abundance of his Grace on your Ladiship to make you still continue in the love and obedience of the Truth is the earnest Prayer of MADAM London Apr. 15. 1676. Your Ladiship 's most Humble Servants Edward Stillingfleet Gilbert Burnet 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 dashed 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 signifie 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 yeild a third as a necessary issue according to that eternal Rule of Reason and Natural Logick That wherever 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 hissed 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 Curch Either they must pretend they are Infallible in their Deductions or we have no reason to make any account of them as being Fallible and Vncertain and so they can never secure us from error nor be a just ground to found our Faith of any Proposition so proved upon Therefore no Proposition thus proved can be acknowledged an Article of Faith This is the bredth and length of their Plea which we shall now examine And first if there be any strength in this Plea it will conclude against our submitting to the express words of Scripture as forcibly Since all words how formal soever are capable of several expositions Either they are to be understood literally or figuratively either they are to be understood positively or interrogatively With a great many other varieties of which all expressions are capable So that if the former Argument have any force since every place is capable of several meanings except we be infallibly sure which is the true meaning we ought by the same parity of Reason to make no account of the most express and formal words of Scripture from which it is apparent that what noise soever these men make of express words of Scripture yet if they be true to their own argument they will as little submit to these as to deductions from Scripture Since they have the same reason to question the true meaning of a place that they have to reject an inference and deduction from it And this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a trick under which there lies no fair dealing at all But to answer the Argument to all mens satisfaction we must consider the nature of the Soul which is a reasonable being whose chief faculty is to discern the connexion of things and to draw
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 Mosaical 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 just 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 though 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 Manicheâ—s 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 Geâ—â—sius they canvassed many places of Scripture that they might come to a decision and that whole dispute as he represents it was all about Interences and Deductions from Scripture It is true F. Maimbourg in his Romantick History of Arrianism would perswade us that in that Counsel 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 Antiquiâ—y 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 subtitles 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 manners had brought to Divine Faith without nice curiosity Others did strongly or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter opinions without a strict trial of them Now in these words we find not a word either of Orthodox or Arrian so of which side either one or other were we are left to conjecture That Jesuite has been sufficiently exposed by the Writers of the Port-Royal for his foul dealing on other occasions and we shall have great cause to mistruth him in all his accounts if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this and that the party which he calls the Orthodox were really some holy good men but simple ignorant and â—asily abused And that the other party which he calls the Arrian was the Orthodox and more judicious who readily forseeing the inconvenience which the simplicity of others would have involved them in did vehemently oppose it and pressed the Testimonies of the Fathers might not be blindly followed For proof of this we need but consider that they anathematized these who say that the Son was the work of the Father as Athanasius tells us which were the very words of Denis of Alexandria of whom the Arrians boasted much and cited these words from him and both Athanasius and Hilary acknowledg that those Bishops that condemned Sâ—â—nosâ—tenus did also reject the Consubstantial and St. Bâ—sil says Denis sometimes denied sometimes acknowledged the Consubstantial Yet I shall not be so easy as Petavius and others of the Roman Church are in this matter who acknowledg that most of the Fathers before the Council of Nice said many things that did not agree with the Rule of the Orthodox â—aith but
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
not innovate any thing in the Doctrine of the Church But it is plain these they brought only as a confirmation of their Arguments and not as the chief strength of their Cause for as they do not drive up the Tradition to the Apostles days setting only down some later testimonies so they make no inferences from them but barely set them down By which it is evident all the use they made of these was only to shew that the â—aith of the age that preceded them was conform to the proofs they brought from Scriptures but did not at all found the strength of their Arguments from Scripture upon the sense of the Fathers that went before them And if the Council of Nice had passed the Decree of adding the Consubstantials to the Creed upon evidence brought from Tradition chiefly can it be imagined that S. Athanasius who knew well on what grounds they went having born so great a share in their consultations and debates when he in a formal Treatise justifies that addition should draw his chief Arguments from Scripture and natural Reason and that only towards the end he should 〈◊〉 us of four Writers from whom he brings passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing In the end when the Council had passed their Decree does the method of their dispute alter Let any read Athanasius Hilâ—ry or St. Austin writing against the Arrians They continue still to ply them with Arguments made up of consequences from Scripture and their chief Argument was clearly a consequenco from Scripture that since Christ was by the confession of the Arrians truly God then he must be of the same