possible Advantages out of that vast stock of Learning and Iudgment he is Master of was so taken up with other work cut out for him by some of these Gentlemens Friends of which we shall see an excellent account very speedily that it was not possible for him to spare so much time for writing these so that it fell to the others share to do it and therefore the Reader is not to expect any thing like those high strains of Wit and Reason which fill all that Authors Writings but must give allowance to one that studies to follow him though at a great distance Therefore all can be said from him is that what is here performed was done by his Direction and Approbation which to some degree will again encourage the Reader and so I leave him to the perusal of what follows The RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE D. S. and M. B. went to M. L. T 's as they had been desired by L. T. to confer with some Persons upon the Grounds of the Church of England separating from Rome and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our Church to theirs About half an hour after them came in S. P. T. Mr. W. and three more There were present seven or eight Ladies three other Church-men and one or two more When we were all set D. S. said to S. P. T. that we were come to wait on them for justifying our Church that he was glad to see we had Gentlemen to deal with from whom he expected fair dealing as on the other hand he hoped they should meet with nothing from us but what became our Profession S. P. said they had Protestants to their Wives and there were other Reasons too to make them wish they might turn Protestants therefore he desired to be satisfied in one thing and so took out the Articles of the Church and read these Words of the Sixth Article of the Holy Scriptures So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Then he turned to the twenty eighth Article of the Lord's Supper and read these Words And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith and added he desired to know whether that was read in Scripture or not and in what place it was to be found D. S. said He must first explain that Article of the Scripture for this method of proceeding was already sufficiently known and exposed he clearly saw the snare they thought to bring him in and the advantages they would draw from it But it was the Cause of the Church he was to defend which he hoped he was ready to seal with his Blood and was not to be given up for a Trick The Meaning of the sixth Article was That nothing must be Received or Imposed as an Article of Faith but what was either expresly contained in Scripture or to be deduced and proved from it by a clear Consequence so that if in any Article of our Church which they rejected he should either shew it in the express Words of Scripture or prove it by a clear Consequence he performed all required in this Article If they would receive this and fix upon it as the meaning of the Article which certainly it was then he would go on to the proof of that other Article he had called in question M. W. said They must see the Article in express Scripture or at least in some places of Scripture which had been so interpreted by the Church the Councils or Fathers or any one Council or Father And he the rather pitched on this Article because he judged it the only Article in which all Protestants except the Lutherans were agreed D. S. said It had been the art of all the Hereticks from the Marcionites days to call for express Words of Scripture It was well known the Arrians set up their rest on this That their Doctrine was not condemned by express words of Scripture but that this was still rejected by the Catholick Church and that Theodoret had written a Book on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this Challenge therefore he desired they would not insist on that which every body must see was not fair dealing and that they would take the Sixth Article entirely and so go to see if the other Article could not be proved from Scripture though it were not contained in express words M. B. Added that all the Fathers writing against the Arrians brought their proofs of the Consubstantiality of the Son from the Scriptures though it was not contained in the express words of any place And the Arrian Council that rejected the words Equisubstantial and Consubstantial gives that for the reason that they were not in the Scripture And that in the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril brought in many propositions against the Nestorians with a vast collection of places of Scripture to prove them by and though the quotations from Scripture contained not those propositions in express words yet the Council was satisfied from them and condemned the Nestorians Therefore it was most unreasonable and against the Practice of the Catholick Church to require express words of Scripture and that the Article was manifestly a disjunctive where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse either one or other S. P. T. said Or was not in the Article M. B. said Nor was a negative in a disjunctive proposition as Or was an affirmative and both came to the same meaning M. W. said That S. Austin charged the Heretick to read what he said in the Scripture M. B. said S. Austin could not make that a constant rule otherwise he must reject the Consubstantiality which he did so zealously assert though he might in disputing urge an Heretick with it on some other account D. S. said The Scripture was to deliver to us the Revelation of God in matters necessary to Salvation but it was an unreasonable thing to demand proofs for a negative in it for if the Roman Church have set up many Doctrines as Articles of Faith without proof from the Scriptures we had cause enough to reject these if there was no clear Proofs of them from Scripture but to require express words of Scripture for a Negative was as unjust as if Mahomet had said the Christians had no reason to reject him because there was no place in Scripture that called him an Impostor Since then the Roman Church had set up the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass without either express Scripture or good Proofs from it their Church had good cause to reject these M. W. said The Article they desired to be satisfied in was if he understood any thing a positive Article and not a negative M. B. said The positive Article was that Christ was received in the Holy Sacrament but because they had
