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 like wise 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 Ladyship 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 knowledge 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 Abundance of his Grace on your Ladyship to make you still continue in the Love and Obedience of the Truth is the earnest Prayer of MADAM Your Ladyship 's most Humble Servants Edward Stillingfleet Gilbert Burnet London Apr. 15. 1676. A DISCOURSE To shew How unreasonable it is To ask for Express Words of Scripture in proving all Articles of Faith And that a just and good Consequence from Scripture is sufficient IT will seem a very needless Labour to all considering Persons to go about the exposing and baffling so unreasonable and ill-grounded a Pretence That whatever is not read in Scripture is not to be held an Article of Faith For in making good this Assertion they must either fasten their Proofs on some other Ground or on the words of our Article which are these Holy Scripture containeth all Things necessary to Salvation 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 Now it is such an Affront to every Mans Eyes and Understanding to infer from these Words That all our Articles must be read in Scripture that we are confident every Man will cry Shame on any that will pretend to fasten on our Church any such Obligation from them If these unlucky Words Nor may be proved thereby could be but dash'd out it were a won Cause But we desire to know what they think can be meant by these Words or what else can they signify but that there may be Articles of Faith which though they be not read in Scripture yet are proved by it There be some Propositions so equivalent to others that they are but the same thing said in several Words and these though not read in Scripture yet are contained in it since wheresoever the one is read the other must necessarily be understood Other Propositions there are which are a necessary result either from two places of Scripture which joined together yield a third as a necessary Issue according to that eternal Rule of Reason and Natural Logick That where-ever two Things agree in any Third they must also agree among Themselves There be also other Propositions that arise out of one single place of Scripture by a natural Deduction as if Jesus Christ be proved from any place of Scripture the Creator of the World or that He is to be worshipped with the same Adoration that is due to the Great God then it necessarily follows that He is the Great God because He does the Works and receives the Worship of the Great God So it is plain that our Church by these Words Nor may be proved thereby has so declared Her self in this Point that it is either very great want of Consideration or shameless Impudence to draw any such thing from our Articles But we being informed that by this little Art as shuffling and bare so ever as it must appear to a just Discerner many have been disordered and some prevailed on We shall so open and expose it that we hope it shall appear so poor and trifling that every Body must be ashamed of it It hath already shewed it self in France and Germany and the Novelty of it took with many till it came to be canvassed and then it was found so weak that it was universally cried down and hiss'd off the Stage But now that such decried Wares will go off no-where those that deal in them try if they can vent them in this Nation It might be imagined that of all Persons in the World they should be the furthest from pressing us to reject all Articles of Faith that are not read in Scripture since whenever that is received as a Maxim The Infallibility of their Church the Authority of Tradition the Supremacy of Rome the Worship of Saints with a great many more must be cast out It is unreasonable enough for those who have cursed and excommunicated us because we reject these Doctrines which are not so much as pretended to be read in Scripture to impose on us the reading all our Articles in these holy Writings But it is impudent to hear Persons speak thus who have against the express and formal Words of Scripture set up the making and worshipping of Images and these not only of Saints though that be bad enough but of the Blessed Trinity the praying in an unknown Tongue and the taking the Chalice from the People Certainly this Plea in such Mens Mouths is not to be reconciled to the most common rules of Decency and Discretion What shall we then conclude of Men that would impose Rules on us that neither themselves submit to nor are we obliged to receive by any Doctrine or Article of our Church But to give this their Plea its full Strength and Advantage that upon a fair hearing all may justly conclude its Unreasonableness we shall first set down all can be said for it In the Principles of Protestants the Scriptures are the Rule by which all Controversies must be judged Now they having no certain way to direct them in the Exposition of them neither Tradition nor the Definition of the Church Either they must pretend they are Infallible in their Deductions or we have no reason to make
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
meaning of this by and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every Place Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place we must judge of it by the rules of common Sense and Reason of Religion and Piety and if a meaning be affixed to any Place contrary to these we have good reason to reject it For we knowing all external things only by our Senses by which only the Miracles and Resurrection of Christ could be proved which are the means God has given us to converse with and enjoy his whole Creation and evidence our senses give being such as naturally determines our Perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroys all our Conceptions of things is contrary to the most universally receiv'd Maxims subverts the Notions of matter and accidents and in a word confounds all our clearest Apprehensions we must also reject every such gloss since it contradicts the evidence of that which is God's Image in us If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious Exaltation of the humane Nature of our blessed Saviour we have very just reasons to reject it even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture therefore this Dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's Words he that shews best Reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to Truth does all that is necessary in this case But after all this