substance otherwise there must be more substances and so more Gods which was against Scripture Now if this be not a consequence from Scripture let every body judg It was on this they chiefly insisted and waved the Authority of the Council of Nice which they mention very seldom or when they do speak of it it is to prove that its Decrees were according to Scripture â—or proof of this let us hear what St. Austin says writing against Maximinus an Arrianâ—ishop â—ishop proving the Consubstantiality of the Son This is that Consubstanâ—ial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Counâ—il of Nice against the Arrians by the authority of Truth and the truth of Authority which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow under the Heretical Emperor Constantius because of the newness of tâ—e words which were not so well understood as should have been Since the ancient Faith had brought them forth but many were abused by the fraud of a few And a little after he adds But now neither should I bring the Council of Nice nor yet the Council of Arimini thereby to prejudg in this matter neither am I bound by the authority of the latter nor you by the authority of the former Let one Cause and Reason contest and strive with the other from the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses common to both and not proper to either of us If this be not our plea as formally as can be let every Reader judg from all which we conclude That our method of proving Articles of Faith by Consequences drawn from Scripture is the same that the Catholick Church in all the best ages made use of And therefore it is unreasonable to deny it to us But all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative Evidence if we find that this very pretence of appealing to formal words of Scriptures was on several occasions taken up by divers Hereticks but was always rejected by the Fathers as absurd and unreasonable The first time we find this plea in any bodies mouth is upon the Question Whether it was lawful for Christians to go to the Theaters or other publick spectacles which the Fathers set themselves mightily against as that which would corrupt the minds of the people and lead them to heathenish Idolatry But others that loved those diverting fights pleaded for them upon this ground as Tertullian tells us in these words The Faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous calls for an authority from Scripture for the discharge of these sights and they became uncertain about it because such abstinence is no-where denounced to the servants of God neither by a clear signification nor by name as Thou shalt not kill Nor worship an Idol But he proves it from the first Verse of the Psalms for though that seems to belong to the Jews yet says he the Scripture is always to be divided broad where that discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us And this agrees with that Maxim he has elsewhere That the words of Scripture are to be understood not only by their sound but by their sense and are not only to be heard with our ears but with our minds In the next place the Arrians designed to shroud themselves under general expressions and had found glosses for all passages of Scripture So that when the Council of Nice made all these ineffectual by putting the word Consubstantial into the Creed then did they in all their Councils and in all disputes set up this plea That they would submit to every thing was in Scripture but not to any additions to Scripture A large account of this we have from Athanasins who gives us many of their Creeds In that proposed at Arimini these words were added to the Symbole For the word Substance because it was simply set down by the Fathers and is not understood by the people but breeds scandal since the Scriptures have it not therefore we have thought fit it be left out and that there be no more mention made of Substance concerning God since the Scriptures no-where speak of the Substance of the Father and the Son He also tells us that at Sirmium they added words to the same purpose to their Symbole rejecting the words of Substance or Consubstantial because nothing is written of them in the Scriptures and they transcend the knowledg and understanding of men Thus we see how exactly the Plea of the Arrians agrees with what is now offered to be imposed on us But let us next see what the Father says to this He first turns it back on the Arrians and shews how far they were from following that Rule which they imposed on others And if we have not as good reason to answer those so who now take up the same Plea let every one judg But then the Father answers it was no matter though one used forms of speech that were not in Scripture if he had still a sound or pious understanding as on the contrary a heretical person though he uses forms out of Scripture he will not be the less suspected if his understanding be corrupted and at full length applies that to the Question of the Consubstantiality To the same purpose St. Hilary setting down the arguments of
a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls we shall neither believe without the Word nor speak without Faith Now I challenge every Reader to consider if any thing can be devised that more formally and more nervously-overthrows all the pretences brought for this appeal to the express words of Scripture And here I stop for though I could carry it further and shew that other Hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext Yet I think all Impartial Readers will be satisfied when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand Heresies condemned by the first four General Councils And from all has been said it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been bafled by Universal Councils and Fathers Yet I cannot leave this with the Reader without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered The first is that which these Gentlemen would impose on us has been the plea of the greatest Hereticks have been in the Church Those therefore who take up these weapons of Hereticks which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands by the most Universal Councils and the most Learned Fathers of the Catholick Church till at length they were laid aside by all men as unfit for any service till in this age some Jesuits took them up in defence of an often bafled Cause do very unreasonably