truth of the Doctrine, which they taught and practised, if Occasion required; should at the same Time, write, and practise a Doctrine, which derogates from the Honour, and Mediatorship of Jesus Christ; it being their chief Study and Care, to inculcate to the World, that He was the only Lord and Mediator, in whose Name and no other, Salvation was to be had. But if the Doctor should say (as many of his Brethren have) that all these Holy Fathers erred, and consequently did not understand the Doctrine they laboured so earnestly to Propagate. I answer him, as St. Austin did a certain, Man to whom, I fear, the Doctor was in some Things, but too near akin; Mallem cum eis errare, quam tecum consentire: I had rather err with the Fathers, than agree with Him.  
Thus I have endeavoured, as plainly and briefly as I could, to show how Reasonable, how Harmless, how Inoffensive, the Invocation of Saints is, and how agreeable to the Practice of the Holy Fathers, and the Primitive Church. I now proceed.  
Lastly, to return a brief Answer to what Dr. Tillotson thought fit to bring against this Point.  
Here I would not be understood, as if I meant to answer all the little Objections, and pretty quirks of Wit, which he endeavours to improve with all his Art and Eloquence; in order, no doubt, to catch the wellmeaning, but weaker sort of People, with this Fig-leaf Cover; which yet all sober thinking Men may easily see through. My Design is to answer only such Objections as have any real or apparent Difficulties, being convinced that things naked, or so thinly covered, need no Reading upon.  
His first Objection is taken out of St. Paul, Colos. 2.18, 
Vol. ●. edit. post obit. pag. 43, 44, 45  19 Where the Apostle says, Let no Man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary Humility, and worshipping of Angels, not holding the Head. By which Words, says the Doctor, St. Paul intimates, that for Christians to address themselves to God by any other Mediator, than Jesus Christ only, was a Defection from the Head. This, He says, is Theodoret's Interpretation of that Passage in his Comment upon it, and the third Chapter, ver. 17. of the same Epistle; and to enforce this Interpretation, he citys a Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which says; That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and go away from it, and to invocate Angels, and to make Conventicles, all which are forbidden; if therefore any be found giving himself to this secret Idolatry, let him be Anathema, because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, and is gone over to Idolatry. After which Words, the Dr. breaks out into this Exclamation: What shall be said to them, who do not only secretly and in their Private Devotions, but in the public Assemblies of Christians, and in the most public Offices of their Church, invocate Angels, and pray to them.  
Before I answer this Objection, it won't be amiss to clear the Equivocation, which, in most controversial Disputes, commonly attends these two words, Worship, and Invocation. I worship is rendered in Latin, colo, or adoro; in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and in these three Languages, 'tis used in Scripture, and in common Discourse, not only to signify the supreme Worship and Honour, we pay to Almighty God, but also for all sort of Respect and Reverence done to Kings, Princes, and Persons of Condition. Of this we have innumerable Examples in Scripture; and not only so, but the very Word, which we use to signify the supreme Worship due to God alone, is sometimes applied to human Affairs: For, as we say, colere Deum, to worship God; colere Parents, to honour our Parents; colere Vineam, colere Agrum, Hortum, etc. to till the Vineyard, to till the Ground, etc. Yet no Man ever said, that we rob God of his due Honour, by using the same Expression to signify the Respect we pay some Creatures, which we use when we express the Honour due only to Him; because the different Ideas, or Notions we have of God, and these Creatures, sufficiently determine our meaning; tho' the want of Words, or rather the Conveniency of delivering our Thoughts in fewer Words, oblige us to make use of the same Term to express these different Services.  
In like Manner, the Word Invocation is used in Scripture not only to signify our calling upon God, as our Sovereign Lord and Maker; but is also used, and applied in several places to ordinary Men. For instance; Isaiah says, Seven Women shall take hold of one Man, saying, we will eat our own Bread, and wear our own Apparel, only let thy Name be invocated upon us, to take away our Reproach: Tantum invocetur Nomen tuum super. nos. Cap. 4.1. So that if we do not attend to the Subject Matter, to which these Words are applied, the Scripture will afford us sufficient Grounds for Worshipping, and invocating not only God, Angels, and Saints, but even common ordinary Men. To worship and invocate then, must necessarily mean, to exhibit a Service, and Duty to those, whom we worship and call upon, according to the Notion, or Idea we have of their Excellency and Perfection; and of the Power and Ability we conceive in them to help and assist us: And then to Worship God, and invocate Him, must mean, to pay Him the Supreme Honour and Respect which is due only to the Great Creator and Redeemer of the World; and to beg Mercy and Forgiveness of Him, as the Source and Fountain of all Goodness; but to Worship and Invocate the Angels and Saints, must mean no more than to show them that respect and honour, which is due to the Friends and Courtiers of our Sovereign Lord, and to ask their Help and Assistance in those things, which we conceive they are able to do, that is, to pray for us, and to recommend us to their, and our Great Master; because these only are the Excellencies and Abilities we conceive the Angels and Saints to be endued with, and for which we respect them. This supposed, I answer,  
1. That St. Paul speaks here of Certain Heretics, who separated from the Faithful, and gave to Angels the supreme Worship and Honour, which is due only to God; as these words of his, not holding the Head, do plainly denote: For, by these Words, He give us to understand, that these Heretics departed from Christ, which is the Head; and by these other words, Worshipping of Angels, that they offered Sacrifice to Angels, whom they believed to have been the Mediators of the New Covenant; or, as Theodoret phrases it, that the Law was given by Angels. But this, I hope, the Protestants will not say, we believe, or hold.  
