A30411.xml

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
   <teiHeader>
      <fileDesc>
         <titleStmt>
            <title>A relation of a conference held about religion at London, the third of April, 1676 by Edw. Stillingfleet ... and Gilbert Burnet, with some gentlemen of the Church of Rome.</title>
            <author>Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.</author>
         </titleStmt>
         <editionStmt>
            <edition>
               <date>1676</date>
            </edition>
         </editionStmt>
         <extent>Approx. 320 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 139 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.</extent>
         <publicationStmt>
            <publisher>Text Creation Partnership,</publisher>
            <pubPlace>Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :</pubPlace>
            <date when="2004-03">2004-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).</date>
            <idno type="DLPS">A30411</idno>
            <idno type="STC">Wing B5861</idno>
            <idno type="STC">ESTC R14666</idno>
            <idno type="EEBO-CITATION">12541241</idno>
            <idno type="OCLC">ocm 12541241</idno>
            <idno type="VID">62980</idno>
            <availability>
               <p>This keyboarded and encoded edition of the
	       work described above is co-owned by the institutions
	       providing financial support to the Early English Books
	       Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is
	       available for reuse, according to the terms of <ref target="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">Creative
	       Commons 0 1.0 Universal</ref>. The text can be copied,
	       modified, distributed and performed, even for
	       commercial purposes, all without asking permission.</p>
            </availability>
         </publicationStmt>
         <seriesStmt>
            <title>Early English books online.</title>
         </seriesStmt>
         <notesStmt>
            <note>(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30411)</note>
            <note>Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62980)</note>
            <note>Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 308:3)</note>
         </notesStmt>
         <sourceDesc>
            <biblFull>
               <titleStmt>
                  <title>A relation of a conference held about religion at London, the third of April, 1676 by Edw. Stillingfleet ... and Gilbert Burnet, with some gentlemen of the Church of Rome.</title>
                  <author>Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.</author>
                  <author>Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.</author>
               </titleStmt>
               <extent>[19], 58, 193 [i.e. 197], [3] p.   </extent>
               <publicationStmt>
                  <publisher>Printed and are to be sold by Moses Pitt ...,</publisher>
                  <pubPlace>London :</pubPlace>
                  <date>1676.</date>
               </publicationStmt>
               <notesStmt>
                  <note>Errata: p. [5].</note>
                  <note>Advertisement: p. [2]-[3] at end.</note>
                  <note>Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.</note>
               </notesStmt>
            </biblFull>
         </sourceDesc>
      </fileDesc>
      <encodingDesc>
         <projectDesc>
            <p>Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl,
      TEI @ Oxford.
      </p>
         </projectDesc>
         <editorialDecl>
            <p>EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.</p>
            <p>EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).</p>
            <p>The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.</p>
            <p>Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.</p>
            <p>Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.</p>
            <p>Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as &lt;gap&gt;s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.</p>
            <p>The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.</p>
            <p>Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).</p>
            <p>Keying and markup guidelines are available at the <ref target="http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/docs/.">Text Creation Partnership web site</ref>.</p>
         </editorialDecl>
         <listPrefixDef>
            <prefixDef ident="tcp"
                       matchPattern="([0-9\-]+):([0-9IVX]+)"
                       replacementPattern="http://eebo.chadwyck.com/downloadtiff?vid=$1&amp;page=$2"/>
            <prefixDef ident="char"
                       matchPattern="(.+)"
                       replacementPattern="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/textcreationpartnership/Texts/master/tcpchars.xml#$1"/>
         </listPrefixDef>
      </encodingDesc>
      <profileDesc>
         <langUsage>
            <language ident="eng">eng</language>
         </langUsage>
         <textClass>
            <keywords scheme="http://authorities.loc.gov/">
               <term>Lord's Supper --  Real presence.</term>
            </keywords>
         </textClass>
      </profileDesc>
      <revisionDesc>
         <change>
            <date>2003-10</date>
            <label>TCP</label>Assigned for keying and markup</change>
         <change>
            <date>2003-12</date>
            <label>SPi Global</label>Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-01</date>
            <label>John Latta</label>Sampled and proofread</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-01</date>
            <label>John Latta</label>Text and markup reviewed and edited</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-02</date>
            <label>pfs</label>Batch review (QC) and XML conversion</change>
      </revisionDesc>
   </teiHeader>
   <text xml:lang="eng">
      <front>
         <div type="imprimatur">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:1" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <p>IMPRIMATUR.</p>
            <closer>
               <date>June 1. 1676.</date> 
               <signed>
                  <hi>G. Jane</hi> R. P. D. Hen. Epis. <hi>Lond.</hi> a sac. dom.</signed>
            </closer>
         </div>
         <div type="title_page">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:1" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <p>A RELATION OF A Conference, Held About RELIGION, At LONDON, the Third of <hi>April,</hi> 1676.</p>
            <p>By <hi>Edw. Stillingfleet</hi> D.D. and <hi>Gilbert Burnet,</hi> with some Gentlemen of the Church of ROME.</p>
            <p>LONDON, Printed and are to be sold by <hi>Moses Pitt,</hi> at the <hi>Angel</hi> against the little North-door of S. <hi>Paul</hi>'s Church, M DC LXXVI.</p>
         </div>
         <div type="table_of_contents">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:2" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:2"/>
            <head>THE CONTENTS.</head>
            <list>
               <item>THE Preface.</item>
               <item>The Relation of the Confe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rence.</item>
               <item>An addition by <hi>N. N.</hi> to what was then said.</item>
               <item>An answer to that addition.</item>
               <item>A Letter demonstrating that the Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine of the Church for the first eight Centuries was contrary to <hi>Transubstantiation.</hi>
               </item>
               <item>A Discourse to show how unreaso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nable it is to ask for express words of Scripture in proving all Arti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cles of Faith, and that a lust and good consequence from Scripture is sufficient.</item>
               <item>A Discourse to shew that it was
<pb facs="tcp:62980:3"/>
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.</item>
            </list>
            <div type="errata">
               <head>ERRATA.</head>
               <p>PAge 18. <hi>l. 3. said to</hi> to be read at the end of <hi>l. 4.</hi> p. 8. <hi>l. 11.</hi> after <hi>Baptism</hi> read <hi>Ethiop.</hi> p. 23. <hi>l. 20.</hi> for <hi>cites</hi> read <hi>explains.</hi> p. 26. <hi>l. 3.</hi> for <hi>sayes</hi> r. <hi>has these words.</hi> p. 32. <hi>l. 26.</hi> after <hi>the Body of Christ</hi> these words are left out, <hi>is after some manner his Body, and the Sacrament of his Blood.</hi> p. 72. <hi>l. 28.</hi> for <hi>must</hi> r. <hi>to.</hi> p. 75. <hi>l. 19.</hi> for <hi>use</hi> r. <hi>prove.</hi> p. 86. <hi>l. 26.</hi> for <hi>these</hi> r. <hi>the.</hi> p. 93 <hi>l. 7.</hi> for <hi>yet</hi> r. <hi>you.</hi> p. 103. for <hi>History</hi> r. <hi>Heresy.</hi> p. 135. <hi>l. 14.</hi> for <hi>remained</hi> r. <hi>appeared in the world.</hi> p. 140. <hi>l. 22.</hi> for <hi>which</hi> r. <hi>who.</hi> The rest the reader will correct as he goes through.</p>
            </div>
         </div>
         <div type="preface">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:3"/>
            <head>THE PREFACE.</head>
            <p>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 con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cerned 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 Calm<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness 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
<pb facs="tcp:62980:4"/>
discretely managed, does more appositely meet with the doubtings and difficul<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ties 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 re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>present 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 in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>terest and other ties, that in Conferen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces 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 oc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>casion 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 per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>haps scorn, that they may seem to come off with victory.</p>
            <p>And it is no less frequent to see Men after they have been so baffled, that all discerning witnesses are ashamed of
<pb facs="tcp:62980:4"/>
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 be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tween 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 them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves.</p>
            <p>All these considerations with a great many more did appear to us, when the Lady <hi>T.</hi> asked us if we would speak with her Husband and some others of the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> as well for clear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing such scruples as the perpetual con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>verse 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 be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing willing to stand up for the Vindica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion and Honour of our Church, what<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ever
<pb facs="tcp:62980:5"/>
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 parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>culars 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 re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>solved 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 re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>form these abuses: and that the Bishops and Pastors of this Church, the Civil Authority concurring, had sufficient authority for reforming it. These be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing the material things in controversy, which must satisfy every person if well made out, we intended to have discours<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed about them; but being put to an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swer, we followed those we had to deal with.</p>
            <p>But that we may not forestal the Read<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>er in any thing that passed in the La<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dies chamber, which he will find in the following account, we had no sooner
<pb facs="tcp:62980:5"/>
left her house, but we resumed among our selves all had passed, that it might be written down, what ever should fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>low, to be published if need were. So we agreed to meet again three days after, to compare what could be writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten down, with our memories. And having met, an account was read, which did so exactly contain all that was spo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken, 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 ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cellent cause of our Church and Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligion might not suffer by the mis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>representations of this conference. And the truth was, there was so little said by
<pb facs="tcp:62980:6"/>
seven or eight ages was contrary to Transubstantiation: which we sent to the Lady on the seventeenth of <hi>April</hi> 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 <hi>April</hi> with him who is mark<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed <hi>N. N.</hi> in the account of the Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ference, I told him, the foolish talk was made by their Party about this Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ference, 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 <hi>Trinity</hi> 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 ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ditions 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 de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired also to know by that time whe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther they intended any answer to the
<pb facs="tcp:62980:6"/>
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.</p>
            <p>And so I waited still expecting to hear from him. At length on the twenti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth of <hi>May N. N</hi> 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 de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired me to take notice of some particu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lars 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 relati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on of the conference, which he acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledged was a faithful account of what he had told me.</p>
            <p>I have considered it I hope to the full, so that it gave me more occasion of can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vassing the whole matter. And thus the
<pb facs="tcp:62980:7"/>
Reader will find a great deal of reason to give an entire credit to this rela<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion, since we have proceeded in it with so much candor, that it is plain we in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tended 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 reason<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able man that all is true that he has here offered to his perusal.</p>
            <p>And if these Gentlemen or any of their friends publish different or con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trary Relations of this Conference, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out 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 can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not in reason be thought of any surrepti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tious account that like a work of dark<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness 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
<pb facs="tcp:62980:7"/>
a competent time be given to shew what mistake or errors any such relation may be guilty of.</p>
            <p>We do not expect the Reader shall receive great Instructions from the fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowing Conference, for the truth is, we met with nothing but shufling. So that he will find when ever we came to dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>course closely to any head, they very dex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trously 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 acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledge it was none of our fault, that we did not canvass things more ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>actly, 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 satis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fy the Lady <hi>T.</hi> 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
<pb facs="tcp:62980:8"/>
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.</p>
            <p>But we hope the letter and the two di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>scourses that follow, will give the Read<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>er a more profitable entertainment. In the letter we give many short hints, and set down some select passages of the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers, to shew they did not believe Tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation. Upon all which we are ready to join issue to make good every thing in that paper, from which we be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve it is apparent the primitive Church was wholly a stranger to Transubstan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiation.</p>
            <p>It was also judged necessary by some of our Friends that we should to pur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pose and once for all, expose and discre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dit that unreasonable demand of shewing all the Articles of our Church in the ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press words of Scripture: upon which the first discourse was written.</p>
            <p>And it being found that no answer was made to what <hi>N. N.</hi> said, to shew that it was not possible the Doctrine of
<pb facs="tcp:62980:8"/>
Transubstantiation could have crept in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to any age, if those of that age had not had it from their Fathers, and they from theirs up to the Apostles dayes, this be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing also since our Conference laid home to me by the same person, it was thought fit to give a full account how this Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine could have been brought into the Church, that so a change <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ay appear to have been not only possible, but also pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bable, and therefore the second discourse was written.</p>
            <p>If these discourses have not that full fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nishing 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 excel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lent 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
<pb facs="tcp:62980:9"/>
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 peru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sal of what follows.</p>
         </div>
      </front>
      <body>
         <div type="report">
            <pb n="1" facs="tcp:62980:9"/>
            <head>THE RELATION OF THE Conference, Monday Afternoon the third of <hi>April, 1676.</hi>
            </head>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> and M. <hi>B.</hi> went to M. <hi>L. T's.</hi> as they had been desired by <hi>L. T.</hi> to confer with some Persons upon the Grounds of the Church of <hi>Eng<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lands</hi> separating from <hi>Rome,</hi> and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our Church to theirs.</p>
            <p>About half an hour after them, came in <hi>S.P.T.</hi> Mr. <hi>W.</hi> and three more. There were present seven or eight La<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dies, three other Church-men, and one or two more. When we were all set D. <hi>S.</hi> said to <hi>S.P.T.</hi> that we were come to wait on them for justifying our
<pb n="2" facs="tcp:62980:10"/>
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.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>S. P.</hi> 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 ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessary 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 Sup<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>per, is Faith:] and added, he desired to know whether that was read in Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture or not, and in what place it was to be found.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, he must first explain that Article of the Scripture; for this method
<pb n="3" facs="tcp:62980:10"/>
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 ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ped 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 Im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>posed as an Article of Faith, but what was either expresly contained in Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture, 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 per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>formed 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.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, They must see the Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticle in express Scripture, or at least in some places of Scripture which had been so interpreted by the Church, the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cils or Fathers, or any one Council or Father. And he the rather pitched
<pb n="4" facs="tcp:62980:11"/>
on this Article, because he judged it the only Article, in which all Protestants, except the Lutherans, were agreed.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, It had been the art of all the Hereticks from the <hi>Marcionites</hi> days, to call for express words of Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture. It was well known the <hi>Arrians</hi> set up their rest on this, that their Doctrine was not condemned by express words of Scripture; but that this was still re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>jected by the Catholick Church, and that <hi>Theodoret</hi> had written a Book, on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this Challenge; therefore he de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired they would not insist on that which every body must see was not fair deal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing, 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 con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tained in express words.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> Added, that all the Fathers, wri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting against the <hi>Arrians,</hi> 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 <hi>Arrian</hi> Council that rejected the words Equisubstantial and Consubstantial, gives that for the reason, that they were not in the Scripture. And
<pb n="5" facs="tcp:62980:11"/>
that in the Council of <hi>Ephesus</hi> S. <hi>Cyril</hi> 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 propo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sitions in express words; yet the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil was satisfied from them, and condemned the <hi>Nestorians.</hi> 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 disjun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctive, where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse, either one or other.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>S. P. T.</hi> said, <hi>Or</hi> was not in the Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticle.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, <hi>Nor</hi> was a negative in a disjunctive proposition, as <hi>Or</hi> was an affirmative, and both came to the same meaning.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, That S. <hi>Austin</hi> charged the Heretick to read what he said in the Scripture.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, S. <hi>Austin</hi> 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
<pb n="6" facs="tcp:62980:12"/>
with it on some other account.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> 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 Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrines, 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 Scri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pture for a negative, was as unjust as if <hi>Mahomet</hi> 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 Ro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>man Church had set up the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, without either express Scri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pture or good proofs from it, their Church had good cause to reject these.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, The Article they de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired to be satisfied in was, if he under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stood any thing, a positive Article, and not a negative.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, The positive Article was, that Christ was received in the Ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly Sacrament; but because they had (as our Church judged) brought in
<pb n="7" facs="tcp:62980:12"/>
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 nega<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tive. He added, that it was also unrea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sonable to ask any one place to prove a Doctrine by; for the Fathers in their proceedings with the <hi>Arrians</hi> 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 join<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed together, we perform all that the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers thought themselves bound to do in the like case.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> then at great length told them, The Church of <hi>Rome</hi> and the Church of <hi>England</hi> differed in many great and weighty points; that we were come thither to see, as these Gen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tlemen professed they desired, if we could offer good reason for them to turn Protestants, and as the Ladies pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fessed a desire to be further established in the Doctrine of the Church of <hi>Eng<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>land</hi>; In order to which, none could think it a proper method to pick out some words in the obscure corner of
<pb n="8" facs="tcp:62980:13"/>
an Article, and call for express Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures for them. But the fair and fit way was to examine whether the Church of <hi>England</hi> had not very good reason to separate from the Communion of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi>; therefore since it was for truth, in which ourSouls are so deep<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly concerned, that we enquired, he desi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red they would join issue to examine ei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther the grounds on which the Church of <hi>England</hi> did separate from the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> 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 <hi>England</hi> 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 earnest<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness, as that only which could satisfy all peoples consciences.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> and <hi>S. P. T.</hi> said, God for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bid they should speak one word for the Church of <hi>Rome</hi>; they understood the danger they should run by speak<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing to that.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, He hoped they looked on us as Men of more Conscience and Ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nesty, than to make an ill use of any
<pb n="9" facs="tcp:62980:13"/>
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.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, That though the Law condemned the endeavouring to recon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cile any to the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> 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 doubt<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed any of the other Company, it was <hi>S. P.</hi> his house, and he might order it to be more private if he pleased.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>S. P.</hi> Said, he was only to speak to the Articles of the Church of <hi>England,</hi> and desired express words for that Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticle. Upon this followed a long wrang<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling, the same things were said over and over again. In the end.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said they had not asked where that Article was read: that they doubt<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed 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.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, Upon the terms in the 6.
<pb n="10" facs="tcp:62980:14"/>
Article he was ready to undertake the 28. Article to prove it clearly by Scri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pture.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, But there must be no interpretations admitted of.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, It was certain the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures were not given to us, as Pariots are taught to speak words; we were en<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dued 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 expres<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sed 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. <hi>Paul</hi> wrote his Epistles, which were the hardest pieces of the New Testament, to all in the Churches to whom he directed them.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, The Epistles were writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten upon emergent occasions, and so were for the use of the Churches to whom they were directed.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, Though they were writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten upon emergent occasions, yet they
<pb n="11" facs="tcp:62980:14"/>
were written by Divine inspiration, and as a Rule of Faith, not only for those Churches but for all Christians.</p>
            <p>But as M. <hi>W.</hi> was a going to speak,</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> came in, upon which we all rose up till he was set; So being set, af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter some Civilities,</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> resumed a little what they were about, and told they were cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling for express Scriptures to prove the Articles of our Church by.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, He had proposed a mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter that was indeed of weight; there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore he would first shew, that these of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> were not provi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded of a sufficient or fit Judge of Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>troversies.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, That was not the thing they were to speak to; for though we destroyed the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> all to nought, yet except we built up our own, we did nothing: therefore he de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired to hear what we had to say for our own Church; he was not to med<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dle with the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> but to hear and be instructed if he could see
<pb n="12" facs="tcp:62980:15"/>
reason to be of the Church of <hi>England,</hi> for may be it might be somewhat in his way.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, He would not examine if it would be in his way to be of the Church of <hi>England,</hi> or not, but did heartily acknowledge with great civi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lity 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 af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter some civilities had passed on both sides,</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, The Bishops and Pastors of the Church of <hi>England</hi> 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 Vir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gin, 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
<pb n="13" facs="tcp:62980:15"/>
words of the institution; That Tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation 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 endan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ger 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 suffici<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ent authority to reform the Church from these abuses, and he left it to M. <hi>C.</hi> to chuse on which of these parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>culars they should discourse.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, The Bishops and Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stors having the charge of Souls were bound to feed the flock with sound Doctrine, according to the word of God. So S. <hi>Paul</hi> when he charged the Bishops of <hi>Ephesus</hi> to feed the flock, and to guard against Wolves or Se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ducers; he commends them to the word of Gods Grace which is the Gospel. And in his Epistles to <hi>Timothy</hi> and <hi>Ti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tus</hi> wherein the rules of the Pastoral charge are set down, he commands <hi>Ti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mothy,</hi> and in him all Bishops and Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stors, to hold fast the Doctrine and form of sound words which he had deliver<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed, and tells him, the Scriptures were able to make the man of God perfect.