pretend to the Spirit or Doctrine of Catholicks since they tread a path so oft beaten by all Hereticks and abhorred by all the Orthodox Secondly we find the Fathers always begin their answering this pretence of Hereticks by shewing them how many things they themselves believed that were no-where written in Scripture And this I believe was all the ground M. W. had for telling us in our Conference that St. Austin bade the Heretick read what he said I am confident that Gentleman is a man of Candour and Honour and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy as to have cited this for such a purpose if he had not taken it on trust from second hands But he who first made use of it if he have no other Authority of St. Austin's which I much doubt cannot be an honest man who because St. Austin to shew the Arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they believed urges them with this that they could not read all that they believed themselves would from that conclude St. Austin thought every Article of Faith must be read in so many words in Scripture This is such a piece of Ingenuity as the Jesuits used in the Contest about St. Austin's Doctrine concerning the efficacy of Grace When they cited as formal passages out of St. Austin some of the Objections of the Semipelagians which he sets down and afterwards answers which they brought without his answers as his words to shew he was of their side But to return to our purpose from this method of the Fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words back on those who make use of it against us and to ask them where do they read their Purgatory Sacrifice of the Mass Tranâ—uâ—â—slantiation the Pope's Supremacy with a great many more things in the express words of Scripture Thirdly we see the peremptory answer the Fathers agree in is that we must understand the Scriptures and draw just consequences from them and not stand on words or phrases but consider things And from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us It is in those great Saints Athanasius Hilary Gregory Nazianzen Austin and Theodoret that they will find out answer as fully and formally as need be and to them we refer our selves But Fourthly To improve this beyond the particular occasion that engaged us to all this enquiry we desire it be considered then when such an objection was made which those of the Church of Rome judg is strong to prove we must rely on somewhat else than Scripture either on the Authority of the Church or on the certainty of Tradition The first Councils and Fathers had no such apprehension All considering men chiefly when they are arguing a nice Point speak upon some hypothesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed and must certainly discourse consequently to it To instance it in this particular If an Objection be made against the drawing consequences from Scripture since all men may be mistaken and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings A Papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say it is true any man may err but the whole Church either when assembled in a Council with the Holy Ghost in the midst of them or when they convey down from the Apostles through age to age the Tradition of the Exposition of the Scriptures cannot err for God will be with them to the end of the World A Protestant must on the other hand according to his Principles argue that since man has a reasonable soul in him he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making Inferences And when any consequence is apparent to our understandings we ought and must believe it as much as we do that from which the consequence is drawn Therefore we must not only read but study to understand the true meaning of Scripture And we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the Scriptures if we find the Church of God in the purest times and the Fathers believing as we believe If we should hear two persons that were unknown to us argue either of these two ways we must conclude the one is a Papist the other a Protestant as to this particular Now I desire the Reader may compare what has been cited from the Fathers upon this subject And see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles Whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine that in seeking out the decision of all Controversies the Fathers went by the same Rules we go by to wit the clear sense of Scriptures as it must appear to every considering mans understanding backed with the opinion of the Fathers that went before them And thus far have I followed this Objection and have as I hope to every Readers satisfaction made it out that there can be nothing more unreasonable more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church to the nature of the soul of man to the use and â—nd of words and discourse to the practice of Christ and his Apostles to the constant sense of the Primitive Church and that upon full and often renewed Contest with Hereticks upon this very head Then to impose on us an Obligation to read all the Articles of our Church in the express words of Scripture So that I am confident this will appear to every considering
IMPRIMATUR June 1. 1676. G. Jane R. P. D. Hen. Epis. Lond. a sac dom A RELATION OF A Conference Held About RELIGION At LONDON the Third of April 1676. By Edw. Stillingfleet D.D. and Gilbert Burnet with some Gentlemen of the Church of ROME LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Moses Pitt at the Angel against the little North-door of S. Paul's Church M DC LXXVI THE CONTENTS THE Preface The Relation of the Conference An addition by N. N. to what was then said An answer to that addition A Letter demonstrating that the Doctrine of the Church for the first eight Centuries was contrary to Transubstantiation A Discourse to show how unreasonable it is to ask for express words of Scripture in proving all Articles of Faith and that a lust and good consequence from Scripture is sufficient A Discourse to shew that it was not only possible to change the Belief of the Church concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament but that it is very reasonable to conclude both that it might be done and that it was truly done ERRATA PAge 18. l. 3. said to to be read at the end of l. 4. p. 8. l. 11. after Baptism read Ethiop p. 23. l. 20. for cites read explains p. 26. l. 3. for sayes r. has these words p. 