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
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
constantly silent in those Mysteries though they ought rather to have been cleared than the other Because in the other Heads the difficulties were more speculative and abstracted and so scruples were only incident to men of more curious and diligent enquiries But here it is otherwise where the matter being an object of the senses every mans senses must have raised in him all or most of those scruples And yet the Fathers neither in their Philosophical Treatises nor in their Theological Writings ever attempt the unridling those difficulties But all this is only a negative and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the Fathers St. Austin in particular if he can perswade himself that when all other Mysteries and the consequences from them were explained with so great care and even curiosity these only were things of so easy a digestion that about them there should have been no scruple at all made But it is yet clearer when we find the Fathers not only silent but upon other occasions delivering Maxims and Principles so directly contrary to these consequences without any reserved exceptions or provisions for the strange Mysteries of Transubstantiation They tell us plainly creatures are limited to one place and so argued against the Heathens believing their inferior Deities were in the several Statues consecrated to them From this they prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost that he did work in many places at once and so could not be a creature which can only be in one place Nay they do positively teach us that Christ can be no more on Earth since his Body is in Heaven and is but in one place They also do tell us that that which hath no bounds nor figure and cannot be touched nor seen cannot be a Body and that all Bodies are extended in some place and that Bodies cannot exist after the manner of Spirits They also tell us in all their reasonings against the eternity of matter that nothing could be produced that had a Being before it was produced They also teach us very formally that none of the qualities of a Body could subsist except the Body it self did also subsist And for the testimonies of our senses they appeal to them on all occasions as Infallible and tell us that it tended to reverse the whole state of our Life the order of Nature and to blind the Providence of God to say he has given the knowledg and enjoyment of all his works to Liars and Deceivers if our Senses be false Then we must doubt of our Faith if the testimony of the eyes hands and ears were of a nature capable to be deceived And in their contests with the Marcionites and others about the truth of Christ's Body they appeal always to the testimony of the Senses as infallible Nay even treating of the Sacrament they say it was Bread as their eyes witnessed and truly Wine that Christ did consecrate for the memory of his Blood telling that in this very particular we ought not to doubt the testimony of our senses But to make this whole matter yet plainer It is certain that had the Church in the first ages believed this Doctrine the Heathens and Jews who charged them with every thing they could pos ms = sibly invent had not passed over this against which all the powers of reason and the authorities of sense do rise up They charge them for believing a God that was born a God of Flesh that was crucified and buried They laughed at their belief of a Iudgment to come of endless Flames of an Heavenly Paradise and the Resurrection of the Flesh. The first Apologists for Christianity Iustin Tertullian Origen Arnobiâ—s and Cyril of Alexandria give us a full account of those Blasphemies against our most holy Faith and the last hath given us what Iulian objected in his own words who having apostatized from the Faith in which he was initiated and was a Reader in the Church must have been well acquainted with and instructed in their Doctrine and Sacraments He then who laughed at every thing and in particular at the ablution and sanctification in Baptism as conceiving it a thing impossible that Water should cleanse and wash a Soul Yet neither he nor Celsus nor any other ever charged on the Christians any absurdities from their belief of Transubstantiation This is it is true a negative argument yet when we consider the malice of those ingenious Enemies of our Faith and their care to expose all the Doctrines and Customs of Christians and yet find them in no place charge the strange consequences of this Doctrine on them We must from thence conclude there was no such Doctrine then received for if it had been they at least Iulian must have known it and if they knew it can we think they should not have made great noise about it We know some think their charging the Christians with the eating of Humane flesh and Thyeâ—tean Suppers related to the Sacrament but that cannot be for when the Fathers answer that charge they tell them to their teeth it was a plain lye and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the Eucharist which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their Doctrine of receiving Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament But the truth is those horrid Calumnies were charged on the Christians from the execrable and abominable practiâ—es of the Gnosticks who called themselves Christians and the enemies of the Faith either believing these were the practices of all Christians or being desirous to have others think so did accuse the whole Body of Christians as guilty of these abominations So that it appears those Calumnies were not at all taken up from the Eucharist and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the Eucharist charged on the Christians we may well conclude from hence that this Doctrine was not received then in the Church But another Negative argument is That we find Heresies rising up in all Ages against all the other Mysteries of our Faith and some downright denying them others explaining them very strangely and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt mind to reject all Divine Revelation more particularly that which either choakes his common notions or the deductions of appearing reasonings but most of all all men are apt to be startled when they are told They must believe against the clearest evidences of sense for men were never so meek and tame as easily to yeild to such things How comes it then that for the first seven Ages there were no Heresies nor Hereticks about this We are ready to prove that from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries in which this Doctrine began to appear there has been in every Age great opposition made to all the advances for setting it up and yet these were but dark and unlearned Ages in which implicite obedience and a blind subjection to what was generally proposed was