<pb n="14" facs="tcp:62980:16"/>
If then the Bishops and Pastors of this Church found it corrupted by any un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sound 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 Conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cration of a Bishop, as it is in the Pon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tifical, 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 Exam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple? To which he answers: I will.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, We had now offered as much as would be the subject of many dayes discourse, and he had but few mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nutes to spare: therefore he desired to be informed what authority those Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>shops 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.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, It had been frequently the practice of many Nations and Pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vinces to meet in Provincial Synods, and reform abuses. For which he offered to prove they had both authority and
<pb n="15" facs="tcp:62980:16"/>
president. But much more in some in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stances he was ready to shew of parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>culars that had been defined by General Councils, which they only applied to their circumstances; and this was ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ver questioned but Provincial Synods might do.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> desired, to be first satisfied, by what Authority they could cut them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves off from the obedience of the See of <hi>Rome,</hi> in King <hi>Henry</hi> 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 them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves from the Body of this Nation; for instance, <hi>Wales</hi> that had once distinct Princes, and say we acknowledge no right <hi>William</hi> 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 <hi>Henry</hi> the VIII. the Pope had the Authority in Spirituals, and they were his Subjects in Spirituals: There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore their Declaring he had none, could
<pb n="16" facs="tcp:62980:17"/>
not take his Authority from him, no more than the Long Parliament had right to declare by an Act, that the So<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>veraign Power was in the Peoples hands, in pursuance of which they cut off the Kings head.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, The first General Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cils, as they established the Patriarchal Power, so the Priviledges of several Churches were preserved entire to them, as in the case of <hi>Cyprus</hi>; that the <hi>British</hi> Churches were not within the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of <hi>Rome</hi>; that afterwards the Bishops of <hi>Rome</hi> strik<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing in with the Interests of the Princes of <hi>Europe,</hi> 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 <hi>England</hi>; where from King <hi>William</hi> the Conqueror his days, as their Illegal and oppressive Impositi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons were a constant Grievance to the People, so our Princes and Parliaments were ever put to strugle with them. But to affront their Authority, <hi>Thomas Beck<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>et,</hi> 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
<pb n="17" facs="tcp:62980:17"/>
mercy through his merits. It continu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing thus for several Ages, in the end a vigorous Prince arises, who was re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>solved to assert his own Authority. And he looking into the Oaths the Bishops swore to the Pope, they were all found in a <hi>Praemunire</hi> by them. Then did the whole Nation agree to assert their own freedom, and their Kings Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thority. And 'twas considerable, that those very Bishops, that in Qu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>en <hi>Ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rys</hi> days did most cruelly persecute those of the Church of <hi>England,</hi> and advance the Interests of <hi>Rome,</hi> were the most zealous Assertors and Defen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ders of what was done by King <hi>Henry</hi> the VIII. Therefore the Popes power in <hi>England</hi> being founded on<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>o<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> just Title, and being managed with so much oppression, there was both a full Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thority and a great deal of reason for rejecting it. And if the Major Gene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rals, who had their Authority from <hi>Cromwell,</hi> 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 Alle<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giance they ow'd the King, ought to have asserted the Kings Authority, and rejected the Pope's.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="18" facs="tcp:62980:18"/>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, It seemed M. <hi>C.</hi> founded the Popes Right to the Authority he had in <hi>England</hi> 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 <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> 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 <hi>Rome.</hi> 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 <hi>Britain</hi> was no part of his Patriarchate, but an exempt, as <hi>Cyprus</hi> was. That his Power as Patriarch was only for re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiving Appeals, or calling Synods, and
<pb n="19" facs="tcp:62980:18"/>
did not at all encroach on the jurisdi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ction 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 <hi>tria Capitula,</hi> for which the Western Bishops did generally stand, and Pope <hi>Vigilius</hi> wrote in de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fence of them; but <hi>Iustinian</hi> the Em<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>perour having drawn him to <hi>Constanti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nople,</hi> he consented with the Fifth Council to the condemning them. Up<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on which at his return many of the Western Bishops did separate from him. And as <hi>Victor</hi> Bishop of <hi>Tunes</hi> tells us (who lived at that time) That Pope was Synodically excommunicated by the Bishops of <hi>Africk.</hi> It is true, in the eighth Century the Decretal Epistles being forged his pretensions were much advanced: yet his universal jurisdicti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on was contested in all Ages, as might be proved from the known Instance of <hi>Hincmar</hi> Bishop of <hi>Rheims,</hi> and many more. Therefore how strong soever the Argument from Prescription may be in Civil things, it is of no force here.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, Now we are got into a contest of 1700. years story, but I know
<pb n="20" facs="tcp:62980:19"/>
not when we shall get out of it. He con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fessed there was no Prescription against a divine right, and acknowledged all Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>shops were alike in their Order, but not in their Jurisdiction; as the Bishop of <hi>Oxford</hi> was a Bishop as well as the Arch<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bishop of <hi>Canterbury,</hi> and yet he was inferiour to him in Jurisdiction: But de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired to know, what was in the Popes authority that was so intolerable.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, That he should only de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bate about the Popes Jurisdiction, and to his question, for one Particular, That from the days of Pope <hi>Paschal</hi> the II. all Bishops swear obedience to the Pope, was intolerable bondage.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, Then will you acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledg 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.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, Whatever his Patriarchal power was, he had none over <hi>Britain.</hi> For it was plain, we had not the Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stian faith from the <hi>Roman</hi> Church, as appeared from the very story of <hi>Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stin</hi> the Monk.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="21" facs="tcp:62980:19"/>
               <hi>S. P. T.</hi> said, Did not King <hi>Lucius</hi> write to the Pope upon his receiving the Christian Faith?</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, he would wave all that, and ask, if the Church of <hi>England</hi> could justifie her for saking the obedience of the Bishop of <hi>Rome,</hi> when all the rest of the Christian world submitted to it.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, He wondred to hear him speak so, Were not the <hi>Greek,</hi> the <hi>Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>menian,</hi> the <hi>Nestorian,</hi> and the <hi>Abis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sen</hi> Churches separated from the Ro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>man?</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, He wondred as much to hear him reckon the <hi>Nestorians</hi> among the Churches, that were condemned Hereticks.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, It would be hard for him to prove them <hi>Nestorians.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> asked why he called them so then.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> answered, because they were generally best known by that name.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, Did not the <hi>Greek</hi> Church reconcile it self to the <hi>Roman</hi> Church at the Council of <hi>Florence</hi>?</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="22" facs="tcp:62980:20"/>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, Many of the Greek Church were daily reconciled to the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> and many of the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther Eastern Bishops had sent their obe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dience to the Pope.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, They knew there was e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nough to be said to these things, that these arts were now pretty well discover<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed: But he insisted to prove, the Usurpa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions of <hi>Rome</hi> were such as were incon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sistent with the supreme civil authori<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty<gap reason="illegible: missing" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> and shewed the oath in the <hi>Pontifi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
                  <gap reason="illegible: faint" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>le</hi> by which, for instance, <hi>If the Pope command a Bishop to go to</hi> Rome, <hi>and his King forbid it, he must obey the Pope and disobey the King.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, These things were very consistent, that the King should be su<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pream in Civils and the Pope in Spiri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tuals: So that if the Pope commanded a thing that were Civil, the King must be obeyed and not he.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, By the words of the Oath the Bishops were to receive and help the Popes Legates, both in com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing and going. Now suppose the King declared it Treason to receive the Le<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gate, yet in this case the Bishops are sworn to obey the Pope, and this was a case that fell out often.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="23" facs="tcp:62980:20"/>D. <hi>S.</hi> instanced the case of Queen <hi>Mary.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, If he comes with false Mandates, he is not a Legate.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> 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 Domi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nions, here the Bishops must either be Traitors or perjured.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, It was plain, <hi>Paschal</hi> the second devised that Oath on purpose to cut off all those reserves of their du<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty to their Princes. And therefore the words are so full and large, that no Oath of Allegiance was ever conceived in more express terms.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, It was yet more plain from the words that preceed that clause about Legates, that <hi>they shall be on no Counsel to do the Pope any injury, and shall reveal none of his secrets.</hi> 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
<pb n="24" facs="tcp:62980:21"/>
subjects, and to be faithful spies and correspondents to give intelligence. As he was saying this, <hi>L. T.</hi> did whisper D. <hi>S.</hi> who presently told the compa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny, 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 there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore since he had before named some of the most considerable; he desired we might discourse about some of these.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, Name any thing in the Roman Church that is expresly contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry to Scriptures; but bring not your expositions of Scripture to prove it by, for we will not admit of these.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> asked if they did not ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>knowledge that it was only by the me<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>diation of Christ, that our sins were pardoned and eternal life given to us.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> answered, no question of it at all.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> 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 fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowing prayer to be used (which he read out of their ritual) [The passion of
<pb n="25" facs="tcp:62980:21"/>
our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed Virgin <hi>Mary</hi> 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 pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nitents to the merits of the blessed Vir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gin and the Saints, as well as the passion of our blessed Saviour.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, Here was a very severe charge put in against their Church with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out 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 par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>doned 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
<pb n="26" facs="tcp:62980:22"/>
prayer, yet it was an unjust charge on their Church to say they make them e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>qual in their value or efficiency.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, The thing he had chiefly 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 <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>o all if the na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them, and the sense the other had offered was not forced.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> said, By merits were under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stood prayers, which had force and me<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rit with God.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> 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 pray<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ers.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>C.</hi> 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 busi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness
<pb n="27" facs="tcp:62980:22"/>
lay on him that day, but said to D. <hi>S.</hi> That when he pleased, he would wait on him and discourse of the other particulars at more length.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> assured him that when ever he pleased to appoint it, he should be ready to give him a meeting. And so he went away.</p>
            <p>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.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> apealed to the publick Regi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sters, and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all Queen <hi>Eliza<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>beth</hi>'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.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>S. P. T.</hi> 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 <hi>Bramhall</hi>'s book about it, he said he had read it six times over, and that it did not satis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie him.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> asked him, how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved, if the publick Registers
<pb n="28" facs="tcp:62980:23"/>
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 advan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tages 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 forge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry was on the other side.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> Did clear the objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament, that it was only for making the ordi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nation legal in <hi>England</hi>; since in <hi>Ed<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ward</hi> the sixth's time the book of ordi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nation was not joined in the record to the book of Common-Prayer, from whence Bishop <hi>Bonner</hi> took occasion to deny their ordination as not accord<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing to Law; and added that <hi>Saunders</hi> who in Queen <hi>Elizabeth</hi>'s time denied the validity of our ordination, never alledged any such story. But as we were talking freely of this,</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> 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
<pb n="29" facs="tcp:62980:23"/>
Sacrament, and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>umph. Upon which,</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> desired all might sit down a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gain, that they might put that matter to an issue: so a Bible was brought, and</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> Being spent with much speak<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing, desired. M. <hi>B.</hi> to speak to it.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> turned to the 6th Chap. of S. <hi>Iohn</hi> verse 54. and read these words, <hi>Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life,</hi> and added, these words were, according to the common interpretation of their Church, to be understand of the Sacramental manducation.</p>
            <p>This M. <hi>W.</hi> granted, only M. <hi>B.</hi> had said, all the Doctors understood these words so and</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, That all had not done so, which</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> 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, unwor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thy receivers must be said to have eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal
<pb n="30" facs="tcp:62980:24"/>
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.</p>
            <p>A person whose name I know not, but shall henceforth mark him <hi>N. N.</hi> asked what M. <hi>B.</hi> meant, <hi>by Faith on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, By Faith he mean<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> such a believing of the Gospel, as carried a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>long with it Evangelical obedience: by Faith only he meant Faith as oppo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>site to sense.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> asked him if we received Christ's body and blood by our senses.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>N. N.</hi> said, we did.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> asked which of the senses, his taste, or touch, or sight, for that seemed strange to him.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>N. N.</hi> 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 <hi>Aristotelian</hi> and <hi>Carte<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sian Hypothesis.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, He would not engage in that
<pb n="31" facs="tcp:62980:24"/>
subtlety which was a digression from the main argument, but he could not a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>void 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 argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> denied the minor, that by Faith only we have eternal life.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture, he would reject the argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, That if he did demon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>strate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest constru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ction 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 eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal life, or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, He would admit of no
<pb n="32" facs="tcp:62980:25"/>
consequences, how clear soever they seemed, unless he brought him the ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press words of Scripture, and asked if his consequences were infallible.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, If the consequence was certain, it was sufficient; and he de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired 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 de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sired: So we laid aside that argument, being satisfied that the Article of our Church, which they had called in que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stion, was clearly proved from Scri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pture.</p>
            <p>Then <hi>N. N.</hi> insisted to speak of the corporal presence, and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, If we have no better rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son 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 <hi>AEgyptians</hi>; then we have no reason at all; but so it is that we have no more reason.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>N. N.</hi> denied this, and said we had more reason.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="33" facs="tcp:62980:25"/>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, All the reason we had to believe it was, because Christ said, This is my body; but <hi>Moses</hi> said of the Pas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chal festivity, This is the Lords Passo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ver; 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<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>born of <hi>AEgypt.</hi> If then we will under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stand Christs words in the strictly lite<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ral sense, we must in the same sense un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstand the words of <hi>Moses</hi>: But if we understand the words of <hi>Moses</hi> in any other sense, as the commemoration of the Lords Passover, then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense.</p>
            <p>The reason is clear; for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish <hi>Pascha,</hi> and he using in every thing, as much as could agree with his blessed designs, forms as nea<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> the Jewish customes as could be, there is no reason to think he did use the words, <hi>this is my body,</hi> in any o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther sense than the Jews did <hi>this is the Lords Passover.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <hi>N. N.</hi> said, The disparity was great. First, Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body. Second<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly,
<pb n="34" facs="tcp:62980:26"/>
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 Christi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>an 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 o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pinion have crept in, in any age, if it had not been the Doctrine of the for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mer age?</p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> 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 insti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tution. If then it be proved that by saying, <hi>This is my body,</hi> be only meant a commemoration, his promise must on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly relate to his death commemorated in the Sacrament. To the second, the li<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>teral meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of <hi>Mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ses</hi>'s words; for besides all the other im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>possibilities that accompany this cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>poral presence, it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was
<pb n="35" facs="tcp:62980:26"/>
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 <hi>AEgyptians</hi> 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 glori<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied 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 Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stian 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 ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press than <hi>Theodoret,</hi> who arguing against the <hi>Eutychians</hi> that the humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confoun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded nor did depart from their own sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance, illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="36" facs="tcp:62980:27"/>M. <hi>W.</hi> 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 <hi>Theodoret</hi> he would oppose S. <hi>Cyrill</hi> of <hi>Jerusalem,</hi> who in his fourth <hi>Mist. Cate<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chism</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> said, He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine of the Fathers in this matter, not to canvase what they said in elo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quent 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 Rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son and not Eloquence takes place. If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of <hi>Rome</hi> and <hi>Constan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinople,</hi> and one of the greatest Bishops in <hi>Africk</hi> did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against
<pb n="37" facs="tcp:62980:27"/>
Transubstantiation, and assert that the substance of the bread and wine did remain; He hoped all would be satis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied the Fathers did not believe as they did.</p>
            <p>M. <hi>W.</hi> desired we would then an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swer the words of <hi>Cyrill.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>M. <hi>B.</hi> said, It were a very unreason<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able thing to enter into a verbal di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spute 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. <hi>Cyrill.</hi> 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 be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve Transubstantiation, but taught plainly the contrary: The Fathers ge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nerally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration, they call them Mysteries, Types, Figures, Sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bols, 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 under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>took to prove by undenyable evi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dences within a very few days or weeks.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="38" facs="tcp:62980:28"/>M. <hi>W.</hi> said, He should be glad to see it.</p>
            <p>D. <hi>S.</hi> 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 <hi>Rome</hi>; if they desired to be further informed we should wait on them when they pleased.</p>
            <p>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.</p>
            <closer>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 mate<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rial thing as far as my 
memory can serve me; This I declare as I shall an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swer to God.
<signed>Signed as follows, Gilbert Burnet.</signed>
            </closer>
            <closer>
               <pb n="39" facs="tcp:62980:28"/>
               <dateline>
                  <date>April 6. 1676.</date>
               </dateline>
This Narrative was read, and I do here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>by attest the truth of it.
<signed>Edw. Stillingfleet.</signed>
            </closer>
            <closer>Being present at the Conference <date>April 3. 1676.</date> 
I do, according to my best me<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mory, judge this a just and true Narra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tive 
thereof.
<signed>Will. Nailor.</signed>
            </closer>
         </div>
         <div type="addendum_to_report">
            <pb n="40" facs="tcp:62980:29"/>
            <head>The Addition which <hi>N. N.</hi> desired might be subjoined to the Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lation of the Conference if it were published, but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ference.</head>
            <p>
               <hi>THE substance of what N. N. desi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red me to take notice of was,</hi> that our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life, as almsgiving, or any other good work<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> gives it, where the bare external action, if separated from a good intention and principle is not acceptable to God. So that we must ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this addition of <hi>Wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thily,</hi> that whoso eats his Flesh and drinks his Blood in the Sacrament <hi>Wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thily</hi> hath everlasting life; for, <hi>he said,</hi> he did not deny but the believing the death of Christ was necessary in com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>municating, but it is not by Faith only we receive his Body and Blood. For as by Faith we are the Sons of God, yet it
<pb n="41" facs="tcp:62980:29"/>
is not only by Faith but also by Bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tism that we become the Sons of God; so also Christ saith, <hi>he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved</hi>; yet this doth not exclude repentance and a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mendment of life from being necessary to Salvation: therefore the universa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lity of the expression, <hi>whoso eats,</hi> does not exclude the necessity of eating wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thily that we may have everlasting life by it. And so <hi>did conclude</hi> that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures, we must prove from some clear Scriptures by arguments that con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sist of a Major and Minor that are either express words of Scripture or equiva<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lent to them, that Christ was no other<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wise present in the Sacrament than spi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ritually, as he is received by Faith. And <hi>added</hi> that it was impertinent to bring impossibilities either from sense or reason against this, if we brought no clear Scriptures against it.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>To this he also added, that when D.</hi> S. <hi>asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament, he answered,</hi> that he might really re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceive Christ's Body at his mouth, though none of his senses could perceive him, as a <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ole or pill is taken in a sirrup or any
<pb n="42" facs="tcp:62980:30"/>
other liquor, so that I really swallow it over though my senses do not tast it; in like manner Christ is received under the accidents of bread and wine, so that though our senses do not perceive it, yet he is really taken in at our Mouth and goes down into our Stomach.</p>
         </div>
         <div type="answer">
            <head>Answer.</head>
            <p>HAving now set down the strength of <hi>N.N.</hi> his plea upon second thoughts, I shall next examine it. The stress of all lies in this, whether we must necessarily supply the words of Christ with the addition of <hi>worthily</hi>: he af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firms it, I deny it, for these reasons.</p>
            <p>Christ in this discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was <hi>Moses</hi> his Law, and that <hi>Moses</hi> gave <hi>Manna</hi> from Heaven to nourish their Bodies, notwithstanding which they died in the wilderness: But Christ was to give them food to their Souls, which if they did eat <hi>they should never die,</hi> for it should <hi>give them life.</hi> Where it is apparent the bread and nourishment must be such, as the life was, which being internal and spiri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tual, the other must be such also. And
<pb n="43" facs="tcp:62980:30"/>
verse 47. he clearly explains how that food was received, <hi>he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.</hi> Now ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving said before that this bread gives life, and here saying that believing gives everlasting life, it very reasona<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bly follows that believing was the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiving this food. Which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Jews ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving desired him <hi>evermore to give them that bread,</hi> he answers verse 35. <hi>I am the bread of life, he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.</hi> Which no man that is not strangely prepossessed, can consider, but he must see it is an answer to their question, and so in it he tells them that their coming to him and be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieving was the mean of receiving that bread.</p>
            <p>And here it must be considered that Christ calls himself bread, and says that a Man must eat thereof, which must be understood <hi>figuratively</hi>; and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>course, it is unjust to reject the apply<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing the same Figures to other parts of it. In fine, Christ tells them this bread <hi>was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the World,</hi> which can be ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plied
<pb n="44" facs="tcp:62980:31"/>
to nothing but the offering up himself on the Cross. This did, as it was no wonder, startle the Jews, so they murmured, and said, <hi>How can this man give us his flesh to eat?</hi> To which Christs answer is so clear, that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it. He first tells them, <hi>except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man they had no life in them.</hi> Where on the way mark, that <hi>drinking the blood</hi> is as necessary as <hi>eating the flesh</hi>; and these words be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing expounded of the Sacrament, can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not but discover them extreamly guil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty, who do not <hi>drink the blood.</hi> For suppose the Doctrine of the bloods concomitating the flesh were true; yet even in that case they only <hi>eat the blood,</hi> but cannot be said to <hi>drink the blood.</hi> But from these words it is ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parent Christ must be speaking chiefly if not only of the spiritual Communi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cating: for otherwise no man can be saved, that hath not received the Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament. The words are formal and po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sitive, and Christ having made this a necessary condition of life, I see not how we dare promise life to any that hath never received it.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="45" facs="tcp:62980:31"/>And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament, appointed it to be given to infants immediately af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter they were baptized; for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words. And yet the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> will not deny, but if any die before he is adult, or if a person converted be in such cir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and so dies without it, he may have everlast<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing life: therefore they must conclude that Christs flesh may be eaten by faith even without the Sacrament.</p>
            <p>Again in the next verse he says, <hi>Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.</hi> These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse, they being indeed the reverse of it. There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore since there is no addition of <hi>wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thily</hi> necessary to the sence of the former verse, neither is it necessary in this. But it must be concluded Christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have life: and by which all have life: therefore when ever Christs flesh is eaten, and his blood is drunk, which
<pb n="46" facs="tcp:62980:32"/>
is most signally done in the Sacrament, there eternal life must accompany it; and so these words must be understood, even in relation to the Sacrament, on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly of the spiritual Communicating by Faith.</p>
            <p>As when it is said a man is a reason<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able Creature: though this is said of the whole man, Body and Soul; yet when we see that upon the dissolution of Soul and Body no reason or life remains in the body, we from thence positively conclude the reason is seat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed only in the Soul; though the body has organs that are necessary for its operations: So when it is said we eat Christs flesh and drink his blood in the Sacrament which gives eternal life; there being two things in it, the bodily eating and the spiritual Communica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting; though the eating of Christs flesh is said to be done in the worthy re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiving, which consists of these two, yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such effects, we must conclude that the eating of Christs flesh is only done by the inward Communicating: though the other, that is the bodily part, be a divine Organ, and conveyance of it.
<pb n="47" facs="tcp:62980:32"/>
And as reason is seated only in the Soul, so the eating of Christs flesh must be only inward and spiritual, and so the mean by which we receive Christ in the Supper is faith.</p>
            <p>All this is made much clearer by the words that follow, <hi>my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.</hi> Now Christs flesh is so eaten, as it is meat; which I suppose none will que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stion, it being a prosecution of the same discourse. Now it is not meat as taken by the body, for they cannot be so gross as to say, Christs flesh is the meat of our body: therefore since his flesh is only the meat of the Soul and spiritual nourishment, it is only eaten by the Soul and so received by faith.</p>
            <p>Christ also says, <hi>He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him.</hi> This is the defini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of; so that such as is the dwelling in him, such also must be the eating of him: the one therefore being spiritual, inward, and by faith, the other must be such also. And thus it is as plain as can be, from the words of Christ, that he spake not of a car<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal or corporal, but of a spiritual eat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
<pb n="48" facs="tcp:62980:33"/>
of his flesh by faith. All this is more confirmed by the Key our Savi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>our gives of his whole Discourse, when the <hi>Iews</hi> were offended for the hardness of his sayings, <hi>It is the spirit that quickneth</hi> (or giveth the life he had been speaking of) <hi>the flesh profit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>eth nothing, the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are life.</hi> From which it is plain he tells them to un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstand his words of a spiritual life and in a spiritual manner.</p>
            <p>But now I shall examine <hi>N.N.</hi> his reasons to the contrary.</p>
            <p>His chief Argument is, that when eternal life is promised upon the giving of Alms, or other good Works, we must necessarily understand it with this <hi>proviso,</hi> that they were given with a good intention and from a good principle: therefore we must understand these words of our Savi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>our to have some such proviso in them.</p>
            <p>All this concludes nothing. It is in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deed certain when any promise is past upon an external action, such a reserve must be understood. And so S. <hi>Paul</hi> tells us, <hi>if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor and had no Charity, it pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fited
<pb n="49" facs="tcp:62980:33"/>
him nothing.</hi> And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action, I should acknowledge such a <hi>proviso</hi> must be understood; but that is the thing in question, and I hope I have made it appear Our Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>viour is speaking of an internal action, and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed. For he is speaking of that eat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing of his flesh, which must necessa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rily and certainly be worthily done, and so that objection is of no force. He must therefore prove that the eating his flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the Sacrament; and not only by a denomination, from a relation to it: as the whole man is cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led reasonable, though the reason is seated in the soul only.</p>
