and having given thanks said This is my c. Now we see it is not equal to it nor like it neither to his incarnate likeness nor his invisible Deity nor the lineaments of his Members for it is round and without feeling as to its vertue And this he says to shew how man may be said to be made after the Image of God though he be not like him Gregory Nyssen shewing how common things may be sanctified as Water in Baptism the Stones of an Altar and Church dedicated to God he adds So also Bread in the beginning is common but after the Mystery has consecrated it is said to be and is the Body of Christ so the mystical Oyl so the Wine before the blessing are things of little value but after the sanctification of the Spirit both of them work excellently He also adds that the Priest by his blessing is separated and sanctified from which it appears He no more believed the change of the substance of the Bread and Wine than of the consecrated Oyl the Altar or the Priest Ambrose speaking of Bread which was Ashers blessing says This Bread Christ gave his Apostles that they might divide it to the people that believed and gives it to us to day which the Priest consecrates in his words this Bread is made the food of the Saints St. Chrysostome on these words The Bread which we break it is not the Communion of the Body of Christ says What is the Bread the Body of Christ. What are they made who take it the Body of Christ. From whence it appears he thought the Bread was so the Body of Christ as the worthy Receivers are which is not by the change of their substance but by the sanctification of their natures St. Jerome says Let us hear the Bread which Christ brake and gave his Disciples to be the Body of our Lord. And he says After the Typical Pascha was fulfilled Christ took Bread that comforts the heart of man and went to the true Sacrament of the Pascha that as Melchifedeck in the figure had done offering Bread and Wine so he might also represent the truth of his Body and Blood Where he very plainly calls the Elements Bread and Wine and a Representation of Christs Body and Blood Saint Austin as he is cited by Fulgentius de Baptismo and divers others in his Exhortation to these that were newly baptized speaking of this Sacrament says that which you see is the Bread and the Cup which your eyes witness but that which your faith must be instructed in is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is his Blood And then he proposes the Objection how that could be and answers it thus These things are therefore called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another is understood What you see has a bodily appearance but what you understand has a spiritual fruit and if you will understand the Body of Christ hear what the Apostle says to the faithful Ye are the Body of Christ and his members if therefore you be the Body and Members of Christ your Mystery is placed on the Table of the Lord and you receive the Mystery of the Lord. And at large prosecutes this to shew how the faithful are the Body of Christ as the Bread is made up of many grains from whence it appears that he believed that the consecrated Elements were still Bread and Wine And speaking of St. Pauls breaking Bread at Troas he says being to break Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. He also says The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that not only our belly but our mind be refreshed by it Besides in a great many places St. Austin calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And speaking of things made use of to signifie somewhat else he adds for one The Bread that is made for this is consumed in our receiving the Sacrament He also says To eat Bread is in the new Testament the Sacrifice of Christians He likewise says Both Judas and Peter received a part of the same Bread out of the same hand of our Lord. And thus from Twelve Witnesses that are beyond all exception it does appear That the Fathers believed the Elements to be still Bread and Wine after the consecration We have not brought any proofs from the Fathers that are less known or read for then we must have swelled up this Paper beyond what we intend it One thing is so considerable that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of and that is That we see those great Fathers and Doctors of the Church call the consecrated Elements without any mincing of the matter Bread and Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Christ they often use some mollifying and less hardy expression So St. Austin says Almost all call the Sacrament his Body And again says We call that only the Body Blood of Christ which being taken of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer we rightly receive for our spiritual health in the Commemoration of the Passion of our Lord for us And he says After some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ. And also says He carried himself in his own hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostome says The Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord. And on these words The flesh lusteth against the Spirit among the improper acceptions of flesh says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries by the name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church saying She is the Body of Christ. Tertullian says Christ calls the Bread his Body and a little after he names the Bread his Body Isidore Hispal says We call this after his command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament Theodoret says In the giving of the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood And says He who called his natural Body Corn and Bread and also calls himself a Vine likewise honoured these visible Symboles with the names of his Body and Blood But now we go to bring our proofs for the next Branch of our first proposition in which we assert That the Fathers believed that the very substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Consecration By which all the proofs brought in the former Branch will receive a further evidence since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the substance of the Elements remained and thence we may well conclude that where-ever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration they mean of the substance and not of the
accidents of Bread and Wine For proof of this we shaâ—â— only bring the testimonies of four â—aâ—hâ—rs that lived almost within one age and were the greatest men of the age Their authority is as generally received as their testimonies are formal and decisive and these are Pope Gelasius St. Chrysostome Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Theodoret whom we shall find delivering to us the Doctrine of the Church in their age with great consideration upon a very weighty occasion So that it shall appear that this was for that age the Doctrine generally received both in the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Antioch and Asiâ— the less We shall begin with Gelasius who though he lived later than some of the others yet because of the eminence of his See and the authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him ought to be set first He says the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine thing for which reason we become by them partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be and the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the Mysteries therefore it appears evidently â—nough that we ought to think thâ—t of Christ our Lord which we profess and celebrate and receive in his image that as they to wit the Elements pass into that divine substance the Holy Ghost working it their nature remaining still in its own property So that principal Mystery whose efficiency and virtue these to wit the Sacraments represent to us remains one entire and true Christ those things of which he is compounded to wit his two natures remaining in their properties These words seem so express and decisive that one would think the bare reading them without any further reflections should be of force enough But before we offer any considerations upon them we shall set down other passages of the other Fathers and upon them altogether make such remarks as we hope may satisfy any that will hear reason St. Chrysostom treating of the two Natures of Christ against the Apollinarists who did so confound them as to consubstantiate them he makes use of the Doctrine of the Sacrament to illustrate that Mystery by in these words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the mean of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the nature of Bread remains in it and yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being joyned to the Body both these make one Son and one Person Next this Patriarch of Constantinople let us hear Ephrem the Patriarch of Antioch give his testimony as it is preserved by Photius who says thus In like manner having before treated of the two Natures united in Christ the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful does not depart from its sensible substance and yet remains inseparated from the Intellectual Grace So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one it preserves its own sensible substance and does not lose that which it was before To these we shall add what Theodoret on the same occasion says against those who from that place the word was made flesh believed that in the Incarnation the Divinity of the Word was changed into the Humanity of the Flesh. He brings in his Heretick arguing about some mystical expressions of the Old Testament that related to Christ at length he comes to shew how Christ called himself Bread and Corn so also in the delivering the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood and our Saviour changed the names calling his Body by the name of the Symbole and the Symbole by the name of his Body And when the Heretick asks the reason why the names were so changed the Orthodox answers That it was manifest to such as were initiated in Divine things for he would have those who partake of the Mysteries not look to the nature of those things that were seen but by the change of the names to believe that change that was made through Grace for he who called his natural Body Corn and Bread does likewise honour the visible Symboles with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature but adding Grace to Nature And so goes on to ask his Heretick whether he thought the holy Bread was the Symbole and Type of his Divinity or of his Body and Blood and the other acknowledging they were the Symboles of his Body and Blood He concludes that Christ had a true Body The second Dialogue is against the Eutychians who believed that after Christ's assumption his Body was swallowed up by his Divinity And there the Eutychian brings an argument to prove that change from the Sacament it being granted that the Gifts before the Priests Prayer were Bread and Wine He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification the Orâ—hodox answers the Body and Blood of Christ and that he believed he received the Body and Blood of Christ. From thence the Heretick as having got a great advantage argues That as the Symboles of the Body and Blood of our Lord were one thing before the Priestly Invocation and after that were changed and are different from what they were So the Body of our Lord after the assumption was changed into the Divine substance But the Orthodox replies that he was catched in the net be laid for others for the Mystical Symboles after the sanctification do not depart from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and form and are both visible and palpable as they were before but they are understood to be that which they are made and are believed and venerated as being those things which they are believed to be And from thence he bids the Heretick compare the Image with the Original for the type must be like the truth and shews that Christ's Body retains its former form and figure and the substance of his Body though it be now made Immortal and Incorruptible Thus he And having now set down very faithfully the words of these Fathers we desire it may be considered that all these words are used to the same effect to prove the Reality of Christ's Body and the Distinction of the two Natures the Divine and the Humane in him For though St. Chrysostom lived before Eutyches his days yet in this Point the Eutychians and the Apollinarists against whom he writes held opinions so like others that we may well say all these words of the Fathers we have set down are to the same purpose Now first it is evident that if Transubstantiation had been then believed there needed no other argument to prove against the Eutychians that Christ had still a real Body but to