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
not innovate any thing in the Doctrine of the Church But it is plain these they brought only as a confirmation of their Arguments and not as the chief strength of their Cause for as they do not drive up the Tradition to the Apostles days setting only down some later testimonies so they make no inferences from them but barely set them down By which it is evident all the use they made of these was only to shew that the â—aith of the age that preceded them was conform to the proofs they brought from Scriptures but did not at all found the strength of their Arguments from Scripture upon the sense of the Fathers that went before them And if the Council of Nice had passed the Decree of adding the Consubstantials to the Creed upon evidence brought from Tradition chiefly can it be imagined that S. Athanasius who knew well on what grounds they went having born so great a share in their consultations and debates when he in a formal Treatise justifies that addition should draw his chief Arguments from Scripture and natural Reason and that only towards the end he should 〈◊〉 us of four Writers from whom he brings passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing In the end when the Council had passed their Decree does the method of their dispute alter Let any read Athanasius Hilâ—ry or St. Austin writing against the Arrians They continue still to ply them with Arguments made up of consequences from Scripture and their chief Argument was clearly a consequenco from Scripture that since Christ was by the confession of the Arrians truly God then he must be of the same substance otherwise there must be more substances and so more Gods which was against Scripture Now if this be not a consequence from Scripture let every body judg It was on this they chiefly insisted and waved the Authority of the Council of Nice which they mention very seldom or when they do speak of it it is to prove that its Decrees were according to Scripture â—or proof of this let us hear what St. Austin says writing against Maximinus an Arrianâ—ishop â—ishop proving the Consubstantiality of the Son This is that Consubstanâ—ial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Counâ—il of Nice against the Arrians by the authority of Truth and the truth of Authority which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow under the Heretical Emperor Constantius because of the newness of tâ—e words which were not so well understood as should have been Since the ancient Faith had brought them forth but many were abused by the fraud of a few And a little after he adds But now neither should I bring the Council of Nice nor yet the Council of Arimini thereby to prejudg in this matter neither am I bound by the authority of the latter nor you by the authority of the former Let one Cause and Reason contest and strive with the other from the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses common to both and not proper to either of us If this be not our plea as formally as can be let every Reader judg from all which we conclude That our method of proving Articles of Faith by Consequences drawn from Scripture is the same that the Catholick Church in all the best ages made use of And therefore it is unreasonable to deny it to us But all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative Evidence if we find that this very pretence of appealing to formal words of Scriptures was on several occasions taken up by divers Hereticks but was always rejected by the Fathers as absurd and unreasonable The first time we find this plea in any bodies mouth is upon the Question Whether it was lawful for Christians to go to the Theaters or other publick spectacles which the Fathers set themselves mightily against as that which would corrupt the minds of the people and lead them to heathenish Idolatry But others that loved those diverting fights pleaded for them upon this ground as Tertullian tells us in these words The Faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous calls for an authority from Scripture for the discharge of these sights and they became uncertain about it because such abstinence is no-where denounced to the servants of God neither by a clear signification nor by name as Thou shalt not kill Nor worship an Idol But he proves it from the first Verse of the Psalms for though that seems to belong to the Jews yet says he the Scripture is always to be divided broad where that discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us And this agrees with that Maxim he has elsewhere That the words of Scripture are to be understood not only by their sound but by their sense and are not only to be heard with our ears but with our minds In the next place the Arrians designed to shroud themselves under general expressions and had found glosses for all passages of Scripture So that when the Council of Nice made all these ineffectual by putting the word Consubstantial into the Creed then did they in all their Councils and in all disputes set up this plea That they would submit to every thing was in Scripture but not to any additions to Scripture A large account of this we have from Athanasins who gives us many of their Creeds In that proposed at Arimini these words were added to the Symbole For the word Substance because it was simply set down by the Fathers and is not understood by the people but breeds scandal since the Scriptures have it not therefore we have thought fit it be left out and that there be no more mention made of Substance concerning God since the Scriptures no-where speak of the Substance of the Father and the Son He also tells us that at Sirmium they added words to the same purpose to their