2. That the Dr's. Interpretation of St. Paul's words is altogether forced, and by no means warranted by Theodoret, or any ancient Father of the Church; on the contrary, Theodoret is entirely ours; For He says, in that very Place cited by the Doctor, that therefore these Heretics worshipped Angels; because they believed, 
Vol. 2. edit. post ob. pag. 44.  the Law was given by Them. He says, indeed, in an other place, which the Doctor quotes, that we must send up Thanksgivings to God and the Father, by Christ, and not by the Angels. And this, I hope, we are careful to do; for I am sure we put up all our Prayers to God and the Father, by, or through the Merits of Jesus Christ, and not of any Angel or Saint. But sure it is not reasonable to believe, that Theodoret there meant, that we ought not to desire the Angels or Saints, to pray for us; since he himself, as I observed before, so expressly says, We not address ourselves to the Saints as Gods, but we pray unto them as Divine Men, that they would please to be Legates (or Intercessors) for us.  

Comment. in Epist. ●d Colos. c. 3. v. 17.  3. That the Canon of the Council of La●dicea, as Theodoret tells us, speaks only of these Heretics meant by St. Paul, who forsook the Church, and gave themselves to secret Idolatry, that is, (as the Fathers have always understood that word) offered Sacrifice to Angels. But the words of the Canon are so plain and full to this purpose, that there needs no reading upon it.  
4. That the Doctor might very well have forborn his Exclamation; for I assure him, that excepting the General Confession, a● aforesaid, we do not invocate, or pray to Angels in the Public Offices of the Church. We have but one Feast in the Year, wherein we Commemorate Angels, which is that of St. Michael the Archangel; and in this (excepting one Anthem, in the Breviary; and one Versile, in the Mass, which are not properly Prayers, where 'tis said, in the first; Archangel Michael be mindful of us, and pray for us to the Son of God; and in the second; Holy Michael defend us in Battle, that we perish not in the dreadful Judgement; there is no invocating or putting up of Prayers to St. Michael, or any other Angel. But it seems the Doctor was warm upon the Matter, and in such a Case, Rhetorical Exclamations are more pardonable; pray God they may be pardoned him in Heaven.  
His second Objection is to this purpose. Mediation and Intercession is founded in the Merit and Virtue of the Sacrifice, 
Vol. 2. edit. post ob. pag. 56, 57  by which Expiation for Sin is made; but this Jesus Christ and no other has done: Therefore He only is Mediator, and Intercessor.  
Answ. This Argument proves too much: For it proves, that neither our Brethren, on Earth; nor the Saints, in Heaven; aught, or can lawfully pray or intercede for us; because they did not offer the Sacrifice by which Expiation for sin is made. Yet the Doctor grants, that both our Brethren, on Earth; and the Saints, in Heaven; may, and do pray for us. Well, but granting that Mediation and Intercession is founded in the Virtue and Merit of the Sacrifice, by which Expiation for Sin is made. Does it therefore follow, that the Saints may not charitably beg of God to forgive us our Sins? 'Tis true, Christ only has a Right and Title to mediate and intercede for us; because he alone paid the Ransom, and full Value of our Sins, and therefore may, in Justice, ask of His Father to forgive us. But sure, this does not hinder, but that the Saints may do Us that Charitable Office, as to pray to God to have Mercy upon Us; tho' they cannot in Justice demand it. May not a Friend and Favourite of the King beg the Life of a ●enitent Criminal? And have not Kings and Princes often granted such Favours to their Friends; tho' they were not in Justice bound to do so? And are not the Saints in Heaven Christ's Favourites? Does not He call them his Friends? Vos Amici mei estis. 
Job. 15.14. Mat. 19.28.  And, what is more, Does not He tell His Apostles, that they shall sit upon Thrones, Judging the twelve Tribes of Israel? And why may not then these Judges, and Friends, and Favourites of Jesus Christ, beg of Him to have Mercy upon poor miserable Sinners; tho' they cannot in Justice require it at his Hands? But the Doctor's Mistake consists in this, that he does not, (or rather will not) distinguish between an Intercession founded in Justice and Equity, and an Intercession founded only in Favour and good Will: The first, I grant, is peculiar only to Christ, for the Reasons offered by the Doctor; but the second, which is the Effect of Charity, is common to every one, who is possessed of that Divine Virtue. Well, but, says the Doctor, the Mediation or Intercession of Saints is not properly speaking Intercession. So say I; for I own, that, in the Sense, in which Christ is both our Mediator and Intercessor, the Saints and Angels, in the same sense, cannot be called Intercessors; but whether he calls them Intercessors in a proper, or an improper Sense, 'tis all one to me. Since he acknowledges, they do pray for us, and intercede with God in our behalf, I am satisfied; for I am sure we desire no more of them.  
After this, the Dr. gives us a great many Passages out of the Fathers, 
ibid. pag 76, 77, 78. 79. 80, 81 82, 83.  to prove the Invocation of Saints unlawful; namely out of St. Ireneus, Origen, Novatian (for he must be a Father too) Clemens Romanus, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrys●stom, and (which I must admire at) out of St. Austin, who (if Invocation of Saints be Popery) was, I am sure, a Rank Papist. But the Doctor might have spared Himself the Labour of quoting these Passages; for there is not one of them all, to which any Roman Catholic would refuse to Subscribe; and therefore I have no Temptation to vex or trouble them.  
His third Objection is levelled at the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition, of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which says,  
We pray to the Saints in Heaven, in the same order of Brotherly Society, with which we entreat our Brethren upon Earth to pray for us. But that this (says he) is not a true Representation of their Doctrine, will appear by these Considerations.  
1. That they pray (continues He) to the Saints and Angels in Heaven with the same solemn Circumstances of Religious Worship, that they pray to God himself.  
2. That, in their Prayers and Thanksgiving, they join the Angels, and the B. Virgin, and the Saints together with God and Christ.  
3. That in the Creed of Pope Pius 4. it is expressly said, the Saints, which reign with Christ, are to be Worshipped and Invocated.  
4. That in the Public Offices of their Church, they do not only pray to the Saints to pray for them, but they direct their Prayers and Thanksgivings immediately to them for all those Blessings and Benefits, which they ask of God, and thank Him for, of which innumerable Examples (adds He) might be given out of their Public Offices; particularly in the Office of the B. Virgin, they pray to the Angels thus; deliver us we beseech you, by your command from all our Sins.  