            <p>What he says to shew that by faith only we are not the Sons of God, since by Baptism also we are the Sons of God, is not to the purpose: for the design of the argument, was to prove that by Faith only we are the Sons of God, so as to be the Heirs of eternal life. Now the baptism of the adult (for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstanding) makes them only exter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nally, and Sacramentally the Sons of
<pb n="50" facs="tcp:62980:34"/>
God: for the inward and vital sonship follows only upon Faith. And this Faith must be understood of such a lively and operative faith, as includes both repentance and amendment of life. So that when our Saviour says, <hi>he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,</hi> that believing is a complex of all evangelical graces: from which it appears, that none of his reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of Christ ought to be so limited and restricted.</p>
            <p>For what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of, that we ought to prove that Christs body and blood was present in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment only spiritually and not corpo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rally by express Scriptures, or by ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture, or equivalent to them: it has no force at all in it.</p>
            <p>I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the plea concerning the ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press words of Scripture: and there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore shall say nothing upon that head, referring the Reader to what he will meet with on that subject afterwards. But here I only desire the Reader may
<pb n="51" facs="tcp:62980:34"/>
consider our contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words, <hi>This is my body</hi>; in which it is very absurd to ask for ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press words of Scripture, to prove that meaning by. For if that be'setled on, as a necessary method of proof, then when other Scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words; it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the meaning of this by? and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every place. Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any contro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>verted place: we must judge of it by the rules of common sense and reason of Religion and Piety, and if a mean<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing be affixed to any place contrary to these, we have good reason to reject it. For we knowing all external things only by our senses, by which only the miracles &amp; resurrection of Christ could be proved, which are the means God has given us to converse with, and enjoy his whole creation; and the evidence our senses give being such, as naturally de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>termines our perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt; if then a sense
<pb n="52" facs="tcp:62980:35"/>
be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this, we have suf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ficient 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 con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trary to the most universally received maxims, subverts the notions of mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter and accidents, and in a word con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>founds all our clearest apprehensions; we must also reject every such gloss, since it contradicts the evidence of that which is Gods image in us.</p>
            <p>If also a sense of any place of Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture 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 confirmati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on of our meaning from express words of Scripture. Therefore this dispute be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing 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.</p>
            <p>But after all this, we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was <hi>bread</hi> that Christ <hi>took,
<pb n="53" facs="tcp:62980:35"/>
blessed, brake, and gave his Disciples.</hi> Now the Scripture calling it formal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly <hi>bread,</hi> destroyes Transubstantiation. Christ said, <hi>This is my body,</hi> which are declarative and not imperative words, such as, <hi>Let there be light,</hi> or <hi>Be thou whole.</hi> Now all declarative words sup<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pose that which they affirm to be alrea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy 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 <hi>Do this in remembrance of me,</hi> shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living commemoration and com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>munication of his Body and Blood. Fur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther, Christ telling us, it was <hi>his Body that was given for us, and his Blood shed for us,</hi> which we there receive; it is ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parent, he is to be understood present in the Sacrament; not as he is now ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>alted in glory, but as he was on the Cross when his blood was shed for us.</p>
            <p>And in fine, if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews, all this will be more easily understood: for
<pb n="54" facs="tcp:62980:36"/>
it was ordinary for them to call the <hi>sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bole</hi> by the name of the <hi>original</hi> it re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>presented. So they called the <hi>cloud</hi> be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tween the <hi>Cherubims God</hi> and <hi>Iehovah</hi> according to these words, <hi>O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims</hi>: and all the symbolical apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be <hi>the Lord appearing to them.</hi> But that which is more to this purpose is, that the Lamb that was the symbole and memorial of their deliverance out of <hi>AEgypt,</hi> was called <hi>the Lords Pass<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>over.</hi> 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 <hi>AEgypt,</hi> 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 sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cramentally; than that <hi>Moses</hi> called the lamb <hi>the Lords Passover.</hi> So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the <hi>Symbole</hi> and <hi>Type</hi> by the name of the <hi>Substance</hi> and <hi>Origi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal.</hi> Therefore our Saviours words are to be understood in the sense and stile
<pb n="55" facs="tcp:62980:36"/>
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.</p>
            <p>This is signally confirmed by the ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>count which <hi>Maimonides</hi> gives us,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>More Ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vochim Par.</hi> 1. c. 30.</note> of the sense in which <hi>eating</hi> and <hi>drinking</hi> is oft taken in the Scriptures. First he saies it stands in its natural signification, for re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiving 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 nourish<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment 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 <hi>destruction</hi> and desolation: so the Sword is said to eat, or as we ren<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der it to <hi>devour</hi>; so a Land is said to <hi>eat its Inhabitants,</hi> and so Fire is said to eat or consume. The other sense it is taken in does relate to <hi>Wisdom, Learning,</hi> and <hi>all Intellectual ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>prehensions, by which the form</hi> (or soul) <hi>of man is conserved from the perfection
<pb n="56" facs="tcp:62980:37"/>
that is in them, as the body is preserved by food.</hi> For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament, as <hi>Isai.</hi> 55.2. <hi>come buy and eat,</hi> and <hi>Prov.</hi> 25. 27. and <hi>Prov.</hi> 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call <hi>Wis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dom, eating</hi>; and cites some of their say<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ings, as <hi>come and eat flesh in which there is much fat,</hi> and that <hi>when ever eating and drinking is in the Book of the</hi> Pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>verbs, <hi>it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law. So also Wisdom is often called Water,</hi> Isai. 55.1. and he concludes that <hi>because this sense of eating occurs so often, and is so manifest and evident, as if it were the primary and most pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>per signification of the word, therefore hunger and thirst do also stand for a pri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vation of Wisdom and Vnderstanding,</hi> as <hi>Amos</hi> 8. 21. to this he also refers that of thirsting, <hi>Psalm.</hi> 42. 3. and <hi>Isai.</hi> 12. 3. and <hi>Ionathan</hi> paraphrasing these words, <hi>ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation,</hi> renders it, <hi>ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the Select ones among the Iust,</hi> which is fur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther confirmed from the words of our Saviour, <hi>Iohn</hi> 7. 37.</p>
            <p>And from these observations of the I earnedest and most Judicious among all
<pb n="57" facs="tcp:62980:37"/>
the Rabbins, we see that the <hi>Iewes</hi> un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstood the phrases of <hi>eating</hi> and <hi>eating of flesh</hi> in this Spiritual and figurative sense of <hi>receiving Wisdom and In<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>struction.</hi> So that this being an usual form of speech among them, it is no strange thing to imagin how our Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>viour being a <hi>Iew</hi> according to the flesh, and conversing with <hi>Iews</hi> did use these Terms and Phrases in a sense that was common to that Nation.</p>
            <p>And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of reason, and strong and convincing au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thorities from the Scriptures, to prove Christs words, <hi>This is my Body,</hi> are to be understood Spiritually, Mystically, and Sacramentally.</p>
            <p>There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what <hi>N. N.</hi> says. He answered to D. <hi>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.</hi> That <hi>Great Man</hi> is so very well furnished with rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son and learning to justify all he says, that no other body needs interpose on his account. But he being now busie, it was not worth the giving him the
<pb n="58" facs="tcp:62980:38"/>
trouble, to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer, since its shal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowness appears at the first view: for is there any comparison to be made be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tween an object that all my senses may perceive, if I have a mind to it, that I see with mine eyes, and touch, and feel in my mouth, and if it be too big, and my throat too narrow I will feel stick there; but only to guard a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst its offensive taste, I so wrap or conveigh it, that I relish nothing un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>grateful in it: and the receiving Christ with my senses, when yet none of them either do, or can, though ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plied with all possible care, discern him? So that it appears D. <hi>S.</hi> had very good reason to say, it seemed in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deed strange to him, to say, that Christ was received by our senses, and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him: and this answer to it is but meer trifling.</p>
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:38"/>
         </div>
         <div type="account">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:39"/>
            <pb n="1" facs="tcp:62980:39"/>
            <head>Here follows the Paper we pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mised, wherein an account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first <hi>Eight Centuries</hi> in the point of the <hi>Sacrament,</hi> which is demonstrated to be contrary to <hi>Transubstantiation,</hi> written in a Letter to my Lady <hi>T.</hi>
            </head>
            <floatingText type="letter">
               <body>
                  <opener>
                     <salute>Madam,</salute>
                  </opener>
                  <p>YOUR Ladiship may remember, That our Meeting at your House on the third Instant ended with a Promise we made, of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first Six Ages, as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person, <hi>That they did not believe Transubstantia<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion.</hi> This Promise we branched out in three Propositions: First That the Fathers did hold, That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance. The Se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cond,
<pb n="2" facs="tcp:62980:40"/>
was, That after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types, the An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>titypes, the Mysteries, the Symboles, the Signs, the Figures, and the Commemora<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions of the Body and Blood of Christ; which certainly will satisfie every unpre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>judiced person, That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated, and that in their room, and under their acci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dents, the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ was there. Thirdly, we said, That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>worthy Receivers got not the Body and the Blood of Christ; from which it must necessarily follow, That the substance of his Body and Blood is not under the ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cidents of Bread and Wine: Otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christs Body and Blood. Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise, we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads, as we hope shall con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vince those Gentlemen, that we had a good warrant for what we said.</p>
                  <p>The first Proposition is, <hi>The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine.</hi> The Proofs whereof we shall divide in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to three branches: The first shall be,
<pb n="3" facs="tcp:62980:40"/>
That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine. Secondly, That they expresly assert, that the sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance of Bread and Wine remained. Third<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly, That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies.</p>
                  <p>For proof of the First, we desire the following Testimonies be considered:</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Iustin Martyr</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Apolog.</hi> 2.</note> 
                     <hi>These who are cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led Deacons, distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present, and carry it to the absents, and this nou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rishment is by us called the Eucharist.</hi> And a little after, <hi>We do not receive these as com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon Bread, or common Drink; for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh, had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation, so we are taught, that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished, by its change, being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us, is both the Flesh and the Blood of the In<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>carnate Jesus.</hi> Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ, calls the Elements <hi>Bread and Wi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>e, and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them.</hi> And saying, <hi>it is not common Bread and Wine,</hi> he says, that it was still so in substance; and his illustrating
<pb n="4" facs="tcp:62980:41"/>
it with the Incarnation, in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the Eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal Word, shews, he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the Flesh and Blood of Christ.</p>
                  <p>The next Witness is <hi>Irenaeus,</hi> who writing against the <hi>Valentinians,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">Lib.4. <hi>adv. Her</hi> c. 34.</note> that denied the <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ather of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the world, and also denied the Resurrection of the Body; confutes both these Heresies by argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments drawn from the <hi>Eucharist.</hi> To the first he says, <hi>If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord, then our offering Creatures to him, argues him covetous of that which is not his own, and so we reproach him rather than bless him.</hi> And adds, <hi>How does it ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pear to any of them, that that Bread over which thanks are given, is the Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy of his Lord, and the Cup of his Blood, if he be not the Son of the Creator.</hi> And he argues against their saying, our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ: for says he, <hi>that Bread which is of the Earth, ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving had the Invocation of God over it, is no more common Bread, but the Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>charist, consisting of two things, an earth<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
<pb n="5" facs="tcp:62980:41"/>
and an heavenly; so our bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ruptible, having the Hope of the Resur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Tertullian</hi> proving against <hi>Marcion,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">Lib. 1. <hi>adv. Marc.</hi> c. 14.</note> that Christ was not contrary to the Crea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tor, among other proofs which he brings to shew, that Christ made use of the Creatures, and neither rejected Water, Oil, Milk, or Honey, he adds, <hi>neither did he reject Bread, by which he repre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sents his own Body.</hi> And further says,<note place="margin">Lib. 3. <hi>adv. Marc.</hi> c. 19.</note> 
                     <hi>Christ calls Bread his Body, that from thence you may understand, that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Origen</hi> says,<note place="margin">Lib. 8. <hi>cont. Celsum.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>We eat of the Loaves set before us, with thanksgiving and prayers over what is given to us, which by the prayer are become a certain holy Body, that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>Saint <hi>Cyprian</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Epist.</hi> 76.</note> 
                     <hi>Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains joined together, his Body, to shew the union of our people which he bore upon himself; and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Ber<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries, his Blood: he signifies our flock which is joined together in the mixture of an united multitude.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="6" facs="tcp:62980:42"/>And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice,<note place="margin">Epist. 63.</note> he says, <hi>Since Christ said, I am the true Vine, the blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine, neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it, by which the Blood of Christ is shewed.</hi> And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose.</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Epiphanius</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>In Ancho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rat.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>Christ in the Supper rose and took these things, and having given thanks said, This is my, &amp;c. Now we see it is not equal to it, nor like it, neither to his incarnate likeness, nor his invisible Deity, nor the lineaments of his Members, for it is round, and without feeling as to its vertue.</hi> And this he says, to shew how man may be said to be made after the Image of God, though he be not like him.</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Gregory Nyssen,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">In Orat. De Bap. Christ.</note> shewing how com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon things may be sanctified, as Water in Baptism, the Stones of an Altar and Church dedicated to God; he adds, <hi>So also Bread in the beginning is common, but after the Mystery has consecrated it, is said to be, and is the Body of Christ; so the mystical Oyl, so the Wine before the blessing, are things of little value,
<pb n="7" facs="tcp:62980:42"/>
but after the sanctification of the Spirit, both of them work excellently.</hi> He also adds, that the Priest by his blessing is se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parated and sanctified; from which it appears, He no more believed the change of the substance of the Bread and Wine, than of the consecrated Oyl, the Altar, or the Priest.</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Ambrose</hi> speaking of Bread,<note place="margin">Lib. <hi>De Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned. Patri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>arc.</hi> cap. 9.</note> which was <hi>Ashers</hi> blessing, says, <hi>This Bread Christ gave his Apostles, that they might divide it to the people that believed, and gives it to us to day, which the Priest consecrates in his words, this Bread is made the food of the Saints.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>St. <hi>Chrysostome</hi> on these words,<note place="margin">Homil. 24. in Epist. ad Cor.</note> 
                     <hi>The Bread which we break, it is not the Com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>munion of the Body of Christ</hi>? says, <hi>What is the Bread? the Body of Christ. What are they made who take it? the Body of Christ.</hi> From whence it appears, he thought the Bread was so the Body of Christ, as the worthy Receivers are, which is not by the change of their substance, but by the sanctification of their na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures.</p>
                  <p>St. <hi>Jerome</hi> says,<note place="margin">Epist. ad He<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dib.</note> 
                     <hi>Let us hear the Bread which Christ brake and gave his Disci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples, to be the Body of our Lord.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>And he says,<note place="margin">Comment. S. Ma<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="3 letters">
                           <desc>•••</desc>
                        </gap>. 6.</note> 
                     <hi>After the Typical</hi> Pascha
<pb n="8" facs="tcp:62980:43"/>
                     <hi>was fulfilled, Christ took Bread that comforts the heart of man, and went to the true Sacrament of the</hi> Pascha, <hi>that as</hi> Melchifedeck <hi>in the figure had done offering Bread and Wine, so he might also represent the truth of his Body and Blood.</hi> Where he very plainly calls the Elements Bread and Wine, and a Repre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sentation of Christs Body and Blood.</p>
                  <p>Saint <hi>Austin</hi> (as he is cited by <hi>Ful<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gentius de Baptismo</hi> and divers others), in his Exhortation to these that were newly baptized, speaking of this Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment, says, <hi>that which you see is the Bread, and the Cup which your eyes wit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness; but that which your faith must be instructed in, is, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Cup is his Blood.</hi> And then he proposes the Objection, how that could be? and answers it thus, <hi>These things are therefore called Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments, because one thing is seen and ano<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther is understood; What you see has a bodily appearance, but what you under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stand has a spiritual fruit; and if you will understand the Body of Christ, hear what the Apostle says to the faithful, Ye are the Body of Christ and his members: if therefore you be the Body and Mem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bers of Christ, your Mystery is placed on
<pb n="9" facs="tcp:62980:43"/>
the Table of the Lord, and you receive the Mystery of the Lord.</hi> And at large prosecutes this, to shew how the faithful are the Body of Christ, as the Bread is made up of many grains; from whence it appears, that he believed, that the consecrated Elements were still Bread and Wine.</p>
                  <p>And speaking of St. <hi>Pauls</hi> breaking Bread at <hi>Troas,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">Epist. 86.</note> he says, <hi>being to break Bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ.</hi> He al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>so says, <hi>The Eucharist is our daily Bread</hi>;<note place="margin">Serm. 9. De Divers</note> 
                     <hi>but let us so receive it, that not only our belly but our mind be refreshed by it.</hi> Besides in a great many places St. <hi>Austin</hi> calls the <hi>Eucharist,</hi> the <hi>Sacrament of Bread and Wine.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>And speaking of things made use of to signifie somewhat else,<note place="margin">Lib. 3. <hi>De Trinit.</hi> c. 10.</note> he adds for one, <hi>The Bread that is made for this, is consumed in our receiving the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</hi> He also says,<note place="margin">Lib. 17. <hi>De Civ. Dei.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>To eat Bread is in the new Testament the Sacrifice of Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians.</hi> He likewise says,<note place="margin">Lib. <hi>Cont. Donat.</hi> c. 6.</note> 
                     <hi>Both Judas and Peter received a part of the same Bread out of the same hand of our Lord.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>And thus from Twelve Witnesses that are beyond all exception, it does appear, That the Fathers believed the Elements
<pb n="10" facs="tcp:62980:44"/>
to be still Bread and Wine after the con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>secration. We have not brought any proofs from the Fathers that are less known or read, for then we must have swelled up this Paper beyond what we intend it. One thing is so considerable, that we cannot forbear to desire it be ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken notice of, and that is, That we see those great Fathers and Doctors of the Church call the consecrated Elements, without any mincing of the matter, Bread and Wine; but when they call it the Body and Blood of Christ, they of<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten use some mollifying and less har<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy expression.<note place="margin">Serm. <hi>53: De Verb. Dom.</hi>
                     </note> So St. <hi>Austin</hi> says, <hi>Almost all call the Sacrament his Body.</hi> And a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gain says,<note place="margin">Lib. 3. <hi>De Trinit.</hi> c. 4.</note> 
                     <hi>We call that only the Body Blood of Christ, which being taken of the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by the mystical prayer, we rightly re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceive for our spiritual health in the Com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>memoration of the Passion of our Lord for us.</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Epist.</hi> 23. <hi>ad Bonifac.</hi>
                     </note> And he says, <hi>After some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy, and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ.</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Serm.</hi> 2. <hi>in Psal.</hi> 33.</note> And also says, <hi>He carried himself in his own hands in some sort, when he said, This is my Body.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>St. <hi>Chrysostome</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Epist. ad C<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                              <desc>••</desc>
                           </gap>sar.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>The Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of
<pb n="11" facs="tcp:62980:44"/>
our Lord.</hi> And on these words, <hi>The flesh lusteth against the Spirit,</hi> among the improper acceptions of <hi>flesh,</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Comm. in Epist. ad Galat.</hi> c. 5.</note> 
                     <hi>the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries by the name of Flesh, and sometimes the whole Church, saying, She is the Body of Christ.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Tertullian</hi> says,<note place="margin">Lib. 4. <hi>cont. Marc.</hi> c.40.</note> 
                     <hi>Christ calls the Bread his Body,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">Lib. 4. <hi>cont. Marc. c. 40.</hi>
                     </note> and a little after, <hi>he names the Bread his Body.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Isidore Hispal,</hi> says,<note place="margin">Orig. lib. 6. c. 9.</note> 
                     <hi>We call this after his command the Body and Blood of Christ,.</hi> 
                     <note place="margin">Orig. lib. 6, c. 9.</note> which being made of the fruits of the earth, is sanctified and made a Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Theodoret</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Dialog.</hi> 1.</note> 
                     <hi>In the giving of the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body, and the mixed Cup his Blood.</hi> And says,<note place="margin">Dialog. 1.</note> 
                     <hi>He who called his natural Body Corn and Bread, and also calls himself a Vine, likewise honoured these visible Symboles with the names of his Body and Blood.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>But now we go to bring our proofs for the next Branch of our first proposition; in which we assert, That the Fathers be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieved that the very substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>secration. By which all the proofs brought in the former Branch will re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceive
<pb n="12" facs="tcp:62980:45"/>
a further evidence; since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the substance of the Elements remained; and thence we may well conclude, that where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration, they mean of the substance, and not of the accidents, of Bread and Wine. For proof of this, we sha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                        <desc>••</desc>
                     </gap> only bring the testimonies of four <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>a<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>h<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>rs, that lived almost within one age, and were the greatest men of the age. Their authority is as generally re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceived as their testimonies are formal and decisive; and these are, Pope <hi>Gelasius,</hi> St. <hi>Chrysostome, Ephrem</hi> Patriarch of <hi>An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tioch,</hi> and <hi>Theodoret,</hi> whom we shall find delivering to us the Doctrine of the Church in their age, with great conside<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration upon a very weighty occasion: So that it shall appear that this was for that age the Doctrine generally received both in the Churches of <hi>Rome</hi> and <hi>Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stantinople, Antioch,</hi> and <hi>Asi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>
                     </hi> the less.</p>
                  <p>We shall begin with <hi>Gelasius,</hi> who, though he lived later than some of the others, yet, because of the eminence of his See, and the authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him, ought to be set first:<note place="margin">
                        <hi>In</hi> lib. <hi>de duab. nat. Christ:</hi>
                     </note> He says, <hi>the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments of the Body and Blood of Christ
<pb n="13" facs="tcp:62980:45"/>
are a Divine thing; for which reason we become, by them, partakers of the Di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vine Nature; and yet the substance or na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture of Bread and Wine does not cease to be; and the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed ce<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lebrated in the action of the Mysteries: therefore it appears evidently <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>nough, that we ought to think th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>t of Christ our Lord, which we profess and celebrate, and receive in his image, that as they</hi> (to wit, the Elements) <hi>pass into that divine substance, the Holy Ghost working it, their nature remaining still in its own property. So that principal Mystery, whose efficiency and virtue these</hi> (to wit, the Sacraments) <hi>represent to us, remains one entire and true Christ; those things of which he is compounded</hi> (to wit, his two natures) <hi>remaining in their proper<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ties.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>These words seem so express and de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cisive, that one would think the bare reading them without any further refle<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctions, should be of force enough. But before we offer any considerations upon them, we shall set down other passages of the other Fathers, and upon them al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>together make such remarks as, we hope, may satisfy any that will hear reason.</p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="14" facs="tcp:62980:46"/>St. <hi>Chrysostom</hi> treating of the two Na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures of Christ against the <hi>Apollinarists,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Epist. ad Caefar. mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nach.</hi>
                     </note> who did so confound them, as to consub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stantiate them, he makes use of the Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine of the Sacrament to illustrate that Mystery by, in these words; <hi>As before the Bread is sanctified, we call it Bread; but when the Divine Grace has sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied it by the mean of the Priest, it is freed from the name of Bread, and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body, though the nature of Bread re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mains in it: and yet it is not said there are two Bodies, but one Body of the Son: so the Divine Nature being joyned to the Body, both these make one Son, and one Person.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>Next this Patriarch of <hi>Constantinople,</hi> let us hear <hi>Ephrem</hi> the Patriarch of <hi>An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tioch</hi> give his testimony,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Cod.</hi> 229.</note> as it is preserved by <hi>Photius,</hi> who says thus; <hi>In like man<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ner</hi> (having before treated of the two Natures united in Christ) <hi>the Body of Christ, which is received by the faithful, does not depart from its sensible substance, and yet remains inseparated from the In<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tellectual Grace: So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one, it preserves its own sensible substance, and does not lose that which it was before.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="15" facs="tcp:62980:46"/>To these we shall add, what <hi>Theodoret</hi> on the same occasion says against those,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Dialog.</hi> 1</note> who from that place, <hi>the word was made flesh,</hi> believed, that in the Incarnation the Divinity of the Word was changed into the Humanity of the Flesh. He brings in his Heretick arguing about some mystical ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pressions of the Old Testament, that re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lated to Christ: at length he comes to shew, <hi>how Christ called himself Bread and Corn; so also in the delivering the Mysteries, Christ called the Bread his Body, and the mixed Cup his Blood; and our Saviour changed the names, calling his Body by the name of the Sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bole, and the Symbole by the name of his Body.</hi> And when the Heretick asks the reason why the names were so chan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ged, the Orthodox answers, <hi>That it was manifest to such as were initiated in Di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vine things; for he would have those who partake of the Mysteries, not look to the nature of those things that were seen; but by the change of the names, to be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve that change that was made through Grace; for he who called his natural Body Corn and Bread, does likewise ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nour the visible Symboles with the name of his Body and Blood; not changing the Nature, but adding Grace to Nature:</hi>
                     <pb n="16" facs="tcp:62980:47"/>
And so goes on to ask his Heretick, whe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther <hi>he thought the holy Bread was the Symbole and Type of his Divinity, or of his Body and Blood</hi>? and the other acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledging they were <hi>the Symboles of his Body and Blood</hi>: He concludes, <hi>that Christ had a true Body.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>The second Dialogue is against the <hi>Eutychians</hi>; who believed, that after Christ's assumption, his Body was swal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lowed up by his Divinity: And there the <hi>Eutychian</hi> brings an argument to prove that change from the Sacament; it being granted, that the Gifts before the Priests Prayer were Bread and Wine. He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification? the <hi>Or<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>hodox</hi> answers, the Body and Blood of Christ; and that he believed he received the Body and Blood of Christ. From thence the He<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>retick, as having got a great advantage, argues; <hi>That as the Symboles of the Body and Blood of our Lord were one thing before the Priestly Invocation, and after that were changed, and are diffe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rent from what they were: So the Body of our Lord, after the assumption, was changed into the Divine substance.</hi> But the <hi>Orthodox</hi> replies, <hi>that he was catched in the net be laid for others; for the My<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stical
<pb n="17" facs="tcp:62980:47"/>
Symboles, after the sanctification, do not depart from their own nature; for they continue in their former sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance, figure and form, and are both vi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sible and palpable, as they were before; but they are understood to be that which they are made, and are believed and ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nerated, as being those things which they are believed to be.</hi> And from thence he bids the Heretick <hi>compare the Image with the Original, for the type must be like the truth,</hi> and shews that <hi>Christ's Body retains its former form and figure, and the substance of his Body, though it be now made Immortal and Incorrupti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble.</hi> Thus he.</p>
                  <p>And having now set down very faith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fully the words of these Fathers, we de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sire it may be considered, that all these words are used to the same effect, to prove the Reality of Christ's Body, and the Distinction of the two Natures, the Divine and the Humane in him. For, though St. <hi>Chrysostom</hi> lived before <hi>Euty<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ches</hi> his days, yet in this Point the <hi>Euty<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chians</hi> and the <hi>Apollinarists,</hi> against whom he writes, held opinions so like others, that we may well say, all these words of the Fathers we have set down are to the same purpose.</p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="18" facs="tcp:62980:48"/>Now, first it is evident, that if Tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation had been then believed, there needed no other argument to prove against the <hi>Eutychians</hi> that Christ had still a real Body, but to have declared that his Body was corporally present in the Eucharist; which they must have done, had they believed it, and not spo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken so as they did; since that alone well proved, had put an end to the whole Controversy.</p>
                  <p>Further, they could never have argued from the visions and apparitions of Christ, to prove he had still a real Body; for if it was possible the Body of Christ could appear under the accidents of Bread and Wine, it was as possible the Divinity should appear under the acci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dents of an Humane Body.</p>
                  <p>Thirdly, they could never have argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed against the <hi>Eutychians,</hi> as they did, from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the Hu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mane Nature of Christ into his Divinity, if they had believed this substantial con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>version of the Elements into Christ's Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy, which is liable unto far greater ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>surdities. And we can as little doubt, but the <hi>Eutychians</hi> had turned back their arguments on themselves, with these
<pb n="19" facs="tcp:62980:48"/>
answers, if that Doctrine had been then received. It is true, it would seem from the last passage of <hi>Theodoret,</hi> that the <hi>Eutychians</hi> did believe some such change; but that could not be, for they denied the Being of the Body of Christ, and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not. Therefore we are to suppose him argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing from some commonly received ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pressions, which the Father explains.</p>