Symbole rejecting the words of Substance or Consubstantial because nothing is written of them in the Scriptures and they transcend the knowledg and understanding of men Thus we see how exactly the Plea of the Arrians agrees with what is now offered to be imposed on us But let us next see what the Father says to this He first turns it back on the Arrians and shews how far they were from following that Rule which they imposed on others And if we have not as good reason to answer those so who now take up the same Plea let every one judg But then the Father answers it was no matter though one used forms of speech that were not in Scripture if he had still a sound or pious understanding as on the contrary a heretical person though he uses forms out of Scripture he will not be the less suspected if his understanding be corrupted and at full length applies that to the Question of the Consubstantiality To the same purpose St. Hilary setting down the arguments of
a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls we shall neither believe without the Word nor speak without Faith Now I challenge every Reader to consider if any thing can be devised that more formally and more nervously-overthrows all the pretences brought for this appeal to the express words of Scripture And here I stop for though I could carry it further and shew that other Hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext Yet I think all Impartial Readers will be satisfied when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand Heresies condemned by the first four General Councils And from all has been said it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been bafled by Universal Councils and Fathers Yet I cannot leave this with the Reader without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered The first is that which these Gentlemen would impose on us has been the plea of the greatest Hereticks have been in the Church Those therefore who take up these weapons of Hereticks which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands by the most Universal Councils and the most Learned Fathers of the Catholick Church till at length they were laid aside by all men as unfit for any service till in this age some Jesuits took them up in defence of an often bafled Cause do very unreasonably pretend to the Spirit or Doctrine of Catholicks since they tread a path so oft beaten by all Hereticks and abhorred by all the Orthodox Secondly we find the Fathers always begin their answering this pretence of Hereticks by shewing them how many things they themselves believed that were no-where written in Scripture And this I believe was all the ground M. W. had for telling us in our Conference that St. Austin bade the Heretick read what he said I am confident that Gentleman is a man of Candour and Honour and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy as to have cited this for such a purpose if he had not taken it on trust from second hands But he who first made use of it if he have no other Authority of St. Austin's which I much doubt cannot be an honest man who because St. Austin to shew the Arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they believed urges them with this that they could not read all that they believed themselves would from that conclude St. Austin thought every Article of Faith must be read in so many words in Scripture This is such a piece of Ingenuity as the Jesuits used in the Contest about St. Austin's Doctrine concerning the efficacy of Grace When they cited as formal passages out of St. Austin some of the Objections of the Semipelagians which he sets down and afterwards answers which they brought without his answers as his words to shew he was of their side But to return to our purpose from this method of the Fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words back on those who make use of it against us and to ask them where do they read their Purgatory Sacrifice of the Mass Tranâ—uâ—â—slantiation the Pope's Supremacy with a great many more things in the express words of Scripture Thirdly we see the peremptory answer the Fathers agree in is that we must understand the Scriptures and draw just consequences from them and not stand on words or phrases but consider things And from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us It is in those great Saints Athanasius Hilary Gregory Nazianzen Austin and Theodoret that they will find out answer as fully and formally as need be and to them we refer our selves But Fourthly To improve this beyond the particular occasion that engaged us to all this enquiry we desire it be considered then when such an objection was made which those of the Church of Rome judg is strong to prove we must rely on somewhat else than Scripture either on the Authority of the Church or on the certainty of Tradition The first Councils and Fathers had no such apprehension All considering men chiefly when they are arguing a nice Point speak upon some hypothesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed and must certainly discourse consequently to it To instance it in this particular If an Objection be made against the drawing consequences from Scripture since all men may be mistaken and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings A Papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say it is true any man may err but the whole Church either when assembled in a Council with the Holy Ghost in the midst of them or when they convey down from the Apostles through age to age the Tradition of the Exposition of the Scriptures cannot err for God will be with them to the end of the World A Protestant must on the other hand according to his Principles argue that since man has a reasonable soul in him he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making Inferences And when any consequence is apparent to our understandings we ought and must believe it as much as we do that from which the consequence is drawn Therefore we must not only read but study to understand the true meaning of Scripture And we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the Scriptures if we find the Church of God in the purest times and the Fathers believing as we believe If we should hear two persons that were unknown to us argue either of these two