left every one to his own understanding in such Interpretation without obliging him to submit his judgment to any others D. T. interrupted him and said he was drawing them away from their point And upon this occasion M. M. and D. T. talk'd a little while about a Guide in Controversie and D. T. did tell him in short That a Man after using all Christian means and the help of all Ministerial Guides possible must at last judge for himself and that this was not to run on his own head as also that our People could know the Voice of our Church it being in their own Language but not so readily the Voice of the Church of Rome it being in an unknown Tongue for the true Interpretation of which the unlearned depended upon the particular Priest that instructed them Then D. T. and Mr. P. came again to the Quotations and D. T. waved for a time that out of S. Ambrose in relation to which he us'd a word somewhat too sharp saying Mr. P. falsified instead of saying he had quoted a spurious Author So they came to S. Cyril's Catechism to which D. T. said He knew the place Mr. P. meant and that it was answered nigh twelve Years ago at the end of the Conference betwixt some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome and Dr. Stillingfleet and D. Burnet Mr. P. said That Conference as written by D. St. and D. B. was answered and that he would give D. T. the Answer Something was said to Mr. M. about that Conference which needs not as I imagine to be here repeated After this D. T. desir'd Mr. P. to read out of his printed Paper the place out of Justin Martyr which he did The words were these S. Justin Mart. in Apologiâ Antonio Pio Imperatori pro Christianis oblatâ Now this Food saith he amongst us is called the Eucharist which it is lawful for none to partake of but those who believe our Doctrine to be true c. For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation Just so are we taught that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers in his own Words and whereby our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourish'd is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus For the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them called the Gospels have recorded that Jesus so commanded them D. T. answered That those words prov'd the Bread to remain Bread because it nourish'd the Body and was call'd Bread after Consecration and that they did not at all establish the Roman Article of Transubstantiation Mr. P. answered He brought it for the proof of the Real Presence D. T. reply'd A Lutheran held that yet would not be of their Communion He then asked D. T. what his opinion was of the Real Presence He answered He would defend the true Sense of his Church even in those mistaken words in the Catechism The Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper One in the Crowd said not very loud Hold him to that I think here was further talk about the Roman Corporeal Presence And Mr. D. A. C. ask'd Mr. P. what kind of Philosophy that was which maintain'd that Accidents subsisted without substances He said 't was true Philosophy D. T. ask'd whether it was true Philosophy to say there was whiteness without a white thing and breaking without a thing broken and the body of a Man without the dimensions and figure of such a body It was answer'd God could do this It was reply'd there was no need no promise supposing God could do it Mr. D. A. C. said then or afterwards in the next Room that God could not do what was a contradiction it being an imperfection Mr. P. continued the discourse and said we accused them of Idolatry whereas they worshipped not the Bread but Christ under it To which D. T. answered that he also ador'd Christ when he took the Sacrament but not that substance which they said was under the shew of Bread and that if it proved to be Bread it was a Creature and the worship of it would be the worship of a Creature adding that Costerus the Jesuit owned if it should prove to be Bread the worship of it would be worse Idolatry than that of the Laplanders who worshipped a red Cloth. Mr. P. reply'd Mr. Stillingfleet had cited that place D. T. rejoyn'd that it was rightly cited for he had read it in Costerus Mr. P. was silent Mr. P. here asserted that the Bread was annihilated and being shown by D. T. that his Opinion was contrary both to truth and his own Church he salv'd it by saying 't was annihilated so far as it was Bread. About this time as I think Mr. Meredith removed and went to a Window and Mr. D. A. C. had there some discourse with him And there was other occasional talk with a Roman by M. S. about the Cup in the Sacrament the Roman saying 't was taken away for fear of being spilt About this time also as I think Mr. P. was desir'd to stick to something particularly to the place of Scripture long ago cited by him If he will not hear the Church and he was asked by D. T. where the place was He could not tell At which some of the people upbraiding Mr. P. Mr. M. asked D. T. if he could tell Chapter and Verse throughout the Bible D. T. answered he would by no means pretend to it But if he cited a place as a proof