32. l. 26. after the Body of Christ these words are left out is after some manner his Body and the Sacrament of his Blood p. 72. l. 28. for must r. to p. 75. l. 19. for use r. prove p. 86. l. 26. for these r. the. p. 93 l. 7. for yet r. you p. 103. for History r. Heresy p. 135. l. 14. for remained r. appeared in the world p. 140. l. 22. for which r. who The rest the reader will correct as he goes through THE PREFACE TThere is nothing that is by a more universal agreement decried than conferences about controversies of Religion and no wonder for they have been generally managed with so much heat and passion parties being more concerned for Glory and Victory than Truth and there is such foul dealing in the accounts given of them that it is not strange to see these prejudices taken up against them And yet it cannot be denied but if Men of Candor and Calmness should discourse about matters of Religion without any other interest than to seek and follow Truth there could not be a more effectual and easy way found for satisfying scruples More can be said in one hour than read in a day Besides that what is said in a discourse discretely managed does more appositely meet with the doubtings and difficulties any body is perplexed with than is possibly to be found in a book and since almost all Books disguise the opinions of those that differ from them and represent their arguments as weak and their opinions as odious Conferences between those of different perswasions do remedy all these evils But after all the advantages of this way it must be confessed that for the greater part Men are so engaged to their opinions by interest and other ties that in Conferences most persons are resolved before-hand to yield to no conviction but to defend every thing being only concerned to say so much as may darken weaker minds that are witnesses and give them some occasion to triumph at least conceal any foil they may have received by wrapping up some pittiful shift or other in such words and pronouncing them with such accents of assurance and perhaps scorn that they may seem to come off with victory And it is no less frequent to see Men after they have been so baffled that all discerning witnesses are ashamed of them yet being resolved to make up with impudence what is wanting in Truth as a Coward is generally known to boast most where he has least cause publish about what feats they have done and tell every body they see how the cause in their mouth did triumph over their enemies that so the praise of the defeat given may be divided between the cause and themselves and though in modesty they may pretend to ascribe all to Truth and the faith they contended for yet in their hearts they desire the greatest part be offered to themselves All these considerations with a great many more did appear to us when the Lady T. asked us if we would speak with her Husband and some others of the Church of Rome as well for clearing such scruples as the perpetual converse with those of that Religion had raised in the Lady as for satisfying her Husband of whose being willing to receive instruction she seemed confident Yet being well assured of the Ladies great candor and worth and being willing to stand up for the Vindication and Honour of our Church whatever might follow on it we promised to be ready to wait on her at her house upon advertisement without any nice treating before-hand what we should confer about Therefore we neither asked who should be there nor what number nor in what method or on what particulars our discourse should run but went thither carrying only one Friend along with us for a witness If the discourse had been left to our managing we resolved to have insisted chiefly on the corruptions in the worship of the Roman Church to have shewed on several Heads that there was good cause to reform these abuses and that the Bishops and Pastors of this Church the Civil Authority concurring had sufficient authority for reforming it These being the material things in controversy which must satisfy every person if well made out we intended to have discoursed about them but being put to answer we followed those we had to deal with But that we may not forestal the Reader in any thing that passed in the Ladies chamber which he will find in the following account we had no sooner left her house but we resumed among our selves all had passed that it might be written down what ever should follow to be published if need were So we agreed to meet again three days after to compare what could be written down with our memories And having met an account was read which did so exactly contain all that was spoken as far as we could remember that after a few additions we all Three Signed the Narrative then agreed to Few days had passed when we found we had need of all that care and caution for the matter had got wind and was in every bodies Mouth Many of our best Friends know how far we were from talking of it for till we were asked about it we scarce opened our Mouths of it to any Person But when it was said that we had been baffled and foiled it was necessary for us to give some account of it Not that we were much concerned in what might be thought of us but that the most excellent cause of our Church and Religion might not suffer by the misrepresentations of this conference And the truth was there was so little said
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
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 Monday Afternoon the third of April 1676. 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 Englands 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 with they might turn Protestants therefore he desired to be satisfyed 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 Lords 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 controversy so if we brought such a consent of many places of Scripture as proved our Doctrine all being joined 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 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