have declared that his Body was corporally present in the Eucharist which they must have done had they believed it and not spoken so as they did since that alone well proved had put an end to the whole Controversy Further they could never have argued from the visions and apparitions of Christ to prove he had still a real Body for if it was possible the Body of Christ could appear under the accidents of Bread and Wine it was as possible the Divinity should appear under the accidents of an Humane Body Thirdly they could never have argued against the Eutychians as they did from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the Humane Nature of Christ into his Divinity if they had believed this substantial conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body which is liable unto far greater absurdities And we can as little doubt but the Eutychians had turned back their arguments on themselves with these answers if that Doctrine had been then received It is true it would seem from the last passage of Theodoret that the Eutychians did believe some such change but that could not be for they denied the Being of the Body of Christ and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not Therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions which the Father explains In fine The design of those â—athers being to prove that the two Natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the person of Christ it had been inexcusable folly in them to have argued from the sacramental Mysteries being united to the Body and Blood of Christ if they had not believed they retained their former substance for had they believed Transubstantiation what a goodly argument had it been to have said Because after the consecration the accidents of Bread and Wine remain therefore the substance of the Humanity remained still though united to the Divine Nature in Christ. Did ever man in his wits argue in this fashion Certainly these four Bishops whereof three were Patriarchs and one of these a Pope deserved to have been hissed out of the world as persons that understood nor what it was to draw a consequence if they had argued so as they did and believed Transubstantiation But if you allow them to believe as certainly they did that in the Sacrament the real substances of Bread and Wine remained though after the sanctification by the operation of the Holy Ghost they were the Body and Blood of Christ and were to be called so then this is a most excellent illustration of the Mystery of the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature retains its proper and true substance though after the union with the Divinity Christ be called God even as he was Man by vertue of his union with the Eternal Word And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend that because substance and nature are someâ—imes used even for accidental qualities they should be therefore understood so in the cited places for if you take them in that sense you destroy the force of the argument which from being a very strong one will by this means become a most ridiculous Sophism Yet we are indeed beholding to those that have taken much pains to shew that substance and nature stand often for accidental qualities for though that cannot be applied to the former places yet it helps us with an excellent answer to many of those passages with which they triumph not a little Having so far considered these Four Fathers we shall only add to them the Definition of the Seventh General Council at Constantinople ann 754. Christ appointed us to offer the Image of his Body to wit the substance of the Bread This Council is indeed of no authority with these we deal with But we do not bring it as a Decree of a Council but as a Testimony that so great a number of Bishops did in the Eighth Century believe That the substance of the Bread did remain in the Eucharist and that it was only the Image of Christ's Body and if in this Definition they spake not more consonantly to the Doctrine of the former ages than their enemies at Nice did let what has been set down and shall be yet adduced declare And now we advance to the third Branch of our first Assertion that the Fathers believed that the Consecrated Elements did nourish our Bodies and the proofs of this will also give a further evidence to our former Position that the substance of the Elements does remain And it is a demonstration that these Fathers who thought the Sacrament nourished our Bodies could not believe a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For the proof of this Branch we desire the following Testimonies be considered First Iustin Martyr as was already cited not only calls the Eucharist our nourishment but formally calls it that food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished Secondly Irenaeus proving the Resurrection of the Body by this Argument That our bodies are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ and that therefore they shall rise again he hath these words He confirmed that Cup which is a creature to be his Blood by which He increases our Blood and the Bread which is a creature to be His Body by which He encreases our Body and when the mixed Cup and the Bread receive the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists How then do they deny the flesh to be capable of the gift of God which is Eternal Life that is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and is made His member We hope it will be observed that as these words are express and formal so the design on which He uses them will admit of none of those distinctions they commonly rely on Tertullian says the flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ. Saint Austin after he had called the Eucharist our daily Bread he exhorts us so to receive it that not only our bellies but our minds might be refreshed by it Isidore of Sevil says The substance of the visible Bread nourishes the outward man or as Bertram cites his words all that we receive externally in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is proper to refresh the body Next let us see what the 16 th Council of Toledo says in Anno. 633. condemning those that did not offer in the Eucharist entire loaves but only round crafts they did appoint one entire loaf carefully prepared to be set on the Altar that it might be sanctified by the Priestly Benediction and order that what remained after Communion should be either put in some bag or if it was needful to eat it up that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with
it is not so much as denied we judg we need not laboriously prove it Therefore we pass over this believing it will be granted for if it be denied we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions but to have been the constant stile of the Church Now that Types Antitypes Symboles and Mysteries are distinct from that which they shadow forth and mystically hold out we believe can be as little disputed In this sense all the Figures of the Law are called Types of Christ by the Fathers and both the Baptismal Water and the Chrism are called Symboles and Mysteries And though there was not that occasion for the Fathers to discourse on Baptism so oft which every body received but once and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the year as they had to speak of the Eucharist which was daily consecrated so that it cannot be imagined there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other yet we fear not to undertake to prove there be many places among the Ancients that do as fully express a change of the Baptismal Water as of the Eucharistical Elements From whence it may appear that their great zeal to prepare persons to a due value of these holy actions and that they might not look on them as a vulgar ablution or an ordinary repast carried them to many large and high expressions which cannot bear a literal meaning And since they with whom we deal are sain to fly to Metaphors and Allegories for for cleaning of what the I athers say of Baptism it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such expositions of what they say about the Eucharist But that we may not leave this without some proof we shall set down the words of Facundus who says The Sacrament of Adoption that is Baptism may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup is called his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup properly his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood and hence it was that our Lord called the Bread that was blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and Blood Therefore as the Believers in Christ when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to have received his Body and Blood so Christ when he received the Sacrament of the adoption of Sons may be rightly said to have received the Adoption of Sons And we leave every one to gather from these words if the cited Father could believe Transubstantiation and if he did not think that Baptism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God as the Eucharist was his Body and Blood which these of Rome acknowledge is only to be meant in a moral sense That the Fathers called this Sacrament the Memorial and Representation of the Death of Christ and of his Body that was broken and his Blood that was shed we suppose will be as little denied for no man that ever looked into any of their Treatises of the Eucharist can doubt of it St. Austin says That Sacraments must have some similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments otherwise they could not be Sacraments So he says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood So the Sacrament of Faith that is Baptism is Faith But more expresly speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise he says The flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the sacrifices of the types of it In the passion of Christ it was done in the truth it self And after his ascent is celebrated by the Sacrament of the remembrance of it But he explains this more fully on the 98 th Psalm where he having read ver 5. Worship his footstool and seeking for its true meaning expounds it of Christ's Body who was flesh of this earth and gives his flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation which since none eats except he have first adored it He makes this the footstool which we worship without any sin and do sin if we do not worship