ways we must conclude the one is a Papist the other a Protestant as to this particular Now I desire the Reader may compare what has been cited from the Fathers upon this subject And see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles Whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine that in seeking out the decision of all Controversies the Fathers went by the same Rules we go by to wit the clear sense of Scriptures as it must appear to every considering mans understanding backed with the opinion of the Fathers that went before them And thus far have I followed this Objection and have as I hope to every Readers satisfaction made it out that there can be nothing more unreasonable more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church to the nature of the soul of man to the use and â—nd of words and discourse to the practice of Christ and his Apostles to the constant sense of the Primitive Church and that upon full and often renewed Contest with Hereticks upon this very head Then to impose on us an Obligation to read all the Articles of our Church in the express words of Scripture So that I am confident this will appear to every considering
by seven or eight ages was contrary to Transubstantiation which we sent to the Lady on the seventeenth of April to be communicated to them And therefore though our Conference was generally talked of and all Persons desired an account of it might be published yet we did delay it till we should hear from them And meeting on the twenty ninth of April with him who is marked N. N. in the account of the Conference I told him the foolish talk was made by their Party about this Conference had set so many on us who all called to us to print the account of it that we were resolved on it But I desired he might any time between and Trinity Sunday bring me what exceptions He or the other Gentlemen had to the account we sent them which he confessed he had seen So I desired that by that day I might have what additions they would make either of what they had said but was forgot by us or what they would now add upon second thoughts but longer I told him I could not delay the publishing it I desired also to know by that time whether they intended any answer to the Account we sent them of the Doctrine of the Fathers about Transubstantiation He confessed he had seen that Paper But by what he then said it seemed they did not think of any answer to it And so I waited still expecting to hear from him At length on the twentieth of May N. N came to me and told me some of these Gentlemen were out of Town and so he would not take on him to give any thing in writing yet he desired me to take notice of some particulars he mentioned which I intreated he would write down that he might not complain of my misrepresenting what he said This he declined to do so I told him I would set it down the best way I could and desired him to call again that he might see if I had written it down faithfully which he promised to do that same afternoon and was as good as his word and I read to him what is subjoined to the relation of the conference which he acknowledged was a faithful account of what he had told me I have considered it I hope to the full so that it gave me more occasion of canvassing the whole matter And thus the Reader will find a great deal of reason to give an entire credit to this relation since we have proceeded in it with so much candor that it is plain we intended not to abuse the credulity of any but were willing to offer this account to the censure of the adverse party and there being nothing else excepted against it that must needs satisfy every reasonable man that all is true that he has here offered to his perusal And if these Gentlemen or any of their friends publish different or contrary Relations of this Conference without that fair and open way of procedure which we have observed towards them we hope the Reader will be so just as to consider that our method in publishing this account has been candid and plain and looks like men that were doing an honest thing of which they were neither afraid nor ashamed which cannot in reason be thought of any surreptitious account that like a work of darkness may be let fly abroad without the name of any person to answer for it on his Conscience or reputation and that at least he will suspend his belief till a competent time be given to shew what mistake or errors any such relation may be guilty of We do not expect the Reader shall receive great Instructions from the following Conference for the truth is we met with nothing but shufling So that he will find when ever we came to discourse closely to any head they very dextrously went off from it to another and so did still shift off from following any thing was suggested But we hope every Reader will be so just to us as to acknowledge it was none of our fault that we did not canvass things more exactly for we proposed many things of great Importance to be discoursed on but could never bring them to fix on any thing And this did fully satisfy the Lady T. when she saw we were ready to have justified our Church in all things but that they did still decline the entering into any matter of weight So that it appeared both to her and the rest of the company that what boastings soever they spread about as if none of us would or durst appear in a conference to vindicate our Church all were without ground and the Lady was by the blessing of God further confirmed in the truth in which we hope God shall continue her to her lifes end But we hope the letter and the two discourses that follow will give the Reader a more profitable entertainment In the letter we give many short hints and set down some select passages of the Fathers to shew they did not believe Transubstantiation Upon all which we are ready to join issue to make good every thing in that paper from which we believe it is apparent the primitive Church was wholly a stranger to Transubstantiation It was also judged necessary by some of our Friends that we should to purpose and once for all expose and discredit that unreasonable demand of shewing all the Articles of our Church in the express words of Scripture upon which the first discourse was written And it being found that no answer was made to what N. N. said to shew that it was not possible the Doctrine of Transubstantiation could have crept into any age if those of that age had not had it from their Fathers and they from theirs up to the Apostles dayes this being also since our Conference laid home to me by the same person it was thought fit to give a full account how this Doctrine could have been brought into the Church that so a change â—ay appear to have been not only possible but also probable and therefore the second discourse was written If these discourses have not that full finishing and life which the Reader would desire he must regrate his misfortune in this that the person who was best able to have written them and given them all possible advantages out of that vast stock of learning and judgment 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