                  <p>In fine, The design of those <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>athers being to prove, that the two Natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the person of Christ, it had been inexcusable folly in them, to have argued from the sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mental Mysteries being united to the Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy and Blood of Christ, if they had not believed they retained their former substance; for had they believed Tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation, what a goodly argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment had it been, to have said, Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause after the consecration the accidents of Bread and Wine remain, therefore the substance of the Humanity remained still, though united to the Divine Nature in Christ. Did ever man in his wits ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gue in this fashion? Certainly, these four Bishops, whereof three were Patriarchs,
<pb n="20" facs="tcp:62980:49"/>
and one of these a Pope, deserved to have been hissed out of the world, as persons that understood nor what it was to draw a consequence, if they had ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gued so as they did and believed Tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation. But if you allow them to believe (as certainly they did) that in the Sacrament the real substances of Bread and Wine remained, though after the sanctification, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, they were the Body and Blood of Christ, and were to be called so; then this is a most excellent illustra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion of the Mystery of the Incarnation, in which the Humane Nature retains its proper and true substance, though after the union with the Divinity, Christ be called God, even as he was Man, by ver<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tue of his union with the Eternal Word.</p>
                  <p>And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend, that because substance and nature are some<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>imes used even for ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cidental qualities, they should be there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore understood so in the cited places; for if you take them in that sense, you destroy the force of the argument, which from being a very strong one, will by this means become a most ridiculous So<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phism. Yet we are indeed beholding to
<pb n="21" facs="tcp:62980:49"/>
those that have taken much pains to shew, that substance and nature stand often for accidental qualities; for though that cannot be applied to the former places, yet it helps us with an excellent answer to many of those passages with which they triumph not a little.</p>
                  <p>Having so far considered these Four Fathers, we shall only add to them the Definition of the Seventh General Council at <hi>Constantinople, ann.</hi> 754. <hi>Christ appointed us to offer the Image of his Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy, to wit, the substance of the Bread.</hi> This Council is indeed of no authority with these we deal with: But we do not bring it as a Decree of a Council, but as a Testimony, that so great a number of Bishops did in the Eighth Century be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve; That the substance of the Bread did remain in the Eucharist, and that it was only the Image of Christ's Body: and if in this Definition they spake not more consonantly to the Doctrine of the former ages, than their enemies at <hi>Nice</hi> did, let what has been set down, and shall be yet adduced, declare.</p>
                  <p>And now we advance to the third Branch of our first Assertion, that the Fathers believed that the Consecrated Elements did nourish our Bodies; and
<pb n="22" facs="tcp:62980:50"/>
the proofs of this will also give a fur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther evidence to our former Position; that the substance of the Elements does, remain: And it is a demonstration that these Fathers, who thought the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment nourished our Bodies, could not be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For the proof of this Branch we desire the following Testimonies be considered.</p>
                  <p>First, <hi>Iustin Martyr,</hi> as was already cited, not only calls the Eucharist <hi>our nourishment,</hi> but formally calls it <hi>that food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourish<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>Secondly,<note place="margin">Lib. 5. <hi>adv. Heret.</hi> c. 2.</note> 
                     <hi>Irenaeus</hi> proving the Resur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection of the Body by this Argument, <hi>That our bodies are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ, and that therefore they shall rise again</hi>; he hath these words, <hi>He confirmed that Cup, which is a crea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture, to be his Blood, by which He increa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ses our Blood; and the Bread, which is a creature, to be His Body, by which He encreases our Body: and when the mixed Cup and the Bread, receive the word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy and Blood of Christ, by which the sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance
<pb n="23" facs="tcp:62980:50"/>
of our flesh is encreased and sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sists. How then do they deny the flesh to be capable of the gift of God, which is Eternal Life, that is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, and is made His member.</hi> We hope it will be obser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved, that as these words are express and formal; so the design on which He uses them will admit of none of those distin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctions they commonly rely on.</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Tertullian</hi> says,<note place="margin">Lib. <hi>de Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>surr</hi> c. 8.</note> 
                     <hi>the flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>Saint <hi>Austin,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Serm.</hi> 9. <hi>d<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                              <desc>•</desc>
                           </gap> Divers.</hi>
                     </note> after he had called the Eucharist <hi>our daily Bread,</hi> he exhorts us so to receive it, <hi>that not only our bel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lies, but our minds might be refreshed by it.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Isidore</hi> of <hi>Sevil</hi> says, <hi>The substance of the visible Bread nourishes the outward man</hi>; or, as <hi>Bertram</hi> cites his words, <hi>all that we receive externally in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment of the Body and Blood of Christ, is proper to refresh the body.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>Next, let us see what the 16<hi>th</hi> Council of <hi>Toledo</hi> says in <hi>Anno.</hi> 633. condemning those <hi>that did not offer in the Eucharist entire loaves, but only round crafts</hi>; they did appoint <hi>one entire loaf carefully pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pared to be set on the Altar, that it might be sanctified by the Priestly Benediction,</hi>
                     <pb n="24" facs="tcp:62980:51"/>
and order, <hi>that what remained after Communion, should be either put in some bag, or, if it was needful, to eat it up, that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with the burden of an heavy surcharge; and that it might not go to the digestion, but that it might feed his soul with spiritual nourishment.</hi> From which words, one of two consequen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces will necessarily follow; either that the Consecrated Elements do really nou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rish the Body, which we intend to prove from them; or that the Body of Christ is not in the Elements, but as they are Sacramentally used, which we acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledg many of the Fathers believed. But the last words we cited of the Spiritual nourishment, shew those Fathers did not think so; and if they did, we suppose those we deal with will see, that to be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve Christ's Body is only in the Ele<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments when used, will clearly leave the charge of Idolatry on that Church in their Processions, and other adorations of the Host.</p>
                  <p>But none is so express as <hi>Origen,</hi> who, on these words,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Comment. in Matth.</hi> c. 15.</note> '<hi>Tis not that which en<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters within a man which defiles a man,</hi> says, <hi>If every thing that enters by the mouth, goes into the belly, and is cast in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
<pb n="25" facs="tcp:62980:51"/>
the draught; then the food that is san<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctified by the word of God, and by Pray<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>er, goes also to the belly, as to what is material in it, and from thence to the draught; but by the Prayer that was made over it, it is useful in proportion to our Faith, and is the mean that the un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstanding is clear-sighted and atten<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tive to that which is profitable; and it is not the matter of Bread, but the word pronounced over it, which profits him that does not eat it in a way unworthy of our Lord.</hi> This Doctrine of the Sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to excrement, was likewise taught by divers Latin Writers in the 9<hi>th</hi> age, as <hi>Rabanus Maurus</hi> Arch-Bishop of <hi>Mentz,</hi> and <hi>Heribald</hi> Bishop of <hi>Auxerre.</hi> Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it, whom for a reproach their adver<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>saries called <hi>Stercoranists.</hi> It is true, other Greek Fathers were not of <hi>Origen</hi>'s opinion, but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies. So <hi>Cyril of Ierusalem</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Mystic. Ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tech. 5.</hi>
                     </note> that <hi>the Bread of the Eucharist does not go into the belly, nor is cast into the draught, but is distributed thorough the whole substance of the Communicant, for the good of body and soul.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="26" facs="tcp:62980:52"/>The Homily of the Eucharist in a de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dication,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Tom. 5.</hi>
                     </note> that is in St. <hi>Chrysostom's</hi> works, says, <hi>Do not think that this is Bread, and that this is Wine; for they pass not to the draught, as other victuals do:</hi> And comparing it to <hi>wax put to the fire, of which no ashes remain</hi>; he adds, <hi>So think that the Mysteries are consumed with the substance of our bodies.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>John Damascene</hi> is of the same mind,<note place="margin">Lib. 4. <hi>de Orth. fide</hi> c. 14.</note> who says, <hi>that the Body and the Blood of Christ passes into the consistence of our souls and bodies, without being consumed, corrupted, or passing into the draught, God forbid, but passing into our substance for our conservation</hi> Thus it will ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pear, that though those last-cited-Fathers did not believe as <hi>Origen</hi> did, that any part of the Eucharist went to the draught; yet they thought it was turned into the substance of our bodies, from which we may well conclude, they thought the substance of Bread and Wine remained in the Eucharist after the consecration, and that it nourished our bodies.</p>
                  <p>And thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first Proposition in all its three Branches. So leaving it, we go on to the second Proposition, which is; That the
<pb n="27" facs="tcp:62980:52"/>
Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures, the Signs, the Symboles, the Types, and Antitypes, the Commemo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration, representation, the Mysteries, and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ.</p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Tertullian</hi> proving against <hi>Marcion,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">Lib. 4. <hi>cont. Marc.</hi> c. 40.</note> that Christ had a real Body, he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ, and says, <hi>He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body; but it had not been a Figure if his Body had not been true, for an empty thing, such as a Phantasm, cannot have a Figure.</hi> Now had <hi>Tertul<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lian,</hi> and the Church in his time, belie<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved <hi>Transubstantiation,</hi> it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued, Here is corporally present Christ's Body, therefore he had a true Body, than to say, Here is a Figure of his Body, therefore he had a true Body; such an escape as this is not incident to a man of com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon sense, if he had believed <hi>Transub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation.</hi> And the same Father, in two other places before cited, says <hi>Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread,</hi> and that <hi>he represented his own Body by the Bread.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="28" facs="tcp:62980:53"/>St. <hi>Austin</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Com. in Psal.</hi> 3.</note> 
                     <hi>He commended and gave to his Disciples, the Figure of his Body and Blood.</hi> The same expressions are also in <hi>Bede, Alcuine,</hi> and <hi>Druthmar,</hi> that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Cen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>turies. <note place="margin">Lib. 2. <hi>De Doct. Chr.</hi> c. 16.</note> But what St. <hi>Austin</hi> says else<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>where, is very full in this matter, where treating of the Rules by which we are to judg what expressions in Scripture are figurative, and what not, he gives this for one Rule, <hi>If any place seem to com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mand a crime or horrid action, it is figu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rative</hi>; and to instance it, cites these words, <hi>Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you, which</hi> (says he) <hi>seems to command some crime, or horrid action, therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us.</hi> Which words are so express and full, that what<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ever those we deal with may think of them, we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine more formally. Parallel to these are <hi>Origen</hi>'s words,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Homil. 7. in Lev.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>who calls the under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>standing the words of our Saviour, of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood
<pb n="29" facs="tcp:62980:53"/>
according to the Letter, a Letter that kills.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>The same St. <hi>Austin</hi> calls the <hi>Eucha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rist,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">Lib. <hi>cons. Adiman<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                              <desc>•</desc>
                           </gap>. manich.</hi> c. 12.</note> a sign of Christ's Body, in his Book against <hi>Adimantus,</hi> who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and New Testament was not the same God; and among other arguments, he uses this, That Blood in the Old Testament is cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led the Life or Soul, contrary to the New Testament: To which St. <hi>Austin</hi> answers, <hi>that it was so called, not that it was tru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly the Soul or Life, but the Sign of it</hi>; and to shew, that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign, he says, <hi>Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he was giving the sign of his Body.</hi> Where, if he had not believed the <hi>Eucharist</hi> was substantially different from his Body, it had been the most impertinent illustrati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on that ever was, and had proved just against him, that the sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it.</p>
                  <p>For the Sacrament being called the Type, the Antitype, the Symbole and Mystery of Christs Body and Blood; The ancient Liturgies, and <hi>Greek</hi> Fathers, use these phrases so frequently, that since
<pb n="30" facs="tcp:62980:54"/>
it is not so much as denied, we judg we need not laboriously prove it. Therefore we pass over this, believing it will be granted; for if it be denied, we under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>take to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions, but to have been the constant stile of the Church. Now that Types, Antitypes, Symboles, and Mysteries, are distinct from that which they shadow forth, and mystically hold out, we believe can be as little disputed. In this sense all the Figures of the Law are called Types of Christ by the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers, and both the Baptismal Water and the Chrism are called Symboles and Mysteries. And though there was not that occasion for the Fathers to discourse on Baptism so oft, which every body re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceived but once, and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the year, as they had to speak of the <hi>Eucharist,</hi> which was daily consecrated; so that it cannot be imagined, there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other; yet we fear not to undertake to prove, there be many places among the Ancients that do as fully ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press a change of the Baptismal Water as of the Eucharistical Elements. From whence it may appear, that their great
<pb n="31" facs="tcp:62980:54"/>
zeal to prepare persons to a due value of these holy actions, and that they might not look on them as a vulgar ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lution, or an ordinary repast, carried them to many large and high expressions, which cannot bear a literal meaning. And since they with whom we deal are sain to fly to Metaphors and Allegories for for cleaning of what the I athers say of Baptism, it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such exposi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions of what they say about the <hi>Eucha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rist.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>But that we may not leave this with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out some proof, we shall set down the words of <hi>Facundus,</hi> who says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Defens. Conc. Chal<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                              <desc>•</desc>
                           </gap> ced. lib. 9.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>The Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament of Adoption, that is Baptism, may be called Adoption, as the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment of his Body and Blood, which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup, is called his Body and Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, or the Cup properly his Blood, but because they con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood; and hence it was that our Lord called the Bread that was blessed, and the Cup which he gave his Disciples, his Body and Blood. Therefore as the Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lievers in Christ, when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, are
<pb n="32" facs="tcp:62980:55"/>
rightly said to have received his Body and Blood; so Christ, when he received the Sacrament of the adoption of Sons, may be rightly said to have received the Adoption of Sons.</hi> And we leave every one to gather from these words, if the cited Father could believe <hi>Transubstan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiation,</hi> and if he did not think that Bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God, as the <hi>Eucharist</hi> was his Body and Blood, which these of <hi>Rome</hi> acknowledge is only to be meant in a moral sense.</p>
                  <p>That the Fathers called this Sacrament the Memorial and Representation of the Death of Christ, and of his Body that was broken, and his Blood that was shed, we suppose will be as little denied, for no man that ever looked into any of their Treatises of the <hi>Eucharist,</hi> can doubt of it.</p>
                  <p>St. <hi>Austin</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Epist.</hi> 23. <hi>ad Bonifac.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>That Sacraments must have some similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments, otherwise they could not be Sacraments.</hi> So he says, <hi>the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood. So the Sacrament of Faith</hi> (that is Baptism) <hi>is Faith.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>But more expresly speaking of the
<pb n="33" facs="tcp:62980:55"/>
Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise; <note place="margin">L. 20. <hi>cont. Faust. ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nich.</hi> c. 21.</note> he says, <hi>The flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the sacrifices of the types of it: In the passion of Christ; it was done in the truth it self: And after his ascent is cele<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>brated by the Sacrament of the remem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>brance of it.</hi> But he explains this more fully on the 98<hi>th</hi> Psalm; where he ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving read, ver. 5. <hi>Worship his footstool</hi>; and seeking for its true meaning, ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pounds it <hi>of Christ's Body, who was flesh of this earth, and gives his flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation, which, since none eats, except he have first ado<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red it</hi>; He makes this the footstool which we worship without any sin, and do sin if we do not worship it. So far the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> triumphs with this place. But let us see what follows, where we shall find that which will certainly abate their joy; He goes on and tells us, <hi>not to dwell on the Flesh, lest we be not quickned by the spirit; and shews how they that heard our Lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words; for they understood them,</hi> says he, <hi>foolishly, and carnally, and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his Body to be given them: But they were hard, not
<pb n="34" facs="tcp:62980:56"/>
our Lord's saying; for had they been meek, and not hard, they should have said within themselves, He says not this with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out a cause, but because there is some Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament hid there; for had they come to him with his Disciples, and asked him, he had instructed them: For he said it is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.</hi> And adds, <hi>un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstand spiritually that which I have said; for it is not this Body which you <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                           <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                        </gap>, that you are to eat; or to drink this <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                           <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                        </gap> which they are to shed, who shall <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                           <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                        </gap> me: But I have recommended a Sacrament to you, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken you; and though it be necessary that it be celebrated visi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bly, yet it must be understood invisibly.</hi> From which it is as plain as can be, that St. <hi>Austin</hi> believed that in the Eucharist we do not eat the natural Flesh, and drink the natural Blood of Christ; but that we do it only in a <hi>Sacrament, and spiritually, and invisibly.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>But the force of all this will appear yet clearer, if we consider that they speak of the Sacrament as a Memorial that exhibited Christ to us in his ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sence: For though it naturally followes,
<pb n="35" facs="tcp:62980:56"/>
that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent; yet this will be yet more evident, if we find the Fathers made such reflections on it.</p>
                  <p>So <hi>Gaudentius</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Tract. in Exod.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>This is, the here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ditary gift of his New Teststament, which that night he was betrayed to be cruci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied, he left as the pledg of his presence: this is the provision for our journey with which we are fed in this way of our life, and nourished till we go to him out of this World; for he would have his benefits remain with us: He would have our souls to be always sanctified by his preci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous Blood, and by the image of his own passion.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Primasius</hi> compares <hi>the Sacrament to a pledg, which one, when he is dying,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Comm. in</hi> 1 <hi>Epist. ad Cor.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>leaves to any whom he loved.</hi> Many other places may be brought, to shew how the Fathers speak of memorials and representations, as opposite to the truth and presence of that which is represen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted.</p>
                  <p>And thus we doubt not but we have brought proofs, which, in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced, must demon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>strate the truth of this our second Pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>position, which we leave, and go on to the third, which was;</p>
                  <p>
                     <pb n="36" facs="tcp:62980:57"/>That by the Doctrine of the Fathers, the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment. For this our first Proof is taken from <hi>Origen,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Comment. in Mat.</hi> c. 15.</note> who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten, and pas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sing to the belly, adds, <hi>These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body; but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh, and the true food, whom whosoever eats, he shall live for ever; whom no wicked person can eat: for if it were possible that any who con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinues wicked, should eat the Word that was made Flesh, since He is the Word, and the Living Bread, it had never been written; whoso eats this Bread, shall live for ever.</hi> Where he makes a mani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment, and the incarnate Word, of which no wicked person can partake. And he also says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Hom. 3. in Mat.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>They that are good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven; and the wicked eat Dead Bread, which is Death.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>
                     <hi>Zeno,</hi>
                     <note place="margin">
                        <hi>Tom. 2. Spir. Dach.</hi>
                     </note> Bishop of <hi>Verona,</hi> that, as is be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieved, lived near <hi>Origen</hi>'s time, says, (as he is cited by <hi>Ratherius</hi> Bishop of <hi>Ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rona) There is cause to fear, that be in
<pb n="37" facs="tcp:62980:57"/>
whom the Devil dwells, does not eat the flesh of our Lord, nor drink his Blood, though he seems to communicate with the faithful; since our Lord hath said, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>St. <hi>Jerom</hi> on the 66<hi>th</hi> of <hi>Isa.</hi> says, <hi>They that are not holy in body and spirit, do neither eat the Flesh of Jesus, nor drink his Blood; of which he said, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, hath eternal life.</hi> And on the 8<hi>th</hi> chap. of <hi>Hos.</hi> he says, <hi>They eat not his flesh, whose flesh is the food of them that believe.</hi> To the same purpose he writes in his Com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments on the 22<hi>th</hi> of <hi>Jeremy,</hi> and on the 10<hi>th</hi> of <hi>Zech.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>St. <hi>Austin</hi> says,<note place="margin">
                        <hi>Tractat.</hi> 26. <hi>in Joan.</hi>
                     </note> 
                     <hi>He that does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh, nor drink his Blood, though he may visibly and carnally break in his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter to his judgment.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>And speaking of those,<note place="margin">Lib. 21 <hi>d<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                              <desc>•</desc>
                           </gap> Civ. D<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                              <desc>•</desc>
                           </gap> c.</hi> 25.</note> who by their uncleanness become the members of an Harlot; he says, <hi>Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ, because they
<pb n="38" facs="tcp:62980:58"/>
are not his members.</hi> And besides, he adds, <hi>He that says, whoso eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, abides in me, and I in him; shews what it is not only in a Sacrament, but truly to eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood.</hi> To this we shall add, that so oft cited passage; <hi>Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord;<note place="margin">
                           <hi>Tractat.</hi> 54. <hi>in Joan.</hi>
                        </note> the other</hi> (he means <hi>Judas</hi>) <hi>the Bread of the Lord against the Lord.</hi> By which he clearly insinuates, he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread: And that this hath been the cons<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ant belief of the Greek-Church to this day, shall be proved, if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter.</p>
                  <p>And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove: But if we had enlarged on every particular, we must have said a great deal more; to shew from many undeniable evidences, that the Fathers were strangers to this new Mystery. It is clear from their wri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tings, that they thought <hi>Christ was only spiritually present, that we did eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood only by Faith, and not by our bodily senses; and that the words of eating his Flesh, and drink<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing his Blood, were to be understood spi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ritually.</hi>
                     <pb n="39" facs="tcp:62980:58"/>
It is no less clear, <hi>that they con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sidered Christ present only as he was on the Cross, and not as he is now in the glory of the Father:</hi> And from hence it was, <hi>that they came to order their Eucharisti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cal forms so, as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption.</hi> Besides, they always speak of Christ <hi>as absent from us, according to his Flesh and Human Nature, and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit</hi>; which they could not have said, if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature; for then he were more on Earth than he is in Hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ven, since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place. But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a million of places upon earth, so that it were very strange to say he were absent, if they believed him thus present.</p>
                  <p>But to give yet further evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine, let us but reflect a little on the conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quences that necessarily follow it: which be, 1. That a Body may be, by the Di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vine power, in more places at once. 2. That a Body may be in a place with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out extension or quantity; so a Body
<pb n="40" facs="tcp:62980:59"/>
of such dimensions as our blessed Lord's Body can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer; and not only so, but that the whole Body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer. 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before, and yet is not brought thither, but produced there. 4. That the accidents of any sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance, such as colour, smell, taste, and fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure, can remain without any Body or substance in which they subsist. 5. That our senses may deceive us in their clear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>est and most evident representations. 6. Great doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received; or, if it should come to be corrupted, or to be snatched by a Mouse, or eat by any vermine. All these are the natural and ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessary effects of this Doctrine, and are not only to be perceived by a contem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plative and searching understanding, but are such as stare every body full in the face: And hence it is, that since this was submitted to in the Western Church, the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered, and new Maxims and Definitions were found out, to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression, to receive these as principles, by which their
<pb n="41" facs="tcp:62980:59"/>
minds being full of those first prejudices, might find no difficulty to believe this.</p>
                  <p>Now it is certain, had the Fathers be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieved this, they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Myste<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries of our Faith, and were so far from being short or defective in it, that they rather over-do it; and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, but about Original sin, the derivation of our Souls, the operation of the Grace of God in our hearts, and the Resurrection of our bodies, should yet have been so constantly silent in those Mysteries, though they ought rather to have been cleared than the other. Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause in the other Heads the difficulties were more speculative and abstracted, and so scruples were only incident to men of more curious and diligent en<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quiries. But here it is otherwise, where the matter being an object of the senses, every mans senses must have raised in him all or most of those scruples: And yet the Fathers neither in their Philosophical Treatises, nor in their Theological Wri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tings, ever attempt the unridling those difficulties. But all this is only a negative, and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the Fathers, St. <hi>Austin</hi>
                     <pb n="42" facs="tcp:62980:60"/>
in particular; if he can perswade him<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>self, that when all other Mysteries and the consequences from them were ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plained with so great care and even cu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>riosity, these only were things of so easy a digestion, that about them there should have been no scruple at all made.</p>
                  <p>But it is yet clearer, when we find the Fathers not only silent, but upon other occasions delivering Maxims and Princi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples so directly contrary to these conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quences, without any reserved exceptions or provisions for the strange Mysteries of Transubstantiation: They tell us plainly, <hi>creatures are limited to one place, and so argued against the Heathens believing their inferior Deities were in the several Statues consecrated to them:</hi> From this they prove <hi>the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, that he did work in ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny places at once, and so could not be a creature, which can only be in one place.</hi> Nay, they do positively teach us, <hi>that Christ can be no more on Earth, since his Body is in Heaven, and is but in one place.</hi> They also do tell us, <hi>that that which hath no bounds nor figure, and can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not be touched nor seen, cannot be a Body, and that all Bodies are extended in some place, and that Bodies cannot exist after
<pb n="43" facs="tcp:62980:60"/>
the manner of Spirits.</hi> They also tell us in all their reasonings against the eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nity of matter, <hi>that nothing could be pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>duced that had a Being before it was produced.</hi> They also teach us very for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mally, <hi>that none of the qualities of a Body could subsist, except the Body it self did also subsist.</hi> And for the testimonies of our senses, <hi>they appeal to them on all occasions as Infallible</hi>; and tell us, <hi>that it tended to reverse the whole state of our Life, the order of Nature, and to blind the Providence of God; to say, he has given the knowledg and enjoyment of all his works to Liars and Deceivers; if our Senses be false. Then we must doubt of our Faith; if the testimony of the eyes, hands and ears were of a nature capable to be deceived.</hi> And in their contests with the <hi>Marcionites</hi> and others about the truth of Christ's Body, <hi>they appeal always to the testimony of the Senses as infallible</hi>: Nay, even treating of the Sacrament, they say, <hi>it was Bread as their eyes witnessed, and truly Wine that Christ did consecrate for the memory of his Blood</hi>; telling, <hi>that in this very par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticular we ought not to doubt the testi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mony of our senses.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>But to make this whole matter yet
<pb n="44" facs="tcp:62980:61"/>
plainer; It is certain, that had the Church in the first ages believed this Doctrine, the Heathens and Jews who charged them with every thing they could pos" ms="sibly invent, had not passed over this, against which all the powers of reason, and the authorities of sense, do rise up. They charge them for believing a <hi>God, that was born, a God of Flesh, that was crucified and buried.</hi> They laughed at their belief <hi>of a Iudgment to come, of endless Flames, of an Heavenly Paradise, and the Resurrection of the Flesh.</hi> The first Apologists for Christianity, <hi>Iustin, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>s,</hi> and <hi>Cyril</hi> of <hi>Alexandria,</hi> give us a full account of those Blasphemies against our most holy Faith; and the last hath given us what <hi>Iulian</hi> objected in his own words, who having apostatized from the Faith in which he was initiated, and was a <hi>Reader</hi> in the Church, must have been well ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quainted with, and instructed in their Doctrine and Sacraments. He then who laughed at every thing, and in particular <hi>at the ablution and sanctification in Bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tism, as conceiving it a thing impossible that Water should cleanse and wash a Soul.</hi> Yet neither he, nor <hi>Celsus,</hi> nor any other ever charged on the Christians any absur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dities
<pb n="45" facs="tcp:62980:61"/>
from their belief of Transub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stantiation. This is, it is true, a nega<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tive argument; yet when we consider the malice of those ingenious Enemies of our Faith, and their care to expose all the Doctrines and Customs of Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians, and yet find them in no place charge the strange consequences of this Doctrine on them; We must from thence conclude, there was no such Doctrine then received: for if it had been, they, at least <hi>Iulian,</hi> must have known it; and if they knew it, can we think they should not have made great noise about it.</p>
                  <p>We know some think their charging the Christians with <hi>the eating of Humane flesh, and Thye<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>tean Suppers,</hi> related to the Sacrament; but that cannot be, for when the Fathers answer that charge, they tell them to their teeth, it was a plain lye: and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the Eucharist, which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their Doctrine of re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiving Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament. But the truth is, those hor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rid Calumnies were charged on the Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians from the execrable and abomina<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble practi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>es of the <hi>Gnosticks,</hi> who cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led themselves Christians; and the ene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mies
<pb n="46" facs="tcp:62980:62"/>
of the Faith, either believing these were the practices of all Christians, or be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing desirous to have others think so, did accuse the whole Body of Christians as guilty of these abominations. So that it appears, those Calumnies were not at all taken up from the Eucharist, and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the Eucharist, charged on the Christians, we may well conclude from hence, that this Doctrine was not received then in the Church.</p>
                  <p>But another Negative argument is, That we find Heresies rising up in all Ages against all the other Mysteries of our Faith, and some downright deny<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing them, others explaining them very strangely; and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt mind, to reject all Divine Revelation, more par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticularly that which either choakes his common notions, or the deductions of appearing reasonings; but most of all, all men are apt to be startled, when they are told, They must believe against the clearest evidences of sense, for men were never so meek and tame, as easily to yeild to such things. How comes it then, that for the first seven Ages there were no Heresies nor Hereticks about
<pb n="47" facs="tcp:62980:62"/>
