out such Inferences as flow from that connexion Now though we are liable to great abuses both in our judgments and inferences yet if we apply these faculties with due care we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reasonings Otherwise this being God's Image in us and the Standard by which we are to try things God has given us a false Standard which when we have with all possible care managed yet we are still exposed to fallacies and errors This must needs reflect on the Veracity of that God that has made us of such a nature that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing Therefore it must be acknowledged that when our Reasons are well prepared according to those eternal rules of Purity and Vertue by which we are fitted to consider of Divine matters and when we carefully weigh things we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us And though we be not infallible so that it is still possible for us by precipitation or undue preparation to be abused into mistakes yet we may be well assured that such Connexions and Inferences as appear to us certain are infallibly true If this be not acknowledged then all our obligation to believe any thing in Religion will vanish For that there is a God that he made all things and is to be acknowledged and obeyed by his creatures that our souls shall outlive their union with our bodies and be capable of rewards and punishments in another state that Inspiration is a thing possible that such or such actions were above the power of nature and were really performed In a word all the Maxims on which the belief either of Natural Religion or Revealed is founded are such as we can have no certainty about them and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them if our faculty of Reasoning in its clear deductions is not a sufficient warrant for a sure belief But to examin a little more home their beloved Principle that their Church cannot err must they not prove this from the Divine Goodness and Veracity from some passages of Scripture from miracles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their Church Now in yielding assent to this Doctrine upon these proofs the mind must be led by many arguments through a great many Deductions and Inferences Therefore we are either certain of these deductions Or we are not If we are certain this must either be founded on the Authority of the Church expounding them or on the strength of the argu ms = ments Now we being to examin this Authority not having yet submitted to it this cannot determine our belief till we see good cause for it But in the discerning this good cause of believing the Church Infallible they must say that an uncontrollable evidence of reason is ground enough to fix our Faith on or there can be no certain ground to believe the Church Infallible So that it is apparent we must either receive with a firm perswasion what our souls present to us as uncontrollably true or else we have no reason to believe there is a God or to be Christians or to be as they would have us Romanists And if it be acknowledged there is cause in some cases for us to be determined by the clear evidence of Reason in its Judgments and Inferences then we have this Truth gained that our Reasons are capable of making true and certain Inferences and that we have good cause to be determined in our belief by these and therefore Inferences from Scripture ought to direct our belief Nor can any thing be pretended against this but what must at the same time overthrow all Knowledg and Faith and turn us sceptical to every thing We desire it be in the next place considered what is the end and use of speech and writing which is to make known our thoughts to others those being artificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others Now every man that speaks pertinently as he designs to be understood so he chooses such expressions and arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to and the clearer he speaks he speaks so much the better and every one that wraps up his meaning in obscure words he either does not distinctly apprehend that about which he discourses or does not design that those to whom he speaks should understand him meaning only to amuse them If likewise he say any thing from which some absurd Inference will easily be apprehended he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of prejudice against what he says For he must expect that as his Hearers senses receive his words or characters so necessarily some figure or notion must be at the same time imprinted on their imagination or presented to their reason this being the end for which he speaks and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it It must also be acknowledged that all hearers must necessarily pass judgments on what they hear if they do think it of that importance as to examine it And this they must do by that natural faculty of making judgments and deductions the certainty whereof we have proved to be the foundation of all Faith and Knowledge Now the chief rule of making true judgments is to see what consequences certainly follow on what is laid before us If these be found absurd or impossible we must reject that from which they follow as such Further because no man says every thing that can be thought or said to any point but only such things as may be the seeds of further enquiry and knowledg in their minds to whom he speaks when any thing of great importance is spoken all men do naturally consider what inferences arise out of what is said by a necessary Connexion And if these deductions be made with due care they are of the same force and must be as true as that was from which they are drawn These being some of the Laws of Converse which every man of common sense must know to be true can any man think that when God was revealing by inspired men his Counsels to mankind in matters that concerned their eternal happiness he would do it in any other way than any honest man speaks to another that is plainly and distinctly There were particular reasons why prophetical visions must needs be obscure but when Christ appeared on earth though many things were not to be fully opened till he had triumphed over death and the powers of darkness Yet his design being to bring men to God what he spoke in order to that we must think he intended that they to whom he spake it might understand it otherwise why should he have spoken it to them and if he did intend they should understand him then he must have used such expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their understandings
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