And in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus wherein the rules of the Pastoral charge are set down he commands Timothy and in him all Bishops and Pastors to hold fast the Doctrine and form of sound words which he had delivered and tells him the Scriptures were able to make the man of God perfect If then the Bishops and Pastors of this Church found it corrupted by any unsound Doctrine or Idolatrous worship they were by the Law of God and the charge of Souls for which they were accountable obliged to throw out these corruptions and reform the Church and this the rather that the first Question proposed in the Consecration of a Bishop as it is in the Pontifical is Wilt thou teach these things which thou understandest to be in the Scripture to the people committed to thee both by thy Doctrine and Example To which he answers I will M. C. said We had now offered as much as would be the subject of many dayes discourse and he had but few minutes to spare therefore he desired to be informed what authority those Bishops had to judge in matters which they found not only in this Church but in all Churches round about them should they have presumed to judge in these matters D. S. said It had been frequently the practice of many Nations and Provinces to meet in Provincial Synods and reform abuses For which he offered to prove they had both authority and president But much more in some instances he was ready to shew of particulars that had been defined by General Councils which they only applied to their circumstances and this was never questioned but Provincial Synods might do M. C. desired to be first satisfied by what Authority they could cut themselves off from the obedience of the See of Rome in King Henry the VIII his days The Pope then was looked on as the Monarch of the Christian world in Spirituals and all Christendom was one Church under One Head and had been so for many Ages So that if a Province or Country would cut themselves from the Body of this Nation for instance Wales that had once distinct Princes and say we acknowledge no right William the Conquerour had so that we reject the Authority of those descended from him they might have the same plea which this our Church had For the day before that Act of Parliament did pass after the 20. of Henry the VIII the Pope had the Authority in Spirituals and they were his Subjects in Spirituals Therefore their Declaring he had none could not take his Authority from him no more than the Long Parliament had right to declare by an Act that the Soveraign Power was in the Peoples hands in pursuance of which they cut off the Kings head D. S. said The first General Councils as they established the Patriarchal Power so the Priviledges of several Churches were preserved entire to them as in the case of Cyprus that the British Churches were not within the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of Rome that afterwards the Bishops of Rome striking in with the Interests of the Princes of Europe and watching and improving all advantages got up by degrees through many ages into that height of Authority which they managed as ill as they unjustly acquired it and particularly in England where from King William the Conqueror his days as their Illegal and oppressive Impositions were a constant Grievance to the People so our Princes and Parliaments were ever put to strugle with them But to affront their Authority Thomas Becket who was a Traitour to the Law must be made a Saint and a day kept for him in which they were to pray to God for mercy through his merits It continuing thus for several Ages in the end a vigorous Prince arises who was resolved to assert his own Authority And he looking into the Oaths the Bishops swore to the Pope they were all found in a Praemunire by them Then did the whole Nation agree to assert their own freedom and their Kings Authority And 't was considerable that those very Bishops that in Quâ—en Marys days did most cruelly persecute those of the Church of England and advance the Interests of Rome were the most zealous Assertors and Defenders of what was done by King Henry the VIII Therefore the Popes power in England being founded onâ—â—oâ— just Title and being managed with so much oppression there was both a full Authority and a great deal of reason for rejecting it And if the Major Generals who had their Authority from Cromwell might yet have declared for the King who had the true title and against the Usurper so the Bishops though they had sworn to the Pope yet that being contrary to the Allegiance they ow'd the King ought to have asserted the Kings Authority and rejected the Pope's M. B. said It seemed M. C. founded the Popes Right to the Authority he had in England chiefly upon Prescrip said to tion But there were two things to be that First that no prescription runs against a divine right In the clearing of titles among men Prescription is in some cases a good title But if by the Laws of God the Civil powers have a supream Authority over their subjects then 〈◊〉 prescription whatsoever can void this Besides the Bishops having full Authority and Jurisdiction this could not be bounded or limited by any obedience the Pope claimed from them Further there can be no prescription in this case where the Usurpation has been all along contested and opposed We were ready to prove that in the first Ages all Bishops were accounted brethren Colleagues and fellow-Bishops with the Bishop of Rome That afterwards as he was declared Patriarch of the West so the other Patriarchs were equal in authority to him in their several Patriarchates That Britain was no part of his Patriarchate but an exempt as Cyprus was That his Power as Patriarch was only for receiving Appeals or calling Synods and did not at all encroach on the jurisdiction of other Bishops in their Sees and that the Bishops in his Patriarchate did think they might separate from him A famous Instance of this was in the sixth Century when the Question was about the tria Capitula for which the Western Bishops did generally stand and Pope Vigilius wrote in defence of them but Iustinian the Emperour having drawn him to Constantinople he consented with the Fifth Council to the condemning them Upon which at his return many of the Western Bishops did separate from him And as Victor Bishop of Tunes tells us who lived at that time That Pope was Synodically excommunicated by the Bishops of Africk It is true in the eighth Century the Decretal Epistles being forged his pretensions were much advanced yet his universal jurisdiction was contested in all Ages as might be proved from the known Instance of Hincmar Bishop of Rheims and many more Therefore how strong soever the Argument from Prescription may be in Civil things it is of no force here M. C.