To which I answer,  
1. That there never was a Book more universally commended and approved in the Latin Church, than the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition, of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Pope highly commended, and approved it; as appears by his Brief to this Bishop, annexed to the said Book. All the Cardinals and Consistory in Rome approved it; as the Letters of the Master of the Sacred Palace, and the Consultor of the Holy Office, do witness; And all the Learned Bishops and Prelates of the R. Catholic Church have very much approved, and commended t; as appears by the Letters of many of them to the said Bishop, and his Friends; all which are likewise annexed to the said Book. it has been translated into, almost, all the Vulgar Tongues in Europe, and is read, and perused by all R. Catholics, with all the satisfaction and content imaginable; so that to say, this Exposition is not a true Representation of the Doctrine, and Practice of the R. Catholic Church in this matter, is as Unreasonable in itself, as it is injurious to that Great and Learned Prelate, and to the whole Catholic Church, which hath so universally approved it.  
2. As to his first Consideration; I have already proved, that we address no Prayers to Saints, or Angels in the Public Service of the Church, but that all our Prayers are directed to God only; and, as to our Posture in the Church, or at our private Devotions, whether kneeling, or standing, or bowing, we declare our intention is to adore God alone, and none else.  
Touching his second Consideration, viz. that in their Prayers and Thanksgiving, 
ibid. pag. 80, 81.  they join the Angels, and the B. Virgin, and the Saints together with God and Christ. Of this He gives us, in an other place, these instances. Nothing so frequent with them, says He, as to join the blessed Virgin with God and our Saviour in the same breath; nothing so common in their Mouth, as Jesus Maria,— glory to God and the B. Virgin; and in the Roman Missal, adds He, they make Confession of their Sins to God-Almighty and the blessed Virgin, and to St. Michael the Archangel, and to all the Saints.  
To which I answer,  
3. That it is very True, we join God, and his Saints together in the same breath, as the Dr. saith; but, than our Plea is, that we are taught both by the Old, and New Testament so to do. For Instance. All the Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers; and bowing their Heads, Worshipped the Lord and the King. 1 Chron. 29.20. Here, at the same time, and in the same act, and in the same breath too, 'tis said, that the Israelites Worshipped God, and the King. Had we but any such thing in our Public Offices, what work would the Dr. make on't! Again, The people greatly feared the Lord, and Samuel, 1 Kings 12.18. Here again, God and Samuel are joined together in the same Breath. Again, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Us, to lay upon you no other Burden, Acts 15.28. Again, I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Elect Angels, 1 Tim. 5.21. St. John writes to the Seven Churches in Asia; Grace be unto you, and Peace from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the Seven Spirits, which are before His Throne; and from Jesus Christ, Rev. chap. 1. Had we offered Peace from the Angels to our Flocks and placed them before Jesus Christ, how loud would He Cry! Yet no less than an Apostle of Jesus Christ hath done it. What will the Doctor say to all this? Is not God here joined with Angels, and Saints and Men, in the same Breath? And must it be a Crime in us to do that, whereof we have such manifest Precedents in the very words of the Scripture. Truly, to weigh well the matter, one would almost swear, the Doctor was not in earnest; but were I of council for him, I should have advised Him, if He had a mind to exhibit such Ridiculous Scenes, not to make the Religion of Jesus Christ, a Theatre of Laughter and Sport; for God is not mocked.  
As to his third Consideration: I answer,  
4. That Pope Pius 4. his worshipping and invocating the Saints, is to be understood in the same order of brotherly Society in which we worship and reverence our holy Brethren on Earth, upon Account of their Piety and Virtue; and in which we entreat them to pray for us, as the Bishop of Meaux saith, and as St. Austin said long since: Colimus Martyres eo cultu dilectionis & societatis, quo in hac vita coluntur sancti Deì homines. We worship the Martyrs with that Worship of Love and Fellowship wherewith the holy Men of God are worshipped in this Life, Lib. 20. cap. 22. contra Faust. All the difficulty then of these and the like Phrases, which we read in Scripture, in the Fathers, and in the Decrees of Councils and Popes, consists in the Ambiguity of these Words, Worship and Invocate, which I have on purpose explained in the beginning of this Dispute, to avoid Confusion; and which the Catechism published by Order of the Council of Trent, and many other learned Divines have so clearly and fully explained. So that nothing but an Itch of Contention, and a Spirit of Wrangling could make any Man doubt of our Sense of these Words. But the Passage of St. Austin is so clear and full to the purpose, that I hope the Reader will not be sorry to have it at large, tho' it be something long; and the rather, because it is in answer to a Certain Manichee, who, about twelve Hundred Years since, reproached St. Austin with what the Doctor and his Party charge the Roman Catholics at present.  
The Christian People (says this Father) do celebrate the Memory of the Martyrs with a Religious Solemnity, to excite us to their Imitation, to be Partakers of their Merits, and to be assisted by their Prayers. Yet so as, that we erect no Altars to the Martyrs, but to the God of Martyrs; tho' in Remembrance of the Martyrs. For, who of the Prelates standing at the Altar, where the Bodies of the Saints are, ever said, I offer to you Peter, Paul, or Cyprian? But that which is offered, is offered to God, who crowned the Martyrs, at the Memorial 
* Altars where the Relics of Martyrs were kept.  of those, whom he crowned; to the End, that from the Remembrance of those places, greater Affection may rise in us, to whet our Love towards those we may imitate, and towards Him (God) by whose Help, we shall be able to imitate. We worship then the Martyrs, with that Worship of Love and Fellowship wherewith Holy Men in this Life are worshipped, whose Hearts we perceive prepared for the like Passion, in defence of the Truth of the Gospel; but the Martyrs we worship so much the more devoutly by how much the more securely, when the Fight is over; and by how much the more confidently we may praise the Conquerors now in a happy State, than those, who, as yet, are fight in ●his Life. But with that worship which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin cannot be rendered in one word; since it is a certain Service properly due to God alone, we do not worship, nor teach to be worshipped but one God. And since the offering Sacrifice pertains to this Worship, whence Idolatry is imputed to those, who give it to Idols; we do by no means offer any such thing, nor command to be offered either to any Martyr, or any Holy Soul, or Angel. And whosoever falls into any such Error, he is reprehended by wholesome Doctrine to the End he may amend or be shunned. Lib. 20. Cap. 22. contra Faust. Manich.  