we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was Bread that Christ took blessed brake and gave his Disciples Now the Scripture calling it formally bread destroys Transubstantiation Christ said This is my Body which are declarative and not imperative words such as Let there be light or Be thou whole Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true as is most clear therefore Christ pronounces what the Bread was become by his former blessing which did sanctifie the Elements and yet after that blessing it was still bread Again the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it so that Christ's words Do this in remembrance of me shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living Commemoration and Communication of his Body and Blood Farther Christ telling us it was his Body that was given for us and his Blood shed for us which we there receive it is apparent he is to be understood present in the Sacrament not as he is now exalted in Glory but as he was on the Cross when his Blood was shed for us And in fine if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews all this will be more easily understood for it was ordinary for them to call the Symbol by the Name of the Original it represented So they called the Cloud between the Cherubims God and Iehovah according to these words O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims and all the symbolical Apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be the Lord appearing to them But that which is more to this purpose is that the Lamb that was the symbol and memorial of their Deliverance out of Egypt was called the Lord's Passover Now though the Passover then was only a Type of our Deliverance by the Death of Christ yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in Egypt as really a Representation of it as the Sacrament is of the Death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood though they were not so corporally but only mystically and sacramentally than that Moses called the Lamb the Lord 's Passover So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbol and Type by the Name of the Substance and Original Therefore our Saviour's Words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful Expression to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech in that Age People and Place in which such Phrases were used This is signally confirmed by the Account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures First he says it stands in its natural signification for receiving bodily Food Then because there are two things done in eating the first is the destruction of that which is eaten so that it loseth its first form the other is the increase and nourishment of the substance of the Person that eats therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the Language of the Scriptures the one is destruction and desolation so the Sword is said to eat or as we render it to devour so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants and so Fire is said to eat or consume The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom Learning and all Intellectual Apprehensions by which the form or soul of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them as the body is preserved by food For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament as Isa. 55. 2. come buy and eat and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom eating and cites some of their Sayings as come and eat flesh in which there is much fat and that whenever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law So also Wisdom is often called Water Isa. 55. 1. and he concludes that because this sense of eating occurs so often and is so manifest and evident as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the Word therefore Hunger and Thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Understanding as Amos. 8. 21. To this he also refers that of thirsting Psal. 42. 3. and Isa. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these Words Ye shall draw water out of the Wells of Salvation renders it Ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the select ones among the Iust which is farther confirmed from the words of our Saviour Iohn 7. 37. And from these Observations of the Learnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins we see that the Iews understood the Phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this spiritual and figurative sense of receiving VVisdom and Instruction So that this being an usual form of Speech among them it is no strange thing to imagine how our Saviour being a Iew according to the Flesh and conversing with Iews did use these Terms and Phrases
in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of Reason and strong and convincing Authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christ's words This is my Body are to be understood spiritually mystically and sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. That Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with Reason and Learning to justifie all he says that no other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an Answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an Object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my Throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or convey it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this Answer to it is but mere trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an Account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOur Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the Third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial Person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions first That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The second was that after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symbols the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the body and blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced Person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the body and blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the body and the blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christ's body and blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the first we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the flesh and the blood of the Incarnate Iesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wine and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and VVine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the Father of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the World and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by Arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the body of his Lord and the Cup of his blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their Saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of Christ for says he that bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our Bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian Lib. 1. adv Marc. c. 14. proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other Proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Hony he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Lib. 3. adv Marc. c. 19. Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says Lib. 8. cont Celsum We eat of the Loaves set before us with Thanks giving and Prayers over what is given to us which by the Prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose St. Cyprian says Epist. 76. Christ calls the Bread that was compounded
Tertullian says Lib. 4. cont Marc. c. 40. Christ calls the Bread his Body and a little after he names the Bread his Body Isidore Hispal says Orig. lib. 6. c. 9. We call this after his Command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament Theodoret says Dialog 1. In the giving of the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood And says Dialog 1. He who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread and also calls himself a Vine likewise honoured these visible Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood But we now go to bring our Proofs for the next Branch of our first Proposition in which we assert That the Fathers believed that the very Substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Consecration By which all the Proofs brought in the former Branch will receive a further Evidence since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the Substance of the Elements remained and thence we may well conclude that wherever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration they mean of the Substance and not of the Accidents of Bread and Wine For proof of this we shall only bring the Testimonies of four Fathers 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. Chrysostom 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 Asia 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 in lib. de duab nat Christ. 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 enough that we ought to think that 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 Epist. ad Caesar. monach 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 Cod. 229. 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 Dialog 1. 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 Symbol and the Symbol 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 Symbols 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 Symbol and Type of his Divinity or of his Body and Blood And the other acknowledging they were the Symbols 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 Sacrament it being granted that the Gifts before the Priest's Prayer were Bread and Wine He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification the Orthodox 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 Symbols 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 he laid for others for the Mystical Symbols after the Sanctification do not depart from their own Nature for they continue in
so but that the whole Body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before and yet is not brought thither but produced there 4. That the Accidents of any Substance such as Colour Smell Taste and Figure can remain without any Body or Substance in which they subsist 5. That our Senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident Representations 6. Great Doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received or if it should come to be corrupted or to be snatched by a Mouse or eat by any Vermine All these are the natural and necessary Effects of this Doctrine and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching Understanding but are such as stare every body full in the Face and hence it is that since this was submitted to in the Western Church the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered and new Maxims and Definitions were found out to accustom the Youth while raw and easy to any Impression to receive these as Principles by which their Minds being full of those first Prejudices might find no difficulty to believe this Now it is certain had the Fathers believed this they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith and were so far from being short or defective in it that they rather over-do it and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but about Original Sin the Derivation of our Souls the Operation of the Grace of God in our Hearts and the Resurrection of our Bodies should yet have been so constantly silent in those Mysteries tho 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 Man's 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 Inferiour 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 possibly 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 Arnobius 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 Human Flesh and Thyestian 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 lie 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 Christ's Body and Blood in the
Sacrament But the truth is those horrid Calumnies were charged on the Christians from the execrable and abominable Practices 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 choaks 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 Implicit 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 Lateran there was great Opposition made to it by the most Eminent Persons in the Latin Church and how great a part of Christendom 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 Concomitants 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 Iustin Martyr and Cyril of Ierusalem in the Apostolical Constitutions and the pretended Denis the Areopagite 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 Ierusalem 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 possess his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symbols But even in his 4th 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 elsewhere a very formal Account in what Sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in this 4th Catechism 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