person the most trifling and pitiful Objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason And therefore it is hoped that all persons who take any care of their souls will examine things more narrowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them or to be shaken by such Objections And if all the scruple these Gentlemen have why they do not joyn in Communion with the Church of Eâ—glâ—nd lies in this we expect they shall find it so entirely satisfied and removed out of the way that they shall think of returning back to that Church where they had their Baptism and Christian Education and which is still ready to receive them with open arms and to restore such as have been over-reached into Error and Heresy with the spirit of meekness To which I pray God of his great mercy dispose both them and all others who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest Church upon Earth and have turned over to a most impure and corrupt Society And let all men say Amen A Discourse to shew that it was not only possible to change the Belief of the Church concerning the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament but that it is very reasonable to conclude both that it might be done and that it was truly changed THere is only one Particular of any importance that was mentioned in the Conference to which we forgot to make any Answer at all which was spoken by N.N. to this purpose How was it possible or to be imagined that the Church of God could ever have received such a Doctrine as the belief of Transubstantiation if every age had not received it and been instructed in it by their Fathers and the Age that went before it This by a pure forgetfulness was not answered and one of these Gentlemen took notice of it to me meeting with me since that time and desired me to consider what a friend of N. N. has lately printed on this Subject in a Letter concerning Transubstantiation Directed to a Person of Honour In which a great many pretended Impossibilities of any such Innovation of the Doctrine are reckoned up to shew it a thing both inconceivable and unpracticable to get the Faith of the Church changed in a thing of this nature This same Plea has been managed with all the advantages possible both of Wit Eloquence and Learning by Mr. Arnaud of the Sorbon but had been so exposed and baffled by Mr. Claud who as he equals the other in Learning Eloquence and Wit so having much the better of him in the Cause and Truth he vindicates has so foiled the other in this Plea that he seeing no other way to preserve that high reputation which his other Writings and the whole course of his Life had so justly acquired him has gone off from the main Argument on which they begun and betaken himself to a long and unprofitable Enquiry into the belief of the Greek Church since her schisme from the Latine Church The Contest has been oft renewed and all the ingenious and learned persons of both sides have looked on with great expectations Every one must confess M. Arnaud has said all can be said in such a Cause yet it seems he finds himself often pinched by the bitter I had almost said scurrilous reproaches he casts on Mr. Claud which is very unbecoming the Education and other noble Qualities of that great man whom for his Book of Frequent Communion I shall ever honour And it is a thing much to be lamented that he was taken off from these more useful Labours wherein he was engaged so much to the bettering this Age both in discovering the horrid corruption of the Jesuits and other Casuists not only in their Speculations about Casuistical Divinity but in their hearing Confessions and giving easie Absolutions upon trifling Penances and granting Absolutions before the Penance was performed and in representing to us the true Spirit of Holiness and Devotion was in the Primitive Church But on the other hand as Mr. Claud leaves nothing unsaid in a method fully answerable to the excellence of that truth he defends so he answers these reproaches in a way worthy of himself or rather of Christ and the Gospel If those excellent Writings were in English I should need to say nothing to a point that has been so canvassed but till some oblige this Nation by translating them I shall say so much on this Head as I hope shall be sufficient to convince every body of the emptiness weakness and folly of this Plea And first of all In a matter of fact concerning a change made in the Belief of the Church the only certain method of enquiry is to consider the Doctrine of the Church in former Ages and to compare that with what is now received and if we see a difference between these we are sure there has been a change though we are not able to shew by what steps it was made nay though we could not so much as make it appear probable that such a change could be made To instance this in a plain case of the change of the English Language since the dayes of William the Conqueror that there has no such swarm of Foreigners broke in upon this Island as might change our Language One may then argue thus Every one speaks the Language he heard his Parents his Nurses and others about him speak when he was a Child and this he continues to speak all his life and his Children speak as they heard him speak Upon which a man of wit and phancy might say a great many things to shew it impossible any such change should ever have been made as that we now should speak so as not to understand what was said five or six hundred years ago Yet if I find Chaucer or any much ancienter Book