As to his last Consideration, viz. That in the public Offices of their Church, they do not only pray to the Saints to pray for them; but they direct their Prayers and Thanksgivings immediately to them, for all those Blessings and Benefits, which they ask of God, and thank him for. I answer.  
5. That this is a notorious Imposition upon us, and as great a Mark of Insincerity; as it is a sign of a sinking Cause, which needs such foul play to support it. In short, there is nothing more common than the Roman Missal and Breviary, which contain all the public Offices of the Church; and I challenge any Man to find as much as one single Prayer in either of these Books, read in the public Offices of the Church, which is directed immediately to either Angel or Saint for all those Benefits and Blessings, which we ask of God and thank Him for. As for that Example, which he gives us out of the Office of the B. Virgin, as he says; namely, that we pray to the Angels thus; Deliver us, we beseech you, by your Command from all our Sins: If it were true, that there is such a Prayer in it, 'tis not to the Doctor's purpose; for that Office is no part of the public Offices of the Church; nor was it ever publicly read in the Church. But that it is not True, I am an Eye Witness; for I have, upon this very occasion read every Word of that Office (I mean the Office of the B. Virgin annexed to the Breviary) and I can in Truth aver, that I found no such Prayer or Anthem, or Versicle in it. As to any other Offices of the B. Virgin, made and published by private Men, whether there be any such prayer in them, 'tis more than I can tell; for I have not read them all. This I am certain, that if there be, 'tis more than any Man is warranted by the Church to do. However, since none of these Offices of the Virgin Mary make any part of the public Offices, & Service of the Church; nor are ever publicly read in it: The Doctor had no Reason to charge such Prayers upon the public Offices of the Church; tho' they were found in those private Offices of the B. Virgin.  

Vol. 2. pag. 70.  His fourth Objection is to this purpose: To pray to Saints in all places, and at all times, and for all sorts of Blessings, does suppose them to have the Incommunicable Perfections of the Divine Nature imparted to them, or inherent in them; namely, Omnipotence, and Omniscience, and Immense-presence.  
Answ. This is the great popular Argument, that takes so much with the weaker sort of People; who measure all things by their own capacity, and do not conceive how Saints and Angels should hear at so great a distance; because they cannot do so themselves. It will be therefore requisite to take some pains to clear this difficulty, and, if it be possible, to disabuse these simple, but wellmeaning People, concerning these gross and carnal thoughts; which, that I may the more plainly do, I shall lay down these known, and evident Grounds.  
1. That Angels and Saints in Heaven, have naturally a faculty of understanding, and communicating their Thoughts; that is, a power connatural to their being, of perceiving the thoughts of others, that are directed to them, and of imparting their own thoughts to others; for these are essential Properties of Intelligent Being's.  
2. That Angels and Saints in Heaven, do neither see, nor hear in the sense we commonly take these Words: For, seeing they neither have Eyes, nor Ears, which are the Organs of Seeing and Hearing; they cannot be said properly to See or Hear, but only to Vnderstard; which is what we mean, when we say, the Saints do hear us.  
3. Hence follows, that Saints and Angels may Hear, that is, Understand us, when we direct our thoughts to them, at any distance, even at Ten Millions of Miles, as well as if they had been in the same Room with us: For, since our Words or Thoughts are not conveyed to them by means of any Organs, nor by the motion or impulse of the Air, as it happens with us; 'tis evident, that distance or nearness of place can have no part in their way of understanding.  
4. That God-Almighty is able to reveal in an Instant all our Prayers to the Angels and Saints, be they never so far distant from us; tho' Angels and Saints are not, properly speaking, distant from us; distance, in propriety of Speech, being that space, which is between two Bodies  
Now, whether we conceive that the Angels and Saints, when we direct our thoughts to them, do hear, or rather understand us, by that natural faculty, which is essential to all Intelligent Being's; or that God reveals our thoughts to them, we do not ascribe any of the incommunicable perfections of the Divine Nature to them, namely Omnipotence, Omniscience, Immense-Presence, etc.  
Not, if we conceive, that they understand our prayers by that natural faculty, which is essential to their Being.  
1. We do not ascribe Omnipotence to them; for Omnipotence supposes a power of doing all things whatsoever possible; whereas, we suppose in the Angels and Saints, at most, but a power of obtaining of God those benefits and blessings we have need of.  
2. Nor Omniscience; for Omniscience supposes a knowledge of all things past, present, and possible to be: And we only suppose, in the Saints, acknowledge of those few prayers we put up to them.  
3. Nor Immense-presence; for this supposes an immensity, or a being present not only to all the things in the World, but to hundreds of Worlds, if there had been so many; whereas the utmost of what we suppose, can amount to no more, than that the Angels and Saints are present to those Christians, who beg their Charitable Assistance.  
Nor do we ascribe any of those divine Perfections to them, if we conceive, that God reveals our prayers to them. This the Dr. himself does not say, but endeavours to elude our Reasons, by saying, that if God reveals our prayers to the Saints, we should pray to Him, before every prayer we make to the Saints, that He would be pleased to reveal that prayer to them,— but this says he, is such away about, as no Man would take, that could help it. To which I answer, that such Reasonings are only fit to amuse the common People, who, as I said above, measure all things, even the most sublime, by the notions they have of those things they are here on Earth acquainted with; whereas the Scripture, and the Fathers tell us, that the manner of God's revealing His Will to His Angels and Saints, is so mysterious, and the knowledge and power of these blessed Spirits so vast, and, to us, so incomprehensible, that nothing on Earth, much less such poor stuff as the Dr. brings, is able to give us the least glimpse how these things are performed.  