thought Arguments drawn from Scripture when the Consequences are clear were of sufficient Authority and Force to end all Controversies And thus it may appear that it is unreasonable and contrary to the practice both of the ancient Councils and Fathers to reject Proofs drawn from Places of Scripture though they contain not in so many Words that which is intended to be proved by them But all the Answer they can offer to this is That those Fathers and Councils had another Authority to draw Consequences from Scripture because the extraordinary Presence of God was among them and because of the Tradition of the Faith they builded their Decrees on than we can pretend to who do not so much as say we are so immediately directed or thar we found our Faith upon the successive Tradition of the several Ages of the Church To this I answer First It is visible that if there be any strength in this it will conclude as well against our using express Words of Scripture since the most express Words are capable of several Expositions Therefore it is plain they use no fair Dealing in this Appeal to the formal Words of Scripture since the Arguments they press it by do invalidate the most express Testimonies as well as Deductions Let it be further considered that before the Councils had made their Decrees when Heresies were broached the Fathers wrote against them confuting them by Arguments made up of Scripture-Consequences so that before the Church had decreed they thought private Persons might confute Heresies by such Consequences Nor did these Fathers place the strength of their Arguments on Tradition as will appear to any that reads but what St. Cyril wrote against Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus and Pope Leo against Eutyches before the Council of Chalcedon where all their Reasonings are founded on Scripture It is true they add some Testimonies of Fathers to prove they did 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 Faith of the Age that preceded them was conform to the Proofs they brought from Scripture 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 St. 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 tell 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 Hilary 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 Consequence 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 For proof of this let us hear what St. Austin says Lib. 3. Cont. Max. 19. writing against Maximinus an Arrian Bishop proving the Consubstantiality of the Son This is that Consubstantial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Council 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 the 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 Couâ—il of Nice nor yet the Council of Arrimini 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 Sights pleaded for them upon this ground as Tertullian Lib. de Spect. c. 3. 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 Iews 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 Lib. adv Gnost c. 7. 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 themseles under general Expressions and had found
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 consequenee 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 Reader 's 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 end 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 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 England 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 Heresie 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 schism 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 Mr. 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
Interest of Princes to have had the Marriage of the Clergy to be left free yet the Popes were too hard for them in it Thus were the Agents of Rome able to prevail in every thing they set then selves to So the Opposers of this Doctrine were called by the hateful names of Stercoranists and Panites Sixthly When all Religion was placed in Externals and splendid Rites and Ceremonies came to be generally looked on as the whole business of Religion peoples minds were by that much disposed to receive any thing that might introduce external pomp and grandeur into their Churches being willing to make up in an outward appearance of worshipping the Person of Christ what was wanting in their obedience to his Gospel And now I appeal to any honest Man if upon the suppositions I have laid down it be at all an unaccountable thing that a great company of ignorant and debauched Clergymen should set themselves to cherish and advance a belief which would redeem them from all the Infamy their other Vices were ready to bring upon them and they resolving on it if it was hard for them especially in a course of some Ages to get an ignorant credulous superstitious and corrupt multitude to receive it without much noise or ado I believe no man will deny but upon these suppositions the thing was very like to succeed Now that all these suppositions are true to wit that both Clergy and Laity in those Ages chiefly in the Ninth Tenth and Eleventh Centuries were ignorant and vicious to the height is a thing so generally known and so universally confessed by all their own Historians that I hardly think any man will have brow enough to deny it But there are many other things which will also shew how possible nay feasible such a change may be First This having never been condemned by a formal Decision in any former Age it was more easie to get it brought in for no Council or Father could condemn or write against any Errour but that which was maintained or abetted by some man or company of men in or before their time Since then this had not been broached in the former Ages the promoters of it had 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 sound 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 examine 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 infused in the people and Berengarius was condemned The Council of Lateran had also made the Decree about it before ever there were any of those signal alterations attempted And after that was done then did Honorius decree the adoration Greg. Decret lib. 3. tit 42. cap. 10. and Urban the fourth upon some pretended Visions of Eve Iulian 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 lib. 3. tit 16. 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 Host. 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 days 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