it So far the Church of Rome triumphs with this place But let us see what follows where we shall find that which will certainly abate their joy He goes on and tells us not to dwell on the Flesh lest we be not quickned by the spirit and shews how they that heard our Lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words for they understood them says he foolishly and carnally and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his Body to be given them But they were hard not our Lord 's saying for had they been meek and not hard they should have said within themselves He says not this without a cause but because there is some Sacrament hid there for had they come to him with his Disciples and asked him he had instructed them For he said it is the spirit that quickens the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life And adds understand spiritually that which I have said for it is not this Body which you 〈◊〉 that you are to eat or to drink this 〈◊〉 which they are to shed who shall 〈◊〉 me But I have recommended a Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and though it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly From which it is as plain as can be that St. Austin believed that in the Eucharist we do not eat the natural Flesh and drink the natural Blood of Christ but that we do it only in a Sacrament and spiritually and invisibly But the force of all this will appear yet clearer if we consider that they speak of the Sacrament as a Memorial that exhibited Christ to us in his absence For though it naturally followes that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent yet this will be yet more evident if we find the Fathers made such reflections on it So Gaudentius says This is the hereditary gift of his New Teststament which that night he was betrayed to be crucified he left as the pledg of his presence this is the provision for our journey with which we are fed in this way of our life and nourished till we go to him out of this World for he would have his benefits remain with us He would have our souls to be always sanctified by his precious Blood and by the image of his own passion Primasius compares the Sacrament to a pledg which one when he is dying leaves to any whom he loved Many other places may be brought to shew how the Fathers speak of memorials and representations as opposite to the truth and presence of that which is represented And thus
other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or conveigh it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this answer to it is but meer trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOUR Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first Six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions First That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The Second was That after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symboles the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the Body and the Blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his Body and Blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine Otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christs Body and Blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the First we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the Flesh and the Blood of the Incarnate Jesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wiâ—e and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and Wine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the Eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the Flesh and Blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the â—ather of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the world and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the Body of his Lord and the Cup of his Blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ for says he that Bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Honey he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says We eat of the Loaves set before us with thanksgiving and prayers over what is given to us which by the prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose Saint Cyprian says Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains joined together his Body to shew the union of our people which he bore upon himself and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Berries his Blood he signifies our flock which is joined together in the mixture of an united multitude And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice he says Since Christ said I am the true Vine the blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it by which the Blood of Christ is shewed And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose Epiphanius says Christ in the Supper rose and took these things
the burden of an heavy surcharge and that it might not go to the digestion but that it might feed his soul with spiritual nourishment From which words one of two consequences will necessarily follow either that the Consecrated Elements do really nourish the Body which we intend to prove from them or that the Body of Christ is not in the Elements but as they are Sacramentally used which we acknowledg many of the Fathers believed But the last words we cited of the Spiritual nourishment shew those Fathers did not think so and if they did we suppose those we deal with will see that to believe Christ's Body is only in the Elements when used will clearly leave the charge of Idolatry on that Church in their Processions and other adorations of the Host. But none is so express as Origen who on these words ' T is not that which enters within a man which defiles a man says If every thing that enters by the mouth goes into the belly and is cast into the draught then the food that is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer goes also to the belly as to what is material in it and from thence to the draught but by the Prayer that was made over it it is useful in proportion to our Faith and is the mean that the understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable and it is not the matter of Bread but the word pronounced over it which profits him that does not eat it in a way unworthy of our Lord. This Doctrine of the Sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to excrement was likewise taught by divers Latin Writers in the 9 th age as Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz and Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it whom for a reproach their adversaries called Stercoranists It is true other Greek Fathers were not of Origen's opinion but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies So Cyril of Ierusalem says that the Bread of the Eucharist does not go into the belly nor is cast into the draught but is distributed thorough the whole substance of the Communicant for the good of body and soul. The Homily of the Eucharist in a dedication that is in St. Chrysostom's works says Do not think that this is Bread and that this is Wine for they pass not to the draught as other victuals do And comparing it to wax put to the fire of which no ashes remain he adds So think that the Mysteries are consumed with the substance of our bodies John Damascene is of the same mind who says that the Body and the Blood of Christ passes into the consistence of our souls and bodies without being consumed corrupted or passing into the draught God forbid but passing into our substance for our conservation Thus it will appear that though those last-cited-Fathers did not believe as Origen did that any part of the Eucharist went to the draught yet they thought it was turned into the substance of our bodies from which we may well conclude they thought the substance of Bread and Wine remained in the Eucharist after the consecration and that it nourished our bodies And thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first Proposition in all its three Branches So leaving it we go on to the second Proposition which is That the Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures the Signs the Symboles the Types and Antitypes the Commemoration representation the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ. Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ had a real Body he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ and says He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it had not been a Figure if his Body had not been true for an empty thing such as a Phantasm cannot have a Figure Now had Tertullian and the Church in his time believed Transubstantiation it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued Here is corporally present Christ's Body therefore he had a true Body than to say Here is a Figure of his Body therefore he had a true Body such an escape as this is not incident to a man of common sense if he had believed Transubsubstantiation And the same Father in two other places before cited says Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread and that he represented his own Body by the Bread St. Austin says He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The same expressions are also in Bede Alcuine and Druthmar that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries But what St. Austin says elsewhere is very full in this matter where treating of the Rules by which we are to judg what expressions in Scripture are figurative and what not he gives this for one Rule If any place seem to command a crime or horrid action it is figurative and to instance it cites these words Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you which says he seems to command some crime or horrid action therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Which words are so express and full that whatever those we deal with may think of them we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally Parallel to these are Origen's words who calls the understanding the words of our Saviour of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter a Letter that kills The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist a sign of Christ's Body in his Book against Adimantus who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and New Testament was not the same God and among other arguments he uses this That Blood in the Old Testament is called the Life or Soul contrary to the New Testament To which St. Austin answers that it was so called not that it was truly the Soul or Life but the Sign of it and to shew that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the sign of his Body Where if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body it had been the most impertinent illustration that ever was and had proved just against him that the sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it For the Sacrament being called the Type the Antitype the Symbole and Mystery of Christs Body and Blood The ancient Liturgies and Greek Fathers use these phrases so frequently that since