said Now we are got into a contest of 1700. years story but I know not when we shall get out of it He confessed there was no Prescription against a divine right and acknowledged all Bishops were alike in their Order but not in their Jurisdiction as the Bishop of Oxford was a Bishop as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury and yet he was inferiour to him in Jurisdiction But desired to know what was in the Popes authority that was so intolerable D. S. said That he should only debate about the Popes Jurisdiction and to his question for one Particular That from the days of Pope Paschal the II. all Bishops swear obedience to the Pope was intolerable bondage M. C. said Then will you acknowledg that before that Oath was imposed the Pope was to be acknowledged adding That let us fix a time wherein we say the Pope began to usurp beyond his just authority and he would prove by Protestant Writers that he had as great power before that time M. B. said Whatever his Patriarchal power was he had none over Britain For it was plain we had not the Christian faith from the Roman Church as appeared from the very story of Austin the Monk S. P. T. said Did not King Lucius write to the Pope upon his receiving the Christian Faith M. C. said he would wave all that and ask if the Church of England could justifie her for saking the obedience of the Bishop of Rome when all the rest of the Christian world submitted to it D. S. said He wondred to hear him speak so Were not the Greek the Armenian the Nestorian and the Abissen Churches separated from the Roman M. C. said He wondred as much to hear him reckon the Nestorians among the Churches that were condemned Hereticks D. S. said It would be hard for him to prove them Nestorians M. C. asked why he called them so then D. S. answered because they were generally best known by that name M. W. said Did not the Greek Church reconcile it self to the Roman Church at the Council of Florence D. S. said Some of their Bishops were partly trepanned partly threatned into it but their Church disowned them and it both and continues to do so to this day M. W. said Many of the Greek Church were daily reconciled to the Church of Rome and many of the other Eastern Bishops had sent their obedience to the Pope D. S. said They knew there was enough to be said to these things that these arts were now pretty well discovered But he insisted to prove the Usurpations of Rome were such as were inconsistent with the supreme civil authorityâ— and shewed the oath in the Pontifiâ—â—le by which for instance If the Pope command a Bishop to go to Rome and his King forbid it he must obey the Pope and disobey the King M. C. said These things were very consistent that the King should be supream in Civils and the Pope in Spirituals So that if the Pope commanded a thing that were Civil the King must be obeyed and not he M. B. said By the words of the Oath the Bishops were to receive and help the Popes Legates both in coming and going Now suppose the King declared it Treason to receive the Legate yet in this case the Bishops are sworn to obey the Pope and this was a case that fell out often D. S. instanced the case of Queen Mary M. C. said If he comes with false Mandates he is not a Legate M. B. said Suppose as has fallen out an hundred times he comes with Bulls and well warranted but the King will not suffer him to enter his Dominions here the Bishops must either be Traitors or perjured M. C. said All these things must be understood to have tacite conditions in them though they be not expressed and gave a Simile which I have forgot D. S. said It was plain Paschal the second devised that Oath on purpose to cut off all those reserves of their duty to their Princes And therefore the words are so full and large that no Oath of Allegiance was ever conceived in more express terms M. B. said It was yet more plain from the words that preceed that clause about Legates that they shall be on no Counsel to do the Pope any injury and shall reveal none of his secrets By which a provision was clearly made that if the Pope did engage in any quarrel or war with any Prince the Bishops were to assist the Popes as their sworn subjects and to be faithful spies and correspondents to give intelligence As he was saying this L. T. did whisper D. S. who presently told the company that the Ladies at whose desire we came thither entreated we would speak to things that concerned them more and discourse on the grounds on which the reformation proceeded and therefore since he had before named some of the most considerable he desired we might discourse about some of these M. C. said Name any thing in the Roman Church that is expresly contrary to Scriptures but bring not your expositions of Scripture to prove it by for we will not admit of these M. B. asked if they did not acknowledge that it was only by the mediation of Christ that our sins were pardoned and eternal life given to us M. C. answered no question of it at all M. B. said Then have we not good reason to depart from that Church that in an office of so great and daily use as was the absolution of penitents after the words of absolution enjoins the following prayer to be used which he read out of their ritual The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints and whatever good thou hast done or evil thou hast suffered be to thee for the remission of sins the encrease of Grace and the reward of eternal life from whence it plainly follows that their Church ascribes the pardon of all sins and the eternal Salvation of their penitents to the merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints as well as the passion of our blessed Saviour M. C. said Here was a very severe charge put in against their Church without any reason for they believed that our sins are pardoned and our Souls are saved only by the merits of Jesus Christ but that several things may concur in several orders or wayes to produce the same effects So although we are pardoned and saved only through Christ yet without Holiness we shall never see God we must also suffer whatever crosses he tries us with So that these in another sense procure the pardon of our sins and eternal Salvation Thus in like manner the prayers of the blessed Virgin and the Saints are great helps to our obtaining these therefore though these be all joined together in the same prayer yet it was an unjust charge on their Church to say they make them equal in their value or efficiency M. B. said The thing he had chiefly
perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroyes all our conceptions of things is contrary to the most universally received maxims subverts the notions of matter and accidents and in a word confounds all our clearest apprehensions we must also reject every such gloss since it contradicts the evidence of that which is Gods image in us If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious exaltation of the humane nature of our blessed Saviour we have very just reasons to reject it even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture Therefore this dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's words he that shews best reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to truth does all that is necessary in this case But after all this we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was bread that Christ took blessed brake and gave his Disciples Now the Scripture calling it formally bread destroyes Transubstantiation Christ said This is my body which are declarative and not imperative words such as Let there be light or Be thou whole Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true as is most clear therefore Christ pronounces what the bread was become by his former blessing which did sanctity the Elements and yet after that blessing it was still bread Again the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it so that Christs words Do this in remembrance of me shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living commemoration and communication of his Body and Blood Further Christ telling us it was his Body that was given for us and his Blood shed for us which we there receive it is apparent he is to be understood present in the Sacrament not as he is now exalted in glory but as he was on the Cross when his blood was shed for us And in fine if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews all this will be more easily understood for it was ordinary for them to call the symbole by the name of the original it represented So they called the cloud between the Cherubims God and Iehovah according to these words O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims and all the symbolical apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be the Lord appearing to them But that which is more to this purpose is that the Lamb that was the symbole and memorial of their deliverance out of AEgypt was called the Lords Passover Now though the Passover then was only a type of our deliverance by the death of Christ yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in AEgypt as really a representation of it as the Sacrament is of the death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood though they were not so corporally but only mystically and sacramentally than that Moses called the lamb the Lords Passover So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbole and Type by the name of the Substance and Original Therefore our Saviours words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful expression to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech of that Age People and Place in which such phrases were used This is signally confirmed by the account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures First he saies it stands in its natural signification for receiving bodily food Then because there are two things done in eating the first is the destruction of that which is eaten so that it loseth its first form the other is the encrease and nourishment of the substance of the person that eats therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the language of the Scriptures The one is destruction and desolation so the Sword is said to eat or as we render it to devour so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants and so Fire is said to eat or consume The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom Learning and all Intellectual apprehensions by which the form or soul of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them as the body is preserved by food For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament as Isai. 55.2 come buy and eat and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom eating and cites some of their sayings as come and eat flesh in which there is much fat and that when ever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law So also Wisdom is often called Water Isai. 55.1 and he concludes that because this sense of eating occurs so often and is so manifest and evident as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the word therefore hunger and thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Vnderstanding as Amos 8. 21. to this he also refers that of thirsting Psalm 42. 3. and Isai. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these words ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation renders it ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the Select ones among the Iust which is further confirmed from the words of our Saviour Iohn 7. 37. And from these observations of the I earnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins we see that the Iewes understood the phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this Spiritual and figurative sense of receiving Wisdom and Instruction So that this being an usual form of speech among them it is no strange thing to imagin how our Saviour being a Iew according to the flesh and conversing with Iews did use these Terms and Phrases in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of reason and strong and convincing authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christs words This is my Body are to be understood Spiritually Mystically and Sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. that Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with reason and learning to justify all he says that no
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
all the following Cruelties that were as terrible as could be invented by all the fury of the Court of Rome managed by the Inquisitions of the Dominicans whose Souls were then as black as their Garments could bear down or extinguish that light of the Truth in which what was wanting in Learning Wit or Order was fully made up in the simplicity of their Manners and the constancy of their Sufferings And it were easie to shew that the two great things they were most persecuted for were their refusing subjection to the See of Rome and their not believing the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence nor were they confined to one Corner of France only but spred almost all Europe over In that Age Steven Bishop in Edueâ— is the first I ever find cited to have used the word Transubstantiation who expressly sayes That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Some place him in the beginning some in the middle of that Age for there were two Bishops of that See both of the same Name the one Anno 1112. the other 1160. And which of the two it was is not certain but the Master of the Sentences was not so positive and would not determine whether Christ was present formally substantially or some other way But in the beginning of the thirteenth Century one Amalric or Almaric who was in great esteem for Learning did deny Transubstantiation saying That the Body of Christ was no more in the Consecrated Bread than in any other Bread or any other thing for which he was condemned in the fourth Council of Lateran and his Body which was buried in Paris was taken up and burnt and then was it decreed That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly contained under the kinds or Species of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood All the while this Doctrine was carried on it was managed with all the ways possible that might justly create a prejudice against them who set it forward for besides many ridiculous lying wonders that were forged to make it more easily believed by a credulous and superstitious multitude the Church of Rome did discover a cruelty and blood-thirstiness which no pen is able to set out to the full what burnings and tortures and what Croissâ—des as against Infidels and Mahumetans did they set on against those poor innocent Companies whom they with an enraged