admonished by the Church did neglect to purge his Lands he should be first excommunicated and if he continued a year in his contempt and contumacy notice was to be given of it to the Pope who from that time forth should declare his Vassals absolved from the Fidelity they owed him and expose his Lands to be ivaded by Catholicks who might possess them without any contradiction having exterminated the Hereticks out of them and so preserve them in the purity of the Faith This Decree was made on the account of Raimond Count of Tholouse who favoured the Albigenses that were his Subjects and being a Peer of France according to the first constitution under Hugo Capet King of France was such a Prince in his own Dominions as the Princes of Germany now are He was indeed the King of France his Vassal but it is clear from the History of that time that the King of France would not interpose in that business Yet the Popes in this same Council of Lateran did by the advice of the Council give to Simon Montfort who was General of the Croissade that the Pope sent against that Prince all the Lands that were taken from the Count of Tholouse So that there was an Invasion both of the Count of Tholouse and of the King of France his Rights For if that Prince had done any thing amiss he was only accountable to the King and the other Peers of France This Decree of the Council is published by Dom. Luc. Dachery Tom. 7. Spic and Tom. 11. of the Council Print Anno 1672. p. 233. so that it is plain that the Pope got here a Council to set up Rebellion by authority against the express Rules of the Gospel This almost their whole Church accounts a General Council a few only among us excepted who know not how io approve themselves good Subjects if they own that a General Council which does so formally establish treasonable and seditious Principles For if it be true that a General Council making a definition in an Article of Faith is to be followed and submitted to by all men the same Arguments will prove that in any controverted practical opinion we ought not to trust our own Reasons but submit to the Definition of the Church for if in this Question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the Scriptures and reject this Decree why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom It is true the words of the Decree seem only to relate to Temporal Lords that were under Soveraign Princes such as the Count of Tholouse and therefore Crowned Heads need fear nothing from it But though the Decree runs chiefly against such yet there are two Clauses in it that go further one is in these words Saving always the Right of the Principal Lord provided he make no obstacle about it nor cast in any impediment Whence it plainly follows that if the Soveraign such as the King of France in the case of Tholouse did make any Obstacle he forfeited his Right The other clause is in these words The same Law being nevertheless observed about those who have no principal Lords In which are clearly included all those Soveraigns who depend and hold their Crowns immediately from God Now it is apparent the design of these words so couched was once to bring all Soveraigns under that lash before they were aware of it for had they named Emperors and Kings they might reasonably have expected great opposition from them but insinuating it so covertly it would pass the more easily Yet it is plain nothing else can be meant or was intended by it so that it is clear that the 4th Council of Lateran as it established Transubstantiation so did also Decree both Persecution and Rebellion Therefore the Reader may easily judge what account is to be made of that Council and what security any State can have of those who adhere to it Our Saviour when he states the opposition between the Children of God and the Children of the Devil he gives this for the Character of the latter that they did the works of their Father and these he mentions are Lying and Murdering We have seen sufficient evidence of the murdering Spirit which acted in that Church when this Doctrine was set up But to compleat that black Character let us look over to the Council of Constance which decreed that bold violation of the Command of Christ Drink ye all of it by taking the Chalice from the Laity And there we find Perfidy which is the basest and worst kind of Lying also established by Law For it was Decreed by them Sess. 19. That all safe Conducts notwithstanding or by what Bonds soever any Prince had engaged himself the Council was no way prejudiced and that the Iudge competent might enquire into their Errors and proceed otherwise duly against them and punish them according to Iustice if they stubbornly refuse to retract their Errours although trusting to their safe Conduct they had come to the place of Iudgment and had not come without it and Declare That whoever had promised any such thing to them having done what in him lay was under no further Obligation Upon which Sigismund broke his Faith to Iohn Hus and Ierome of Prague and they were burnt So that their Church having in General Councils Decreed both Perfidy and Cruelty it is casie to infer by what Spirit they are acted and whose Works they did If then they did the Works of the Devil who was a Liar and Murderer from the beginning they cannot be looked on as the Children of God but as the Children of the Devil If this seem too severe it is nothing but what the force of Truth draws from me being the furthest in the world from that uncharitable temper of aggravating things beyong what is just but the Truth must be heard and the Lamb of God could call the Scribes and Pharisees a Generation of Vipers and Children of the Devil Therefore if a Church be so notoriously guilty of the most Infamous Violation of all the Laws of Humanity and the security which a publick faith must needs give none is to be blamed for laying open and exposing such a Society to the just censure of all impartial persons that so every one may see what a hazard his Soul runs by engaging in the Communion of a Church that is so foully guilty for these were not personal failings but were the Decrees of an authority which must be acknowledged by them Infallible if they be true to their own principles So that if they receive these as General Councils I know not how they can clear all that Communion from being involved in the guilt of what they Decreed Thus far we hope it hath been made evident enough that there are no impossibilities in such a change of the Doctrine of the Church about this Sacrament as they imagine And that all these are but the effects of wit and fancy and