so written that I can hardly make a shift to understand it from thence without any further reasoning how this could be brought about I naturally must conclude our Language is altered And if any man should be so impertinent as to argue that could not be for Children speak as their Nurses and Parents taught them I could hardly answer him in patience but must tell him it is altered without more ado If a Child were amused with such pretended Impossibilities I would tell him that Strangers coming among us and our travelling to parts beyond the Seas made us acquainted with other Languages and Englishmen finding in other Tongues some words and phrases which they judged more proper than any they had being also fond of new words there was an insensible change made in every Age which after five or six Ages is more discernable Just so if I find most of all the Fathers either delivering their Opinions clearly in this matter against the Doctrine of the Roman Church or saying things utterly inconsistent with it I am sure there has been a change made though I could not shew either the whole progress of
great opposition except what was made in Bohemia Next to this let us consider how naturally all men are apt to be fond of their Children and not to suffer any thing to be denied them by which they conceive they are advantaged Upon which one may reckon once we are sure it was the universally received custom for many Ages over the whole Latine Church that all Children had the Eucharist given them immediately after they were baptized And the Rubrick of the Roman Missal ordered they should not be suffered to suck after they were baptized before they had the Eucharist given them except in cases of necessity This Order is believed to be a work of the eleventh Century so lately was this thought necessary in the Roman Church All men know how careful most Parents even such as have not much Religion themselves are that nothing be wanting about their Children and it was thought simply necessary to salvation that all persons had the Eucharist How many imaginary difficulties may one imagine might have obstructed the changing this Custom One would expect to hear of tumults and stirs and an universal conspiracy of all men to save this Right of their Children Yet Hugo de Sancto Victore tells us how it was wearing out in his time and we find not the least opposition made to the taking it away A third thing to which it is not easie to apprehend how the Vulgar should have consented was the denying them that right of Nature and Nations that overy body should worship God in a known Tongue In this Island the Saxons had the Liturgy in their Vulgar Tongue and so it was also overall the world And from this might not one very justly reckon up many high improbabilities to demonstrate the setting up the Worship in an unknown Tongue could never be brought about and yet we know it was done In end I shall name only one other particular which seems very hard to be got changed which yet we are sure was changed This was the popular Elections of the Bishops and Clergy which as is past dispute were once in the hands of the people and yet they were got to part with them and that at a time when Church-preferments were raised very high in all secular advantages so that it may seem strange they should then have been wrought upon to let go a thing which all men are naturally inclined to desire an interest in and so much the more if the dignity or riches of the function be very considerable and yet though we meet in Church-History many accounts of tumults that were in those Elections while they were in the peoples hands yet I remember of no tumults made to keep them when they were taken out of their hands And now I leave it to every Readers Conscience if he is not perswaded by all the conjectures he can make of Mankind that it is more hard to conceive how these things that have been named of which the people had clear possession were struck out than that a speculative Opinion how absurd soever was brought in especially in such Ages as these were in which it was done This leads me to the next thing which is to make some reflexions on those Ages in which this Doctrine crept into the Church As long as the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost continued in the Church the simplicity of those that preached the Gospel was no small confirmation of that authority that accompanied them so that it was more for the honour of the Gospel that there were no great Scholars or Disputants to promote it But when that ceased it was necessary the Christian Religion should be advanced by such rational means as are suitable to the Soul of man If it had begun only upon such a foundation men would not have given it a hearing but the Miracles which were at first wrought having sufficiently allarm'd the world so that by them were inclined to hearken to it Then it was to be tried by those Rules of Truth and Goodness which lie engraven on all mens Souls And therefore it was necessary those who defended it should both understand it well and likewise know all the secrets of Heathenism and of the Greek Philosophy A knowledge in these being thus necessary God raised up among the Philosophers divers great persons such as Justin Clement Origen and many others whose minds being enlightned with the knowledge of the Gospel as well as endued with all other humane Learning they were great supports to the Christian Religion Afterwards many Heresies being broached about the Mysteries of the Faith chiefly those that relate to the Son of God and his Incarnation upon which followed long contests for managing these a full understanding of Scripture was also necessary and that set all persons mightily to the study of the Scriptures But it is not to be denied great corruptions did quickly break in when the Persecutions were over and the Church abounded in peace and plenty not but that the Doctrine was preserved pure long after that There were also many shining Lights and great Fathers in that and in the following Age yet from the Fathers of these two Ages and from the great disorders were in some of their Councils as in the case of Athanasiaus and the second Ephesin Council we may clearly see how much they were degenerating from the primitive purity Many Contests were about the precedency