excepted against in that prayer was that these things are ascribed to the merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints Now he had only spoken of their prayers and he appealed â—o all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them and the sense the other had offered was not forced M. C. said By merits were understood prayers which had force and merit with God M. B. said That could not be for in another absolution in the office of our Lady they pray for remission of sins through the merits and prayers of the blessed Virgin So that by merits must be meant somewhat else than their prayers M. C. said That as by our prayers on earth we help one anothers Souls so by our giving almes for one another we might do the same so also the Saints in Heaven might be helpful to us by their prayers and merits And as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet and said he was in great hast and much business lay on him that day but said to D. S. That when he pleased he would wait on him and discourse of the other particulars at more length D. S. assured him that when ever he pleased to appoint it he should be ready to give him a meeting And so he went away Then we all stood and talked to one another without any great order near half an hour the discourse being chiefly about the Nags-head fable D. S. apealed to the publick Registers and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all Queen Elizabeth's Reign when such a story was fresh and well known and if there had been any colour for it is it possible they could keep it up or conceal it S. P. T. said All the Registers were forged and that it was not possible to satisfy him in it no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand and being desired to read Doctor Bramhall's book about it he said he had read it six times over and that it did not satisfie him M. B. asked him how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved if the publick Registers and the instruments of publick Notaries were rejected and this the more that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner nor escape the knowledge of their adversaries who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that race was alive is as clear an evidence as can be that the forgery was on the other side D. S. Did clear the objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament that it was only for making the ordination legal in England since in Edward the sixth's time the book of ordination was not joined in the record to the book of Common-Prayer from whence Bishop Bonner took occasion to deny their ordination as not according to Law and added that Saunders who in Queen Elizabeth's time denied the validity of our ordination never alledged any such story But as we were talking freely of this M. W. said once or twice they were satisfied about the chief design they had in that meeting to see if there could be alledged any place of Scripture to prove that Article about the blessed Sacrament and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Triumph Upon which D. S. desired all might sit down again that they might put that matter to an issue so a Bible was brought and D. S. Being spent with much speaking desired M. B. to speak to it M. B. turned to the 6th Chap. of S. Iohn verse 54. and read these words Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and added these words were according to the common interpretation of their Church to be understand of the Sacramental manducation This M. W. granted only M. B. had said all the Doctors understood these words so and M. W. said That all had not done so which M. B. did acknowledge but said it was the received exposition in their Church and so framed his argument Eternal life is given to every one that receives Christ in the Sacrament But by Faith only we get eternal life Therefore by Faith only we receive Christ in the Sacrament Otherwise he said unworthy receivers must be said to have eternal life which is a contradiction for as such they are under condemnation yet the unworthy receivers have the external manducation therefore that Manducation that gives eternal life with it must be internal and spiritual and that is by Faith A person whose name I know not but shall henceforth mark him N. N. asked what M. B. meant by Faith only M. B. said By Faith he meanâ— such a believing of the Gospel as carried along with it Evangelical obedience by Faith only he meant Faith as opposite to sense D. S. asked him if we received Christ's body and blood by our senses N. N. said we did D. S. asked which of the senses his taste or touch or sight for that seemed strange to him N. N. said We received Christs body with our senses as well as we did the substance of bread for our senses did not receive the substance of bread and did offer some things to illustrate this both from the Aristotelian and Cartesian Hypothesis D. S. said He would not engage in that subtlety which was a digression from the main argument but he could not avoid to think it a strange assertion to say we received Christ by our senses and yet to say he was so present there that none of our senses could possibly perceive him But to the main argument M. W. denied the minor that by Faith only we have eternal life M. B. proved it thus The Sons of God have eternal life But by Faith only we become the Sons of God Therefore by Faith only we had eternal life M. W. said Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture he would reject the argument M. B. said That if he did demonstrate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest construction possible equivalent to clear places of Scripture then his proofs were good therefore he desired to know which of the two propositions he should prove either that the Sons of God have eternal life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial people would be of his mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called
in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first-born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as neaâ— the Jewish customes as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundred of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such opinion have crept in in any age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body be only meant a commemoration his promise must only relate to his death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the institution it is clear that we receive his body as it was given for us when his blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first 6 ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on design and with deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyrill of Jerusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism saies expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the flesh and the blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my body And for a proof instances Christs changing the water into wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all persons to use high expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the bread and wine did remain He hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the words of Cyrill M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal dispute about the passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us Therefore he promised an answer in writing to the testimony of S. Cyrill But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly underook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary The Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undenyable evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now we left upon that point which by the Grace of God we should perform very soon but we had offered to satisfy them in the other grounds of the Separation from the Church of Rome if they desired to be further informed we should wait on them when they pleased So we all rose up and took leave after we had been there about three hours The Discourse was carried on on both sides with great civility and calmness without heat or clamour This is as far as my Memory after the most fixed attention when present and careful Recollection since does suggest to me without any biass or partiality not having failed in any one material thing as far as my
memory can serve me This I declare as I shall answer to God Signed as follows Gilbert Burnet April 6. 1676. This Narrative was read and I do hereby attest the truth of it Edw. Stillingfleet Being present at the Conference April 3. 1676. I do according to my best memory judge this a just and true Narrative thereof Will. Nailor The Addition which N. N. desired might be subjoined to the Relation of the Conference if it were published but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Conference THE substance of what N. N. desired me to take notice of was that our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life as almsgiving or any other good workâ— gives it where the bare external action if separated from a good intention and principle is not acceptable to God So that we must necessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this addition of Worthily that whoso eats his Flesh and drinks his Blood in the Sacrament Worthily hath everlasting life for he said he did not deny but the believing the death of Christ was necessary in communicating but it is not by Faith only we receive his Body and Blood For as by Faith we are the Sons of God yet it is not only by Faith but also by Baptism that we become the Sons of God so also Christ saith he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved yet this doth not exclude repentance and amendment of life from being necessary to Salvation therefore the universality of the expression whoso eats does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it And so did conclude that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures we must prove from some clear Scriptures by arguments that consist of a Major and Minor that are either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them that Christ was no otherwise present in the Sacrament than spiritually as he is received by Faith And added that it was impertinent to bring impossibilities either from sense or reason against this if we brought no clear Scriptures against it To this he also added that when D. S. asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament he answered that he might really receive Christ's Body at his mouth though none of his senses could perceive him as a â—ole or pill is taken in a sirrup or any other liquor so that I really swallow it over though my senses do not tast it in like manner Christ is received under the accidents of bread and wine so that though our senses do not perceive it yet he is really taken in at our Mouth and goes down into our Stomach Answer HAving now set down the strength of N.N. his plea upon second thoughts I shall next examine it The stress of all lies in this whether we must necessarily supply the words of Christ with the addition of worthily he affirms it I deny it for these reasons Christ in this discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was Moses his Law and that Moses gave Manna from Heaven to nourish their Bodies notwithstanding which they died in the wilderness But Christ was to give them food to their Souls which if they did eat they should never die for it should give them life Where it is apparent the bread and nourishment must be such as the life was which being internal and spiritual the other must be such also And verse 47. he clearly explains how that food was received he that believeth on me hath everlasting life Now having said before that this bread gives life and here saying that believing gives everlasting life it very reasonably follows that believing was the receiving this food Which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Jews having desired him evermore to give them that bread he answers verse 35. I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst Which no man that is not strangely prepossessed can consider but he must see it is an answer to their question and so in it he tells them that their coming to him