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
as our Church judged brought in the Doctrine of the corporal presence without all reason the Church made that Explanation to cast out the other so that upon the matter it was a negative He added that it was also unreasonable to ask any one place to prove a Doctrine by for the Fathers in their Proceedings with the Arrians brought a great Collection of Places which gave light to one another and all concurred to prove the Article of Faith that was in Controversie so if we brought such a consent of many Places of Scripture as proved our Doctrine all being joyned together we perform all that the Fathers thought themselves bound to do in the like case D. S. then at great length told them The Church of Rome and the Church of England differed in many great and weighty points that we were come thither to see as these Gentlemen professed they desired if we could offer good reason for them to turn Protestants and as the Ladies professed a desire to be further established in the Doctrine of the Church of England In order to which none could think it a proper Method to pick out some words in the obscure corner of an Article and call for express Scriptures for them But the fair and fit way was to examine whether the Church of England had not very good reason to separate from the Communion of the Church of Rome therefore since it was for truth in which our Souls are so deeply concerned that we enquired he desired they would joyn issue to examine either the grounds on which the Church of England did separate from the Church of Rome or the Authority by which she did it for if there was both good reason for it and if those who did it had a sufficient Authority to do it then was the Church of England fully vindicated He did appeal to all that were present if in this offer he dealt not candidly and fairly and if all other ways were not shufling Which he pressed with great earnestness as that only which could satisfie all Peoples Consciences M. W. and S. P. T. said God forbid they should speak one word for the Church of Rome they understood the danger they should run by speaking to that D. S. said He hoped they looked on us as Men of more Conscience and Honesty than to make an ill use of any thing they might say for their Church that for himself he would die rather than be guilty of so base a thing the very thought whereof he abhorred M. B. said That though the Law condemned the endeavouring to reconcile any to the Church of Rome yet their justifying their Church when put to it especially to Divines in order to satisfaction which they professed they desired could by no colour be made a Transgression And that as we engaged our Faith to make no ill use of what should be said so if they doubted any of the other Company it was S. P. his House and he might order it to be more private if he pleased S. P. said he was only to speak to the Articles of the Church of England and desired express words for that Article Upon this followed a long wrangling the same things were said over and over again In the end M. W. said They had not asked where that Article was read that they doubted of it for they knew it was in no place of Scripture in which they were the more confirmed because none was so much as alledged D. S. said Upon the terms in the sixth Article he was ready to undertake the twenty eighth Article to prove it clearly by Scripture M. W. said But there must be no Interpretations admitted of M. B. said It was certain the Scriptures were not given to us as Parrots are taught to speak words we were endued with a faculty of understanding and we must understand somewhat by every place of Scripture Now the true meaning of the words being that which God would teach us in the Scriptures which way soever that were expressed is the Doctrine revealed there and it was to be considered that the Scriptures were at first delivered ro plain and simple men to be made use of by all without distinction therefore we were to look unto them as they did and so S. Paul wrote his Epistles which were the hardest pieces of the New Testament to all in the Churches to whom he directed them M. W. said The Epistles were written upon emergent Occasions and so were for the use of the Churches to whom they were directed D. S. said Though they were written upon emergent Occasions yet they were written by Divine Inspiration and as a Rule of Faith not only for those Churches but for all Christians But as M. W. was a going to speak M. C. came in upon which we all rose up till he was set So being set after some Civilities D. S. resumed a little what they were about and told they were calling for express Scriptures to prove the Articles of our Church by M. C. said If we be about Scriptures where is the Judge that shall pass the Sentence who expounds them aright otherwise the Contest must be endless D. S. said He had proposed a matter that was indeed of weight therefore he would first shew that these of the Church of Rome were not provided of a sufficient or fit Judge of Controversies M. C. said That was not the thing they were to speak to for though we destroyed the Church of Rome all to nought yet except we built up our own we did nothing therefore he desired to hear what he had to say for our own Church he was not to meddle with the Church of Rome but to hear and be instructed if he could see reason to be of the Church of England for may be it might be somewhat in his way D. S. said He would not examine if it would be in his way to be of the Church of England or not but did heartily acknowledge with great Civility that he was a very fair dealer in what he had proposed and that now he had indeed set us in the right way and the truth was we were extream glad to get out of the wrangling we had been in before and to come to treat of matters that were of importance So after some Civilities had passed on both sides D. S. said The Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England finding a great many abuses crept into the Church particularly in the worship of God which was chiefly insisted upon in the Reformation such as the Images of the blessed Trinity the Worship whereof was set up and encouraged The turning the Devotions we ought to offer only to Christ to the blessed Virgin the Angels and Saints That the worship of God was in an unknown Tongue That the Chalice was taken from the People against the express words of the Institution That Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass were set up That our Church had good reason