wolvish and barbarous bloodiness studied to destroy This was clearly contrary to the Laws of Humanity the Rules of the Gospel and the Gentleness of Christ How then could such companies of Wolves pretend to be the followers of the Lamb. In the Primitive Church the Bishops that had prosecuted the Priscillanists before the Emperor Maximus to the taking away their lives were cast out of the Communion of the Church but now did these that still pretended to be Christ's Vicars shew themselves in Antichrist's Colours dipt in blood If then any of that Church that live among us plead for pity and the not executing the Laws and if they blame the severity of the Statutes against themselves let them do as becomes honest men and without disguise disown and condemn those Barbarities and them that were the promoters and pursuers of them for those practices have justly filled the world with fears and jealousies of them that how meekly soever they may now whine under the pretended oppression of the Laws they would no sooner get into power but that old Leaven not being yet purged out of their hearts they would again betake themselves to fire and faggot as the unanswerable Arguments of their Church and so they are only against persecution because they are not able to persecute but were they the men that had the power it would be again a Catholick Doctrine and Practice But when they frankly and candidly condemn those Practices and Principles they will have somewhat to plead which will in reason prevail more than all their little Arts can do to procure them favour It was this same Council of Lateran that established both Cruelty Persecution and Rebellion into a Law appointing that all Princes should exterminate all Hereticks this is the mercy of that Church which all may look for if ever their power be equal to their malice and did decree That if any Temporal Lord being admonished by the Church did neglect to purge his Lands he should be first excommunicated and if he continued a year in his contempt contumacy notice was to be given of it to the Pope who from that time forth should declare his Vassals absolved from the Fidelity they owed him and expose his Lands to be invaded by Catholicks who might possess them without any contradiction having exterminated the Hereticks out of them and so preserve them in the purity of the Faith This Decree was made on the account of Raimond Count of Tholouse who favoured the Albigenses that were his Subjects and being a Peer of France according to the first constitution under Hugo Capet King of France was such a Prince in his own Dominions as the Princes of Germany now are He was indeed the King of France his Vassal but it is clear from the History of that time that the King of France would not interpose in that business Yet the Popes in this same Council of Lateran did by the advice of the Council give to Simon Montfort who was General of the Croissade that the Pope sent against that Prince all the Lâ—nds that were taken from the Count of Tholouse So that there was an Invasion both of the Count of Tholouse and of the King of France his Rights For if that Prince had done any thing amiss he was only accountable to the King and the other Peers of France This Decree of the Council is published by Dom. Luc. Dachery so that it is plain that the Pope got here a Council â—o set up Rebellion by authoriâ—y against the express rules of the Gospel this almost their whole Church accounts a General Council a few only among us excepted who know not how to approve themselves good Subjects if they own that a General Council which does so formally establish treasonable and seditious Principles For if it be true that a General Council making a definition in an Article of Faith is to be followed and submitted to by all men the same Arguments will prove that in any controverted practical Opinion we ought not to trust our own Reasons but submit to the Definition of the Church for if in this Question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the Scriptures and reject this Decree why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom It is true the words of the Decree seem only to relate to Temporal Lords that were under Soveraign Princes such as the Count of Tholouse and therefore Crowned heads need fear nothing from it But though
the Decree runs chiefly against such yet there are two Clauses in it that go further one is in these words Saving alwayes 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 fourth 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 but 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 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 easie 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 beyond 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 vanish into nothing when closely canvassed I have not dwelt so long on every step of the History I have vouched as was necessary designing to be as short as was possible and because these things have been at full length set down by others and particularly in that great and learned work of Albertin a French Minister concerning this Sacrament In which the Doctrines of the Primitive Church and the steps of the change that was made are so laid open that no man has yet so much as attempted the answering him and those matters of fact are so uncontestedly true that there can be little debate about them but what may be very soon cleared and I am ready to make all good to a tittle when any shall put me to it It being apparent then that the Church of Rome has usurped an undue and unjust authority over the other States and Nations of Christendom and has made use of this Dominion to introduce many great corruptions both in the Faith the Worship and Government of the Church nothing remains but to say a little to justify this Churches Reforming these abuses And First I suppose it will be granted that a National Church may judge a Doctrine to be Heretical when its opposition to the Scripture Reason and the Primitive Doctrine is apparent for in that case the Bishops and Pastors being to feed and instruct the Church they must do it according to their Consciences otherwise how can they discharge the Trust God and the Church commit to their charge And thus all the ancient Hereticks such as Samosatenus Arrius Pelagius and a great many more were first condemned in Provincial Councils Secondly if such Heresies be spread in places round about the Bishops of every Church ought to do what they can to get others concur with them in the condemning them but if they cannot prevail they ought nevertheless to purge themselves and their own Church for none can be bound to be damned for company The Pastors of every Church owe a Charity to their neighbour Churches but a Debt to their own which the Stubborness of others canot excuse them from And so those Bishops in the Primitive Church that were environed with Arrians did reform their own Churches when they were placed in any Sees that had been corrupted by Arrianism Thirdly No time can give prescription against truth and therefore had any errour been ever so antiently received in any Church yet the Pastors of that Church finding it contrary to truth ought to reform it the more antient or inveterate any errour is it needs the more to be looked to So those Nations that were long bred up in Arrianism had
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