this? We are ready to prove, that from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, in which this Doctrine began to appear, there has been in every Age great op<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>position made to all the advances for set<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting it up, and yet these were but dark and unlearned Ages, in which implicite obedience, and a blind subjection to what was generally proposed, was much in credit. In those Ages, the Civil powers being ready to serve the rage of Church<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>men against any who should oppose it, it was not safe for any to appear against it. And yet it cannot be denied, but from the days of the second Council of <hi>Nice,</hi> which made a great step towards <hi>Tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiation,</hi> till the fourth Council of <hi>L<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                           <desc>•</desc>
                        </gap>teran,</hi> there was great opposition made to it by the most eminent persons in the <hi>Latin Church</hi>; and how great a part of <hi>Christendome</hi> has departed from the Obedience of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> in every age since that time, and upon that account, is well enough known.</p>
                  <p>Now, is it to be imagined, that there should have been such an opposition to it these Nine hundred years last past, and yet that it should have been received the former Eight hundred years with no opposition, and that it should not
<pb n="48" facs="tcp:62980:63"/>
have cost the Church the trouble of one General Council to decree it, or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it, and answer those objections that naturally arise from our reasons and senses against it.</p>
                  <p>But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural consequences, which had it been sooner taught and received, must have been apprehended sooner, and those are so many clear presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine. The Elevation, Adoration, Processions, the Doctrine of Concomitance, with a vast superfaeta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up. The age of them is well known, and they have risen in the <hi>Latin</hi> Church out of this Doctrine, which had it been sooner re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceived, we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter. Now for all these things, as the primitive Church knew them not, so on the other hand, the great simplicity of their forms, as we find them in <hi>Justin Martyr,</hi> and <hi>Cyril</hi> of <hi>Ierusalem,</hi> in the Apostolical Constitutions, and the pretended <hi>Denis</hi> the <hi>Arcopagite,</hi> are far from that pomp which the latter ages that believed this
<pb n="49" facs="tcp:62980:63"/>
Doctrine brought in the Sacraments being given in both kinds, being put in the hands of the Faithful, being given to the children for many ages, being sent by boys or common persons to such as were dying, the eating up what remained, (which in some places were burnt, in other places were consumed by Children, or by the Clergy) their making Cataplasms of it, their mixing the consecrated Chalice with ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks. These, with a great many more, are such convictions to one that has carefully compared the ancient forms, with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> since this Doctrine was set up, that it is as discernable as any thing can be, that the present belief of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> is different from the Primitive Doctrine.</p>
                  <p>And thus far we have set down the reasons that perswade us that Transub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stantiation was not the belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church. If there be any part of what we have as<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>serted, questioned, we have very formal and full proofs ready to shew for them; though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular proofs of any thing, but what we undertook to make out
<pb n="50" facs="tcp:62980:64"/>
when we waited on your Ladyship.</p>
                  <p>Now there remains but one thing to be done, which we also promised; and that was to clear the words of St. <hi>Cyril</hi> of <hi>Jerusalem</hi>: We acknowledg they were truly cited: but for clearing of them, we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the authority of that Father, though we find but a slender cha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>racter given of him by <hi>Epiphanius</hi> and others: Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the authority of these Catechisms, though much might be said. But it is plain, St. <hi>Cyril</hi>'s design in these Cate<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chisms, was only to posses his <hi>Neophites</hi> with a just and deep sense of these holy Symboles. But even in his 4<hi>th</hi> Cate<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chism he tells them, not <hi>to consider it as meer Bread and Wine, for it is the Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy and Blood of Christ.</hi> By which it ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pears he thought it was Bread still, though not <hi>meer Bread.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>And he gives us else-where a very for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mal account in what sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood; which he also insinuates in this 4<hi>th</hi> Cathechism: For in his first Mist. Catechism, when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Idola<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>try, he tells, <hi>that on the solemnities of their
<pb n="51" facs="tcp:62980:64"/>
Idols they had Flesh and Bread, which by the Invocation of the Devils were de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>filed, as the Bread and Wine of the Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>charist 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,</hi> says he, <hi>those victuals of the pomp of Satan, which of their own na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture are common or bare victuals, by the Invocation of the Devils become pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phane.</hi>
                  </p>
                  <p>From this Illustration, which he bor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rowed from <hi>Iustin Martyr</hi> his second Apology, it appears, that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of <hi>a like sort or manner</hi> with the profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts; so that as the substance of the one remained still un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>changed, so also according to him must the substance of the other remain. Or, if this will not satisfy them, let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by the Consecration: in his third Mist. Catechism, treating of the Consecrated Oil, he says; <hi>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 Oint<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment is no more bare Ointment, nor, as
<pb n="52" facs="tcp:62980:65"/>
some may say, common; but it is a gift of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Ghost, and becomes energetical of his Di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vinity.</hi> And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from St. <hi>Cy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ril</hi>'s testimony. And thus we have per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>formed likewise what we promised, and have given a clear account of St. <hi>Cyril</hi>'s meaning from himself; from whose own words, and from these things which he compares with the sanctification of the Elements in the Eucharist, it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation; otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts, nor the consecrated Oil, in neither of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation.</p>
                  <p>Having thus acquitted our selves of our engagement before your Ladiship, we shall conclude this Paper with our most earnest and hearty prayers to the Father of Lights, that he may of his great mercy redeem his whole Christian Church from all Idolatry; that he may open the eyes of those, who being carnal look only at carnal things, and do not rightly consider the excellent Beauty of this our most holy Faith, which is pure, simple, and spiritual: And that he may confirm all those whom he has called to
<pb n="53" facs="tcp:62980:65"/>
the knowledg of the Truth; so that nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther the pleasures of Sin, nor the snares of this World, nor the fear of the Cross, tempt them to make shipwrack of the Faith and a good Conscience. And that God may pour out abundance of his Grace on your Ladiship, to make you still continue in the love and obedience of the Truth, is the earnest Prayer of,</p>
                  <closer>
                     <salute>MADAM,</salute>
                     <dateline>London, <date>Apr. 15. 1676.</date>
                     </dateline>
                     <signed>
                        <hi>Your Ladiship's most Humble Servants,</hi> Edward Stillingfleet, Gilbert Burnet.</signed>
                  </closer>
               </body>
            </floatingText>
         </div>
         <div type="discourse">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:66"/>
            <pb n="55" facs="tcp:62980:66"/>
            <head>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 Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sequence from Scripture is sufficient.</head>
            <p>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, <hi>That whatever is not read in Scripture, is not to be held an Article of Faith.</hi> For in making good this Asser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion, they must either fasten their proofs on some other ground, or on the words of our Article; which are these, <hi>Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>by,
<pb n="56" facs="tcp:62980:67"/>
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.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>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 <hi>any such obligation from them.</hi> If these unlucky words, <hi>Nor may be pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved thereby,</hi> 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 equi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>valent 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 necessa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rily 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 necessa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry issue; according to that eternal Rule
<pb n="57" facs="tcp:62980:67"/>
of Reason and Natural Logick, <hi>That wherever two things agree in any Third, they must also agree among Themselves.</hi> 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 <hi>Creator of the world,</hi> or that <hi>He is to be worshipped with the same Adora<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion that is due to the Great God,</hi> then it necessarily follows, that He is the <hi>Great God</hi>; because He does the Works, and receives the Worship of the <hi>Great God.</hi> So it is plain, that our Church by these words, <hi>Nor may be proved thereby,</hi> has so declared Her self in this point, that it is either very great want of conside<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration, or shameless impudence, to draw any such thing from our Articles.</p>
            <p>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 tri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fling that every body must be ashamed of it. It hath already shewed it self in <hi>France</hi> and <hi>Germany,</hi> and the Novelty of it took with many, till it came to be canvassed; and then it was found so
<pb n="58" facs="tcp:62980:68"/>
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.</p>
            <p>It might be imagined, that of all per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sons in the world they should be the furthest from pressing us to reject all Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticles of Faith that are not read in Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture; since whenever that is received as a Maxim, <hi>The Infallibility of their Church, the Authority of Tradition, the Supre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>macy of Rome, the Worship of Saints,</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>But it is impudent to hear persons speak thus, who have against the express and formal words of Scripture, set up <hi>the making and worshipping of Images</hi>; and these not only of Saints, (though that be bad enough), but of the <hi>Blessed Trinity, the praying in an unknown tongue, and the taking the Chalice from the people.</hi> Certainly this plea in such
<pb n="59" facs="tcp:62980:68"/>
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 Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine or Article of our Church.</p>
            <p>But to give this their Plea its full strength and advantage, that upon a fair hearing all may justly conclude its un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reasonableness, we shall first set down all can be said for it.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>In the Principles of Protestants the Scriptures are the rule by which all Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>troversies must be judged; now they ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving 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 Propo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sition so proved upon: Therefore no Pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>position thus proved, can be acknowledged an Article of Faith.</hi> This is the bredth and length of their Plea, which we shall now examine.</p>
            <p>And first, if there be any strength in
<pb n="60" facs="tcp:62980:69"/>
this Plea, it will conclude against our sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mitting to the express words of Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture as forcibly: Since all words, how formal soever, are capable of several ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>positions. Either they are to be under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stood literally or figuratively; either they are to be understood positively, or inter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rogatively: With a great many other va<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rieties, of which all expressions are ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pable. So that if the former Argument have any force, since every place is capa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble of several meanings, except we be in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fallibly 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 so<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ever 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 que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stion the true meaning of a place, that they have to reject an inference and de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>duction from it. And this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a trick, under which there lies no fair deal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing at all.</p>
            <p>But to answer the Argument to all mens satisfaction, we must consider the
<pb n="61" facs="tcp:62980:69"/>
nature of the Soul, which is a reasonable being; whose chief faculty is to discern the connexion of things, and to draw out such Inferences as flow from that con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nexion. Now, though we are liable to great abuses both in our judgments and inferences; yet if we apply these facul<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ties with due care, we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reason<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ings: 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 ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>posed to fallacies and errors. This must needs reflect on the <hi>Veracity of that God</hi> that has made us of such a nature, that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing.</p>
            <p>Therefore it must be acknowledged, that when our Reasons are well prepared according to those eternal rules of Pu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity 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
<pb n="62" facs="tcp:62980:70"/>
be well assured that such Connexions and Inferences as appear to us certain, are infallibly true.</p>
            <p>If this be not acknowledged, then all our obligation to believe any thing in Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligion will vanish. For that <hi>there is a God, that he made all things, and is to be acknowledged, and obeyed by his crea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures; 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 per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>formed.</hi> In a word, all the Maxims on which the belief, either of Natural Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligion, 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 Reason<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing in its clear deductions is not a suffi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cient warrant for a sure belief.</p>
            <p>But to examin a little more home their beloved Principle, <hi>that their Church can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not err,</hi> must they not prove this from the Divine Goodness and Veracity, from some passages of Scripture, from mira<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their Church?</p>
            <p>Now in yielding assent to this Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine
<pb n="63" facs="tcp:62980:70"/>
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 ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parent 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.</p>
            <p>And if it be acknowledged there is cause in some cases for us to be deter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mined by the clear evidence of Reason in its Judgments and Inferences; then we have this Truth gained, that our Rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sons are capable of making true and cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tain
<pb n="63" facs="tcp:62980:71"/>
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.</p>
            <p>We desire it be in the next place con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sidered what is the end and use of speech and writing, which is to make known our thoughts to others; those being ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others. Now every man that speaks pertinently, as he de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>signs 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 mean<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing 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 under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stand him, meaning only to amuse them. If likewise he say any thing from which some absurd Inference will easily be ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>prehended, he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of prejudice against
<pb n="65" facs="tcp:62980:71"/>
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 pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sented 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 de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ductions, the certainty whereof we have proved to be the foundation of all Faith and Knowledge.</p>
            <p>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 impos<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sible, we must reject that from which they follow as such.</p>
            <p>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
<pb n="66" facs="tcp:62980:72"/>
speaks; when any thing of great im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>portance 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.</p>
            <p>These being some of the Laws of Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>verse, 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 ano<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther, that is, plainly and distinctly?</p>
            <p>There were particular reasons why prophetical visions must needs be ob<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>scure; 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
<pb n="67" facs="tcp:62980:72"/>
have used such expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>standings; and yet they were of the meaner sort, and of very ordinary capa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cities, to whom he addressed his discour<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ses. If then such as they were, might have understood him; how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous mysteriousness in the words of Christ and his Apostles? (For the same reason by which it is proved that Christ designed to be understood, and spake suitably to that design, will con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude as strongly that the Discourses of the Apostles in matters that concern our salvation, are also intelligible.) We have a perfect understanding of the Greek Tongue; and, though some phrases are not so plain to us which alter every age, and some other passages that relate to some customs, opinions or forms, of which we have no perfect account left us, are hard to be understood: Yet what is of general and universal concern, may be as well understood now as it was then; for sense is sense still. So that it must be acknowledged, that men may still un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstand all that God will have us be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve and do in order to salvation.</p>
            <p>And therefore if we apply and use our
<pb n="68" facs="tcp:62980:73"/>
faculties aright, joyning with an unpre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>judiced desire and search for truth, ear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nest prayers that God by his Grace may so open our understandings, and present Divine truths to them, that we may be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve and follow them: Then both from the nature of our own souls, and from the design and end of revelation, we may be well assured that it is not only very possible, but also very easy for us to find out truth.</p>
            <p>We know the pompous Objection a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst this, is, <hi>How comes it then that there are so many errors and divisions among Christians? especially those that pretend the greatest acquaintance with Scriptures:</hi> To which the Answer is so obvious and plain, that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so falla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cious an Argument. Does not the Gos<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pel offer Grace to all men to lead holy lives, following the Commandments of God? And is not Grace able to build them up, and make them perfect in every good word and work? And yet how does sin and vice abound in the World? If then the abounding of error proves the Gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it, then the abounding of sin will also prove there are no cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tain
<pb n="69" facs="tcp:62980:73"/>
ways in the Gospel to avoid it. Therefore as the sins mankind generally live in, leave no imputation on the Gos<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pel; so neither do the many Heresies and Schisms conclude that the Gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the know<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledg of all necessary truth. Holiness is every whit as necessary to see the face of God as knowledg is, and of the two is the more necessary; since low degrees of knowledg, with an high measure of ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liness, are infinitely preferable to high degrees of knowledg with a low measure of holiness. If then every man have a sufficient help given him to be holy, why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his belief and life, which is a less thing? And how should it be an imputation on Religion, that there should not be an in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fallible way to end all Controversies, when there is no infallible way to sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>due the corrupt lusts and passions of men, since the one is more opposite to the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sign and life of Religion than the other?</p>
            <p>In sum, there is nothing more sure than that the Scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the knowledg of what is necessary to salvation, as of doing the
<pb n="70" facs="tcp:62980:74"/>
will of God. But as the depravation of our natures makes us neglect the helps towards an holy life; so this and our other corruptions, lusts and interests, make us either not to discern Divine truth, or not embrace it. So that Error and Sin are the Twins of the same Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rents. But as every man that improves his natural powers, and implores and makes use of the supplies of the Divine Grace, shall be enabled to serve God ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceptably; so that though he fail in ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny things, yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well doing, his sins shall be forgiven, and himself shall be saved: So upon the same grounds we are assured, that every one that applies his rational faculties to the search of Di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vine truth, and also begs the illumination of the Divine Spirit, shall attain such knowledg as is necessary for his eternal salvation: And if he be involved in any errors, they shall not be laid to his charge.</p>
            <p>And from these we hope it will appear, that every man may attain all necessary knowledg, if he be not wanting to him<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>self. Now when a man attains this know<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledg, he acquires it, and must use it as a rational being, and so must make judg<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments
<pb n="71" facs="tcp:62980:74"/>
upon it, and draw consequences from it; in which he has the same reason to be assured, that he has to know the true meaning of Scripture; and there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore as he has very good reason to reject any meaning of a place of Scripture, from which by a necessary consequence great absurdities and impossibilities must follow: So also he is to gather such in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ferences as flow from a necessary con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nexion with the true meaning of any place of Scripture.</p>
            <p>To instance this in the argument we insisted on, to prove <hi>the mean by which Christ is received in the Sacrament, is Faith</hi>; from these words, <hi>Whoso eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, hath eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal life.</hi> If these words have relation to the Sacrament, which the Roman Church declares is the true meaning of them; there cannot be a clearer demonstration in the World. And indeed they are ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessitated to stand to that exposition; for if they will have the words, <hi>This is my Body,</hi> to be understood literally, much more must they assert the phrases of <hi>eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood,</hi> must be literal: for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words, it is a shameless
<pb n="72" facs="tcp:62980:75"/>
thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words, <hi>This is my Body:</hi> they then expounding these words of St. <hi>Iohn</hi> of the Sacrament, there cannot be ima<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gined a closser Contexture than this which follows. The eating Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood, is the receiving him in the Sacrament; therefore every<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>one that receives him in the Sacrament must have eternal life. Now all that is done in the Sacrament, is either the ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ternal receiving the Elements, Symboles, or, as they phrase it, the accidents of Bread and Wine, and under these the Bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy of Christ; or the internal and spiri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tual communicating by Faith. If then Christ received in the Sacrament gives eternal life, it must be in one of these ways, either as he is received externally, or as he is received internally, or both; for there is not a fourth: Therefore if it be not the one at all, it must be the other only. Now it is undeniable, that it is not the external eating that gives eternal life. For St. <hi>Paul</hi> tells us <hi>of some that eat and drink unworthily, that are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and eat and drink judgment against themselves.</hi> Therefore it is only the in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ternal receiving of Christ by Faith, that
<pb n="73" facs="tcp:62980:75"/>
gives eternal life; from which another necessary inference directs us also to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude, that since all that eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, have eternal life: and since it is only by the internal com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>municating that we have eternal life, therefore these words of <hi>eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood,</hi> can only be un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstood of internal communicating; therefore they must be spiritually under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stood.</p>
            <p>But all this while the Reader may be justly weary of so much time and pains spent to prove a thing which carries its own evidence so with it, that it seems one of the first Principles and Foundations of all Reasoning; for no proposition can appear to us to be true, but we must also assent to every other deduction that is drawn out of it by a certain inference. If then we can certainly know the true meaning of any place of Scripture, we may and ought to draw all such conclu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sions as follow it with a clear and just consequence; and if we clearly appre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hend the consequence of any propositi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on, we can no more doubt the truth of the consequence, than of the propo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sition from which it sprung: For if I see the air full of a clea<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> day-light, I
<pb n="74" facs="tcp:62980:76"/>
must certainly conclude the Sun is risen; and I have the same assurance about the one that I have about the other.</p>
            <p>There is more than enough said alrea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy for discovering the vanity and ground<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lesness of this method of arguing: But to set the thing beyond all dispute, let us consider the use which we find our Savi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>our and the Apostles making of the Old Testament, and see how far it favours us, and condemns this appeal to the formal and express words of Scriptures. But be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore we advance further, we must remove a prejudice against any thing may be drawn from such Presidents, these being persons so filled with God and Divine knowledg, as appeared by their Miracles and other wonderful Gifts, that gave so full an Authority to all they said, and of their being infallible, both in their Expositions and Reasonings, that we whose understan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dings are darkned and disordered, ought not to pretend to argue as they did.</p>
            <p>But for clearing this, it is to be obser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved, that when any person Divinely as<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sisted, having sufficiently proved his in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spiration, declares any thing in the name of God, we are bound to submit to it; or if such a person, by that same Autho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity, offers any Exposition of Scripture,
<pb n="75" facs="tcp:62980:76"/>
he is to be believed without further dispute. But when an inspired person argues with any that does not acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledg his inspiration, but is enquiring into it, not being yet satisfied about it; then he speaks no more as an inspired person: In which case the Argument offered is to be examined by the force that is in it, and not by the authority of him that uses it. For his Authority being the thing questioned, if he offers an Argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment from any thing already agreed to; and if the Argument be not good, it is so far from being the better by the autho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity of him that useth it; that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his Authority, that understands a conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quence so ill, as to use a bad Argument to use it by. This being premised.</p>
            <p>When our Saviour was to prove against the Sadducees the truth of the Resur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection from the Scriptures, he cites out of the Law that <hi>God was the God of</hi> Abraham, Isaac, <hi>and</hi> Jacob; <hi>since then God is not God of the dead, but of the living: Therefore</hi> Abraham, Isaac <hi>and</hi> Jacob <hi>did live unto God.</hi> From which he proved the Souls having a being di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stinct from the Body, and living after its separation from the Body, which was the
<pb n="76" facs="tcp:62980:77"/>
principal Point in Controversy. Now if these new Maxims be of any force, so that we must only submit to the express words of Scripture, without proving any thing by consequence; then certainly our Saviour performed nothing in that Argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment: For the Sadducees might have told him, they appealed to the express words of Scripture. But alas! they un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstood not these new-found Arts, but submitting to the evident force of that consequence, were put to silence, and the <hi>multitudes were astonished at his Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Now it is unreasonable to imagine that the great Authority of our Saviour, and his many Miracles, made them silent; for they coming to try him, and to take advantage from every thing he said, if it were possible to lessen his esteem and Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thority, would never have acquiesced in any Argument because he used it, if it had not strength in it self; for an ill Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gument is an ill Argumont, use it whoso will. For ins<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ance, If I see a man pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tending that he sits in an Infallible Chair, and proving what he delivers by the most impertinent allegations of Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture possible, as if he attempts to prove the Pope must be the Head of all Powers
<pb n="77" facs="tcp:62980:77"/>
Civil and Spiritual from the first words of <hi>Genesis</hi>;<note n="*" place="margin">Boniface <hi>the eighth,</hi> Extrav. lib. 1. cap 1. de Majoritate &amp; obedien<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tia. <hi>After he had stu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>died to prove that the temporal and materi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>al Sword, as well as the spiritual, was in the power of St.</hi> Peter, <hi>from these word</hi>; Behold two swords, <hi>&amp; our Saviour's answer,</hi> It is enough. <hi>In the end he c<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ncludes, Whosoever therefore resists this Power thus ordained of God, resists the Ordinance of God; except with</hi> Manichee <hi>he make two Beginnings, which we define to be false and heretical: For</hi> Moses <hi>testifies, that not</hi> in the Beginnings, <hi>but</hi> in the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. <hi>Therefore we declare, say, de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fine and pronounce, that it is of necessity to Salvation to every humane creature to be subject to the Pope of</hi> Rome: <hi>And it is plain this sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>jection must be that he had been pleading thorough that whole Decretal, which is the subjection of the Temporal Sword to the Spiritual.</hi>
               </note> where it being said, <hi>In the Beginning,</hi> and not <hi>in the Beginnings,</hi> in the plural, (from which he concludes there must be but one Beginning and Head of all Power, (to wit) the Pope.) I am so far from being put to silence with this, that I am only astonished how any man of common sense, though he pretended not to Infallibility, could fall into such errors: For an ill Argument, when its fallacy is so apparent, must needs heap contempt on him that uses it.</p>
            <p>Having found our Saviour's way of Arguing to be so contrary to this new method these Gentlemen would impose on us; let us see how the Apostles drew their proofs for matters in Controversy from Scriptures: The two great Points they had most occasion to argue upon, were, <hi>Iesus Christ's being the true Mes<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>siah,</hi>
               <pb n="78" facs="tcp:62980:78"/>
and <hi>the freedom of the Gentiles from any obligation to the observance of the Mosaical Law.</hi> Now let us see how they proceeded in both these.</p>
            <p>For the first; In the first Sermon after the effusion of the Holy Ghost, St. <hi>Peter</hi> proves the truth of Christ's Resurrection from these words of <hi>David, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption.</hi> Now he shews that these words could not be meant of <hi>David,</hi> who was dead and buried; there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore being a Prophet, he spake of the Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>surrection of Christ. If here were not consequences and deductions, let every one judg. Now these being spoken to those who did not then believe in Christ, there was either sufficient force in that Argument to convince the Jews, other<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wise these that spake them were very much both to be blamed, and despised, for offering to prove a matter of such importance by a consequence. But this being a degree of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we must acknowledg there was strength in their Argument; and therefore Articles of Faith, whereof this was the Fundamental, may be proved from Scripture by a consequence. We might add to this all the other Prophe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cies
<pb n="79" facs="tcp:62980:78"/>
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 be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing of a like nature with it.</p>
            <p>The next Controversy debated in that time was the obligation of the Mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>saical Law. The Apostles by the inspira<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion of the Holy Ghost made a formal Decision in this matter, yet there being great opposition made to that, St. <hi>Paul</hi> sets himself to prove it at full length, in his Epistle to the <hi>Galatians,</hi> where, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sides other Arguments, he brings these two from the Old Testament; one was, that <hi>Abraham was justified by Faith</hi> be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore the giving the Law; for which he cites these words, <hi>Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness:</hi> From which, by a very just consequence he infers, that as <hi>Abra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ham</hi> was blessed, so all that believe are blessed with him; and that the Law of <hi>Moses,</hi> 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
<pb n="80" facs="tcp:62980:79"/>
well as he was. Another place he cites, is, <hi>The just shall live by Faith,</hi> and he subsumes, <hi>the Law was not of Faith</hi>; from which the Conclusion naturally fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lows: 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. <hi>Paul</hi>'s; all which had been utterly impertinent, if this new method had any ground for its preten<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sion, 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 con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vincing, 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 ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>posed themselves and their cause to the just scorn of their enemies.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="81" facs="tcp:62980:79"/>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 ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ample. But this whole matter will re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceive 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 conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quences 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 <hi>Mani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>che<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>s</hi> did the Gospel of St. <hi>Matthew.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>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 up<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on deductions and consequences from Scripture, as a sufficient ground to go upon. Let the Epistle both of the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil of <hi>Antioch</hi> to <hi>Samosatenus,</hi> and <hi>Denis</hi> of <hi>Alexandria</hi>'s Letter to him be considered; and it shall be found how they drew their Definitions out of de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ductions from Scripture. So also <hi>Alex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ander</hi>
               <pb n="82" facs="tcp:62980:80"/>
Patriarch of <hi>Alexandria</hi> in his Epistle, in which he condemned <hi>AErius,</hi> proceeds upon deductions from Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture; and when the Council of <hi>Nice</hi> came to judg of the whole matter, if we give credit to <hi>Ge<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>sius,</hi> 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 Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture.<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Hist. de L. Arrian, L.</hi> 1.</note> It is true, <hi>F. Maimbourg</hi> in his Ro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mantick History of <hi>Arrianism</hi> would perswade us, that in that Counsel <hi>the Or<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thodox, and chiefly the great Saints of the Council were for adhering closely to what they had received by Tradition, without attempting to give new Exposi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions 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</hi> Arrians, <hi>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 Antiqui<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>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
<pb n="83" facs="tcp:62980:80"/>