and believing was the mean of receiving that bread And here it must be considered that Christ calls himself bread and says that a Man must eat thereof which must be understood figuratively and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse it is unjust to reject the applying the same Figures to other parts of it In fine Christ tells them this bread was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the World which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the Cross. This did as it was no wonder startle the Jews so they murmured and said How can this man give us his flesh to eat To which Christs answer is so clear that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it He first tells them except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man they had no life in them Where on the way mark that drinking the blood is as necessary as eating the flesh and these words being expounded of the Sacrament cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the blood For suppose the Doctrine of the bloods concomitating the flesh were true yet even in that case they only eat the blood but cannot be said to drink the blood But from these words it is apparent Christ must be speaking chiefly if not only of the spiritual Communicating for otherwise no man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament The words are formal and positive and Christ having made this a necessary condition of life I see not how we dare promise life to any that hath never received it And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament appointed it to be given to infants immediately after they were baptized for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words And yet the Church of Rome will not deny but if any die before he is adult or if a person converted be in such circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the Sacrament and so dies without it he may have everlasting life therefore they must conclude that Christs flesh may be eaten by faith even without the Sacrament Again in the next verse he says Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse they being indeed the reverse of it Therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the sence of the former verse neither is it necessary in this But it must be concluded Christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have life and by which all have life therefore when
ever Christs flesh is eaten and his blood is drunk which is most signally done in the Sacrament there eternal life must accompany it and so these words must be understood even in relation to the Sacrament only of the spiritual Communicating by Faith As when it is said a man is a reasonable Creature though this is said of the whole man Body and Soul yet when we see that upon the dissolution of Soul and Body no reason or life remains in the body we from thence positively conclude the reason is seated only in the Soul though the body has organs that are necessary for its operations So when it is said we eat Christs flesh and drink his blood in the Sacrament which gives eternal life there being two things in it the bodily eating and the spiritual Communicating though the eating of Christs flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving which consists of these two yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such effects we must conclude that the eating of Christs flesh is only done by the inward Communicating though the other that is the bodily part be a divine Organ and conveyance of it And as reason is seated only in the Soul so the eating of Christs flesh must be only inward and spiritual and so the mean by which we receive Christ in the Supper is faith All this is made much clearer by the words that follow my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Now Christs flesh is so eaten as it is meat which I suppose none will question it being a prosecution of the same discourse Now it is not meat as taken by the body for they cannot be so gross as to say Christs flesh is the meat of our body therefore since his flesh is only the meat of the Soul and spiritual nourishment it is only eaten by the Soul and so received by faith Christ also says He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him This is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of so that such as is the dwelling in him such also must be the eating of him the one therefore being spiritual inward and by faith the other must be such also And thus it is as plain as can be from the words of Christ that he spake not of a carnal or corporal but of a spiritual eating of his flesh by faith All this is more confirmed by the Key our Saviour gives of his whole Discourse when the Iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings It is the spirit that quickneth or giveth the life he had been speaking of the flesh profiteth nothing the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are life From which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual life and in a spiritual manner But now I shall examine N.N. his reasons to the contrary His chief Argument is that when eternal life is promised upon the giving of Alms or other good Works we must necessarily understand it with this proviso that they were given with a good intention and from a good principle therefore we must understand these words of our Saviour to have some such proviso in them All this concludes nothing It is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external action such a reserve must be understood And so S. Paul tells us if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor and had no Charity it profited him nothing And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action I should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood but that is the thing in question and I hope I have made it appear Our Saviour is speaking of an internal action and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed For he is speaking of that eating of his flesh which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done and so that objection is of no force He must therefore prove that the eating his flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the Sacrament and not only by a denomination from a relation to it as the whole man is called reasonable though the reason is seated in the soul only What he says to shew that by faith only we are not the Sons of God since by Baptism also we are the Sons of God is not to the purpose for the design of the argument was to prove that by Faith only we are the Sons of God so as to be the Heirs of eternal life Now the baptism of the adult for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding makes them only externally and Sacramentally the Sons of God for the inward and vital sonship follows only upon Faith And this Faith must be understood of such a lively and operative faith as includes both repentance and amendment of life So that when our Saviour says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that believing is a complex of all evangelical graces from which it appears that none of his reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of Christ ought to be so limited and restricted For what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of that we ought to prove that Christs body and blood was present in the Sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express Scriptures or by arguments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them it has no force at all in it I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the plea concerning the express words of Scripture and therefore shall say nothing upon that head referring the Reader to what he will meet with on that subject afterwards But here I only desire the Reader may consider our contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words This is my body in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of Scripture to prove that meaning by For if that be'setled on as a necessary method of proof then when other Scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the meaning of this by and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every place Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place we must judge of it by the rules of common sense and reason of Religion and Piety and if a meaning be affixed to any place contrary to these we have good reason to reject it For we knowing all external things only by our senses by which only the miracles resurrection of Christ could be proved which are the means God has given us to converse with and enjoy his whole creation and the evidence our senses give being such as naturally determines our
perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroyes all our conceptions of things is contrary to the most universally received maxims subverts the notions of matter and accidents and in a word confounds all our clearest apprehensions we must also reject every such gloss since it contradicts the evidence of that which is Gods image in us If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious exaltation of the humane nature of our blessed Saviour we have very just reasons to reject it even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture Therefore this dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's words he that shews best reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to truth does all that is necessary in this case But after all this we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was bread that Christ took blessed brake and gave his Disciples Now the Scripture calling it formally bread destroyes Transubstantiation Christ said This is my body which are declarative and not imperative words such as Let there be light or Be thou whole Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true as is most clear therefore Christ pronounces what the bread was become by his former blessing which did sanctity the Elements and yet after that blessing it was still bread Again the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it so that Christs words Do this in remembrance of me shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living commemoration and communication of his Body and Blood Further Christ telling us it was his Body that was given for us and his Blood shed for us which we there receive it is apparent he is to be understood present in the Sacrament not as he is now exalted in glory but as he was on the Cross when his blood was shed for us And in fine if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews all this will be more easily understood for it was ordinary for them to call the symbole by the name of the original it represented So they called the cloud between the Cherubims God and Iehovah according to these words O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims and all the symbolical apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be the Lord appearing to them But that which is more to this purpose is that the Lamb that was the symbole and memorial of their deliverance out of AEgypt was called the Lords Passover Now though the Passover then was only a type of our deliverance by the death of Christ yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in AEgypt as really a representation of it as the Sacrament is of the death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood though they were not so corporally but only mystically and sacramentally than that Moses called the lamb the Lords Passover So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbole and Type by the name of the Substance and Original Therefore our Saviours words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful expression to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech of that Age People and Place in which such phrases were used This is signally confirmed by the account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures First he saies it stands in its natural signification for receiving bodily food Then because there are two things done in eating the first is the destruction of that which is eaten so that it loseth its first form the other is the encrease and nourishment of the substance of the person that eats therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the language of the Scriptures The one is destruction and desolation so the Sword is said to eat or as we render it to devour so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants and so Fire is said to eat or consume The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom Learning and all Intellectual apprehensions by which the form or soul of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them as the body is preserved by food For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament as Isai. 55.2 come buy and eat and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom eating and cites some of their sayings as come and eat flesh in which there is much fat and that when ever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law So also Wisdom is often called Water Isai. 55.1 and he concludes that because this sense of eating occurs so often and is so manifest and evident as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the word therefore hunger and thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Vnderstanding as Amos 8. 21. to this he also refers that of thirsting Psalm 42. 3. and Isai. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these words ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation renders it ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the Select ones among the Iust which is further confirmed from the words of our Saviour Iohn 7. 37. And from these observations of the I earnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins we see that the Iewes understood the phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this Spiritual and figurative sense of receiving Wisdom and Instruction So that this being an usual form of speech among them it is no strange thing to imagin how our Saviour being a Iew according to the flesh and conversing with Iews did use these Terms and Phrases in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of reason and strong and convincing authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christs words This is my Body are to be understood Spiritually Mystically and Sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. that Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with reason and learning to justify all he says that no
we doubt not but we have brought proofs which in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition which we leave and go on to the third which was That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For this our first Proof is taken from Origen who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten and passing to the belly adds These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh and the true food whom whosoever eats he shall live for ever whom no wicked person can eat for if it were possible that any who continues wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh since He is the Word and the Living Bread it had never been written whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacrament and the incarnate Word of which no wicked person can partake And he also says They that are good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven and the wicked eat Dead Bread which is Death Zeno Bishop of Verona that as is believed lived near Origen's time says as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona There is cause to fear that be in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood though he seems to communicate with the faithful since our Lord hath said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Jerom on the 66 th of Isa. says They that are not holy in body and spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Jesus nor drink his Blood of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life And on the 8 th chap. of Hos. he says They eat not his flesh whose flesh is the food of them that believe To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22 th of Jeremy and on the 10 th of Zech. St. Austin says He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood though he may visibly and carnally break in his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his judgment And speaking of those who by their uncleanness become the members of an Harlot he says Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his members And besides he adds He that says whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood To this we shall add that so oft cited passage Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord the other he means Judas the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. By which he clearly insinuates he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread And that this hath been the consâ—ant belief of the Greek-Church to this day shall be proved if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove But if we had enlarged on every particular we must have said a great deal more to shew from many undeniable evidences that the Fathers were strangers to this new Mystery It is clear from their writings that they thought Christ was only spiritually present that we did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood only by Faith and not by our bodily senses and that the words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were to be understood spiritually It is no less clear that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross and not as he is now in the glory of the Father And from hence it was that they came to order their Eucharistical forms so as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption Besides they always speak of Christ as absent from us according to his Flesh and Human Nature and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit which they could not have said if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature for then he were more on Earth than he is in Heaven since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a million of places upon earth so that it were very strange to say he were absent if they believed him thus present But to give yet further evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine let us but reflect a little on the consequences that necessarily follow it which be 1. That a Body may be by the Divine power in more places at once 2. That a Body may be in a place without extension or quantity so a Body of such dimensions as our blessed Lord's Body can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer and not only so but that the whole Body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before and yet is not brought thither but produced there 4. That the accidents of any substance such as colour smell taste and figure can remain without any Body or substance in which they subsist 5. That our senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident representations 6. Great doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received or if it should come to be corrupted or to be snatched by a Mouse or eat by any vermine All these are the natural and necessary effects of this Doctrine and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching understanding but are such as stare every body full in the face And hence it is that since this was submitted to in the Western Church the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered and new Maxims and Definitions were found out to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression to receive these as principles by which their minds being full of those first prejudices might find no difficulty to believe this Now it is certain had the Fathers believed this they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith and were so far from being short or defective in it that they rather over-do it and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but about Original sin the derivation of our Souls the operation of the Grace of God in our hearts and the Resurrection of our bodies should yet have been so
much in credit In those Ages the Civil powers being ready to serve the rage of Church-men against any who should oppose it it was not safe for any to appear against it And yet it cannot be denied but from the days of the second Council of Nice which made a great step towards Transubstantiation till the fourth Council of Lâ—teran there was great opposition made to it by the most eminent persons in the Latin Church and how great a part of Christendome has departed from the Obedience of the Church of Rome in every age since that time and upon that account is well enough known Now is it to be imagined that there should have been such an opposition to it these Nine hundred years last past and yet that it should have been received the former Eight hundred years with no opposition and that it should not have cost the Church the trouble of one General Council to decree it or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it and answer those objections that naturally arise from our reasons and senses against it But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural consequences which had it been sooner taught and received must have been apprehended sooner and those are so many clear presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine The Elevation Adoration Processions the Doctrine of Concomitance with a vast superfaetation of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up The age of them is well known and they have risen in the Latin Church out of this Doctrine which had it been sooner received we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter Now for all these things as the primitive Church knew them not so on the other hand the great simplicity of their forms as we find them in Justin Martyr and Cyril of Ierusalem in the Apostolical Constitutions and the pretended Denis the Arcopagite are far from that pomp which the latter ages that believed this Doctrine brought in the Sacraments being given in both kinds being put in the hands of the Faithful being given to the children for many ages being sent by boys or common persons to such as were dying the eating up what remained which in some places were burnt in other places were consumed by Children or by the Clergy their making Cataplasms of it their mixing the consecrated Chalice with ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks These with a great many more are such convictions to one that has carefully compared the ancient forms with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of Rome since this Doctrine was set up that it is as discernable as any thing can be that the present belief of the Church of Rome is different from the Primitive Doctrine And thus far we have set down the reasons that perswade us that Transubstantiation was not the belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church If there be any part of what we have asserted questioned we have very formal and full proofs ready to shew