of their Sees great Ambition and Contention appeared in their Synods which made Nazianzen hate and shun them expecting no good from them These and such like things brought very heavy Judgments and Plagues on the Church and the whole Roman Empire in the fifth Century For vast swarms of Armies out of Germany and the Northern Nations brake in upon the Western Empire and by a long succession of new Invaders all was sackt and ruined The Goths were followed by the Vandals the Alains the Gepides the Franks the Sweves the Huns and in the end the Lombards Those Nations were for the greatest part Arrians but all were barbarous and rude and their hatred of the Faith joyned to the barbarity of their tempers set them with a strange fury on destroying the most sacred things And to that we owe the loss of most of the primitive Writings and of all the authentical Records of the first Persecutions scarce any thing remaining but what Eusebius had before gathered together out of a former destruction was made of such things under Diocletian Nor did the Glory of the Eastern Empire long survive the Western that fell before these Invaders But in Europe by the Impression of the Bulgars and in Asia by the Conquests made first by the Saracens then by the Turks their Greatness was soon broken though it lasted longer under that oppressed condition than the other had done Thus was both the Greek and the Latine Church brought under sad oppression and much misery And every body knows that the natural effect that state of
this advantage that no former Decision had been made against them for none ever thought of condemning any Heresie before it had a being Secondly This Errour did in the outward found agree with the words of the Institution and the forms used in the former Liturgies in which the Elements were said to be changed into the true and undefiled Body of Christ. A Doctrine then that seemed to establish nothing contrary to the ancient Liturgies might easily have been received in an Age in which the outward sound and appearance was all they looked to Thirdly The passage from the believing any thing in general with an indistinct and confused apprehension to any particular way of explaining it is not at all hard to be conceived especially in an Age that likes every thing the better the more mysterious it seem In the preceding Ages it was in general received that Christ was in the Sacrament and that by the Consecration the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood And although many of the Fathers did very formally explain in what sense Christ was present and the Elements were changed yet there having been no occasion given to the Church to make any formal decision about the manner of it every one thought he was left at liberty to explain it as he pleased And we may very reasonably suppose that many did not explain it at all especially in these Ages in which there was scarce any preaching or instructing the people By this means the people did believe Christ was in the Sacrament and that the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood without troubling themselves to examin how it was whether spiritually or corporally Things being brought to this in these Ages by the carelesness of the Clergy the people were by that sufficiently disposed to believe any particular manner of that presence or change their Pastors might offer to them Fourthly There being no visible change made in any part of the Worship when this Doctrine was first brought in it was easie to innovate in these Ages in which people looked only at things that were visible and sensible Had they brought in the Adoration Processions or other consequences of this Doctrine along with it it was like to have made more noise for people are apt to be startled when they see any notable change in their Worship But this belief was first infufed in the people and Berengarius was condemned The Council of Lateran had also made the Decree about it before ever there were any of these signal alterations attempted And after that was done then did Honorius decree the adoration and Urban the fourth upon some pretended Visions of Eve Julian and Isabella did appoint the Feast of the Body of Christ called now generally The Feast of God or Corpus Christi Feast which was confirmed by Pope Clement the fifth in the Council of Vienna and ever since that time they have been endeavouring by all the devices possible to encrease the devotion of the people to the Hoft So that Mr. Arnaud in many places acknowledges they are most gross Idolaters if their Doctrine be not true which I desire may be well considered since it is the opinion of one of the most considering and wisest and most learned persons of that Communion who has his whole life set his thoughts chiefly to the examining of this Sacrament and knows as well as any man alive what is the real sense of the Worshippers in that Church But to return to that I am about it is very unreasonable to think that the people in those dark Ages did concern themselves in the speculative opinions were among Divines so that the vulgar could not busie themselves about it but when this Opinion was decreed and generally received and infused in the Laity for almost one age together then we need not wonder to see notable alterations following upon it in their worship without any opposition or contest for it was very reasonable such Consequences should have followed such a Doctrine But that before that time there was no adoration of the Elements is a thing so clear that it is impudence to deny it there was no prostration of the body or kneeling to be made either on Lords dayes or all the time between Easter and Pentecost by the twentieth Canon of the Council of Nice None of the ancient Liturgies do so much as mention it but the contrary is plainly insinuated by S. Cyril of Ierusalem None of that great number of Writers about Divine Offices that lived in the seventh eighth ninth and tenth Centuries published by Hittorpius so much as mention it Though they be very particular in giving us an account of the most inconsiderable parts of the Divine Offices and of all the circumstances of them Honorius when he first decreed it does not alledge presidents for it but commands the Priests to tell the people to do it whereas if it had been appointed before