Vol. 2. edit. post ob. pag. 46.  The Dr's. last Objection is founded in a Parallel, which he makes between the Pagan Saints (as he calls them) and the Christian Saints. He tells us, the Gentiles addressed themselves to God by innumerable Mediators, by Angels and the Souls of their departed Her●es, which were the Pagan Saints. This he repeats in several places, with no material Addition, only that, in speaking to the pretended Worship, we give to Images; he adds, that all our distinctions are no other, 
ibid. pag. 100  but what the Heathens used in the same Case. And taking this for granted, He leaves his Auditors to conclude, that, as it was Idolatry in the Heathens to Worship these Pagan Saints, so it is in the Church of Rome to worship the Christian Saints.  
Answ. The best way, in my opinion, to remove this difficulty, is to take a short view of the Character, and Worship, which the Heathens gave to their Pagan Saints, as the Dr. is pleased to call them; (tho' without any Warrant from the Heathen Writers, who always call them Gods) and see, whether, upon the Comparison, the Christian Saints be, in any thing, by us treated like Them. And here I shall not distrust any Man's knowledge so far, as to bring any authorities from Heathen Writers to confirm what I say; being resolved to instance only in such plain things, as our very Schoolboys are not ignorant of, And,  
First, As to their Character, 'tis no less evident, that the Heathens gave these Saints the Attributes of the Supreme Being, than that they are represented in their Writings under such Circumstances of Debauchery, Lewdness, and Intemperance, as the greatest Debauchees are hardly capable of. The Doctor cannot deny, but Jupiter (to omit several others) was reckoned a Hero in his Time, according to the Pagan Belief. We are told, his Father was Saturn, that he was born in Crete, and that after his Death, he was, for his great Feats, Deified and got the Supreme Dominion in Heaven; as his Brothers Pluto and Neptune got that of Hell, and the Sea. This departed Hero is described every where with the Majesty of the true God; He has Omnipotence put into His hands: He is represented as the Great Rector and Governor of the World; and, at the same time, is said to be sullied with all the Lewdness and Debauchery imaginable.  
Now the Christian Heroes, or Saints, are quite of another Complexion: We give them none of the Attributes of the true God. We believe they fought stoutly under the Banner of Jesus Christ, reduced Kings and Princes, (not by their Swords, but by their Sufferings) to his Subjection, and laid down their Lives for the Truth of his Doctrine; but we do not put Omnipotence into their Hands. We believe they did work Miracles, and wondrous Things; but then we do not say, they did these Things by their own Power and Virtue; but that they were the happy Instruments by which God wrought these Miracles, in Confirmation of the Word, which he put in their Mouth. We believe the Saints are Great Friends, and Favourites of the true God; because Jesus Christ has so declared. He tells us, that, as his Father hath appointed unto Him, so ha●● He appointed unto them a Kingdom, 
Luke 22.30.  that they might eat and drink at His Table in His Kingdom; by which Metaphor of Eating and Drinking, He giveth us to understand, that they are Partakers of the same Glory and Bliss with himself in Heaven. But we say, the Saints can do nothing of themselves; but that all their Sufficiency is from God, who made them what they are.  
And then, as to their Lives and Conversation; I hope the Doctor would not put me upon proving, that the Apostles, and the B. V Mary, and the Saints in Heaven are in no manner concerned in the Lewdness, and Intemperance of the Pagan Saints; or that we do not ascribe any such thing to them. So that, as to the Character, the Pagan and Christian Saints have no more Resemblance than Black and White.  
Secondly, as to the Worship: The Heathens worshipped their Gods, or Pagan Saints (as the Doctor would have it) upon a false Pretence of their Power and Greatness in Heaven; whereas there was no such Gods, or Saints. But we honour and respect the Christian Saints, because we are warranted by the Word of God, that they are such as we represent them. The Heathens erected Altars to their Gods; but we make Altars for none, but one God only. They offered Sacrifice to all their Gods and Saints, which is the chief Mark of supreme Worship; but we offer Sacrifice only to the true and living God, as Malice itself cannot deny. They made Idols, and believed that their Gods came, and dwelled in them; and that many of them spoke, and eat, and drank; and for that Reason they worshipped them, and therefore are justly called Idolaters; because they worshipped things that were not; but we only put up in our Churches, the Images and Pictures of Jesus Christ, the Living God, and of such as, we are sure, are truly Saints; but do not believe that there is any Virtue or Divinity in them for which they ought to be worshipped: On the contrary, we are expressly forbidden to give these Pictures or Images, any manner of Worship for their own Sake; but that the respect, which we show them, is to be referred to the Originals, namely to Christ, and his Saints. And sure these things, which represent Christ and his Saints to our Eyes, and put us in mind of the Death and Passion of the One, and of the Patience and Sufferings of the Others, are worthy of some Respect; and may very well be honoured upon Account of what they represent, without any Danger of Idolatry, as the Pictures of Kings, and Princes, and other Men by whom we receive Benefits, are, in their own degree, confessedly respected, and had in Esteem, without any such Suspicion. In one Word the Heathens called all their Heroes, or Saints, Gods; sacrificed to them, as such; worshipped them, as such; called upon them, as such; but we do not call the Christian Saints, Gods; we do by no means sacrifice to them, nor worship them, as Gods; nor call upon them, as Gods. So that, upon the whole matter, the Doctor might as well resemble Sea to dry Land, or Light to Darkness, or the obscurest Night to the brightest Day; as compare the Worship we give the Christian Saints to that, which the Heathens paid to their Heroes, or Saints, as the Doctor is pleased to call them.    

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 Honour 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 worshipped; or that we should ask any thing of them, or put any trust or confidence in them; as was formerly done by the Gentiles, who put their trust in Idols; but because the Honour done to them, is referred to the Originals, which they 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. Sesse. 25. Dec. de invocat. Sanct.  