subtitles.</hi> And to make this formal ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>count pass easily with his Reader, he vouches on the margin, <hi>Sozom. cap.</hi> 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 <hi>Sozomen,</hi> I found in him these words, speaking of the Dispute about <hi>Arrius</hi> his opinions, <hi>the Disputation being, as is usual, carried out into different Enquiries; some were of opinion that nothing should be innova<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted 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</hi> or earnestly <hi>contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter opinions without a strict trial of them.</hi> Now in these words we find not a word either of <hi>Orthodox</hi> or <hi>Arrian</hi>; 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 <hi>Orthodox</hi> were
<pb n="84" facs="tcp:62980:81"/>
really some holy, good men; but simple, ignorant, and <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>asily abused: And that the other party which he calls the <hi>Arri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>an</hi> was the <hi>Orthodox,</hi> and more judicious, who readily forseeing the inconvenience which the simplicity of others would have involved them in, did vehement<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly oppose it; and pressed the Testimo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nies of the Fathers might not be blindly followed.</p>
            <p>For proof of this, we need but con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sider that they anathematized these, who say <hi>that the Son was the work of the Father,</hi> as<note n="[a]" place="margin">
                  <hi>De De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cret. Synod. Nicen.</hi>
               </note> 
               <hi>Athanasius</hi> tells us, which were the very words of <hi>Denis</hi> of <hi>Alex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>andria,</hi> of whom the <hi>Arrians</hi>
               <note n="[b]" place="margin">
                  <hi>Athan. Epist. de sen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tentia Dian. Alex.</hi>
               </note> boasted much, and cited these words from him; and both<note n="[c]" place="margin">
                  <hi>De Sy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nod. Aron.</hi>
               </note> 
               <hi>Athanasius</hi> and<note n="[d]" place="margin">
                  <hi>Hi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> lib. de Synod</hi>
               </note> 
               <hi>Hilary</hi> acknowledg that those Bishops that con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demned <hi>S<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>nos<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>tenus,</hi> did also reject the Consubstantial, and St. <hi>B<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>sil</hi>
               <note n="[e]" place="margin">
                  <hi>Epist.</hi> 41</note> says, <hi>De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nis</hi> sometimes denied, sometimes acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledged the Consubstantial. Yet I shall not be so easy as <hi>Petavius</hi> and others of the Roman Church are in this matter; who acknowledg that most of the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers before the Council of <hi>Nice</hi> said many things that did not agree with the Rule of the Orthodox <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>aith; but am fully perswaded, that before that Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil,
<pb n="85" facs="tcp:62980:81"/>
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. <hi>Basil</hi> 
               <note n="f" place="margin">
                  <hi>Epist.</hi> 41.</note> observes how <hi>Denis</hi> in his opposition to <hi>Sabellius</hi> had gone too far on the other hand. Therefore there was a necessity to make such a Symbole as might cut off all equi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vocal and ambiguous forms of speech. So we have very good reason to conclude it was the <hi>Arrian</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>Upon what grounds the Council of <hi>Nice</hi> 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. <hi>Athanasius,</hi> who, as he was a great Assertor of the Faith in that Council, so also he gives us a large ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>count of its Creed, in a particular Trea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tise,<note n="g" place="margin">Lib. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> 
                  <hi>Decret. Co<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>cil. Nicen.</hi>
               </note> in which he jus<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ifies their Sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bole at great length out of the Scriptures, and tell us very formally they used the
<pb n="86" facs="tcp:62980:82"/>
word Consubstantial, that the wickedness and craft of the <hi>Arrians</hi> might be dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>covered, and proves by many consequen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces 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 consequen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces drawn out of them. It is true, when he has done that, he also adds, that the Fathers at <hi>Nice</hi> did not begin the use of these words, but had them from those that went before them; and cites some passages from <hi>Theognistus, Denis</hi> of <hi>Alexandria, Denis</hi> of <hi>Rome,</hi> and <hi>Origen.</hi> 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, <hi>Denis</hi> of <hi>Alexandria</hi> and <hi>Origen,</hi> (for the other two, their works are lost) in whose Writings there were divers passa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ges that favoured the <hi>Arrians,</hi> and in which they boasted much. Therefore <hi>Athanasius</hi> only cites these passages to shew the words of these Symbole were not first coined by the Council of <hi>Nice.</hi> But neither in that Treatise, nor in any other of his Works, do I ever find that either the Council of <hi>Nice,</hi> or he who was the
<pb n="87" facs="tcp:62980:82"/>
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 <hi>Nice,</hi> and <hi>Athanasius</hi> his Writings, it ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pears the Church of that Age thought that consequences clearly proved from Scripture were a sufficient ground to build an Article of <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>aith on.</p>
            <p>With this I desire it be also considered, that the next great Controversy, that was carried on chiefly by S. <hi>Cyril</hi> against the <hi>Nestorians,</hi> was likewise all managed by consequences from Scripture, as will ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pear to any that reads S. <hi>Cyril</hi>'s Writings, inserted in the Acts of the Council of <hi>E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phesus,</hi> chiefly his Treatise to the Queens; and when he brought testimonies from the Fathers against <hi>Nesto<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ius,</hi> which were read in the Council,<note n="h" place="margin">
                  <hi>Act. Conc. Ep<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>; Action.</hi> 1<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>.</note> they are all taken out of Fathers that lived after the Council of <hi>Nice,</hi> except only S. <hi>Cyprian,</hi> and <hi>Peter</hi> of <hi>Alexandria.</hi> If then we may collect from S. <hi>Cyril</hi>'s Writings the sense of that Council, as we did from S. <hi>Athanasius</hi> that of the Council of <hi>Nice</hi>; we must conclude that their De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crees were founded on consequences
<pb n="88" facs="tcp:62980:83"/>
drawn from Scripture; nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued succession of the Tradition. In like manner, when the Council of <hi>Cha<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>edon</hi> condemned <hi>Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tyches,</hi> Pope <hi>Leo</hi>'s Epistle to <hi>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>lavian</hi> 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 <hi>series</hi> of consequences proved from Scripture and Reason: <note n="i" place="margin">
                  <hi>Act. Conc. Chalced. Action.</hi> 1</note> 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 <hi>Nice.</hi> 
               <note n="k" place="margin">
                  <hi>The<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>d. in</hi> Di<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>l.</note> 
               <hi>Theodoret</hi> and <hi>Gelasius</hi>
               <note n="l" place="margin">
                  <hi>Gelas. de dua<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>. naturis.</hi>
               </note> also, who wrote against the <hi>Eutychians,</hi> 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. <hi>Austin</hi> wrote against the <hi>Pelagians,</hi> how many consequences he draws from Scripture, every one that has read him must needs know.</p>
            <p>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
<pb n="89" facs="tcp:62980:83"/>
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 con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sequences or expositions were wel-groun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded; but all that has been hitherto set down, will prove that they thought Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guments drawn from Scripture when the consequences are clear, were of sufficient authority and force to end all Controver<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sies. 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.</p>
            <p>But all the Answer they can offer to this, is, that those Fathers and Councils had another authority to draw consequen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces from Scripture, because the extra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ordinary 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 dire<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cted, or that we found our Faith upon the successive Tradition of the several ages of the Church.</p>
            <p>To this I answer; First, it is visible,
<pb n="90" facs="tcp:62980:84"/>
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 Ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>positions. Therefore it is plain, they use no fair dealing in this appeal to the for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mal words of Scripture, since the Argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment they press it by, do invalidate the most express testimonies as well as dedu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctions.</p>
            <p>Let it be further considered, that be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore the Councils had made their Decrees, when Heresies were broached, the Fathers wrote against them, confuting them by Arguments made up of Scripture-conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quences; so that before the Church had decreed, they thought private persons might confute Heresies by such conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quences. Nor did these Fathers place the strength of their Arguments on Tradition, as will appear to any that reads but what S. <hi>Cyril</hi> wrote against <hi>Nestorius</hi> before the Council of <hi>Ephesus,</hi> and Pope <hi>Leo</hi> against <hi>Eutyches,</hi> before the Council of <hi>Chalce<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>don,</hi> where all their Reasonings are foun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded on Scripture. It is true, they add some testimonies of <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>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
<pb n="91" facs="tcp:62980:84"/>
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 <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>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 <hi>Nice</hi> had passed the Decree of adding the Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantials to the Creed, upon evidence brought from Tradition chiefly, can it be imagined that S. <hi>Athanasius,</hi> who knew well on what grounds they went, having born so great a share in their consultati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons and debates, when he in a formal Treatise justifies that addition, should draw his chief Arguments from Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture and natural Reason; and that only towards the end, he should <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> us of four Writers, from whom he brings passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing.</p>
            <p>In the end, when the Council had pas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sed their Decree, does the method of their
<pb n="92" facs="tcp:62980:85"/>
dispute alter? Let any read <hi>Athanasius, Hil<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ry,</hi> or St. <hi>Austin</hi> writing against the <hi>Arrians</hi>: They continue still to ply them with Arguments made up of consequen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces from Scripture; and their chief Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gument was clearly a consequenco from Scripture, that since Christ was by the confession of the <hi>Arrians</hi> truly God, then he must be of the same substance, other<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wise there must be more substances, and so more Gods, which was against Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture. Now, if this be not a consequence from Scripture, let every body judg. It was on this they chiefly insisted, and wa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved the Authority of the Council of <hi>Nice,</hi> which they mention very seldom, or when they do speak of it, it is to prove that its Decrees were according to Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture.</p>
            <p>
               <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>or proof of this, let us hear what St. <hi>Austin</hi> says <note n="[m]" place="margin">Lib. 3. <hi>Cont. Max.</hi> 19.</note> writing against <hi>Maximi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nus</hi> an <hi>Arrian</hi> 
               <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ishop, proving the Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>substantiality of the Son: <hi>This is that Consubstan<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>il of</hi> Nice, <hi>against the</hi> Arrians; <hi>by the authority of Truth, and the truth of Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thority, which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow under the Heretical Empe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ror</hi> Constantius, <hi>because of the newness of
<pb n="93" facs="tcp:62980:85"/>
t<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>e words, which were not so well under<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stood, as should have been: Since the an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cient Faith had brought them forth; but many were abused by the fraud of a few.</hi> And a little after he adds, <hi>But now nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther should I bring the Council of</hi> Nice, <hi>nor yet the Council of</hi> Arimini <hi>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.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>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 unrea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sonable to deny it to us.</p>
            <p>But all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative Evidence, if we find, that this very pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tence of appealing to formal words of Scriptures, was on several occasions ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken up by divers Hereticks, but was al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ways rejected by the Fathers as absurd and unreasonable. The first time we find
<pb n="94" facs="tcp:62980:86"/>
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 <hi>Tertullian</hi> 
               <note n="*" place="margin">Lib. <hi>De Spect.</hi> c. 3.</note> tells us in these words; <hi>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, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause such abstinence is no-where denoun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ced to the servants of God, neither by a clear signification, nor by name; as, Thou shalt not kill, Nor worship an Idol:</hi> But he proves it <hi>from the first Verse of the Psalms; for though that seems to belong to the Jews, yet</hi> (says he) <hi>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.</hi> And this agrees with that Maxim he has elsewhere,<note place="margin">Lib. <hi>Adv. Gnost.</hi> c. <hi>7.</hi>
               </note> 
               <hi>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.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb n="95" facs="tcp:62980:86"/>In the next place, the <hi>Arrians</hi> designed to shroud themselves under general ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pressions; and had found glosses for all passages of Scripture. So that when the Council of <hi>Nice</hi> made all these ineffectu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>al, by putting the word <hi>Consubstantial</hi> 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 <hi>Athanasins,</hi>
               <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>De Synod. Arim. &amp; S<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>lenc.</hi>
               </note> who gives us many of their Creeds. In that proposed at <hi>Arimini,</hi> these words were added to the <hi>Symbole, For the word Sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance, because it was simply set down by the Fathers, and is not understood by the people, but breeds scandal, since the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures 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.</hi> He also tells us, that at <hi>Sirmium</hi> they added words to the same purpose to their <hi>Sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bole,</hi> rejecting the words of Substance or Consubstantial, <hi>because nothing is writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten of them in the Scriptures, and they transcend the knowledg and understand<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing of men.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb n="96" facs="tcp:62980:87"/>Thus we see how exactly the Plea of the <hi>Arrians</hi> agrees with what is now of<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fered to be imposed on us.</p>
            <p>But let us next see what the Father says to this: He first turns it back on the <hi>Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rians,</hi> 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, <hi>it was no mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter 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 cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rupted</hi>; and at full length applies that to the Question of the Consubstantiality. To the same purpose, St. <hi>Hilary</hi> setting down the arguments of the <hi>Arrians</hi> against the Consubstantiality,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>De Synod. adv. Arrian.</hi>
               </note> the third objection is, <hi>That it was added by the Council of</hi> Ni<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>, <hi>but ought not to be received, because it is no-where written.</hi> But he answers, <hi>it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a word, when the thing e<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>pressed by the word has no difficulty.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>We find likewise in the Conference St. <hi>Austin</hi> had with <hi>Maximinus,</hi> the <hi>Arrian</hi>
               <pb n="97" facs="tcp:62980:87"/>
Bishop <note n="*" place="margin">Lib. 1. <hi>Con. Max. Arr. Ep. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                        <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                     </gap>.</hi>
               </note>, i<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> the very beginning the <hi>Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rian</hi> tells him, <hi>That he must hearken to what he brought out of the Scriptures, which were common to them all; but for words that were not in Scripture, they were in no case received by them.</hi> And afterwards he says <note n="*" place="margin">Lib. 3. c. 3.</note>, <hi>we receive with a full veneration every thing that is brought out of the holy Scriptures, for the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures are not in our dominion <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>hat they may be mended by us.</hi> And a little after adds, <hi>P<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>a<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>h is not gathered out of Argu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments, but is proved by sure testimonies,</hi> therefore he seeks a testimony of the <hi>H<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly Ghost's being God.</hi> But to that St. <hi>Austin</hi> makes answer, <hi>that from the things that we read, we must understand the things that we read not.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>And giving an account of another Conference <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Epist.</hi> 74.</note> he had with Count <hi>Pascentius</hi> that was an <hi>Arrian,</hi> he tells, that the <hi>Arrian</hi> did most earnestly press <hi>that the word Consubstantial might be shewed in Scripture,</hi> repeating this frequently, and canvassing about it invidiously. To whom St. <hi>Austin</hi> answers, <hi>nothing could be more conten<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ious than to strive about a Word when the Thing was certain,</hi> and asks him <hi>where the word Unbegotten</hi> (which the <hi>Arrians</hi> used) <hi>was in Scripture.</hi>
               <pb n="98" facs="tcp:62980:88"/>
And since it was no-where in Scripture, he from thence concludes, <hi>there might be a very good account given why a word that was not in Scripture might be well used.</hi> And by how many consequences he proves the Consubstantiality we cannot number, except that whole Epistle were set down.</p>
            <p>And again, in that which is called an Epistle <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Epist.</hi> 78.</note>, but is an account of another Conference between that same Person and St. <hi>Austin,</hi> the <hi>Arri<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>n</hi> desired the Consub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stantiality might be accursed, <hi>because it was no-where to be found written in the Scriptures</hi>; and adds, <hi>that it was a grievous trampling on the Authority of the Scripture to set down that which the Scripture had not said; for if any thing be set down without Authority from the Divine Volumes, it is proved to be void</hi>; against which St. <hi>Austin</hi> argues at great length, to prove <hi>that it necessarily follows from other places o<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> Scripture.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>In the Conference between <hi>Photinus, Sabellus, Arrius,</hi> and <hi>Athanasius,</hi> first published by <hi>Cassander</hi> 
               <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Oper. Cass.</hi>
               </note>, as a work of <hi>Vi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gilius,</hi> but believed to be the work of <hi>Ge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>l<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>sius</hi> an <hi>African</hi>; where we have a very full account of the Pleas of these several parties. <hi>Arrius</hi> challenges the Council
<pb n="99" facs="tcp:62980:88"/>
of <hi>Nice</hi> for having <hi>corrupted the Faith with the addition of new words,</hi> and complains of the Consubstantial, and says, <hi>the Apostles, their Disciples, and all their successors downward, that had lived in the Confession of Christ to that <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ime, were ig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>norant of that word</hi>: And on this he in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sists with great vehemency, urging it over and over again, pressing <hi>Athanasius either to read it properly set down in Scripture, or to cast it out of his Confession</hi>; against which <hi>Athanasius</hi> replies, and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other Hereticks which were not written; <hi>Shew me these things,</hi> (says he) <hi>not from conjectures or probabilities, or things that do neighbour on reason, not from things that provoke us to understand them so, nor from the piety of Faith, per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swading such a profession; but shew it written in the pure and naked property of words, that the Father is Unbegotten, or Impassible.</hi> And then he tells <hi>Arrius,</hi> that when he went about to prove this, he should not say, <hi>the reason of Faith required this, piety teaches it, the conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quence from Scripture forces me to this profession. I will not allow you,</hi> says he, <hi>to obtrude these things on me<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap> because you reject me when I bring you such like
<pb n="100" facs="tcp:62980:89"/>
things, for the profession of the Consub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stantial.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>In the end he says, <hi>either permit me to prove the Consubstantial by consequences, or if you will not, you must deny all those things which you your self grant.</hi> And after <hi>Athanasius</hi> had urged this further, <hi>Probus,</hi> that sate Judg in the debate, said, <hi>Neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in Scripture:</hi> Therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish contest, but prove either the one or the other by <hi>a just consequence from Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>In the <hi>Macedonian</hi> Controversy against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, we find this was also their Plea; a hint of it was already mentioned in the Conference betwixt <hi>Maximi<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>us</hi> the <hi>Arrian</hi> Bishop, and S. <hi>Austin,</hi> which wehave more fully in St. <hi>Gregory Nazianzen,</hi>
               <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Orat.</hi> 37.</note> who proving the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, meets with that objection of the <hi>Macedonians, that it was in no place of Scripture,</hi> to which he answers, <hi>Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not, as when God is said to sleep; some things truly are, but are no-where said, as the Fathers being Unbegotten, which they
<pb n="101" facs="tcp:62980:89"/>
themselves believed,</hi> and concludes <hi>that these things are drawn from these things out of which they are gathered, though they be not mentioned in Scripture.</hi> Therefore he upbraids those <hi>for serving the letter, and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews, and that leaving Things, they followed Syllables</hi>: And shews how valid a good consequence is: <hi>As if a man,</hi> says he, <hi>speaks of a living creature that is reasonable, but mortal; I conclude it must be a man: Do I for that seem to rave? not at all; for these words are not more truly his that says them, than his that did make the saying of them necessary</hi>: So he infers, <hi>that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures, though they either were not at all, or not clearly in the Scriptures.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>We find also in a Dialogue between an <hi>Orthodox</hi> and a <hi>Macedonian,</hi> that is in <hi>Athanasius</hi>'s Works, but believed to be written by <hi>Maximus,</hi> after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature, such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost. In end the <hi>Macedonian</hi> flies to this known re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fuge, <hi>that it was no-where written that
<pb n="102" facs="tcp:62980:90"/>
he was God,</hi> and so challenges him for saying <hi>that which was not in Scripture.</hi> But the <hi>Orthodox</hi> answers, <hi>that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bed to the Holy Ghost, and since the Name follows the Nature, he concludes, if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself, did san<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctifie, and was increated, he must be God whether the other would or not.</hi> Then he asks, <hi>where it was written, That the Son was like the Father in his Essence</hi>? The Heretick answers, <hi>That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence.</hi> But the Orthodox replies (which we desire may be well considered), <hi>Were they moved to that from the sense of the Scripture, or was it of their own autho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity or arrogance that they said any thing that was not written.</hi> The other con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fesses it was from the sense of the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture, that they were moved to it; from this the Orthodox infers, <hi>that the sense of the Scripture teaches us that an un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>created Spirit that is of God, and quick<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ens and sanctifies, is a Divine Spirit, and from thence he concludes, He is God.</hi> Thus we see clearly, how exactly the <hi>Macedonians</hi> and these Gentlemen agree, and what arguments the Fathers furnish us with against them.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="103" facs="tcp:62980:90"/>The <hi>Nestorian</hi> History followed this tract, and we find <hi>Nestorius</hi> both in his Letters <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Act. Syn. Eph.</hi>
               </note> to <hi>Cyril</hi> of <hi>Alexandria,</hi> to Pope <hi>Celestin,</hi> and in these writings of his that were read in the Council of <hi>Ephesus</hi> 
               <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Action.</hi> 1.</note>, gives that always for his reason of deny<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God, <hi>because the Scriptures did no-where mention it,</hi> but call Her always the Mother of Christ, and yet that general Council condemned him for all that; and his Friend <hi>John</hi> Patriarch of <hi>Antioch</hi> earnestly pressed him by his Letters not to reject but to use that word, <hi>since the sense of it was good, and it agreed with the Scriptures</hi>; and it was generally used by many of the Fathers, and had never been rejected by any one.</p>
            <p>This was also <hi>Eutyches</hi> his last re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fuge <note n="*" place="margin">
                  <hi>Act, 6. Sy<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap> Constantin. in Act.</hi> 2. Chalcedon</note>, when he was called to appear be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore the Council at <hi>Constantinople,</hi> he pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tended sickness, and that he would never stir out of his Monastery; but being of<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten cited, he said to those that were sent to him, <hi>In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found</hi>? To which they replied, <hi>In what Scripture was the Consubstantial to be found</hi>: Thus turn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning his plea back on himself, as the Or<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thodox
<pb n="104" facs="tcp:62980:91"/>
had done before on the <hi>Arrians. Eutyches</hi> also when he made his appear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ance, he ended his defence with this, <hi>That he had not found that</hi> (to wit, of the two Natures) <hi>plainly in the Scripture, and that all the Fathers had not said it.</hi> But for all that, he was condemned by that Council which was afterwards ra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tified by the Universal Council of <hi>Chal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cedon.</hi> Yet after this repeated condem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nation the <hi>Eutychians</hi> laid not down this Plea, but continued still to appeal to the express words of Scripture; which made <hi>Theodoret</hi> write two Discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence, they are published in <hi>Athanasius</hi> his Works,<note n="b" place="margin">
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> 2. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 span">
                     <desc>〈…〉</desc>
                  </gap>.</note> among these Sermons against Hereticks: But most of these are <hi>Theo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>doret</hi>'s, as appears clearly from <hi>Photius</hi>
               <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> his account of <hi>Theodoret</hi>'s Works; the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this Plea: The 12<hi>th</hi> Discourse, which by <hi>Photius</hi>'s account is the 16<hi>th,</hi> has this title, <hi>To those that say we ought to receive the Expression, and not look to the Things signified by them, as tran<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>scending all men.</hi> The 19<hi>th,</hi> or according to <hi>Photius,</hi>
               <note n="c" place="margin">
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap>. <hi>Cod.</hi> 46.</note> the 23<hi>th,</hi> is, <hi>To those who say we ought to believe simply as they say, and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb n="105" facs="tcp:62980:91"/>If I should set down all that is perti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nent to this purpose, I must set down the whole Discourses; but I shall gather out of them such things as are most pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>per. He first complains <hi>of those who studied to subvert all humane things and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable, that would receive the words of the sacred Writings without conside<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration, or good direction, not minding the pious scope for which they are written. For if (as they would have us) we do not consider what they mark out to us, but simply receive their words, then all that the Prophets and Apostles have written will prove of no use to those that hear them, for then they will hear with their ears, but not understand with their hearts; nor consider the consequence of the things that are said, according to the Curse in</hi> Isaias.— And after he had ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plied this to those who misunderstood that place, <hi>the Word was made Flesh,</hi> he adds, <hi>Shall I hear a saying, and shall I not enquire into its proper meaning, where then is the proper consequence of what is said, or the profit of the hearer? Would they have men changed into the nature of bruits? If they must only re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceive the sound of words with their
<pb n="106" facs="tcp:62980:92"/>
ears, but no fruit in their soul from the <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>nderstanding of them. Contrariwise did St.</hi> Paul <hi>tell us, They who are per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fect have their senses exercised to dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cern good and evil; but how can any discern aright if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said? And such he compares to beasts, and makes them worse than the clean beasts, who chew the cud; and, as a man is to consider what meats are set before him, so he must not snatch words strip'd of their meaning, but must carefully consider what is suitable to God, and profitable to us, what is the force of Truth, what a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>grees with the Law, or answers to Na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture; he must consider the genuineness of Faith, the firmness of Hope, the sin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cerity of Love, what is liable to no re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>proach what is beyond envy, and wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                     <desc>••</desc>
                  </gap>y of favour; all which things concur <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>word? pious meditations.</hi> And concludes thus, <hi>The sum of all is, he that receives any words, and does not consider the meaning of them, how can he understand those that seem to contradict others? where shall be find a fit answer? How shall be satisfy those that interrogate him, or defend that which is writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten?</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb n="107" facs="tcp:62980:92"/>These passages are out of the first Discourse, what follows is out of the second. In the beginning he says, <hi>though the Devil has invented many grievous Doctrines, yet he doubts if any former age brought forth any thing like that then broached. Former Heres<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>s had their own proper errors; but this that was now invented renewed all others, and exceeded all others. Which,</hi> says he, <hi>receives simply what is said, but does not enquire what is convenient, or inconvenient: But shall I believe with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out judgment, and not enquire what is possible, convenient, decent, acceptable to God, answerable to Nature, agreeable to Truth, or is a consequence from the scope, or suitable to the mystery, or to piety; or what outward reward, or inward fruit accompanies it; or must I reckon on none of these things. But the cause of all our adversaries errors, is, that with their ears they hear words, but have no understanding of them in their hearts; for all of them</hi> (and names diverse) <hi>
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> a trial, that they be not convinced,</hi> and at length shews what absurdities must follow on such a method. Instancing those places about which the Contest was with the
<pb n="108" facs="tcp:62980:93"/>
               <hi>Arrians,</hi> such as these words of Christ, <hi>The Father is greater than I.</hi> And shews what apparent contradictions there are, if we do not consider the true sense of places of Scripture that seem contradictory, which must be re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>conciled by finding their true meaning; and concludes, <hi>so we shall either per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swade, or overcome our adversary; so we shall shew that the holy Scripture is consonant to its self; so we shall justly publish the glory of the Mystery, and shall treasure up such a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls; we shall neither believe without the Word, nor speak without Faith.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Now I challenge every Reader, to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sider if any thing can be devised that more formally, and more nervously-overthrows all the pretences brought for this ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>peal to the express words of Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture.</p>
            <p>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 Im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>partial 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
<pb n="109" facs="tcp:62980:93"/>
from all has been said, it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been bafled by Universal Councils and Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers. Yet I cannot leave this with the Reader, without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered.</p>
            <p>The first is, that which these Gen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tlemen 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 Here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticks, which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands; by the most Universal Councils, and the most Lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned 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 ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry unreasonably pretend to the Spirit or Doctrine of Catholicks, since they tread a path so oft beaten by all Here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticks, and abhorred by all the Ortho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dox.</p>
            <p>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
<pb n="110" facs="tcp:62980:94"/>
this I believe was all the ground <hi>M. W.</hi> had for telling us in our Conference that St. <hi>Austin bade the Heretick read what he said.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>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 ci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted 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. <hi>Austin</hi>'s, which I much doubt, cannot be an honest man; who, because St. <hi>Austin</hi> to shew the <hi>Arrians</hi> 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. <hi>Austin</hi> 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. <hi>Austin</hi>'s Doctrine concerning the efficacy of Grace: When they cited as formal passages out of St. <hi>Austin,</hi> some of the Objections of the <hi>Semipelagians,</hi> which he sets down, and afterwards answers, which they brought without his an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swers, as his words, to shew he was of
<pb n="111" facs="tcp:62980:94"/>
their side. But to return to our pur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pose; 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 Purga<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tory, Sacrifice of the Mass, Tran<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>u<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>slantiation, the Pope's Supremacy, with a great many more things in the express words of Scripture.</p>
            <p>Thirdly, we see the peremptory an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swer 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, <hi>Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Austin,</hi> and <hi>Theodoret,</hi> that they will find out answer as, fully and formally, as need be; and to them we refer our selves.</p>
            <p>But, Fourthly, To improve this be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>yond the particular occasion that enga<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ged us to all this enquiry, we desire it be considered then when such an objection was made, which those of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> judg is strong to prove; we must rely on somewhat else than Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
<pb n="112" facs="tcp:62980:95"/>
either on the Authority of the Church, or on the certainty of Tradi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion. The first Councils and Fathers had no such apprehension.</p>
            <p>All considering men, chiefly when they are arguing a nice Point, speak upon some <hi>hypothesis</hi> 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 <hi>against the drawing consequences from Scripture, since all men may be mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>staken; and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings.</hi> A Papist must necessarily upon his <hi>hypothesis</hi> say, <hi>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.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>A Protestant must on the other hand, according to his Principles, argue, <hi>that since man has a reasonable soul in him; he must be supposed endued with a fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>culty of making Inferences: And when any consequence is apparent to our un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstandings, we ought and must be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieve
<pb n="109" facs="tcp:62980:95"/>