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 ourSouls are so deeply concerned that we enquired he desired they would join 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 satisfy 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 6. Article he was ready to undertake the 28. 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 Pariots 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 to 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 we 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 to judge these to be heinous abuses which did much endanger the Salvation of Souls therefore being the Pastors of the Church and being assisted in it by the Civil powers they had both good reason and sufficient authority to reform the Church from these abuses and he left it to M. C. to chuse on which of these particulars they should discourse M. B. said The Bishops and Pastors having the charge of Souls were bound to feed the flock with sound Doctrine according to the word of God So S. Paul when he charged the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock and to guard against Wolves or Seducers he commends them to the word of Gods Grace which is the Gospel
am fully perswaded that before that Council the Church did believe that the Son was truly God and of the same Divine substance with the Father Yet on the other hand it cannot be denied but there are many expressions in their Writings which they had not so well considered and thence it is that St. Basil observes how Denis in his opposition to Sabellius had gone too far on the other hand Therefore there was a necessity to make such a Symbole as might cut off all equivocal and ambiguous forms of speech So we have very good reason to conclude it was the Arrian party that studied under the pretence of not innovating to engage many of the holy but simpler Bishops to be against any new words or Symboles that so they might still lurk undiscovered Upon what grounds the Council of Nice made their Decree and Symbole we have no certain account since their Acts are lost But the best conjecture we can make is from S. Athanasius who as he was a great Assertor of the Faith in that Council so also he gives us a large account of its Creed in a particular Treatise in which he jusâ—ifies their Symbole at great length out of the Scriptures and tell us very formally they used the word Consubstantial that the wickedness and craft of the Arrians might be discovered and proves by many consequences from Scriptures that the words were well chosen and sets up his rest on his Arguments from the Scriptures though all his proofs are but consequences drawn out of them It is true when he has done that he also adds that the Fathers at Nice did not begin the use of these words but had them from those that went before them and cites some passages from Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen But no body can imagin this was a full proof of the Tradition of the Faith These were but a few later Writers nor could he have submitted the decision of the whole Controversy to two of these Denis of Alexandria and Origen for the other two their works are lost in whose Writings there were divers passages that favoured the Arrians and in which they boasted much Therefore Athanasius only cites these passages to shew the words of these Symbole were not first coined by the Council of Nice But neither in that Treatise nor in any other of his Works do I ever find that either the Council of Nice or he who was the great Champion for their Faith did study to prove the Consubstantiality to have been the constant Tradition of the Church But in all his Treatises he at full length proves it from Scripture So from the definition of the Council of Nice and Athanasius his Writings it appears the Church of that Age thought that consequences clearly proved from Scripture were a sufficient ground to build an Article of â—aith on With this I desire it be also considered that the next great Controversy that was carried on chiefly by S. Cyril against the Nestorians was likewise all managed by consequences from Scripture as will appear to any that reads S. Cyril's Writings inserted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus chiefly his Treatise to the Queens and when he brought testimonies from the Fathers against Nestoâ—ius which were read in the Council they are all taken out of Fathers that lived after the Council of Nice except only S. Cyprian and Peter of Alexandria If then we may collect from S. Cyril's Writings the sense of that Council as we did from S. Athanasius that of the Council of Nice we must conclude that their Decrees were founded on consequences drawn from Scripture nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued succession of the Tradition In like manner when the Council of Chaâ—edon condemned Eutyches Pope Leo's Epistle to â—lavian was read and all assented to it So that upon the matter his Epistle became the Decree of the Council and that whole Epistle from beginning to end is one entire series of consequences proved from Scripture and Reason And to the end of that Epistle are added in the Acts of that Council testimonies from the Fathers that had lived after the days of the Council of Nice Theodoret and Gelasius also who wrote against the Eutychians do through their whole writings pursue them with consequences drawn from Scripture and Reason and in the end set down testimonies from Fathers And to instance only one more when St. Austin wrote against the Pelagians how many consequences he draws from Scripture every one that has read him must needs know In the end let it be also observed that all these Fathers when they argue from places of Scripture they never attempt to prove that those Scriptures had been expounded in that sense they urge them in by the Councils or Fathers who had gone before them but argue from the sense which they prove they ought to be understood in I do not say all their consequences or expositions were wel-grounded but all that has been hitherto set down will prove that they 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 that 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 Argument 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 S. 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 â—athers to prove they did
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