Here, you see, this Council only requires, that we give du● honour and respect to Images; which signifies no more, than that we ought to give them the honour 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 honour, as Christ and His Saints. And since 'tis confessed, that the Types and Figures of all sacred things, are worthy of some Respect, in propotion to what they represent; how mnch more aught 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 own under God our Faith and Religion) to be had in Honour and Esteem. We honour and respect the Bible more than ordinary Books, tho' it is but Paper and Ink like other Books; because the Characters therein contained are sacred Signs, which represent to us the Word and Will of God: And even Nature teaches us to honour 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 honour and respect those Signs or Images, which represent to us that, 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 watered it with theirs; and are now, in their own Degree, the great Ornaments of the Heavens? What can be more powerful to excite us to a grateful Remembrance of the Passion of Jesus Christ, then to behold a Crucifix, which represents Him to us, with Arms stretched out, as it were, to embrace us, and Hands, and Feet, and Side pierced for our Sins? What pious Christian can then abstain from expressing the Sense of his Heart, by some exterior Act of Honour 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 Sacrificed Himself for their Sins; that such other Pictures represent the Apostles and Saints, who preached, and delivered 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 retained, and create in their Minds a grateful acknowledement of the Mercies of their Redeemer, and a desire to imitate the Virtue and Piety of the Saints. And then the Respect which they show 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 induced 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 flourished in the Beginning of the fourth Age, tells us, that the Christians had from the Beginning, the Pictures of Christ, and of St. Peter and St. Paul; that he himself had seen the Statue, which the Woman, whom Christ had healed of the bloody flux, erected for Him at Paneas; & that, at the Foot of this Statue, there grew an Herb, which, when it touched the Skirt of the Statue, had a virtue of curing Diseases. And Helena's seeking and finding the Cross, on which our Lord suffered; and the Miracle by which it was discovered, are too well known to be questioned.  
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 itself, they say, they willingly own it. This is the Declaration, The Ingenious Author of The Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of 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 honour, says he, the Relics 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 enjoyed to do so, at the Name of Jesus; so will we not fail to testify all due Respect to this Representation. Now we do-likewise declare, and have upon all occasions done, that we neither mean, nor intent to give any more to the Images of Christ, or the V Mary, or the Saints, but due Honour 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 Meauxes Exposition of our Doctrine, in which this is so manifestly declared; 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 Persuasion; or (to use the Council of Trent's Phrase) we earnestly desire, they should be entirely abolished. But sure he was too reasonable to think, that the abuse of a thing was a good Argument against the use of it.  
Nor will his Example of Hezekiahis destroying the Brazen Serpent help the matter: For he may please to consider, that the Children of Israel lived in a Country, where they were surrounded, and as I may say, hedged 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 pulled down and destroyed; and therefore is deservedly commended in Scripture for breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent, to which the People, no doubt, sacrificed. 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 introduced into the Church, upon Account of our Images: No Defection from Christianity to Pagan Worship was heard among us. So that the Example of Hezekiah is not to the purpose, the Parallel is not just, we are nothing concerned in it. Besides, the Brazen Serpent was a Monument of no such great Moment to be long preserved: '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 vexed 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, aught to be for ever most carefully preserved.  

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, etc. 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 addressed to Jesus Christ upon the Cross, whom we represent to our minds as there hanging, when we salute the Cross. And that this is our meaning (whatever the words may import upon any other occasion) I think is plain, from the Words of the Council of Trent, which expressly 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 presumed, that we should 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-friday: 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 maimed, 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 not (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 immediately 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 should be ignorant of; seeing the Church, in that Council, has expressly declared, 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 proposed 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 should 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 Honour 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, adored 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 mere 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 Supreme Adoration given to the true God; yet no Man ever said, that these Creatures ought to be adored in the strict Propriety of Adoration or Supreme Worship; but the Sense is, that they ought to be worshipped with the Honour and Respect, that is due to Them. In like manner; tho' we say (in Scripture Language) Crucem Adoramus, we do not mean, nor intent 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 worshipping of Images is as point blank against the Second (He should have said the First) Commandment, 
Vol. 2. pag. 7●  as a deliberate and malicious killing of a Man is against the Sixth; Fifth would 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 pleased 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, should, upon that discovery, have broken off from us.  
As to the First, I answer: If He means by Worship, to give the Supreme Worship and Adoration to Images, which is d●o only to God; he is very much in the right, and, I hope, shall never be contradicted by me. But if He understands by Worship; to give Images that Honour 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 proved.  
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 itself. And at this Time, I have, upon my Table, a Manual and Catechism, wherein all, He says we left out, are contained: The first bears this Title; a Manual of Prayers, and Christian Devotions; the later, An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine with Proofs out of Scripture. etc. The first Edition printed, Anno. 1649. Now a Man that can dispense with his Conscience and honour so far, as to publish, from Press and Pulpit, untruths so easily discovered; 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 ever the Second Commandment left out. That which he calls the Second Commandment, viz. Thou shalt not Make to thyself any graven Image, etc. 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 employed, that they should 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 gins a Verse, or contains some Words, which are not expressed 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. would 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 worshipping 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 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; than 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 thyself 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. would 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 received them from our Ancestors of Blessed Memory.   

CHAP. IX. Of Purgatory.  
WHat we hold, as of Faith concerning this Point, is thus declared by the Council of Trent: That there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detained, are helped by the Prayers of the Faithful, but especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Mass.  