it as much as we do that from which the consequence is drawn. There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore we must not only read, but study to understand the true meaning of Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture: 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 pu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rest times, and the Fathers believing as we believe.</hi> If we should hear two persons that were unknown to us, ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gue either of these two ways, we must conclude the one is a Papist, the other a Protestant, as to this particular.</p>
            <p>Now I desire the Reader may com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pare what has been cited from the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers upon this subject: And see if what they write upon it does not ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>actly agree with our <hi>hypothesis</hi> and principles. Whence we may very just<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly 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 Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures, as it must appear to every con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sidering mans understanding, backed with the opinion of the Fathers that went be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore them.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="110" facs="tcp:62980:96"/>And thus far have I followed this Objection; and have, as I hope, to eve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry Readers satisfaction made it out, that there can be nothing more unreasona<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble, more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church, to the nature of the soul of man, to the use and <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>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 Ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticles of our Church in the express words of Scripture.</p>
            <p>So that I am confident this will ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pear to every considering person, the most trifling and pitiful Objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason. And therefore it is hoped, that all persons who take any care of their souls, will examine things more narrowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them, or to be shaken by such Objections. And if all the scru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple these Gentlemen have, why they do not joyn in Communion with the Church of <hi>E<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>gl<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>nd,</hi> lies in this; we expect they shall find it so entirely sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tisfied,
<pb n="111" facs="tcp:62980:96"/>
and removed out of the way, that they shall think of returning back to that Church where they had their Baptism and Christian Education, and which is still ready to receive them with open arms, and to restore such as have been over-reached into Error and Heresy, with the spirit of meekness. To which I pray God of his great mercy dispose both them and all others, who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest Church upon Earth; and have turned over to a most im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pure and corrupt Society. And let all men say <hi>Amen.</hi>
            </p>
         </div>
         <div type="discourse">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:97"/>
            <pb n="113" facs="tcp:62980:97"/>
            <head>A Discourse to shew that it was not on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly possible to change the Belief of the Church concerning the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament; but that it is very reasonable to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude, both that it might be done, and that it was truly changed.</head>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">T</seg>Here is only one Par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticular of any impor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tance, that was men<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tioned in the Confe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rence, to which we forgot to make any Answer at all, which was spoken by <hi>N.N.</hi> to this purpose; <hi>How was it possible, or to be imagined that the Church of God could ever have received such a Doctrine as the belief of Transubstantiation, if every age had not received it, and been instructed in it by their Fathers, and the Age that went be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore it?</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb n="114" facs="tcp:62980:98"/>This by a pure forgetfulness was not answered; and one of these Gentlemen took notice of it to me, meeting with me since that time, and desired me to consider what a friend of <hi>N. N.</hi> has late<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly printed on this Subject, in a <hi>Letter concerning Transubstantiation, Directed to a Person of Honour:</hi> In which, a great many pretended Impossibilities of any such Innovation of the Doctrine are reckoned up; to shew it a thing both in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>conceivable and unpracticable, to get the Faith of the Church changed in a thing of this nature.</p>
            <p>This same Plea has been managed with all the advantages possible, both of Wit, Eloquence, and Learning, by Mr. <hi>Arnaud</hi> of the <hi>Sorbon</hi>; but had been so exposed and baffled by Mr. <hi>Claud,</hi> who, as he equals the other in Learning, Elo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quence, and Wit, so having much the better of him in the Cause and Truth he vindicates, has so foiled the other in this Plea, that he seeing no other way to pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>serve that high reputation which his other Writings, and the whole course of his Life had so justly acquired him; has gone off from the main Argument on which they begun, and betaken himself to a long and unprofitable Enquiry into
<pb n="115" facs="tcp:62980:98"/>
the belief of the Greek Church, since her schisme from the Latine Church.</p>
            <p>The Contest has been oft renewed, and all the ingenious and learned persons of both sides, have looked on with great expectations.</p>
            <p>Every one must confess, M. <hi>Arnaud</hi> has said all can be said in such a Cause; yet it seems he finds himself often pinched, by the bitter (I had almost said scurri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lous) reproaches he casts on Mr. <hi>Claud,</hi> which is very unbecoming the Educati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on and other noble Qualities of that great man, whom for his Book of <hi>Fre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quent Communion,</hi> I shall ever honour. And it is a thing much to be lamented, that he was taken off from these more useful Labours, wherein he was engaged so much to the bettering this Age, both in discovering the horrid corruption of the Jesuits and other Casuists, not only in their Speculations about Casuistical Divinity, but in their hearing Confessi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons, and giving easie Absolutions, upon trifling Penances, and granting Abso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lutions before the Penance was perfor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med, and in representing to us the true Spirit of Holiness and Devotion was in the Primitive Church.</p>
            <p>But on the other hand, as Mr. <hi>Claud</hi>
               <pb n="116" facs="tcp:62980:99"/>
leaves nothing unsaid in a method fully answerable to the excellence of that truth he defends; so he answers these re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>proaches in a way worthy of himself, or rather of Christ and the Gospel. If those excellent Writings were in <hi>English,</hi> I should need to say nothing to a point that has been so canvassed; but till some oblige this Nation by translating them, I shall say so much on this Head, as I hope shall be sufficient to convince every body of the emptiness, weakness and folly of this Plea.</p>
            <p>And first of all, In a matter of fact concerning a change made in the Belief of the Church, the only certain method of enquiry, is, to consider the Doctrine of the Church in former Ages; and to compare that with what is now recei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ved; and if we see a difference between these, we are sure there has been a change; though we are not able to shew by what steps it was made; nay, though we could not so much as make it appear probable that such a change could be made.</p>
            <p>To instance this in a plain case, of the change of the <hi>English</hi> Language since the dayes of <hi>William</hi> the Conqueror; that there has no such swarm of Foreigners
<pb n="117" facs="tcp:62980:99"/>
broke in upon this Island, as might change our Language: One may then argue thus; Every one speaks the Lan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>guage he heard his Parents, his Nurses, and others about him speak, when he was a Child; and this he continues to speak all his life, and his Children speak as they heard him speak: Upon which, a man of wit and phancy might say a great many things, to shew it impossible any such change should ever have been made, as that we now should speak so as not to understand what was said five or six hundred years ago. Yet if I find <hi>Chaucer,</hi> or any much ancienter Book, so written, that I can hardly make a shift to understand it, from thence, without any further reasoning how this could be brought about, I naturally must con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clude our Language is altered. And if any man should be so impertinent, as to argue, that could not be; for Children speak as their Nurses and Parents taught them, I could hardly answer him in pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tience; but must tell him it is altered, without more ado.</p>
            <p>If a Child were amused with such pretended Impossibilities, I would tell him, that Strangers coming among us, and our travelling to parts beyond the
<pb n="118" facs="tcp:62980:100"/>
Seas, made us acquainted with other Languages; and <hi>Englishmen</hi> finding in other Tongues, some words and phrases, which they judged more proper than any they had, being also fond of new words, there was an insensible change made in every Age, which after five or six Ages, is more discernable: Just so, if I find most of all the Fathers either delivering their Opinions clearly in this matter, against the Doctrine of the <hi>Roman</hi> Church, or saying things utterly incon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sistent with it, I am sure there has been a change made; though I could not shew either the whole progress of it, or so much as a probable account how it could be done.</p>
            <p>If men were as Machines or necessary Agents, a certain account might be gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ven of all the events in all Ages; but there are such strange Labyrints in the minds of men, that none can trace them by any rational computation of what is likely.</p>
            <p>There is also such a diversity between men and men, between Ages and Ages, that he should make very false accounts, that from the tempers and dispositions of men in this Age, should conclude what were possible or impossible many years ago.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="119" facs="tcp:62980:100"/>In this Age, in which Printing gives notice of all things so easily and speedi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly, and by the laying of Stages for the quick and cheap conveying Pacquets, and the publishing <hi>Mercuries, Gazettes,</hi> and <hi>Iournals,</hi> and the education of almost all persons to read and write Letters, and the curiosity by which all people are whetted to enquire into every thing; the state of Mankind is quite altered from what it was before, when few could read or write, but Clergy-men; so that they must be the Notaries of all Courts; who continue from that, to be called Clerks to this day; and that some Crimes, otherwise capital, were not punished with death, if the guilty person could but read.</p>
            <p>When people were so ignorant of what was doing about them, when nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther Printing, nor Stages for Pacquets, were in being, at least in <hi>Europe,</hi> and when men were fast asleep in their Busi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness, without amusing themselves what was doing about them in the world; it is the most unjust and unreasonable thing in nature, to imagine, that such things as are now next to impossible, were not then not only possible, but easie. So that all such calculations of Impossibilities from the
<pb n="120" facs="tcp:62980:101"/>
state and temper of this Age, when ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plied to the Ages before ours, is the most fallacious way of reckoning that can be.</p>
            <p>For instance, how improbable, or next to impossible, is this following sto<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry, That the Bishops of the Imperial City of the <hi>Roman</hi> Empire, whose first true worth, together with the great<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness of that City, which was the Head and Metropolis of the <hi>Roman</hi> Empire, got them much esteem and credit in the world, should from small and low be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginnings, have crept up to such a height of power, that they were looked on as the Head of all Power both Civil and Spiritual; and that as they overthrew all other Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Bishops of that See engrossing it to them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves: so they were Masters of almost all the Crowns of <hi>Europe,</hi> and could change Governments, raise up, and as<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sist new pretenders, call up by the prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chings of some poor beggarly Friars, vast Armies, without pay, and send them whither they pleased: That they could draw in all the Treasure and Riches of <hi>Europe</hi> to themselves; that they brought Princes to lie thus at their feet, to suffer all the Clergy, who had a
<pb n="121" facs="tcp:62980:101"/>
great interest in their Dominions, by the vast endowments of Churches and Abbeys, beside the power they had in all Families and Consciences, to be the sworn Subjects of these Bishops, and to be exempted from appearing in Secular Courts, how criminal soever they were?</p>
            <p>That all this should be thus brought about without the expence of any vast Treasure, or the prevailing force of a conquering Army, meerly by a few tricks, that were artificially managed, of the belief of Purgatory, the power of absolving, and granting Indulgences, and the opinion of their being S. <hi>Peter</hi>'s Successors, and Christ's Vicars on earth. And that all this while when on these false colours of Impostures in Religion, those designs were carried on, the Popes were men of the most lewd and flagiti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous lives possible; and those who served them in their designs, were become the scandal and scorn of Christendom; and yet in all these Attempts, they prevail<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed for above seven or eight Ages.</p>
            <p>Now if any man will go about to prove this impossible, and that Princes were alwayes jealous of their Authori<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty and their Lives, people alwayes loved
<pb n="122" facs="tcp:62980:102"/>
their money and quiet, Bishops alwayes loved their Jurisdiction, and all men when they see designs carried on with colours of Religion, by men, who in the most publick and notorious instances shew they have none at all, do suspect a cheat, and are not to be wheedled. Therefore all this must be but a fable and a forgery, to make the Popes and their Clergyodious. Will not all men laugh at such a person, that against the faith of all History, and the authority of all Records, will deny a thing that was set up over all <hi>Europe</hi> for many Ages?</p>
            <p>If then all this change in a matter that was temporal, against which the Secu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lar Interests of all men did oppose them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves, was yet successful, and prevail<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed; how can any man think it unreason<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able, that a speculative opinion might have been brought into the Church, by such Arts, and so many degrees, that the traces of the change should be lost?</p>
            <p>We find there have been many other changes in sacred things, which will seem no less strange and incredible; but that we are assured whatsoever really has been, may be: and if things full as un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>accountable have been brought about, it is absurd to deny that other things
<pb n="123" facs="tcp:62980:102"/>
might not have run the same fate.</p>
            <p>It is known that all people are more uneasie to changes in things that are vi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sible, and known to every body, than in things that are speculative, &amp; abstracted, and known and considered but by a few: they are likewise more unwilling to part with things they are in possession of, and reckon their Rights, than to suffer new Opinions to be brought in among them; and let their Religion swell by additions. For it is undoubted that it is much more easie to imagine how a new Opinion should be introduced, than how an an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cient Practice and Right should be taken away. If then it be apparent, that there have been great changes made in the most visible and sensible parts of Religious Worship, by taking away some of the most ancient Customs and Rights of the people, over the whole Western Church, then it cannot be thought incredible, that a new specula<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tive Opinion might have by degrees been brought in. This I shall instance in a few particulars.</p>
            <p>The receiving the Chalice in the Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament, was an ancient constant custom to which all the people had been long used; and one may very reasonably on
<pb n="124" facs="tcp:62980:103"/>
this <hi>Hypothesis,</hi> argue, that could not be; for would the people especially in dark Ages, have suffered the Cup of the Blood of Christ to be taken from them, if they had not known that it had been taken from their Fathers.</p>
            <p>Upon which it is easie to conceive how many speculative Impossibilities an ingenious man may devise; and yet we know they were got to part with it by degrees; first, the Bread was given dipt in the Cup, for an Age or two; and then the people judged they had both together: This step being made, it was easie afterwards to give them the Bread undipt, and so the Chalice was taken away quite from the Laity, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out any great opposition, except what was made in <hi>Bohemia.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Next to this, let us consider how naturally all men are apt to be fond of their Children, and not to suffer any thing to be denied them, by which they conceive they are advantaged: Upon which one may reckon, once we are sure it was the universally received custom, for many Ages, over the whole <hi>Latine</hi> Church, that all Children had the Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>charist given them immediately after they were baptized. And the <hi>Rubrick</hi>
               <pb n="125" facs="tcp:62980:103"/>
of the <hi>Roman Missal</hi> ordered,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Ord. Rom. in Pascha.</hi>
               </note> they should not be suffered to suck after they were baptized, before they had the Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>charist given them, except in cases of necessity. This Order is believed to be a work of the eleventh Century; so late<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly was this thought necessary in the <hi>Ro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>man</hi> Church.</p>
            <p>All men know how careful most Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rents, even such as have not much Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligion themselves, are, that nothing be wanting about their Children; and it was thought simply necessary to salva<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion that all persons had the Eucharist. How many imaginary difficulties may one imagine might have obstructed the changing this Custom? One would ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pect to hear of tumults and stirs, and an universal conspiracy of all men to save this Right of their Children? Yet <hi>Hugo de Sancto Victore</hi> tells us, how it was wearing out in his time; and we find not the least opposition made to the ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>king it away.</p>
            <p>A third thing, to which it is not easie to apprehend how the Vulgar should have consented, was, the denying them that right of Nature and Nations, that overy body should worship God in a known Tongue. In this Island, the
<pb n="126" facs="tcp:62980:104"/>
               <hi>Saxons</hi> had the Liturgy in their Vulgar Tongue; and so it was also overall the world: And from this might not one ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry justly reckon up many high improba<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bilities to demonstrate the setting up the Worship in an unknown Tongue, could never be brought about, and yet we know it was done.</p>
            <p>In end, I shall name only one other particular, which seems very hard to be got changed, which yet we are sure was changed; This was, the popular Ele<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctions of the Bishops and Clergy, which, as is past dispute, were once in the hands of the people; and yet they were got to part with them, and that at a time when Church-preferments were raised very high in all secular advantages; so that it may seem strange, they should then have been wrought upon to let go a thing, which all men are naturally inclined to desire an interest in; and so much the more, if the dignity or riches of the fun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ction be very considerable; and yet though we meet in Church-History ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny accounts of tumults that were in those Elections, while they were in the peoples hands; yet I remember of no tumults made to keep them, when they were ta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ken out of their hands.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="127" facs="tcp:62980:104"/>And now I leave it to every Readers Conscience, if he is not perswaded by all the conjectures he can make of Man<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kind, that it is more hard to conceive, how these things, that have been na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med, of which the people had clear pos<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>session, were struck out, than that a speculative Opinion, how absurd soever, was brought in, especially in such Ages as these were, in which it was done.</p>
            <p>This leads me to the next thing, which is, to make some reflexions on those Ages, in which this Doctrine crept into the Church. As long as the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost continued in the Church, the simplicity of those that preached the Gospel, was no small con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firmation of that authority that accom<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>panied them; so that it was more for the honour of the Gospel, that there were no great Scholars or Disputants to promote it: But when that ceased, it was necessary the Christian Religion should be advanced by such rational means as are suitable to the Soul of man: If it had begun only upon such a founda<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion, men would not have given it a hearing; but the Miracles which were at first wrought, having sufficiently allarm'd the world, so that by them
<pb n="128" facs="tcp:62980:105"/>
were inclined to hearken to it: Then it was to be tried by those Rules of Truth and Goodness, which lie engraven on all mens Souls. And therefore it was ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessary, those who defended it, should both understand it well, and likewise know all the secrets of Heathenism, and of the Greek Philosophy.</p>
            <p>A knowledge in these being thus necessary, God raised up among the Phi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>losophers divers great persons, such as <hi>Justin, Clement, Origen,</hi> and many others, whose minds being enlight<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned with the knowledge of the Go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spel, as well as endued with all other humane Learning, they were great supports to the Christian Religion. Afterwards many Heresies being broach<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed about the Mysteries of the Faith, chiefly those that relate to the Son of God, and his Incarnation, upon which followed long contests: for managing these, a full understanding of Scripture was also necessary; and that set all per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sons mightily to the study of the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures.</p>
            <p>But it is not to be denied, great cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ruptions did quickly break in, when the Persecutions were over; and the Church abounded in peace and plenty; not but
<pb n="129" facs="tcp:62980:105"/>
that the Doctrine was preserved pure long after that: There were also many shining Lights, and great Fathers, in that and in the following Age; yet from the Fathers of these two Ages,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Greg. Nazian, Orat.</hi> I. <hi>Ap<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ll.</hi> &amp; 20. <hi>Orat. Chrisoft. l. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>. de sacer. 6.</hi> 10.</note> and from the great disorders were in some of their Councils, as in the case of <hi>Atha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nasiaus,</hi> and the second <hi>Ephesin</hi> Council, we may clearly see how much they were degenerating from the primitive pu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rity.</p>
            <p>Many Contests were about the prece<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dency of their Sees, great Ambition and Contention appeared in their Synods, which made <hi>Nazianzen</hi> hate and shun them, expecting no good from them. These and such like things brought very heavy Judgments and Plagues on the Church, and the whole <hi>Roman</hi> Empire, in the fifth Century: For vast swarms of Armies out of <hi>Germany</hi> and the Northern Nations brake in upon the Western Em<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pire, and by a long succession of new Invaders all was sackt and ruined.</p>
            <p>The <hi>Goths</hi> were followed by the <hi>Van<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dals,</hi> the <hi>Alains,</hi> the <hi>Gepides,</hi> the <hi>Franks,</hi> the <hi>Sweves,</hi> the <hi>Huns,</hi> and in the end the <hi>Lombards.</hi> Those Nations were for the greatest part <hi>Arrians,</hi> but all were bar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>barous and rude; and their hatred of
<pb n="130" facs="tcp:62980:106"/>
the Faith, joyned to the barbarity of their tempers, set them with a strange fury on destroying the most sacred things. And to that we owe the loss of most of the primitive Writings, and of all the authentical Records of the first Persecutions; scarce any thing re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maining, but what <hi>Eusebius</hi> had before gathered together out of a former de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>struction was made of such things under <hi>Diocletian.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Nor did the Glory of the Eastern Em<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pire long survive the Western, that fell before these Invaders: But in <hi>Europe,</hi> by the Impression of the <hi>Bulgars</hi>; and in <hi>Asia,</hi> by the Conquests made, first by the <hi>Saracens,</hi> then by the <hi>Turks,</hi> their Greatness was soon broken; though it lasted longer under that oppressed con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dition, than the other had done.</p>
            <p>Thus was both the <hi>Greek</hi> and the <hi>La<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tine</hi> Church brought under sad oppres<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sion and much misery. And every body knows, that the natural effect that state of life brings over the greatest minds, when there is no hope of getting from under it, is to take them off from study and learning; and indeed to sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>due their Spirits as well as their Bodies. And so it proved, for after that, an
<pb n="131" facs="tcp:62980:106"/>
ignorance and dulness did to that de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gree overspread all <hi>Europe,</hi> that it is scarce to be expressed. I do not deny, but there might be some few Instances of considerable Men, giving an allow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ance for the time they lived in.</p>
            <p>For the Laity, they were bred up to think of nothing but to handle their Arms, very few could so much as read; and the Clergy were not much better, read they could, but in many that was all; a corrupt <hi>Latin</hi> they understood, which continued to be the vulgar Tongue in <hi>Italy</hi> a great while after: They had heard of <hi>Greek</hi> and <hi>Hebrew,</hi> but understood them as little, as we do the <hi>Mexican</hi> or <hi>Peruvian</hi> Tongue.</p>
            <p>They had scarce any knowledge of the <hi>Greek</hi> Fathers, a few very ill Transla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions of some of them was all they had. The <hi>Latin</hi> Fathers were read by some of the more learned, but for any di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stinct understanding of Scriptures, or the natures of things, God knows they had it not. I design a short Discourse, and therefore shall not stay to make this out, which every Body that has but looked a little on the Writings of these Ages, knows to be true.</p>
            <p>Another Effect of their Ignorance
<pb n="132" facs="tcp:62980:107"/>
was, that they were easily imposed on by supposititious Writings, that went un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der the Names of the Fathers, but were none of theirs. <hi>Gelasius</hi> threw out a great many that were breaking out in his time, but the Trade was prospe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rous, and went on to that height, that it cost the Criticks of these two last Ages much pains to distinguish true from forged, and the genuine from what was interpolated. And indeed the Popes were much beholden to the for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gery of the Decretal Epistles, in which Work a great many Epistles were pub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lished by <hi>Isidore</hi> in the eighth Century, as the Epistles of the Popes of the first four Centuries after Christ: By which they were represented as giving orders, and making definitions over the whole Church in a full form, and with the stile of an absolute Authority.</p>
            <p>These were rejected by many, but mightily supported by all the Flatterers of the Court of <hi>Rome</hi>; So that they were in the end after some contest ge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nerally received, and held Presidents to the succeeding Popes, who wrote very skilfully after that Copy. Many other Forgeries were also much cherished, which I shall instance only in one other
<pb n="133" facs="tcp:62980:107"/>
particular, that relates to what is now in my eye.</p>
            <p>A Sermon of <hi>Arnold</hi> of <hi>Bonneval</hi> (which is now proved clearly to be his) was published in St. <hi>Cyprian</hi>'s Works as his Sermon <hi>of the Supper of our Lord,</hi> though this <hi>Arnold</hi> lived about nine hun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dred years after him. Now such a Ser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon being generally read as St. <hi>Cyprian</hi>'s, no wonder it gave that Doctrine of Transubstantiation great credit.</p>
            <p>These Writings are now discovered to be such forgeries, that all considering Men of their own Church are ashamed of them, and disown them. So do <hi>Baronius</hi> and <hi>Bellarmin</hi> the Decretals; and <hi>Sirmondus, Launnoy,</hi> and many more, reject other forgeries. Yet here is a high pitch of Impudence that most of all their Writers of Controversie are guilty of, to cite these very Writings (which are now universally agreed to be spurious) still under those great Names, which forgery gave them.</p>
            <p>As the Author of that Letter about Transubstantiation, cites a passage from St. <hi>Cyprian</hi>'s Sermon <hi>De Coena Domini,</hi> though it is agreed to by <hi>Sixtus Senensis, Possevin, Bellarmin, Raynaud,</hi> and <hi>Labbe,</hi> to be none of his; and the Publishers of
<pb n="134" facs="tcp:62980:108"/>
the Office of the Sacrament, in the Table at the end of it, acknowledge it was written by <hi>Arnold</hi> of <hi>Bonneval,</hi> a Friend of St. <hi>Bernard</hi>'s. After these Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thorities it is indeed strange, that such sophisticated stuff should be over and over again offered to us. And it was no wonder, such forgeries were gene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rally received, when that Church gave them such Authority, as to take many Lessons out of the most spurious Le<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gends and put them in their Breviary.</p>
            <p>Of all these dark Ages, the tenth was certainly the midnight of the Church: We have scarce any Writer for that whole Age, so that it is generally called the Iron Age, an Age of Darkness and Wickedness; and therefore a very fit time for Superstition and Errour to work in. And thence we may well in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fer, that in Ages that were so exceeding ignorant, and in which Men scarce thought of Religion, it was no hard thing to get any Errour received and established.</p>
            <p>But this is not all. These were also Ages of great licentiousness and disor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der; for though the barbarous Nations were afterwards converted to the ortho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dox Faith, (though by the way it were
<pb n="135" facs="tcp:62980:108"/>
easie to shew these Conversions had no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing like the first Conversion of the World to Christianity in them) yet their Barbarity remained with them, and the Churchmen became so corrupt and vicious, that they could not have a face to reprove them for those Vices, of which themselves were scandalously guilty.</p>
            <p>From the Sixth Century downward what a race of Men have the Popes been? chiefly in the Ninth and Tenth Century. And indeed any Religion that remained in the World had so retired into Cloysters and Monasteries, that very little of it remained. These Houses were Seminaries of some Devotion, while they were poor and busied at work, according to their first founda<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion; but when they were well en<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dowed, and became rich, they grew a scandal to all <hi>Christendom.</hi> All the pri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mitive Discipline was laid down, Chil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dren were put into the highest Prefer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments of the Church, and Simony over<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>run the Church. These are matters of fact, that cannot be so much as que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stioned, nor should I, if put to prove them, seek Authorities for them any where else than in <hi>Baronius</hi>; who, for
<pb n="136" facs="tcp:62980:109"/>
all his design to serve the Interest of that Church, yet could not prevaricate so far, as to conceal things that are so openly and uncontestedly true.</p>
            <p>Now from the Darkness and Cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ruption of these Ages, I presume to offer some things to the Readers consi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deration.</p>
            <p>First, Ignorance alwayes inclines people to be very easie to trust those, in whom they have confidence; for being either unwilling to trouble themselves with painful and sollicitous enquiries, or unable to make them, they take things on trust, without any care to search into them. But this general Maxim must needs be much more cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tain, when subjection to the Church, and the belief of every thing established, was made a very substantial part of Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligion, or rather that alone which might compense all other defects.</p>
            <p>Secondly, Ignorance naturally in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clines people to Superstition, to be soon wrought on, and easily amused, to be full of fears, and easie to submit to any thing that may any way overcome these fears. A right sense of God and Divine Matters, makes one have such a taste of Religion, that he is not at all subject
<pb n="137" facs="tcp:62980:109"/>
to this distemper, or rather Monster, begotten by the unnatural commixture of some Fear of God and Love of Sin, both being disordered by much igno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rance; hence sprang most of the Ido<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>latrous Rites of Heathenism, and all people so tempered are fit for the like humour to work upon.</p>
            <p>Thirdly, The Interests of Church<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>men, led them mightily to study the setting this Opinion on foot. This alone set them as high, as mortal Men could be, and made them appear a most sacred sort of a Creature. All the wonders of the Prophets and Apostles were but sorry matters to it: What was <hi>Moses</hi> calling for Manna from Heaven and Water from the Rock? <hi>Elija</hi>'s bringing sometimes Fire and sometimes Rain from Heaven? what were the Apostles raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, and feet to the lame? To the an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nihilating the substance of Bread and Wine, and bringing in their stead, not some other common matter, but the Flesh and Blood of the Ever-Blessed Je<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sus. He who could do this, no wonder he were reverenced, enriched, secure from all danger, exempt from all Civil Jurisdiction, and cherished with all ima<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginable
<pb n="138" facs="tcp:62980:110"/>
respect and kindness. So that it is no strange thing, that Churchmen were much inclined to favour an Opi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nion, that favoured their Interests so much.</p>
            <p>Fourthly, The Churchmen of these Ages were very likely to be easily drawn to any thing, which might so much advance their designs; that were grown very high, especially from the days of Pope <hi>Gregory</hi> the Great. They were struggling with the Civil Powers for dominion, and pursued that for many years, and spared neither labour nor the lives of Men to attain it. And it is not to be thought, but Men who did pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>digally throw away many thousands in a quarrel, would without very nice disputing, cherish any opinion that might contribute toward that end. And as this was of great use to them, so they very much needed both it, and all such like shifts; for they had none of that sublime Sanctity, nor high Learning, or lofty Eloquence, which former Churchmen had, and by which they had acquired great esteem in the World.</p>
            <p>Now the Churchmen in these days, having a great mind to preserve or ra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther to encrease that esteem; but wan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting
<pb n="139" facs="tcp:62980:110"/>
those qualities which on a reaso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nable account might have acquired it, or preserved it, must needs think of somewhat else to do it by; and so found out many Arts for it, such as the Belief of Purgatory, the Priestly Absolution upon Confession, together with the re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>served Cases, Indulgences, and the Popes power of taking Souls out of Purgatory. And if it be not full as un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reasonable, to think the Pope should be believed vested with a power of par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>doning Sin, and redeeming from Pur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gatory, as that Transubstantiation should have been received, let any Man judge.</p>
            <p>Fifthly, There was such a vast num<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ber of Agents and Emissaries sent from <hi>Rome,</hi> to all the Parts of <hi>Europe,</hi> to carry on their designs, that we can hardly think it possible any thing could have withstood them. In such Ages, by gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving some terrible name to any thing, it was presently disgraced with the Vulgar; a clear instance of this was the Fate of the Married Clergy.</p>
            <p>
               <hi>Gregory</hi> the Seventh, who as Cardinal <hi>Benno</hi> (who knew him) represents him, was one of the worst Men that ever was born, and first set on foot the Popes pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tensions to the Civil Authority, and the
<pb n="140" facs="tcp:62980:111"/>
Power of deposing Princes, and putting others in their places; did prosecute the Married Clergy with great vehemency. This he could not do on any pious or chaste account, being so vile a Man as he was: But being resolved to bring all Prin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ces to depend on him, there was no way so like to attain that, as to have all the Clergy absolutely subject to him: This could not be hoped for, while they were married, and that the Princes and seve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ral States of <hi>Europe</hi> had such a pawn of their fidelity, as their Wives and Chil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dren; therefore because the persons of the Clergy were accounted sacred, and liable to no punishment, that there might be nothing so nearly related to them, wherein they might be punished, as their Wives and Children, he drave this furiously on; and to give them some ill favoured Name, called them <hi>Nico<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>laitans,</hi> which are represented in the <hi>Revelation</hi> so vile and odious.</p>
            <p>This was the most unjust thing in the World: They might have called them <hi>Pharisees</hi> or <hi>Sadducees</hi> as well, for all the ancient Writers tell us, that <hi>Nicolas</hi> having a beautiful Wife was jealous, and the Apostles challenging him of it, he said, he was so far from
<pb n="141" facs="tcp:62980:111"/>