of a Fundamental point he would first know where it was that by the Antecedents and Consequents he might be the better assured of the sense of it After which D. T. turned to the place in S. Matthew the 18th and read it out of the English Bible and ask'd if the Translation were faulty Mr. P. would not say it was Then D. T. explain'd the sense of the place as meant of Trespasses and not Articles of Faith and said to a very honest Gentleman whom he espy'd not far from him 't is as if it should be said to you by one to whom you owe any thing though pardon me the Obligation is on the other side Sir I come privately to you pray be just to me You say you will not Then he comes with a Friend and says Pray do me right and the matter shall go no farther you say you will not Then he puts you into the Ecclesiastical Court supposing it proper for their cognisance you will not stand to their sentence Then you are Excommunicated and treated as such a One. What a consequence from hence is this Therefore the Roman Church is to be heard as an infallible Guide in matters of Faith Mr. M. said being returned from the other part of the Room when there is a controversie about the meaning of
U. and Mrs. U. declared by themselves and the rather upon their taking notice of certain Arts of Lying not so much before observed by them she own'd that the aforesaid Stories were us'd by a Roman as Arguments to turn her I believe there might be false Stories to the prejudice of Mr. P. and his Friends but to the end that false Reports may not on either hand prevail this Account is written by D. T. which Mr. P. wheresoever he thinks it is faulty may please to correct Tho. Tenison A Pursuit of that which was said in the Conference about the three first Quotations viz. out of S. Ambrose de Sacramentis S. Cyril of Hierusalem in his Catechism and Justin Martyr in his Apology c. 1. FOR the Book de Sacramentis as not genuine it may suffice at present to say That though there was a Book written by S. Ambrose under that Title this is not it there not being found in this the Places which S. Austin cited out of that That the style is plainly more moderen and rude than that of S. Ambrose and his Age That the version of the places of Scripture mention'd in this Book is not the same with that which S. Ambrose uses in his genuine Works That this Book is taken notice of by the Writers of the 8th and 9th Age the time of the introducing of the Corporeal Presence The very eminent Cardinal Bona whose credit is greater than that of Alexander Natalis do's own all this the last words excepted Haec Ambrosius si tamen ipse horum librorum qui de Sacramentis inscribuntur Auctor est Testatur quidem Augustinus scripsisse Ambrosium libros de Sacramentis sive de Philosophia adverfus l'latonem quorum meminit lib. 2. Retract cap. 4. doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 28. eosque peâ—iit sibi mitti à S. Paulino Ep. 34. sed illi vel perierunt vel alicubi latent longè diversi sunt ab his qui nunc extant ut patet ex sententiis quas ex illis citat idem August lib. 2. primi operis adversus Julianum cap. 5. tribus sequentibus De his verò quos hodiè habemus fecit primò ut dubitarem styli diversitas cùm enim opera Ambrosii ante aliquot annos haud perfunctoriè percurrerem 〈◊〉 ad hoc pervent visus sum mihi alterius lingue hominem ab Ambrosio prorsus diversum loquentem audire Tum animadverti loca scripturae in his citata non esse ejus versionis quâ in aliis libris Ambrosius uti consuevit Quaedam etiam in his reperi quae seculo Ambrosii minùs convenire visa sunt Nihilominùs à Scriptoribus octavi nani seculi laudantur saepiùs tanquam Ambrosii legitimus foetus quorum auctoritati cedens eos deinceps sub ejus nomine cujus est possessio semper cit abo It is true he says at the end of his Discourse that notwithstanding his Reasons before alledged he yields to the Authority of the Writers of the 8th and 9th Age and that seeing they are in possession he will henceforth cite this Book under the name of S. Ambrose But considering the Time and the Doctrine then preparing for the papal stamp who wants the fagacity of understanding to what purpose this Book was forg'd and then brought forth as out of its antient mouldiness And for the humility of the Cardinal's deference to such late Authority against his solid reasons and judgment all know what that means in the Roman Communion where Writers after knowing that they have said things against the genius of that Church do in the end submit all at her feet So did Des-Cartes whose principles are utterly inconsistent with Transubstantiation So did Molinos the Father of the numberless off-spring of the present Quietists For this is the Conclusion of his first amply licensed and then rigidly condemned Guida spirituale Il tutto sottoponga humilimente prostrato alla Correttione della Santa Chiesa Catolica Romana After all this I do allow that Mr. P. was the less to be blamed in this Quotation considered as a Romanist because he cited it out of his Breviary and believ'd as his Church believed Of this spurious S. Ambrose and of the doctrine of the Eucharist in the