for them though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular proofs of any thing but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your Ladyship Now there remains but one thing to be done which we also promised and that was to clear the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem We acknowledg they were truly cited but for clearing of them we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the authority of that Father though we find but a slender character given of him by Epiphanius and others Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the authority of these Catechisms though much might be said But it is plain St. Cyril's design in these Catechisms was only to posses his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symboles But even in his 4 th Catechism he tells them not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still though not meer Bread And he gives us else-where a very formal account in what sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in this 4 th Cathechism For in his first Mist. Catechism when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Idolatry he tells that on the solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread which by the Invocation of the Devils were defiled as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the holy Invocation of the Blessed Trinity was bare bread and Wine but the Invocation being made the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner says he those victuals of the pomp of Satan which of their own nature are common or bare victuals by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane From this Illustration which he borrowed from Iustin Martyr his second Apology it appears that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged so also according to him must the substance of the other remain Or if this will not satisfy them let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by the Consecration in his third Mist. Catechism treating of the Consecrated Oil he says As the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common Bread but the Body of Christ so this holy Ointment is no more bare Ointment nor as some may say common but it is a gift of Christ and the presence of the Holy Ghost and becomes energetical of his Divinity And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from St. Cyril's testimony And thus we have performed likewise what we promised and have given a clear account of St. Cyril's meaning from himself from whose own words and from these things which he compares with the sanctification of the Elements in the Eucharist it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts nor the consecrated Oil in neither of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation Having thus acquitted our selves of our engagement before your Ladiship we shall conclude this Paper with our most earnest and hearty prayers to the Father of Lights that he may of his great mercy redeem his whole Christian Church from all Idolatry that he may open the eyes of those who being carnal look only at carnal things and do not rightly consider the excellent Beauty of this our most holy Faith which is pure simple and spiritual And that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledg of the Truth so that neither the pleasures of Sin nor the snares of this World nor the fear of the Cross tempt them to make shipwrack of the Faith and a good Conscience And that God may pour out
and yet they were of the meaner sort and of very ordinary capacities to whom he addressed his discourses If then such as they were might have understood him how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous mysteriousness in the words of Christ and his Apostles For the same reason by which it is proved that Christ designed to be understood and spake suitably to that design will conclude as strongly that the Discourses of the Apostles in matters that concern our salvation are also intelligible We have a perfect understanding of the Greek Tongue and though some phrases are not so plain to us which alter every age and some other passages that relate to some customs opinions or forms of which we have no perfect account left us are hard to be understood Yet what is of general and universal concern may be as well understood now as it was then for sense is sense still So that it must be acknowledged that men may still understand all that God will have us believe and do in order to salvation And therefore if we apply and use our faculties aright joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for truth earnest prayers that God by his Grace may so open our understandings and present Divine truths to them that we may believe and follow them Then both from the nature of our own souls and from the design and end of revelation we may be well assured that it is not only very possible but also very easy for us to find out truth We know the pompous Objection against this is How comes it then that there are so many errors and divisions among Christians especially those that pretend the greatest acquaintance with Scriptures To which the Answer is so obvious and plain that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an Argument Does not the Gospel offer Grace to all men to lead holy lives following the Commandments of God And is not Grace able to build them up and make them perfect in every good word and work And yet how does sin and vice abound in the World If then the abounding of error proves the Gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it then the abounding of sin will also prove there are no certain ways in the Gospel to avoid it Therefore as the sins mankind generally live in leave no imputation on the Gospel so neither do the many Heresies and Schisms conclude that the Gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the knowledg of all necessary truth Holiness is every whit as necessary to see the face of God as knowledg is and of the two is the more necessary since low degrees of knowledg with an high measure of holiness are infinitely preferable to high degrees of knowledg with a low measure of holiness If then every man have a sufficient help given him to be holy why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his belief and life which is a less thing And how should it be an imputation on Religion that there should not be an infallible way to end all Controversies when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt lusts and passions of men since the one is more opposite to the design and life of Religion than the other In sum there is nothing more sure than that the Scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the knowledg of what is necessary to salvation as of doing the will of God But as the depravation of our natures makes us neglect the helps towards an holy life so this and our other corruptions lusts and interests make us either not to discern Divine truth or not embrace it So that Error and Sin are the Twins of the same Parents But as every man that improves his natural powers and implores and makes use of the supplies of the Divine Grace shall be enabled to serve God acceptably so that though he fail in many things yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well doing his sins shall be forgiven and himself shall be saved So upon the same grounds we are assured that every one that applies his rational faculties to the search of Divine truth and also begs the illumination of the Divine Spirit shall attain such knowledg as is necessary for his eternal salvation And if he be involved in any errors they shall not be laid to his charge And from these we hope it will appear that every man may attain all necessary knowledg if he be not wanting to himself Now when a man attains this knowledg he acquires it and must use it as a rational being and so must make judgments upon it and draw consequences from it in which he has the same reason to be assured that he has to know the true meaning of Scripture and therefore as he has very good reason to reject any meaning of a place of Scripture from which by a necessary consequence great absurdities and impossibilities must follow So also he is to gather such inferences as flow from a necessary connexion with the true meaning of any place of Scripture To instance this in the argument we insisted on to prove the mean by which Christ is received in the Sacrament is Faith from these words Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life If these words have relation to the Sacrament which the Roman Church declares is the true meaning of them there cannot be a clearer demonstration in the World And indeed they are necessitated to stand to that exposition for if they will have the words This is my Body to be understood literally much more must they assert the phrases of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be literal for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words This is my Body they then expounding these words of St. Iohn of the Sacrament there cannot be imagined a closser Contexture than this which follows The eating Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood is the receiving him in the Sacrament therefore everyone that receives him in the Sacrament must have eternal life Now all that is done in the Sacrament is either the external receiving the Elements Symboles or as they phrase it the accidents of Bread and Wine and under these the Body of Christ or the internal and spiritual communicating by Faith If then Christ received in the Sacrament gives eternal life it must be in one of these ways either as he is received externally or as he is received internally or both for there is not a fourth Therefore if it be not the one at all it must be the other only Now it is undeniable that it is not the external eating that gives eternal life For St. Paul tells us of some that eat and drink