Here the Council does not determine what sort of Place Purgatory is, or what manner of Pain Souls endure in it; nor whether they are purged by material Fire, or by other Torments or anguishs of Mind; but is content to declare with the Ancient Fathers, that there is a Place, wherein Souls departed are detained, 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 tread 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 show, 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 observed 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; than it will necessarily follow, that they believed those Souls, they thus prayed for, to be in a place, where they might be helped, and benefited by their Prayers. This is evident; for, if the Primitive Church were of Opinion, that all Souls departed, did go straight 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 should 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 detained, 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 show 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 Readins 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 uttermost Farthing, we interpret every small fault there to be punished 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 purged long with Fire; another, to have purged 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 purged by Fire, in order to their Amendment, whilst others have purged 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 called 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 revealed by Fire; and the Fire shall try every Man's Work of what sort it is. If any Man's Work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a Reward. If any Man's Work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by Fire, 1 Cor. 3.13.14, 15. St. Ambrose, or the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul annexed 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 shows indeed, that he shall be saved; but yet shall suffer the Punishment of Fire; that being purged by Fire, he may be saved, and not tormented for ever, as the Infidels are, with Everlasting Fire. In cap. 3. Epist. 1. ad Cor. St. Gregory of Nisse is so plain and full upon this Subject, that no R. Catholic can at this Time speak plainer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Man is cleansed, says he, either in this present Life by Prayer and the Love of Wisdom, or after his Death by the Furnace of a Purging Fire. And a little after. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After his Departure out of the Body, knowing the Difference between Virtue and Vice, it is impossible to be Partakers of the Divinity, unless Purgatory Fire doth cleanse the Soul from the Spots that stick to it. Orat. pro. Mortuis prope Fin.  
St. Austin speaks much to the same purpose: Purge me (O Lord) says he, in this Life, and make me such, as shall not need that Purifying 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 contemned; 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 offered is sufficient to show, 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 show,  
2. That the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded in the Practice, observed 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 supposed 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 used to pray for the Dead, for the Remission of their Sins; no one Point in the Christian Religion is more Universally attested. St. Epiphanius tells us, that Aerius was reputed an Heretic for denying the Lawfulness of it; and besides him, I do not find since Christianity began, till the Beginning of the last Age, any one single Person, that ever denied or questioned 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 delivered 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 Confess. 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 prayed for their Souls. Eusebius, that all the Congregation prayed 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 eased by the Pity of their living Friends, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered 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 observed by the whole Church, 
Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost.  viz. That they should pray for those who died in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, in that place of the Sacrifice, where the Dead are recommended. In short, I should never end, should I relate all the Say of Fath rs, and Councils, and Eccl siastical Writers upon this Subject; so that I may confidently affirm, there is not one Point in the Christian Religion more unanimously believed, or more religiously practised over all the Catholic Church, in all Ages, than this of praying for the Dead, and offering the Sacrifice 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 detained 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 touched 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 would very much oblige us, if they would 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 not to have so well lived, as that they should 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 ourselves commended.  
But do not the Ancient Liturgies make mention of Prayers and Thanksgivings put up to God for, or in Honour 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 Innocence and Holiness we are not assured; are intended to beg of God, that he would be merciful to them; and forgive them those sins, for which they did not fully satisfy 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 offered in the Church for all the Dead, 
De Enchiridio ad Lau. cap. 100  who received 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, etc. 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 detained 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 for Pardon and Forgiveness of Sins, for such as they reasonably believed to have died in the Communion of the Body of Christ (as the Fathers speak) but not so perfect, as that they should not need their Prayers; since it were both vain and superfluous to have prayed for them upon this Score, had they believed, they were immediately received 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 prayed for the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles and Martyrs, etc. 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 prayed to God for some Souls departed, that they might be delivered out of Prison; that their Faults, and Sins might be forgiven them; that they might be eased of their Pain; that they might be saved from the Punishment of Fire; that they might be received into Heaven; but such Prayers are inconsistent with a Belief, that the Souls departed are immediately taken into Heaven, or condemned to Hell. Therefore the Primitive Church believed there was a Third Place, wherein some souls departed were detained, and were capable of being assisted and bettered 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 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 inferred; 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 proved from it; and that some of our own Eminent Men do acknowledge it cannot. To which  
I answer, that I have produced two Passages from Scripture, and could 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 proved 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 should oppose to his Opinion that of Tertulian, St. 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 borrowed 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 would not do, were they to be tormented in Purgatory Fire: Ergo, etc.  
Answ. This Passage is confessedly obscure, as to the meaning of some Words in it, and the Time whence the blessing there mentioned is to Commence; and the Doctor's bestowing six full Pages, upon the Explication of it, shows 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 expressly says, suffer Martyrdom for the Lord; I say, he must have forgot this, else he would not have objected that Text against Purgatory; since he could not be ignorant, that we believe, that all the Martyrs, who suffer for the Faith of Christ, and even other Eminent Saints, who do not suffer Martyrdom, but live the life of Martyrs, do rest from their Labours, and pass not through the Fire of Purgatory. Wherefore in my opinion, he should 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 surprised 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 Cried down, lest the horrid guilt of the Sacrileges of the Fathers, should fly in the Face of their Children, and give them that Purgatory in this Life, which, He would persuade 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 accrueing to the Pope's Coffers; 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 standing; and that the Ancient Fathers of the Church, took great care it should 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 believed and used, as they are now. And did that great Saint exempt as few as he could 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 business. 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 would 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 oddly 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 allowed to determine matters of Faith, the thing (coming from the Doctor) would not appear altogether so unreasonable; for, considering how very remarkable his Charity is to Priests, I do not question, He would judge they would 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, should 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 solved 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 pleased to intrust the Pastors and Governors 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 promised 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 lose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, Mat. 16.18.19. Again, the Promise of binding and losing 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 lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven, Matt. 18.18. And Christ, a little before his Ascension, actually conferred this power upon them, and told 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 retained. Joa. 20.22, 23. So that the Power of the Keys consists in remitting of Sins, and retaining them; that is, in losing Men from those Bands of Iniquity, wherewith they tie themselves, and in binding them up, or keeping them bound, till they have satisfied for their Sins, according to the Rules prescribed 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 deserved it.  
But, whereas our Blessed Saviour did not intent, that the Apostles, and their Successors should 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 fulfilled 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 retained 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 commissioned by Christ to retain Sins, so likewise are they to lose them: And therefore may remit, 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 liable 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 contained in them, have been inserted in the Codex Canonum, or Book of Canons of the Universal Church, as the Ancient Writers term it. These Canons, among other Matters of Discipline, prescribe the different Penances, which were to be imposed upon Sinners in proportion to the greatness of their Sins; whence came the Name of Penitential Canons, so famous in Antiquity. Some Canons 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 covered with Sackcloth at the Church Doares sub dio, in the open Air, on Sundays and Festivals, while their Penance lasted; others stood within Doors clothed 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 through the foremention'd Stations; whence the Names of Hyemantes, Flentes, Prostrati, Audientes, so often mentioned in the Canons.  