how any Man of common Sense tho he pretended not to Infallibility could fall into such Errors for an ill Argument when its Fallacy is so apparent must needs heap Contempt on him that uses it Having found our Saviour's way of arguing to be so contrary to this new Method these Gentlemen would impose on us let us see how the Apostles drew their Proofs for matters in Controversy from Scriptures The two great Points they had most occasion to argue upon were Iesus Christ being the true Messiah and the freedom of the Gentiles from any Obligation to the observance of the Mosaical Law Now let us see how they proceeded in both these For the first In the first Sermon after the effusion of the Holy Ghost S. Peter proves the truth of Christ's Resurrection from these words of David Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption Now he shews that these words could not be meant of David who was dead and buried therefore being a Prophet he spake of the Resurrection of Christ. If here were not Consequences and Deductions let every one judg Now these being spoken to those who did not then believe in Christ there was either sufficient force in that Argument to convince the Jews otherwise these that spake them were very much both to be blamed and despised for offering to prove a Matter of such Importance by a Consequence But this being a degree of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost we must acknowledg there was strength in their Argument and therefore Articles of Faith whereof this was the Fundamental may be proved from Scripture by a Consequence We might add to this all the other Prophecies in the Old Testament from which we find the Apostles arguing to prove this Foundation of their Faith which every one may see do not contain in so many words that which was proved by them But these being so obvious we choose only to name this all the rest being of a like nature with it The next Controversy debated in that time was the Obligation of the Mosaichal Law The Apostles by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost made a formal Decision in this matter yet there being great Opposition made to that St. Paul sets himself to prove it at full length in his Epistle to the Galatians where besides other Arguments he brings these two from the Old Testament one was that Abraham was justified by Faith before the giving the Law for which he cites these words Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness From which by a very just Consequence he infers that as Abraham was blessed so all that believe are blessed with him and that the Law of Moses that was 430 Years after could not disannul it or make the Promise of none effect therefore we might now be justified by Faith without the Law as well as he was Another place he cites is The Iust shall live by Faith and he subsumes the Law was not of Faith from which the Conclusion naturally follows Therefore the Just lives not by the Law He must be very blind that sees not a Succession of many Consequences in that Epistle of St. Paul's all which had been utterly impertinent if this new Method had any ground for its Pretension and they might at one dash have overthrown all that he had said But Men had not then arrived at such Devices as must at once overturn all the Sense and Reason of Mankind We hope what we premised will be remembred to shew that the Apostles being infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost will not at all prove that tho this way of arguing might have passed with them yet it must not be allowed us For their being infallibly directed proves their Arguments and way of proceeding was rational and convincing otherwise they had not pitched on it And the Persons to whom these Arguments were offered not acquiescing in their Authority their Reasonings must have been good otherwise they had exposed themselves and their Cause to the just Scorn of their Enemies Having therefore evinced that both our Saviour and his Apostles did prove by Consequences drawn from Scripture the greatest and most important Articles of Faith we judg that we may with very great assurance follow their Example But this whole matter will receive a further Confirmation If we find it was the Method of the Church of God in all Ages to found her Decisions of the most important Controversies on Consequences from Scriptures There were very few Hereticks that had Face and Brow enough to set up against express Words of Scripture for such as did so rejected these Books that were so directly opposite to their Errors as the Manichees did the Gospel of St. Matthew But if we examine the Method either of Councils in condemning Hereticks or of the Fathers writing against them we shall always find them proceeding upon Deductions and Consequences from Scripture as a sufficient Ground to go upon Let the Epistle both of the Council of Antioch to Samosatenus and Denis of Alexandria's Letter to him be considered and it shall be found how they drew their Definitions out of Deductions from Scripture So also Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria in his Epistle in which he condemned Aerius proceeds upon Deductions from Scripture and when the Council of Nice came to judg of the whole matter if we give Credit to Gelasius they canvassed many places of Scripture that they might come to a decision and that whole Dispute as he represents it was all about Inferences and Deductions from Scripture It is true F. Maimbourg in his Romantick History of Arrianism Hist. de L. Arrian L. 1. would perswade us that in that Council the Orthodox and chiefly the great Saints of the Council were for adhering closely to what they had received by Tradition without attempting to give new Expositions of Scripture to interpret it any other way than as they had learned from these Fathers that had been taught them by the Apostles But the Arrians who could not find among these that which they intended to establish maintained on the contrary that we must not confine our selves to that which hath been held by Antiquity since none could be sure about that Therefore they thought that one must search the Truth of the Doctrine only in the Scriptures which they could turn to their own meaning by their false Subtilties And to make this formal Account pass easily with his Reader he vouches on the Margin Sozom. cap. 16. When I first read this it amazed me to find a thing of so great Consequence not so much as observed by the Writers of Controversies but turning to Sozomen I found in him these words speaking of the Dispute about Arrius his Opinions The Disputation being as is usual carried out into different Enquiries some were of Opinion that nothing should be innovated beyond the Faith that was originally delivered and these were chiefly those whom the Simplicity of their