good reason to reform from that errour So the Church of Rome will ackowledge that the Greek Church or our Church ought to forsake their present Doctrines though they have been long received Fourthly No later Definitions of Councils or Fathers ought to derogate from the ancienter Decrees of Councils or opinions of the Fathers otherwise the Arrians had reason to have justified their submitting to the Councils of Sirmium Arimini and Millan and rejecting that of Nice therefore we ought in the first place to consider the Decrees and opinions of the most Primitive antiquity Fifthly No succession of Bishops how clear so ever in its descent from the Apostles can secure a Church from errour Which the Church of Rome must acknowledge since they can neither deny the succession of the Greek Church nor of the Church of England Sixthly If any Church continues so hardned in their errours that they break Communion with another Church for reforming the guilt of this breach must lie at their door who are both in the Errour and first reject the other and refuse to reform or communicate with other Churches Upon every one of these particulars and they all set together compleat the plea for the Church of England I am willing to joyn Issue and shew they are not only true in themselves but must be also acknowledged by the Principles of the Church of Rome So that if the grounds of controversy on which our Reformation did proceed were good and justifiable it is most unreasonable to say our Church had not good right and authority to make it It can be made appear that for above two hundred years before the Reformation there were general complaints among all sorts of pesons both tho subtle Schoolmen and devout Contemplatives both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks did complain of the corruptions of the Church and called aloud for a Reformation both of Faith and Manners even the Council of Pisa a little before Luthers days did Decree There should be a Reformation both of Faith and Manners and that both of the Head and Members But all these complaints turned to nothing abuses grew daily the interests of the Nephews and other corrupt intrigues of the Court of Rome always obstructing good motions and cherishing ill Customs for they brought the more Grist to their Mill. When a Reformation was first called for in Germany instead of complying with so just a desire all that the Court of Rome thought on was how to suppress these complaints and destroy those who made them In end when great Commotions were like to follow by the vast multitudes of those who concurred in this desire of Reforming a Council was called after the Popes had frequently prejudged in the matter and Pope Leo had with great frankness condemned most of Luthers opinions From that Council no good could reasonably be expected for the Popes had already engaged so deep in the quarrel that there was no retreating and they ordered the matter so that nothing could be done but what they had a mind to all the Bishops were at their Consecration their sworn vassals nothing could be brought into the Council without the Legates had proposed it And when any good motions were made by the Bishops of Spain or Germany they had so many poor Italian Bishops kept there on the Popes charges that they were always masters of the vote for before they would hold a Session about any thing they had so canvassed it in the Congregations that nothing was so much as put to the hazard All these things appear even from Cardinal Pallavicini's History of that Council While this Council was sitting and some years before many of this Church were convinced of these corruptions and that they could not with a good Conscience joyn any longer in a worship so corrupted yet they were satisfied to know the truth themselves and to instruct others privately in it but formed no separated Church waiting for what issue God in his Providence might bring about But with what violence and cruelty their enemies who were generally those of the Clergy pursued them is well enough known Nor shall I repeat any thing of it lest it might be thought an invidious aggravating of things that are past But at length by the death of King Henry the eighth the Government fell in the hands of persons well affected to the Reformation It is not material what their true motives were for Jehu did a good work when he destroyed the Idolatry of Baal though neither his motives nor method of doing it are justifiable nor is it to the purpose to examine how those Bishops that reformed could have complied before with the corruptions of the Roman Church and received orders from them Meletius and Felix were placed by the Arrians the one at Antioch in the room of Eustathius the other at Rome in Liberius his room who were both banished for the Faith and yet both these were afterwards great Defenders of the truth and Felix was a martyr for it against these very Hereticks with whom they complied in the beginning So whatever mixture of carnal ends might be in any of the Secular men or what allay of humane infirmity and fear might have been in any of the Ecclesiasticks that can be no prejudice to the cause for men are always men and the power of God does often appear most eminently when there is least cause to admire the instruments he makes use of But in that juncture of affairs the Bishops and Clergy of this Church seeing great and manifest corruptions in it and it being apparent that the Church of Rome would consent to no reformation to any good purpose were obliged to reform and having the Authority of King and Parliament concurring they had betrayed their consciences and the charge of Souls for which they stood engaged and were to answer at the great day if they had dallied longer and not warned the people of their danger and made use of the inclinations of the Civil Powers for carrying on so good a work And it is the lasting glory of the reformation that when they saw the Heir of the Crown was inflexibly united to the Church of Rome they proceeded not to extream courses against her for what a few wrought on by the ambition of the Duke of Northumberland were got to do was neither the deed of the Nation nor of the Church since the Representatives of neither concurred in it But the Nation did receive the righteous Heir and then was our Church crowned with the highest glory it could have desired many of the Bishops who had been most active in the Reformation sealing it with their blood and in death giving such evident proofs of holy and Christian constancy that they may be justly matched with the most Glorious Martyrs of the Primitive Church Then did both these Churches appear in their true colours That of Rome weltring in the blood of the Saints and insatiately drinking it up and our Church bearing the Cross of
excepted against in that prayer was that these things are ascribed to the merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints Now he had only spoken of their prayers and he appealed â—o all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them and the sense the other had offered was not forced M. C. said By merits were understood prayers which had force and merit with God M. B. said That could not be for in another absolution in the office of our Lady they pray for remission of sins through the merits and prayers of the blessed Virgin So that by merits must be meant somewhat else than their prayers M. C. said That as by our prayers on earth we help one anothers Souls so by our giving almes for one another we might do the same so also the Saints in Heaven might be helpful to us by their prayers and merits And as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet and said he was in great hast and much business lay on him that day but said to D. S. That when he pleased he would wait on him and discourse of the other particulars at more length D. S. assured him that when ever he pleased to appoint it he should be ready to give him a meeting And so he went away Then we all stood and talked to one another without any great order near half an hour the