Now these Rigorous Penances (very Rigorous I am sure they would appear in our Days) or Exomologeses, as some of the Fathers call them, were sometimes abated and remitted; partly upon Account of the Fervour of the Penitents, who, before they had gone through 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 completed, the Time prescribed by the Canons: Partly, but more especially, at the Intercession of the Martyrs: For when any Martyrs were to be executed, and had begged of the Bishops to indulge those Penitents, whom they recommended to them; the Bishops, who could 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 called (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 Business. 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 forced at last (being too much importuned for People, who did not deserve that Favour) to write to the Martyrs themselves, to beg of them, that they would not recommend, but such as were worthy of that Grace; at least, that they should not take it ill, if he should not grant their Request; lest the Discipline of the Church should 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 presumed to give Indulgences, which the Bishops only could do. In short, there is nothing more frequently mentioned both by Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers; or more universally practised for the four first Ages, than these Indulgences.  
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 practised; that is, of dispensing with, or remitting the Ronances prescribed 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 signify nothing, without a hearty Contrition and sincere Sorrow for Sin, which is the Spirit and Essence of Christian Devotion. But Canonical penances being merely of Ecclesiastical Institution, and pertaining to Discipline; it cannot be denied, but that the Church has Power to Intent, 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 publicly in the Church in Penitential Weeds, as was practised in the primitive Times; but then the Reason on't is, because no Body now would undertake these Penances; because she is convinced, that Men would sooner break off with Christ, and turn Heathens, than purchase Heaven at so dear a Rate: So far has Wickedness and Dissolution prevailed in the World!  
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 cheerfulness, and as little concern, as if these cruel Engines had been Bays and Laurels; and therefore it is not to be admired, that the Blood of Martyrs, then reeking hot, should 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 should be called to the like Fiery Trial. 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 restored 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 repealed; and Christians put in Possession of great Fortunes, and promoted to Honours and Dignities; when they forgot their former Condition, waxed wanton against Christ, and spurned 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 should 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 prescribed, and declared what Penances ought to be imposed 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 liable to these Penances, unless they are dispensed with by the Church, or Commuted for some other Works of Piety. And, that the discipline of the Church, might be preserved and upheld, as much as the Wickedness of the Times will bear; all Pastors and Confessors are commanded 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 dispensed with, or Indulged by the Chief Pastors of the Church, according to the power which Christ has given them, and as general Councils have determined. And this, in as few Words as I could well deliver 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 expressly declared that to give, or receive any sort of Gift, either directly, or indirectly, for either Indulgences, or any other Spiritual Grace is perfect Simony; which, surely, is sufficient to justify us from any sinister dealing in this particular.  
As to the Abuses of Indulgences, which I do not deny to have sometimes happened; we are so far from countenancing, or abetting them, that it is our earnest wishes, and the desire of our Hearts, that all such should be entirely abolished and taken away. We cover no more, than that all Christians in Time of Jubilees, and Plenary Indulgences; should think on their way, in the bitterness of their Seals; should repent, and be sorry for their Sins; should have a strong hope and confidence in the Mercy of Almighty God; gi●● Al●●● to the Poor, and, by their 〈◊〉 and servant Prayers, dispose themselves, 〈◊〉 God is Grace, to receive the Indul●●●●, of Permission of those Canonical Penances, which, neither the Condition of the Persons, nor the Wickedness of the Times, nor yet the great Decay of Piety will permit us to require they should fully perform. And this we do; because we find the same thing practised 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 explained; I shall conclude this Treatise with my Hearty Prayers to the Father of Light, that He would be mercifully pleased 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 delivered 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 delivered by Christ and His Apostles: How then can they believe the Catholic Church, when She declares these Things, if they do not hold and believe these Things themselves? Or how can they in Reason reject them, if they believe the Catholic Church, which tells them, they are Divine Truths?  
But there is yet something more desperate, which I beg of Almighty God to give them the Grace to consider. Our Saviour saith to His Apostles: Go, and teach all Nations, Baptising 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 Baptised, shall be Saved; but he that believeth not, shall be Damned, Cap. 16.16. Now if those Things, which make the Subject of our Dispute, be Truths given in charge to the Apostles, than 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, etc. But we must believe all Things whatsoever Christ commanded; and that on pain of Damnation. But if it should 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 would not believe the Messengers sent by God to declare His Will to them: But we do not find, that ever He reproached any Body for having too much Faith; especially when the Things to be believed, were declared 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 extolled Men's readiness to believe. O Woman, Great is thy Faith! 
Mat. 14.28.  Where lies then the Harm of believing Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence, which are so plainly delivered in Scripture? Where is the Harm of allowing due Honour, 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 lose by it? Where is the Harm in praying for our deceased 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 expressed 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 Lose on Earth, shall be Loosed in Heaven? How can this hurt any Body, I say, or where lies the Hazard in believing those Things; tho' we had not as much assurance of their being Divine Truths, as of other Things; since they are not contrary to any other Article of our Faith, nor to Right Reason, or Good Manners? But there is Infinite Hazard in not believing them; since they have been declared 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 offered 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 Relics 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 esteemed by the Learned. Seeing then, that the Latin Church, which together with the Greek and other Eastern Churches, make up the whole Body of the Christian World; and that all these Churches did hold and profess the said Doctrine, when the Reformation began, and do still hold and believe the same; I think, I may confidently affirm, that it is Catholic and Orthodox.  
I shall therefore, once more, beg of Almighty God, through the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ; and by that Blood, which was shed for our Redemption, that he would 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 magnify 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; through the Merits of the Death and Passion of our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and Holy Ghost, be Honour and Glory now, and for ever. Amen.    
FINIS.