of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and can did 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 veliemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Ciril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Entychians 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 condenming 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 do not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us to wit That the Sacrament was still the substance of Bread and Wine and Damascene the zealous Defender of Images clearly insinuates his believing the substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies Let it be therefore considered that when that Council of Nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the Council of Constantinople they never once blame them for saying The substance of Bread and Wine was in the Sacrament It is true they condemned them for saying the Sacrament was the Image of Christ denying that any of the Fathers had called it so alledging that the Symboles were called Antit pes by the Fathers only before the consecration and not after in which they followed Damascene De Fid. orth lib. 4. cap. 14. who had fallen in the same Errour before them But this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that Council were there no more to be said against it For this was either very gross ignorance or effronted impudence since in above twenty Fathers that were before them the Sacrament is called the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Body and at the same time that Damascene who was then looked on as the great Light of the East did condemn the calling the Sacrament the Figure of Christ's Body The venerable Bede Bed in Psal. 3. Mark 14. that was looked on as the great Light of the West did according to the stile of the Primitive Church and in S. Austin's words call it The Figure of Christ's Body I shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended General Council because I know a full account of them is expected from a better Pen only in this particular I must desire the Reader to take notice that the Council of Constantinople did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine about the Sacrament and did use it as an Argument in the other Controversie concerning Images without any design at all about the Eucharist But on the other hand the second Council of Nice did innovate and reject a form of speech which had been universally received in the Church before their time and being engaged with all possible spight against the Council of Constantinople resolved to contradict every thing they had said as much as could be So that in this we ought to look on the Council of Constantinople as delivering what was truly the Tradition of the Church and on the second Council of Nice as corrupting it About thirty years after that Council Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corbie wrote about the Sacrament and did formally assert the Corporal Presence in the Ninth Century The greatest Patrons of this Doctrine such as Bellarmin and Sirmondus both Jesuites confess he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist And Paschase himself in his Letter to his Friend Frudegard regrates that He was so flow in believing and assenting to his Doctrine and does also acknowledge that by his Book he had moved many to the understanding of that Mystery and it is apparent by that Letter that not only Frudegard but others were scandalized at his Book for he writes I have spoken of these things more fully and more expresly because I understand that some challenge me that in the Book I have published of the Sacraments of Christ I have ascribed either more or some other thing than is consonant to Truth to the words of our Lord. Of all the Writers of that Age or near it only one and his Name we know not the Book being anonymous was of Paschase's opinion But we find all the great men of that Age were of another mind and did clearly assert that in the Sacrament the Substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies as other meats do These were Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz Amalarius Archbishop of Treves or as others say Metz Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Bertram Iohn Scot Erigena Walafridus Strabo Florus and Christian Druthmar And three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase The anonymous Writer that defends him says That Raban did dispute at length against him in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon for saying it was that Body that was born of the Virgin and was crucified and raised again that was daily offered for the life of the World That is also condemned by Raban in his Penitential cap. 33. who refers his Reader to that Epistle to Abbor Egilon And for Bertram he was commanded