discourse being chiefly about the Nags-head fable D. S. apealed to the publick Registers and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all Queen Elizabeth's Reign when such a story was fresh and well known and if there had been any colour for it is it possible they could keep it up or conceal it S. P. T. said All the Registers were forged and that it was not possible to satisfy him in it no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand and being desired to read Doctor Bramhall's book about it he said he had read it six times over and that it did not satisfie him M. B. asked him how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved if the publick Registers and the instruments of publick Notaries were rejected and this the more that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner nor escape the knowledge of their adversaries who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that race was alive is as clear an evidence as can be that the forgery was on the other side D. S. Did clear the objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament that it was only for making the ordination legal in England since in Edward the sixth's time the book of ordination was not joined in the record to the book of Common-Prayer from whence Bishop Bonner took occasion to deny their ordination as not according to Law and added that Saunders who in Queen Elizabeth's time denied the validity of our ordination never alledged any such story But as we were talking freely of this M. W. said once or twice they were satisfied about the chief design they had in that meeting to see if there could be alledged any place of Scripture to prove that Article about the blessed Sacrament and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Triumph Upon which D. S. desired all might sit down again that they might put that matter to an issue so a Bible was brought and D. S. Being spent with much speaking desired M. B. to speak to it M. B. turned to the 6th Chap. of S. Iohn verse 54. and read these words Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and added these words were according to the common interpretation of their Church to be understand of the Sacramental manducation This M. W. granted only M. B. had said all the Doctors understood these words so and M. W. said That all had not done so which M. B. did acknowledge but said it was the received exposition in their Church and so framed his argument Eternal life is given to every one that receives Christ in the Sacrament But by Faith only we get eternal life Therefore by Faith only we receive Christ in the Sacrament Otherwise he said unworthy receivers must be said to have eternal life which is a contradiction for as such they are under condemnation yet the unworthy receivers have the external manducation therefore that Manducation that gives eternal life with it must be internal and spiritual and that is by Faith A person whose name I know not but shall henceforth mark him N. N. asked what M. B. meant by Faith only M. B. said By Faith he meanâ— such a believing of the Gospel as carried along with it Evangelical obedience by Faith only he meant Faith as opposite to sense D. S. asked him if we received Christ's body and blood by our senses N. N. said we did D. S. asked which of the senses his taste or touch or sight for that seemed strange to him N. N. said We received Christs body with our senses as well as we did the substance of bread for our senses did not receive the substance of bread and did offer some things to illustrate this both from the Aristotelian and Cartesian Hypothesis D. S. said He would not engage in that subtlety which was a digression from the main argument but he could not avoid to think it a strange assertion to say we received Christ by our senses and yet to say he was so present there that none of our senses could possibly perceive him But to the main argument M. W. denied the minor that by Faith only we have eternal life M. B. proved it thus The Sons of God have eternal life But by Faith only we become the Sons of God Therefore by Faith only we had eternal life M. W. said Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture he would reject the argument M. B. said That if he did demonstrate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest construction possible equivalent to clear places of Scripture then his proofs were good therefore he desired to know which of the two propositions he should prove either that the Sons of God have eternal life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial people would be of his mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called
in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first-born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as neaâ— the Jewish customes as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundred of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such opinion have crept in in any age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body be only meant a commemoration his promise must only relate to his death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the institution it is clear that we receive his body as it was given for us when his blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first 6 ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on design and with deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyrill of Jerusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism saies expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the flesh and the blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my body And for a proof instances Christs changing the water into wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all persons to use high expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the bread and wine did remain He hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the words of Cyrill M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal dispute about the passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us Therefore he promised an answer in writing to the testimony of S. Cyrill But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly underook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary The Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undenyable evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now we left upon that point which by the Grace of God we should perform very soon but we had offered to satisfy them in the other grounds of the Separation from the Church of Rome if they desired to be further informed we should wait on them when they pleased So we all rose up and took leave after we had been there about three hours The Discourse was carried on on both sides with great civility and calmness without heat or clamour This is as far as my Memory after the most fixed attention when present and careful Recollection since does suggest to me without any biass or partiality not having failed in any one material thing as far as my