true S. Ambrose I will say more when more is required I will add only at this time these two things First The Author cited out of the Breviary suppose him S. Ambrose is inconsistent with himself if Transubstantiation be an Article of his Faith. For he saith in another place non iste panis est qui vadit in Corpus sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae Substantiam fulcit That is it is not that Bread which goes into the Body but the Bread of Life eternal which sustains the substance of the Soul. Now what a Judge has Mr. P. chosen toward the deciding of a Controversie in which he is not reconcil'd to himself Secondly This Author in all probability has been further tamper'd with for he would scarce have said that in the Breviary seeing he own'd the Canon of the Mass in his time to run otherwise than now it does in the Roman Missal and to assert that the Elements were the Figure of Christ's Body Sècondly For the Testimony of S. Cyril it was not that cited thus in the Speculum S. Cyril Alexandrinus c. For Mr. P. spake of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and tho' he did not produce the words yet he said they were those in his fourth Mystagogical Catechism I say now as I then did That the place was long ago fully answered The place of S. Cyril is by a Romanist M. W. thus rendered Tho' you 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 Christ's changing Water into Wine The Answer is this and it is a true one We acknowledge that the words of S. Cyril of Jerusalem were truly cited but for clearing of them we shall neither alledge any thing to the lessening the Authority of that Father tho' we find but a slender Character given of him by Epiphanius and others Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the Authority of these Catechisms tho' much might be said But it is plain S. Cyril's design in these Catechisms was only to possess his Neophytes with a just and deep sense of these holy Symbols But even in his fourth Catechism he bids them not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still tho' not meer Bread. And he gives elsewhere a very formal account in what sense he thought it Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in his Fourth Catechism for in his first Mystical Catechism when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid
all that belonged to the Heathenish Idolatry he tells That on the Solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread which by the Invocation of the Devils were defil'd as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Holy Invocation of the blessed Trinity was bare Bread and Wine but the Invocation being made the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner says he those Victuals of the Pomp of Satan which of their own nature are common or bare Victuals by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane From this illustration which he borrowed from Justin Martyr his second Apology it appears that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the prophanation of the Idolatrous Feasts so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged so also according to him must the substance of the other remain Or if this will not suffice them let us see to what else he compares this change of Elements by the Consecration In his Third Mystag Catech. treating of the consecrated Oil he says As the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common Bread but the Body of Christ so this Holy Oyntment is no more bare Oyntment nor as some say common but it is a gift of Christ and the presence of the Holy Ghost and becomes energetical of his Divinity And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from S. Cyril's Testimony And thus we have performed likewise what we promised and have given a clear account of S. Cyril's meaning from himself from whose own words and from these things which he compares with the Sanctification of the Elements in the Eucharist it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts nor the consecrated Oyl in neither of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation I will at present add only three or four Notes about this place of St. Cyril First that the Romish Translator Grodecius has as should seem to help this matter in his way render'd the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sub specie panis sub specie vini under the shew of Bread and under the shew of Wine instead of in the Type or Figure of Bread and in the Type or Figure of Wine Secondly that just before the words cited in favour of Transubstantiation he uses these But in the new not Law as the Translator has it but Covenant the heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifie Soul and Body as the Bread agrees to the Body so the Word to the Soul. It should hence seem that the Body of Christ meant by St. Cyril was the Word and that both Bread and the Word were received by the Communicant Thirdly that St. Cyril's Third Catechise of the Illuminate or baptized opens the Sense of the Fourth Mystagogical Catechise for there he speaks in a very high strain of Consecrated Water and