prepare themselves aright for so holy an action and the receiving the Sacrament as it was the greatest Symbole of the Love of Christians so it was the end of all Penitence that was enjoyned for publick or private sins but chiefly for Apostacy or the denying the Faith and complying with Idolatry in the times of Persecution Therefore the Fathers considering both the words of the Institution and S. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians did study mightily to awaken all to great preparation and devotion when they received the Sacrament For all the primitive devotion about the Sacrament was only in order to the receiving it and that modern worship of the Church of Rome of going to hear Mass without receiving was a thing so little understood by them that as none were suffered to be present in the action of the Mysteries but those who were qualified to receive so if any such had gone out of the Church without participating they were to be separated from the Communion of the Church as the authors of disorder in it Upon this Subject the Fathers employed all their Eloquence and no wonder if we consider that it is such a commemoration of the death of Christ as does really communicate to the worthy Receiver his crucified body and his blood that was shed Mark not his glorified body as it is now in heaven which is the Fountain and Channel of all other blessings but is only given to such as being prepared according to the Rules of the Gospel sincerely believe all the mysteries of Faith and live suitably to their Belief Both the advantages of worthy receiving and the danger of unworthy receiving being so great it was necessary for them to make use of all the faculties they had either for awakening reverence and fear that the contemptible Elements of Bread and Wine might not bring a cheapness and disesteem upon these holy Mysteries or for perswading their Communicants to all serious and due preparation upon so great an occasion This being then allowed it were no strange thing though in their Sermons or other devout Treatises they should run out to Meditations that need to be mollified with that allowance that must be given to all Panegyricks or Perswasives where many things are always said that if right understood have nothing in them to startle any body but if every phrase be examined Grammatically there would be many things found in all such Discourses that would look very hideously Is it not ordinary in all the Festivities of the Church as S. Austin observed on this very occasion to say this day Christ was born or died or rose again in 〈◊〉 and yet that must not be taken literally Beside when we hear or read any expressions that sound high or big we are to consider the ordinary stile of him that uses these expressions for if upon all other occasions he be apt to rise high in his Figures we may the less wonder at some excesses of his Stile If then such an Orator as S. Chrysostome was who expatiates on all subjects in all the delighting varieties of a fertile Phancy should on so great a Subject display all the beauties of that â—avishing Art in which he was so great a Master what wonder is it Therefore great allowances must be made in such a case Further we must also consider the tempers of those to whom any Discourse is addressed Many things must be said in another manner to work on Novices or weak persons than were fit or needful for men of riper and stronger understandings He would take very ill measures that would judge of the future state by these Discourses in which the sense of that is infused in younger or weaker capacities therefore though in some Catechismes that were calculated for the understandings of Children and Novices such as S. Cyril's there be some high expressions used it is no strange thing for naturally all men on such occasions use the highest and biggest words they can invent But we ought also to consider what persons have chiefly in their eye when they speak to any point For all men especially when their Fancies are inflamed with much fervor are apt to look only to one thing at once and if a visible danger appear of one side and none at all on the other then it is natural for every one to exceed on that side where there is no danger So that the hazard of a contempt of the Sacrament being much and justly in their eye and they having no cause to apprehend any danger on the other side of excessive adoring or magnifying it No wonder if in some of their Discourses an immoderate use of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and candid interpretation Yet after all this they say no more but that in the Sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the Body and Blood of Christ which we also receive and believe And in many other Treatises when they are in colder blood examining things they use such expressions and expositions of this as no way favour the belief of Transubstantiation of which we have given some account in a former Paper But though that were not so formally done and their Writings were full of passages that needed great allowances it were no more than what the Fathers that wrote against the Arrians confess the Fathers before the Council of Nice were guilty of who writing against Sabellius with too much vehemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Cyril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Eutychians did run to such excesses as drew upon them the condemnation of the Fifth General Council The first time we find any Contestor canvassing about the Sacrament was in the Controversie about Images in the eighth Century That the Council of Constantinople in the condemning of Images declared there was no other Image of Christ to be received but the Blessed Sacrament in which the substance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ making a difference between that which is Christs Body by nature and the Sacrament which is his Body by Institution Now it is to be considered that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the Greek Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemning Images yet there having been no Contest at all about the Sacrament we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute if they had not known these two things were the received Doctrine of the Church The one that in the Sacrament the substance of Bread and Wine did remain the other that the Sacrament was the Image or Figure of Christ and from thence they acknowledged all Images were not to be rejected but denied any other Images besides that in the Sacrament Now the second Council of Nice being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible
all the following Cruelties that were as terrible as could be invented by all the fury of the Court of Rome managed by the Inquisitions of the Dominicans whose Souls were then as black as their Garments could bear down or extinguish that light of the Truth in which what was wanting in Learning Wit or Order was fully made up in the simplicity of their Manners and the constancy of their Sufferings And it were easie to shew that the two great things they were most persecuted for were their refusing subjection to the See of Rome and their not believing the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence nor were they confined to one Corner of France only but spred almost all Europe over In that Age Steven Bishop in Edueâ— is the first I ever find cited to have used the word Transubstantiation who expressly sayes That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Some place him in the beginning some in the middle of that Age for there were two Bishops of that See both of the same Name the one Anno 1112. the other 1160. And which of the two it was is not certain but the Master of the Sentences was not so positive and would not determine whether Christ was present formally substantially or some other way But in the beginning of the thirteenth Century one Amalric or Almaric who was in great esteem for Learning did deny Transubstantiation saying That the Body of Christ was no more in the Consecrated Bread than in any other Bread or any other thing for which he was condemned in the fourth Council of Lateran and his Body which was buried in Paris was taken up and burnt and then was it decreed That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly contained under the kinds or Species of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood All the while this Doctrine was carried on it was managed with all the ways possible that might justly create a prejudice against them who set it forward for besides many ridiculous lying wonders that were forged to make it more easily believed by a credulous and superstitious multitude the Church of Rome did discover a cruelty and blood-thirstiness which no pen is able to set out to the full what burnings and tortures and what Croissâ—des as against Infidels and Mahumetans did they set on against those poor innocent Companies whom they with an enraged wolvish and barbarous bloodiness studied to destroy This was clearly contrary to the Laws of Humanity the Rules of the Gospel and the Gentleness of Christ How then could such companies of Wolves pretend to be the followers of the Lamb. In the Primitive Church the Bishops that had prosecuted the Priscillanists before the Emperor Maximus to the taking away their lives were cast out of the Communion of the Church but now did these that still pretended to be Christ's Vicars shew themselves in Antichrist's Colours dipt in blood If then any of that Church that live among us plead for pity and the not executing the Laws and if they blame the severity of the Statutes against themselves let them do as becomes honest men and without disguise disown and condemn those Barbarities and them that were the promoters and pursuers of them for those practices have justly filled the world with fears and jealousies of them that how meekly soever they may now whine under the pretended oppression of the Laws they would no sooner get into power but that old Leaven not being yet purged out of their hearts they would again betake themselves to fire and faggot as the unanswerable Arguments of their Church and so they are only against persecution because they are not able to persecute but were they the men that had the power it would be again a Catholick Doctrine and Practice But when they frankly and candidly condemn those Practices and Principles they will have somewhat to plead which will in reason prevail more than all their little Arts can do to procure them favour It was this same Council of Lateran that established both Cruelty Persecution and Rebellion into a Law appointing that all Princes should exterminate all Hereticks this is the mercy of that Church which all may look for if ever their power be equal to their malice and did decree That if any Temporal Lord being admonished by the Church did neglect to purge his Lands he should be first excommunicated and if he continued a year in his contempt contumacy notice was to be given of it to the Pope who from that time forth should declare his Vassals absolved from the Fidelity they owed him and expose his Lands to be invaded by Catholicks who might possess them without any contradiction having exterminated the Hereticks out of them and so preserve them in the purity of the Faith This Decree was made on the account of Raimond Count of Tholouse who favoured the Albigenses that were his Subjects and being a Peer of France according to the first constitution under Hugo Capet King of France was such a Prince in his own Dominions as the Princes of Germany now are He was indeed the King of France his Vassal but it is clear from the History of that time that the King of France would not interpose in that business Yet the Popes in this same Council of Lateran did by the advice of the Council give to Simon Montfort who was General of the Croissade that the Pope sent against that Prince all the Lâ—nds that were taken from the Count of Tholouse So that there was an Invasion both of the Count of Tholouse and of the King of France his Rights For if that Prince had done any thing amiss he was only accountable to the King and the other Peers of France This Decree of the Council is published by Dom. Luc. Dachery so that it is plain that the Pope got here a Council â—o set up Rebellion by authoriâ—y against the express rules of the Gospel this almost their whole Church accounts a General Council a few only among us excepted who know not how to approve themselves good Subjects if they own that a General Council which does so formally establish treasonable and seditious Principles For if it be true that a General Council making a definition in an Article of Faith is to be followed and submitted to by all men the same Arguments will prove that in any controverted practical Opinion we ought not to trust our own Reasons but submit to the Definition of the Church for if in this Question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the Scriptures and reject this Decree why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom It is true the words of the Decree seem only to relate to Temporal Lords that were under Soveraign Princes such as the Count of Tholouse and therefore Crowned heads need fear nothing from it But though