he must rather have commanded the Priests to have told the people of their sacrilegious contempt of the Body of Christ notwithstanding the former Laws and Practice of the Church But it is apparent his way of enjoyning it is in the style of one that commands a new thing and not that sets on the execution of what was formerly used Yet this was more warily appointed by Honorius who enjoyned only an inclination of the Head to the Sacrament but it was set up bare faced by his Successor Gregory the ninth who appointed as the Historians tell us though it be not among his Decretals a Bell to be rung to give notice at the consecration and elevation that all who heard it might kneel and joyn their hands in adoring the Host. So that any passages of the Fathers that speak of Adoration or Veneration to the Sacrament must either be understood of the inward Adoration the Communicant offers up to God the Father and his blessed Son in the commemoration of so great a mystery of Love as appeared in his death then represented and remembred Or these words are to be taken in a large sense and so we find they usually called the Gospels their Bishops Baptism the Pascha and almost all other sacred things venerable And thus from many particulars it is apparent that the bringing in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no unaccountable thing But I shall pursue this yet further for the Readers full satisfaction and shew the steps by which this Doctrine was introduced We find in the Church of Corinth the receiving the Sacrament was looked on but as a common entertainment and was gone about without great care or devotion which S. Paul charges severely on them and tells them what heavy judgments had already fallen on them for such abuses and that heavier ones might be yet looked for since they were guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord by their unworthy receiving Upon this the whole Christian Church was set to consider in very good earnest how to
doe 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 Antitypes by the Fathers only before the consecration and not after in which they followed Damascene 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 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 Bellarmine 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 slow 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 Maurâ—s 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 sayes 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 Abbot 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 sayes 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 Latine 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 famed and esteemed and way in which he writes is solid and worthy of the reputation he had acquired He proves both from the words of Institution and from S. Paul that the Sacrament 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 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 Tonguâ—s which was a rare thing in that Age. This Erigena did formally refute Paschase's Opinion 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 chalenge 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 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 two hundred 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 Towrs 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 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 chast that he would not look at a beautiful 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 And William of Malmesbury 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 Lanfranke upbraids him not for love of the Truth but for fear of Death which shewes 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 ninth 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 eleventh Century upon its being defended it was condemned Can there be therefore any thing more plain than that there was a change made and that what in the one Age was taught by a grea number of writers without any censure upon it was in another Age anathematized Is there not then here a clear change And what has been done was certainly possible from whence we conclude with all the justice and reason in the world that a change was not only possible but was indeed made And yet the many repeated condemnations of Berengarius shew his Doctrine was too deeply rooted in the minds of that Age to be very easily suppressed for to the end of the eleventh Century the Popes continued to condemn his Opinions even after his death In the beginning of the twelfth Century Honorius of Autun who was a considerable man in that Age did clearly assert the Doctrine of the Sacraments nourishing our Bodies and is acknowledged by Thomas Waldensis to have been a follower of Berengarius his Heresie And about the eighteenth year of that Age that Doctrine was embraced by great numbers in the South of France who were from their several Teachers called Petrobrusians Henricians Waldenses and from the Countrey where their numbers were greatest Albigenses whose Confession dated the year 1120 bears That the eating of the Sacramental Bread was the eating of Iesus Christ in a figure Jesus Christ having said as oft as ye do this do it in remembrance of me It were needless to engage in any long account of these people the Writers of those times have studied to represent them in as hateful and odious Characters as it was possible for them to devise and we have very little remaining that they wrote Yet as the false Witnesses that were suborned to lay heavy things to our Blessed Saviour's Charge could not agree among themselves so for all the spite with which these Writers prosecute those poor Innocents there are such noble Characters given even by these enemies of their piety their simplicity their patience constancy and other virtues that as the Apologists for Christianity do justly glory in the testimonies Pliny Lucian Tacitus Iosephus and other declared Enemies give so any that would study to redeem the memory of those multitudes from the black aspersions of their foul-mouthed Enemies would find many passages among them to glory much in on their behalf which are much more to be considered than those virulent Calumnies with which they labour to blot their Memories But neither the death of Peter de Bruis who was burnt nor