advises the Persons to be baptiz'd to come not as to common Water but as to the spiritual Grace given together with the Water Fourthly It is much to be doubted whether this be the Book of St. Cyril of Jerusalem for besides that Gesner saies he saw that Book in the Ausburg Library under the Name of John of Constantinople the Author forbids his Hearers to be Frequenters of Spectacles in Theaters or of Horse-races in Hippodromes for this there was no occasion at Jerusalem since it had become Christian there being especially in his time no such Sports and Places there that I have ever read of So in three Quotations the two first are taken out of suspected Authors yet I will allow the Catechisms to be ancient and to be ascrib'd to St. Cyril by Sophronius and St. Hierom yet they note that he compos'd them in his youth 3. Touching the Quotation out of Justin Martyr it was this in English and read out of the abovesaid Sheets called Speculum Ecclesiasticum by Mr. P. S. Justin. c. I suppose in Charity that Antonio for Antonino is the mistake of the Printer but'tis a mistake of some body else when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated As the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made man c. instead of by the Word of God or the Divine Spirit Jesus Christ being made flesh c. But to pass to something more material I observe first That the foregoing words of Justin which are very considerable are omitted viz. That at the end of the Eucharist the Ministers distribute to every one present that he may partake of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water c. Justin calls it Bread after Consecration as St. Paul did before him I observe secondly that Justin interprets himself whilst he saies It is not Common-Bread as if he had said It is Bread in its Nature but being consecrated and made the Figure and Pledge of Christ's Body it deserves a higher Name and indeed this is a Key to the Expressions of most of the Fathers and particularly to St. Cyril as has been already shown and it is plain to those who read the Fathers with Attention that they use such Language in relation to the Water in Baptism as they do in reference to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without teaching a Substantial change so Greg. Nyssen despise not the Divine Washing nor make light of it as Commmon I note thirdly that Justin affirms of the consecrated Bread and Wine that they nourish the Body and that therefore he is no Teacher of Transubstantiation which removes the Substances which nourish the Body And now how far is it from the true Art of Thinking and the sincere love of Truth to draw a Proof for a pretended Article of Faith from the high and hyperbolical Phrases of the Ancients by the same reason if the World should last 14 or 1500 years men might conclude that the Church of England taught the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence as well as the Church of Rome she having used these words in the Office of the Communion at the Consecration of the Elements Grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs Holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be Partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. An Account of Doctor Tenison 's and Doctor Celgat 's going to the Savoy to Mr. Pulton UPon October the 3d. 87. Dr. Tenison and Dr. Claget went to the Savoy about Five at Night After having found Mr. Pulton the Jesuit in his Lodgings there Dr. Tenison desired him to call to them any one of his Friends that he might hear the Discourse which he was about to offer After being twice or thrice pressed to it by Dr. Tenison he call'd one in the Habit of a Jesuit a Grave and Civil Person his Name was not asked Then Dr. Tenison apply'd himself to Mr.
well as that of Dr. T 's may be the better known I have here inserted part of a Letter sent to Dr. T. from that Reverend Person Octob. the 13th 87. Reverend Sir VVHEN the Boy came to me with his Master I looked upon him and methought I saw Stubbornness Ill-nature and Sullenness in his Face I asked him several Questions but had much ado to get an Answer from him To me he seem'd to intimate that he was already gone over to them Something I dropt accidentally about Succession which he laid hold of and with a kind of scornful Smile demanded what Succession we could shew I told him both for Men and Doctrine and proved it to him But after that he gave me little or no Answer to any thing I asked him I made him promise me to consider of what I had said and to come to me again which after some Demurr he did but never came I suppose you have an Account of the Sermon that was preach'd at the Mass-House in the Savoy on Sunday last c. The Publication of the Conference will be absolutely necessary I was at Black-Friars yesterday and heard that a Man having heard that the Victory went on the Papists side was turn'd Papist upon it This I had from the Man's Neighbour who ask'd me about that Conference but I rectified his Mistake I am SIR Yours to command A. Horneck Note Dr. H. was not consulted till Octob. 