by Charles the Bald then Emperor to write upon that matter which in the beginning of his Book he promises to do not trusting to his own wit but following the steps of the Holy Fathers It is also apparent by his Book that there were at that time different Perswasions about the Body of Christ in the Sacrament some believing it was there without any Figure others saying it was there in a Figure and Mystery Upon which he apprehended there must needs follow a great Schism And let any read Paschase's Book and after that Bertram's and if he have either honesty or at least shame remaining in him he must see it was in all points the very same Controversie that was canvassed then between them and is now debated between the Church of Rome and Us. Now that Raban and Bertram were two of the greatest and most learned men of that Age cannot be denied Raban passes without contest amongst the first men of the Age and for Bertram we need neither cite what Trithemius says of him nor what the Disciples of S. Austin in the Port-Royal have said to magnifie him when they make use of him to establish the Doctrine of the efficacy of Grace It is a sufficient evidence of the esteem he was in that he was made choice of by the Bishop of France to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and upon two very important Controversies that were moved in that Age the one being about Predestination and Grace the other that which we have now before us He though a private Monk raised to no dignity was commanded by the Emperor to write of both these which no man can imagine had been done if he had not been a man much 〈◊〉 and esteemed and way in which he writes is solid and worthy of the reputation he ha 〈…〉 quired He proves both from the words of Institution and from St. Paul that the Sacrameâ—â— was still Bread and Wine He proves from S. Austin that these were Mysteries and Figures of Christ's Body and Blood And indeed considering that Age he was an extraordinary writer The third that did write against Paschase was Iohn Scot otherwise called Erigena who was likewise commanded to write about the Sacrament by that same Emperor He was undoubtedly the most learned and ingenious man of that Age as all our English Historians tell us chiefly William of Malmsbury He was in great esteem both with the Emperor and our great King Alfred Lib. 2. de Gest. Reg. He was accounted a Saint and a Martyr his memory was celebrated by an Anniversary on the tenth of November He was also very learned in the Greek and other Oriental Tongues which was a rare thing in that Age. This Erigena did formally refute Paschase's Opinion and assert ours It is true his Book is now lost being 200 years after burned by the C. of Vercel but though the Church of Lyons does treat him very severely in their Book against him and fastens many strange opinions upon him in which there are good grounds to think they did him wrong yet they no where challenge him for what he wrote about the Sacrament which shews they did not condemn him for that though they speak of him with great animosity because he had written against Predestination and Grace efficacious of it self which they defended It seems most probable that it was from his Writings that the Homily read at Easter by the Saxons here in England does so formally contradict the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And now let the Reader judge if it be not clear that Paschase did innovate the the Doctrine of the Church in this point but was vigorously opposed by all the great men of that Age. For the following Age all Historians agree it was an Age of most prodigious Ignorance and Debauchery and that amongst all sorts of people none being more signally vicious than the Clergy and of all the Clergy none so much as the Popes who were such a succession of Monsters that Baronius cannot forbear making the saddest exclamations possible concerning their cruelties debaucheries and other vices So that then if at any time we may conclude all were asleep and no wonder if the tares Paschase had sown did grow up and yet of the very few Writings of the Age that remain the far greater number seem to favour the Doctrine of Bertram But till Berengarius his time we hear nothing of any contest about the Eucharist So here were 200 years spent in an absolute ignorance and forgetfulness of all divine things About the middle of the 11th Cent. Bruno Bishop of Angiers and Berengarius who was born in Tours but was Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Angiers did openly teach that Christ was in the Sacrament only in a Figure We hear little more of Bruno but Berengarius is spoken of by many Historians Sigebert Platma Antonin Sabellicus Chron. Mont. Cassin Sigonius Vignier Guitmond and chiefly William of Malmsbury as a man of great Learning and Piety and that when he was cited to the Council at Rome before Nicolaus the Second none could resist him that he had an excellent faculty of speaking and was a man of great Gravity that he was held a Saint by many He did abound in Charity Humility and Good Works and was so chaste that he would not look at a beutiful woman And Hildebert Bishop of Mans whom S. Bernard commends highly made such an Epitaph on him that notwithstanding all the abatements we must make for Poetry yet no man could write so of an ordinary person This Berengarius wrote against the Corporal Presence calling it a stupidity of Paschase's and Lanfrank's who denied that the substance of Bread and Wine remained after Consecration He had many followers as Sigebert tells us Edit Antwerp 1608. And William of Malmsbury and Matthew Paris tell us his Doctrine had overspred all France It were too long to shew with what impudent corrupting of Antiquity those who wrote against him did stuff up their Books Divers Councils were held against him and he through fear did frequently waver for when other Arguments proved too weak to convince him then the Faggot which is the sure and beloved Argument of that Church prevailed on his fears so that he burnt his own Book and signed the condemnation of his own Opinion at Rome this he did as Lanfrank upbraids him not for love of the Truth but for fear of Death which shews he had not that love of the truth and constancy of mind he ought to have had But it is no prejudice against the Doctrine he taught that he was a man not only subject to but overcome by so great a temptation for the fear of death is natural to all men And thus we see that in the 9th Century our Doctrine was taught by the greatest writers of that time so that it was then generally received and not at all condemned either by Pope or Council But in the 11th Century upon its being defended