13. which confirms sully both what Mr. U. had said of J. S. and Dr. T. had observed of him These Numbers relate to Mr. P 's Paragraphs 4. He makes Dr. T. to say that Luther's Works were not in Quarto but in Fotio instead of saying in four or in six Folio's which small things I would not note if they did not show that a Thread of Mistake sometimes wilful and sometimes not does run through his whole Narrative He goes on saying that he had not brought the Book into the Pulpit we never talk'd of it but as shown privately in his Chamber and by this way of excusing his Aequivocation he exposes it 10. He says Dr. T. appeal'd to the Greeks and Bohemians But certainly to say as Dr. T. did that there were amongst them Christians professing the Faith of the Apostles Creed and disclaiming the Errors of Rome before Luther rose is not appealing to them 12. What Mr. P. says of Dr. T 's boast of having ten thousand Pounds worth of Books if his Amanuensis has not mistaken in the figuring will not be easily credited 13. Mr. P. would not have said what he does of St. Peter's 25 years if he had not mistaken Dr. T. who never deny'd that St. Peter was ever at Rome but spake of the 25 Years before he came thither not out of Eusebius's Cronicon as Mr. P. imagin'd tho in that Book the 25 in the Latin is not in the Greek and Eusebius elsewhere contradicts that Computation but out of a passage in Lactantius which perhaps being formerly run away with without due attention to its meaning might occasion that Blunder in Chronology if Pope Damasus had not a Finger in that Corruption 14. He speaks of Dr. T 's being judg'd by the four first Centuries which is not the whole Truth he lik'd them best but would not be judg'd by them for he took in Universal Testimony separate from Authority 15. Mr. P. affirms That he had read all Ecclesiastical History and had Volumes of Notes relating to it Much good may his Common-place-Book do him if it be taken out of some such Authors as are cited in his Speculum Anacletus's Epistle St. Cyprian de caenâ Domini St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Apology against Ruffinus who flourished not till about Anno 390. Whilst St. Cyril flourish'd Anno 350. he may call his Notes Collections but they are properly Weedings 15. He puts upon Dr. T. a false thing of denying that any Bishops came from England to the Council of Lateran Dr. T. is positive upon Inquiry that this is a false and unfair way of Apologizing for his own Mistake by inventing one for him who charg'd him with it Dr. T. only ask'd a few Questions about that Council and set Father Walsh against Father Pulton shewing how far they were from Unity about what was and what was not a General Council Mr. Pulton's Guide tho not every Jesuite's Dr. T. well knew that most of the Roman Communion have insisted on that Council as General tho it be not so And he well remembers he told Mr. P. he would upon occasion hold him to it seeing that Council teaches the Deposing Doctrine which Doctrine notwithstanding Mr. P. disclaimed at his going forth out of the second Room 16 17. He is much concern'd at Dr. T 's insisting on one place in St. Ambrose Dr. T. insisted upon that for a reason Mr. P. might know but was not aware of and it was this That Passage out of St. Ambrose had been by a certain Priest translated into English and given to a Person of Honour in order to Conversion and this Paper has been long tho in private manner carried about the Town as likewise some disjointed Passages transcribed from Dr. Taylour about the Real Presence which taken by themselves do give a most abusive Representation of that Doctor 's Sense This Place being then the Engine of Converters it was fit to be expos'd If Mr. P. pleases I will name Persons and Places to him 17. Observe here the Fidelity either of Mr. P's Memory or his Conscience He savs the Doctor told a Story of some Priest at Rome who having pronounced the Words of Consecration was heard to say aloud that he believ'd not as the Roman Church oblig'd Whereas the Story as before repeated was about the Courtesans over-hearing the Priests say Bread thou art and Bread thou shalt be 18. Mr. P. leaving out what was answered to the place in J. Martyr says the Doctor would not declare what he believed in the Point of the Real Presence and yet Dr. T. repeated the Words of the Catechism and said he would abide by the true Sense of them 18. He talks of knocking the Pulpit which words he never nam'd there What Priests act most there is known enough to the World. 19. Dr. T. is said to have asked Mr. P. what Verse it was wherein it was written If he hear not the Church Whereas he appeals to all the Company if he did not ask him in what Evangelist it was and he could not tell and instead of that Mr. P. says of himself that he did not tell He had said more than was fit upon other occasions why was he not in humour to say what was fit here He adds Dr. T. turning from place to place found it Whereas he named the Chapter and Verse before he began to turn and the reason of his turning was manifest for he could not read the Print by the Light they had till he was forc'd to pull out his Spectacles These