it, that he was willing to make her common, and thence some set up the community of Wives, and were from him called the <hi>Nicolaitans.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>But because Women and Marriage were in the case, and it was a hateful word, this was the Name by which the married Clergy were every where made so odious; and though it was much the Interest of Princes to have had the Mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>riage of the Clergy to be left free, yet the Popes were too hard for them in it. Thus were the Agents of <hi>Rome</hi> able to prevail in every thing they set them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves to. So the Opposers of this Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine were called by the hateful Names of <hi>Stercoranists</hi> and <hi>Panites.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Sixthly, When all Religion was pla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ced in externals, and splendid Rites and Ceremonies came to be generally looked on as the whole business of Religion, peoples minds were by that much dispo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sed to receive anything, that might intro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>duce external pomp and grandeur into their Churches; being willing to make up in an outward appearance of wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>shipping the Person of Christ, what was wanting in their obedience to his Gospel.</p>
            <p>And now I appeal to any honest Man, if upon the suppositions I have laid
<pb n="142" facs="tcp:62980:112"/>
down, it be at all an unaccountable thing, that a great company of igno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rant and debauched Clergymen, should set themselves to cherish and advance a belief, which would redeem them from all the Infamy their other Vices were ready to bring upon them; and they resolving on it, if it was hard for them, especially in a course of some Ages, to get an ignorant, credulous, supersti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tious, and corrupt multitude, to receive it without much noise or adoe.</p>
            <p>I believe no man will deny, but upon these suppositions the thing was very like to succeed. Now that all these sup<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>positions are true (to wit) that both Clergy and Laity in those Ages, chiefly in the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Cen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>turies, were ignorant, and vicious to the height; is a thing so generally known, and so universally confessed by all their own Historians, that I hardly think any man will have brow enough to deny it.</p>
            <p>But there are many other things, which will also shew how possible, nay feasible such a change may be.</p>
            <p>First, This having never been con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demned by a formal Decision in any former Age, it was more easie to get it brought in; for no Council or Father
<pb n="143" facs="tcp:62980:112"/>
could condemn or write against any Er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rour, but that which was maintained or abetted by some man, or company of men, in or before their time. Since then this had not been broached in the former Ages, the promoters of it had this advantage, that no former Deci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sion had been made against them; for none ever thought of condemning any Heresie before it had a being.</p>
            <p>Secondly, This Errour did in the outward found agree with the words of the Institution, and the forms used in the former Liturgies, in which the Elements were said <hi>to be changed into the true and undefiled Body of Christ.</hi> A Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine then that seemed to establish no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing contrary to the ancient Liturgies, might easily have been received, in an Age, in which the outward sound and appearance was all they looked to.</p>
            <p>Thirdly, The passage from the be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lieving any thing in general, with an indistinct and confused apprehension, to any particular way of explaining it, is not at all hard to be conceived, espe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cially in an Age, that likes every thing the better, the more mysterious it seem. In the preceding Ages, it was in general received, that Christ was in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment,
<pb n="144" facs="tcp:62980:113"/>
and that by the Consecration the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood. And although many of the Fathers did very formally explain in what sense Christ was present, and the Elements were changed, yet there ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ving been no occasion given to the Church, to make any formal decision about the manner of it, every one thought he was left at liberty to explain it as he pleased. And we may very reasonably suppose, that many did not explain it at all, especially in these Ages, in which there was scarce any preaching or instructing the people. By this means the people did believe Christ was in the Sacrament, and that the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out troubling themselves to examin how it was, whether spiritually or corpo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rally. Things being brought to this, in these Ages, by the carelesness of the Clergy, the people were by that, suf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ficiently disposed to believe any particu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lar manner of that presence, or change, their Pastors might offer to them.</p>
            <p>Fourthly, There being no visible change made in any part of the Worship; when this Doctrine was first brought in, it was easie to innovate, in these
<pb n="145" facs="tcp:62980:113"/>
Ages, in which people looked only at things that were visible and sensible: Had they brought in the Adoration, Processions, or other consequences of this Doctrine along with it, it was like to have made more noise; for people are apt to be startled when they see any no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>table change in their Worship: But this belief was first infufed in the people, and <hi>Berengarius</hi> was condemned. The <hi>Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil of Lateran</hi> had also made the Decree about it, before ever there were any of these signal alterations attempted.</p>
            <p>And after that was done, then did <hi>Honorius</hi> decree the adoration; and <hi>Urban the fourth,</hi>
               <note place="margin">
                  <hi>Greg.</hi> Decret. <hi>lib. 3.</hi> 
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> 42. <hi>cap.</hi> 10.</note> upon some pretended Visions of <hi>Eve Julian,</hi> and <hi>Isabella,</hi> did appoint the Feast of the Body of Christ, called now generally, The Feast of God, or <hi>Corpus Christi</hi> Feast; which was con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firmed by Pope <hi>Clement the fifth,</hi>
               <note place="margin">
                  <hi>Clement.</hi> lib. 3. tit. 16.</note> in the Council of <hi>Vienna</hi>; and ever since that time they have been endeavouring by all the devices possible; to encrease the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>votion of the people to the Hoft.</p>
            <p>So that Mr. <hi>Arnaud</hi> in many places acknowledges they are most gross Idola<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters if their Doctrine be not true, which I desire may be well considered, since it is the opinion of one of the most consi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dering
<pb n="146" facs="tcp:62980:114"/>
and wisest, and most learned per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sons of that Communion, who has, his whole life set his thoughts chiefly to the examining of this Sacrament, and knows as well as any man alive, what is the real sense of the Worshippers in that Church.</p>
            <p>But to return to that I am about, it is very unreasonable to think that the peo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple in those dark Ages, did concern themselves in the speculative opinions were among Divines, so that the vulgar could not busie themselves about it, but when this Opinion was decreed, and generally received and infused in the Lai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty, for almost one age together, then we need not wonder to see notable alte<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rations following upon it, in their wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ship, without any opposition or contest; for it was very reasonable such Conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quences should have followed such a Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine.</p>
            <p>But that before that time there was no adoration of the Elements, is a thing so clear, that it is impudence to deny it; there was no prostration of the body, or kneeling to be made, either on Lords dayes, or all the time between <hi>Easter</hi> and <hi>Pentecost,</hi> by the twentieth Canon of the Council of <hi>Nice.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb n="147" facs="tcp:62980:114"/>None of the ancient Liturgies do so much as mention it; but the contrary is plainly insinuated by S. <hi>Cyril</hi> of <hi>Ierusa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lem.</hi> None of that great number of Writers about <hi>Divine Offices,</hi> that lived in the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Centuries, published by <hi>Hittorpius,</hi> so much as mention it: Though they be very particular in giving us an ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>count of the most inconsiderable parts of the Divine Offices, and of all the circumstances of them, <hi>Honorius</hi> when he first decreed it, does not alledge presi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dents for it; but commands the Priests <hi>to tell the people to do it</hi>; whereas, if it had been appointed before, he must ra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther have commanded the Priests to have told the people of <hi>their sacrilegious contempt of the Body of Christ, notwith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>standing the former Laws and Practice of the Church</hi>: But it is apparent his way of enjoyning it, is in the style of one that commands a new thing, and not that sets on the execution of what was for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>merly used: Yet this was more warily appointed by <hi>Honorius,</hi> who enjoyned on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly <hi>an inclination of the Head to the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment</hi>; but it was set up bare faced by his Successor <hi>Gregory</hi> the ninth, who ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pointed
<pb n="148" facs="tcp:62980:115"/>
(as the Historians tell us, though it be not among his Decretals) <hi>a Bell to be rung,</hi>
               <note place="margin">
                  <hi>auc<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>or ad n.</hi> 1240. <hi>
                     <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>rantz. sex. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>b.</hi> 8. <hi>cap.</hi> 10.</note> 
               <hi>to give notice at the consecration and elevation, that all who heard it, might kneel, and joyn their hands in adoring the Host.</hi> So that any passages of the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers that speak of Adoration or Venera<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion to the Sacrament, must either be un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstood of the inward Adoration the Communicant offers up to God the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther, and his blessed Son, in the com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>memoration of so great a mystery of Love, as appeared in his death, then represented and remembred. Or these words are to be taken in a large sense, and so we find, they usually called the Gospels, their Bishops, Baptism, the <hi>Pascha,</hi> and al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>most all other sacred things, <hi>venerable.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>And thus from many particulars it is apparent, that the bringing in the Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine of Transubstantiation is no unac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>countable thing.</p>
            <p>But I shall pursue this yet further, for the Readers full satisfaction, and shew the steps by which this Doctrine was in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>troduced.</p>
            <p>We find in the Church of <hi>Corinth</hi> the receiving the Sacrament was looked on, but as a common entertainment, and was gone about without great care or
<pb n="149" facs="tcp:62980:115"/>
devotion, which S. <hi>Paul</hi> charges severe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly on them; and tells them what heavy judgments had already fallen on them, for such abuses, and that heavier ones might be yet looked for, since they were guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, by their unworthy receiving.</p>
            <p>Upon this the whole Christian Church was set to consider, in very good earnest, how to prepare themselves aright for so holy an action; and the receiving the Sacrament, as it was the greatest Sym<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bole of the Love of Christians, so it was the end of all Penitence, that was enjoyned for publick or private sins, but chiefly for Apostacy, or the denying the Faith, and complying with Idolatry in the times of Persecution. Therefore the Fathers considering both the words of the Institution, and S. <hi>Paul</hi>'s Epistle to the <hi>Corinthians,</hi> did study mightily to awaken all to great preparation and de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>votion, when they received the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment. For all the primitive devotion about the Sacrament, was only in order to the receiving it; and that modern worship of the Church of <hi>Rome,</hi> of go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing to hear Mass without receiving, was a thing so little understood by them, that as none were suffered to be present in the
<pb n="150" facs="tcp:62980:116"/>
action of the Mysteries, but those who were qualified to receive; so if any such had gone out of the Church without participating,<note place="margin">9 <hi>Apost. Can.</hi> and 2 <hi>Can. Antioch.</hi>
               </note> they were to be separa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted from the Communion of the Church, as the authors of disorder in it.</p>
            <p>Upon this Subject the Fathers employ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed all their Eloquence; and no wonder, if we consider that it is such a comme<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>moration of the death of Christ as does really communicate to the worthy Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiver his crucified body, and his blood that was shed (Mark, not his glorified body, as it is now in heaven) which is the Fountain and Channel of all other blessings, but is only given to such; as being prepared according to the Rules of the Gospel, sincerely believe all the mysteries of Faith, and live suitably to their Belief. Both the advantages of worthy receiving, and the danger of unworthy receiving being so great, it was necessary for them to make use of all the faculties they had, either for awa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>kening reverence and fear, that the con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>temptible Elements of Bread and Wine, might not bring a cheapness and dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>esteem upon these holy Mysteries, or for perswading their Communicants to all serious and due preparation, upon so great an occasion.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="151" facs="tcp:62980:116"/>This being then allowed, it were no strange thing, though in their Sermons, or other devout Treatises, they should run out to Meditations that need to be mollified with that allowance that must be given to all <hi>Panegyricks</hi> or <hi>Per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swasives</hi>: where many things are always said, that if right understood, have no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing in them to startle any body, but if every phrase be examined Grammatical<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly, there would be many things found in all such Discourses, that would look very hideously. Is it not ordinary in all the Festivities of the Church, as S. <hi>Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stin</hi> observed on this very occasion, to say, this day Christ was born, or died, or rose again in <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> and yet that must not be taken literally. Beside, when we hear or read any expressions that sound high or big, we are to consider the or<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dinary stile of him that uses these expres<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sions; for if upon all other occasions he be apt to rise high in his Figures, we may the less wonder at some excesses of his Stile. If then such an Orator as S. <hi>Chrysostome</hi> was, who expatiates on all subjects, in all the delighting varieties of a fertile Phancy, should on so great a Subject, display all the beauties of that <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>avishing Art in which he was so great a
<pb n="152" facs="tcp:62980:117"/>
Master, what wonder is it. Therefore great allowances must be made in such a case.</p>
            <p>Further, we must also consider the tempers of those to whom any Discourse is addressed. Many things must be said in another manner to work on Novices, or weak persons, than were fit or need<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ful for men of riper and stronger un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstandings. He would take very ill measures, that would judge of the fu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture state, by these Discourses in which the sense of that is infused in younger or weaker capacities; therefore though in some Catechismes that were calculated for the understandings of Children and Novices, such as S. <hi>Cyril</hi>'s, there be some high expressions used, it is no strange thing; for naturally all men on such oc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>casions, use the highest and biggest words they can invent.</p>
            <p>But we ought also to consider, what persons have chiefly in their eye, when they speak to any point: For all men, especially when their Fancies are infla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med with much fervor, are apt to look only to one thing at once; and if a visi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble danger appear of one side, and none at all on the other, then it is natural for every one to exceed on that side, where
<pb n="153" facs="tcp:62980:117"/>
there is no danger. So that the hazard of a contempt of the Sacrament being much and justly in their eye, and they having no cause to apprehend any dan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ger on the other side, of excessive ado<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ring or magnifying it: No wonder, if in some of their Discourses, an im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>moderate use of the counterpoise, had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament, that require a fair and candid interpretation.</p>
            <p>Yet after all this, they say no more, but that in the Sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the Body and Blood of Christ; which we also receive and believe. And in many other Trea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tises, when they are in colder blood, examining things, they use such expres<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sions and expositions of this, as no way favour the belief of Transubstantiation; of which we have given some account in a former Paper. But though that were not so formally done, and their Writings were full of passages that needed great allowances, it were no more than what the Fathers that wrote against the <hi>Arrians,</hi> confess the Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers before the Council of <hi>Nice,</hi> were guilty of; who writing against <hi>Sabellius,</hi> with too much vehemence, did run to
<pb n="154" facs="tcp:62980:118"/>
the opposite extream. So many of S. <hi>Cyril</hi>'s passages against <hi>Nestorius,</hi> were thought to favour <hi>Eutychianism.</hi> So also <hi>Theodoret,</hi> and two others, writing a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst the <hi>Eutychians,</hi> did run to such excesses, as drew upon them the con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demnation of the <hi>Fifth General Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>The first time we find any Contestor canvassing about the Sacrament, was in the Controversie about Images, in the eighth Century, That the Council of <hi>Constantinople,</hi> in the condemning of I<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mages, declared, there was no other Image of Christ to be received, but the Blessed Sacrament; in which, <hi>the sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ</hi>; making a difference between that which is Christs <hi>Body by nature,</hi> and the Sacrament, which is <hi>his Body by Institution.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Now it is to be considered, that, whatever may be pretended of the vio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lence of the <hi>Greek</hi> Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing Images; yet there having been no Contest at all about the Sacrament, we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute, if they had not known these two things were the
<pb n="155" facs="tcp:62980:118"/>
received Doctrine of the Church: The one, that in the Sacrament, the sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance of Bread and Wine did remain; the other, that the Sacrament was the Image or Figure of Christ; and from thence they acknowledged, all Images were not to be rejected, but denied any other Images besides that in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment.</p>
            <p>Now the second Council of <hi>Nice,</hi> be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible, doe not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us (to wit) That the Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament was still <hi>the substance of Bread and Wine</hi>; and <hi>Damascene,</hi> the zealous Defender of Images, clearly insinuates his believing the substance of Bread and Wine remained, and did nourish our Bodies. Let it be therefore considered, that when that Council of <hi>Nice</hi> was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the Council of <hi>Constanti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nople,</hi> they never once blame them for saying, <hi>the substance of Bread and Wine was in the Sacrament.</hi> It is true, they condemned them for saying the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment was the Image of Christ, denying that <hi>any of the Fathers had called it so</hi>; al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledging that the Symboles were called
<pb n="156" facs="tcp:62980:119"/>
               <hi>Antitypes by the Fathers, only before the consecration, and not after</hi>;<note place="margin">
                  <hi>De <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>id. orth..</hi> lib. 4. cap. 14.</note> in which they followed <hi>Damascene,</hi> who had fallen in the same Errour before them. But this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact, that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that Council, were there no more to be said against it: For this was either very gross ignorance, or effronted impudence, since in above twenty Fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers that were before them, the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment is called <hi>the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Body</hi>; and at the same time, that <hi>Damascene,</hi> who was then looked on as the great Light of the East, did con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demn the calling the Sacrament, <hi>the Fi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gure of Christ's Body.</hi> The venerable <hi>Bede,</hi>
               <note place="margin">
                  <hi>Bed. in</hi> Psal. 3. &amp; Mark 14.</note> that was looked on as the great Light of the West, did according to the stile of the primitive Church, and in S. <hi>Austin</hi>'s words, call it, <hi>The Figure of Christ's Body.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>I shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended General Council, because I know a full account of them is expected from a better Pen; only in this particular I must desire the Reader to take notice, that the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil of <hi>Constantinople</hi> did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine about the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment;
<pb n="157" facs="tcp:62980:119"/>
and did use it as an Argument in the other Controversie concerning I<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mages, without any design at all about the Eucharist. But on the other hand, the second Council of <hi>Nice</hi> did innovate and reject a form of speech, which had been universally received in the Church, before their time; and being engaged with all possible spight against the Council of <hi>Constantinople,</hi> resolved to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tradict every thing they had said, as much as could be: So that in this we ought to look on the Council of <hi>Constantinople,</hi> as delivering what was truly the tradition of the Church, and on the second Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil of <hi>Nice,</hi> as corrupting it.</p>
            <p>About thirty years after that Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil, <hi>Paschase Radbert</hi> Abbot of <hi>Corbie,</hi> wrote about the Sacrament, and did formally assert the Corporal Presence, in the Ninth Century. The greatest Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trons of this Doctrine, such as <hi>Bellar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mine</hi> and <hi>Sirmondus,</hi> both Jesuites, con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fess, he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. And <hi>Paschase</hi> himself, in his Letter to his Friend <hi>Frudegard,</hi> regrates that <hi>He was so slow in believing and assenting to his Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine</hi>; and does also acknowledge, that
<pb n="158" facs="tcp:62980:120"/>
by his Book <hi>he had moved many to the un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstanding of that Mystery</hi>; and it is ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>parent by that Letter, that not only <hi>Frudegard,</hi> but others were scandalized at his Book, for he writes, <hi>I have spoken of these things more fully, and more expres<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly, because I understand that some challenge me, that in the Book I have published of the Sacraments of Christ, I have ascribed ei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther more or some other thing than is conso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nant to Truth, to the words of our Lord.</hi> Of all the Writers of that Age, or near it, only one (and his Name we know not, the Book being anonymous) was of <hi>Paschase</hi>'s opinion.</p>
            <p>But we find all the great men of that Age were of another mind, and did clearly assert, that in the Sacrament, the Substance of Bread and Wine re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mained, and did nourish our Bodies as other meats do. These were <hi>Rabanus Maur<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>s,</hi> Archbishop of <hi>Mentz, Ama<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>larius,</hi> Archbishop of <hi>Treves,</hi> or as o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers say, <hi>Metz, Heribald,</hi> Bishop of <hi>Auxerre, Bertram, Iohn Scot Erigena, Wala<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fridus Strabo, Florus</hi> and <hi>Christian Druth<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mar.</hi> And three of these set themselves on purpose to refute <hi>Paschase.</hi> The anony<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mous Writer that defends him, sayes, <hi>That</hi> Raban <hi>did dispute at length against
<pb n="159" facs="tcp:62980:120"/>
him in an Epistle to Abbot</hi> Egilon, <hi>for say<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing it was that Body that was born of the Virgin, and was crucified, and raised again, that was daily offered for the life of the World.</hi> That is also condemned by <hi>Ra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ban</hi> in his Penitential, <hi>cap.</hi> 33. who re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fers his Reader to that Epistle to Abbot <hi>Egilon.</hi> And for <hi>Bertram,</hi> he was com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>manded by <hi>Charles</hi> the Bald, then Em<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>peror, to write upon that matter, which in the beginning of his Book he pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mises to do, <hi>not trusting to his own wit, but following the steps of the Holy Fathers.</hi> It is also apparent by his Book, that there were at that time different Perswasions about the Body of Christ in the Sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment; <hi>some believing it was there without any Figure; others saying, it was there in a Figure and Mystery.</hi> Upon which he ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>prehended, <hi>there must needs follow a great Schism.</hi> And let any read <hi>Paschase</hi>'s Book, and after that <hi>Bertram</hi>'s, and if he have either honesty, or at least, shame re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maining in him, he must see it was in all points the very same Controversie that was canvassed then between them, and is now debated between the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> and us.</p>
            <p>Now that <hi>Raban</hi> and <hi>Bertram</hi> were two of the greatest and most learned men
<pb n="160" facs="tcp:62980:121"/>
of that Age, cannot be denied: <hi>Raban</hi> passes without contest amongst the first men of the Age; and for <hi>Bertram,</hi> we need neither cite what <hi>Trithemius</hi> sayes of him, nor what the Disciples of S. <hi>Austin,</hi> in the Port-Royal, have said to magnifie him, when they make use of him to esta<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>blish the Doctrine of the efficacy of Grace. It is a sufficient evidence of the esteem he was in, that he was made choice of by the Bishop of <hi>France,</hi> to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fend the <hi>Latine</hi> Church against the <hi>Greeks</hi>; and upon two very important Controversies that were moved in that Age; the one being about Predestinati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on and Grace, the other, that which we have now before us, He, though a private Monk, raised to no dignity, was commanded by the Emperor to write of both these; which no man can imagine had been done, if he had not been a man much famed and esteemed; and way in which he writes, is solid and worthy of the reputation he had acqui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red: He proves both from the words of Institution, and from S. <hi>Paul,</hi> that the Sacrament was still Bread and Wine. He proves from S. <hi>Austin,</hi> that these were Mysteries and Figures of Christ's Body and Blood. And indeed considering
<pb n="161" facs="tcp:62980:121"/>
that Age, he was an extraordinary wri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter.</p>
            <p>The third that did write against <hi>Pas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chase,</hi> was <hi>Iohn Scot,</hi> otherwise called <hi>Erigena,</hi> who was likewise commanded to write about the Sacrament, by that same Emperor. He was undoubtedly the most learned and ingenious man of that Age, as all our <hi>English</hi> Historians tell us; chiefly <hi>William</hi> of <hi>Malmsbury</hi>: He was in great esteem both with the Emperor, and our great King <hi>Alfred.</hi> 
               <note place="margin">
                  <hi>Lib.</hi> 2. <hi>de G<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="3 letters">
                        <desc>•••</desc>
                     </gap>, Reg.</hi>
               </note> He was ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>counted a Saint and a Martyr; his memo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry was celebrated by an Anniversary on the tenth of <hi>November.</hi> He was also very learned in the <hi>Greek,</hi> and other <hi>Oriental</hi> Tongu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>s, which was a rare thing in that Age. This <hi>Erigena</hi> did formally refute <hi>Pas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>chase</hi>'s Opinion &amp; assert ours. It is true, his Book is now lost, being 200 years after burned by the C. of <hi>Vercel</hi>; but though the Church of <hi>Lyons</hi> does treat him very severely in their Book against him, and fastens many strange opinions upon him, in which there are good grounds to think they did him wrong; yet they no where chalenge him for what he wrote about the Sacrament; which shews they did not condemn him for that; though they
<pb n="162" facs="tcp:62980:122"/>
speak of him with great animosity, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause he had written against Predestina<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion and Grace efficacious of it self, which they defended. It seems most probable that it was from his Writings, that the Homily read at <hi>Easter</hi> by the <hi>Saxons</hi> here in <hi>England,</hi> does so formally contradict the Doctrine of Transubstan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiation. And now let the Reader judge, if it be not clear that <hi>Paschase</hi> did inno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vate the Doctrine of the Church in this point, but was vigorously opposed by all the great men of that Age.</p>
            <p>For the following Age, all Historians agree, it was an Age of most prodigious Ignorance and Debauchery, and that amongst all sorts of people, none being more signally vicious than the Clergy; and of all the Clergy, none so much as the Popes, who were such a succession of Monsters, that <hi>Baronius</hi> cannot for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bear making the saddest exclamations possible concerning their cruelties, de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>baucheries, and other vices: So that, then, if at any time, we may conclude all were asleep, and no wonder if the tares <hi>Paschase</hi> had sown, did grow up; and yet of the very few writings of the Age that remain, the far greater number
<pb n="163" facs="tcp:62980:122"/>
seem to favour the Doctrine of <hi>Bertram.</hi> But till <hi>Berengarius</hi> his time, we hear nothing of any contest about the Eucha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rist. So here were two hundred years spent in an absolute ignorance and for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>getfulness of all divine things.</p>
            <p>About the middle of the 11th. Cent. <hi>Bruno</hi> Bishop of <hi>Angiers,</hi> and <hi>Berengarius,</hi> who was born in <hi>Towrs,</hi> but was Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of <hi>Angiers,</hi> did openly teach, that Christ was in the Sacrament only in a Figure. We hear little more of <hi>Bruno</hi>; but <hi>Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rengarius</hi> is spoken of by many Histo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rians,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Sigebert; Plat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ma, Antonin. Sabellicus, Chron. Mont. Cassin. Sigoni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>us, Vignier, Guitmond,</hi> and chiefly <hi>William</hi> of <hi>Malmesburg</hi>
               </note> as <hi>a man of great Learning and Piety, and that when he was cited to the Council at</hi> Rome, <hi>before</hi> Nicolaus <hi>the second, none could resist him; that he had an excellent faculty of speaking, and was a man of great Gravity; that he was held a Saint by many: He did abound in Charity, Humility, and good Works, and was so chast, that he would not look at a beautiful woman. And</hi> Hildebert <hi>Bishop of</hi> Mans, whom S. <hi>Bernard</hi> commends highly, made such an Epitaph on him, that notwith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>standing all the abatements we must make for Poetry, yet no man could write so of an ordinary person.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="164" facs="tcp:62980:123"/>This <hi>Berengarius</hi> wrote against the corporal Presence, calling it a stupidity of <hi>Paschase</hi>'s and <hi>Lanfrank</hi>'s, <hi>who denied that the substance of Bread and Wine re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mained after Consecration.</hi> He had many followers,<note place="margin">Edit. <hi>Antwerp.</hi> 1608.</note> as <hi>Sigebert</hi> tells us: And <hi>William</hi> of <hi>Malmesbury</hi> and <hi>Matthew Paris</hi> tell us his Doctrine had overspred all <hi>France.</hi> It were too long to shew with what impudent corrupting of Antiquity those who wrote against him, did stuff up their Books. Divers Councils were held against him, and he through fear, did frequently waver; for when other Arguments proved too weak to convince him, then the Faggot, which is the sure and beloved Argument of that Church, prevailed on his fears; so that he burnt his own Book, and signed the condemnation of his own Opinion at <hi>Rome</hi>; this he did, as <hi>Lanfranke</hi> upbraids him, <hi>not for love of the Truth, but for fear of Death</hi>: which shewes he had not that love of the Truth, and constancy of mind he ought to have had. But it is no prejudice against the Doctrine he taught, that he was a man not only sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ject to, but overcome by so great a temp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tation; for the fear of death is natural to all men.</p>
            <p>
               <pb n="165" facs="tcp:62980:123"/>And thus we see, that in the ninth Century our Doctrine was taught by the greatest writers of that time, so that it was then generally received, and not at all condemned either by Pope or Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil. But in the eleventh Century, up<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on its being defended, it was condemn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed. Can there be therefore any thing more plain, than that there was a change made, and that what in the one Age was taught by a grea number of writers, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out any censure upon it, was in another Age anathematized? Is there not then here a clear change? And what has been done, was certainly possible, from whence we conclude with all the justice and rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son in the world, that a change was not only possible, but was indeed made. And yet the many repeated condemnations of <hi>Berengarius,</hi> shew, his Doctrine was too deeply rooted in the minds of that Age, to be very easily suppressed; for to the end of the eleventh Century, the Popes continued to condemn his Opinions, even after his death.</p>
            <p>In the beginning of the twelfth Cen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tury, <hi>Honorius</hi> of <hi>Autun,</hi> who was a con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>siderable man in that Age, did clearly as<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sert the Doctrine of the Sacraments nou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rishing
<pb n="166" facs="tcp:62980:124"/>
our Bodies, and is acknowledged by <hi>Thomas Waldensis,</hi> to have been a <hi>fol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lower of</hi> Berengarius <hi>his Heresie.</hi> And about the eighteenth year of that Age, that Doctrine was embraced by great numbers in the South of <hi>France,</hi> who were from their several Teachers called <hi>Petrobrusians, Henricians, Waldenses,</hi> and from the Countrey, where their num<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bers were greatest, <hi>Albigenses</hi>; whose Confession, dated the year 1120, bears, <hi>That the eating of the Sacramental Bread, was the eating of Iesus Christ in a figure; Jesus Christ having said, as oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>It were needless to engage in any long account of these people; the Writers of those times have studied to represent them in as hateful and odious Chara<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cters, as it was possible for them to de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vise; and we have very little remain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing that they wrote. Yet as the false Witnesses that were suborned to lay heavy things to our Blessed Saviour's Charge, could not agree among them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves; so for all the spite with which these Writers prosecute those poor In<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nocents, there are such noble Chara<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cters given, even by these enemies, of
<pb n="167" facs="tcp:62980:124"/>
their piety, their simplicity, their pati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ence, constancy, and other virtues; that as the Apologists for Christianity, do justly glory in the testimonies <hi>Pliny, Lu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cian, Tacitus, Iosephus,</hi> and other de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>clared Enemies give; so any that would study to redeem the memory of those multitudes, from the black aspersions of their foul-mouthed Enemies, would find many passages among them to glory much in, on their behalf, which are much more to be considered than those virulent Calumnies with which they labour to blot their Memories: But neither the death of <hi>Peter de Bruis,</hi> who was burnt, nor all the following Cruelties, that were as terrible as could be invented by all the fury of the Court of <hi>Rome,</hi> managed by the Inquisiti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons of the <hi>Dominicans,</hi> 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 sim<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>plicity of their Manners, and the con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stancy of their Sufferings. And it were easie to shew, that the two great things they were most persecuted for,
<pb n="168" facs="tcp:62980:125"/>
were their refusing subjection to the See of <hi>Rome,</hi> and their not believing the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence; nor were they confined to one Corner of <hi>France</hi> only, but spred almost all <hi>Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rope</hi> over.<note place="margin">
                  <hi>De Sacram. Al<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>ar. c. 13.</hi>
               </note>
            </p>
            <p>In that Age <hi>Steven</hi> Bishop in <hi>Edue<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
               </hi> is the first I ever find cited to have used the word <hi>Transubstantiation,</hi> who expressly sayes, <hi>That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ</hi>: 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, <hi>Anno</hi> 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 deter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mine,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Li<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>. 4. dis<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                        <desc>•</desc>
                     </gap>. 11.</hi>
               </note> 
               <hi>whether Christ was present formally, substantially, or some other way.</hi> But in the beginning of the thirteenth Century, one <hi>Amalric</hi>; or <hi>Almaric,</hi> who was in great esteem for Learning, did deny Transubstantiation, saying, <hi>That the Body of Christ was no more in the Consecra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted Bread, than in any other Bread, or any other thing</hi>;<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Anno</hi> 1215. cap. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>.</note> for which he was con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demned in the fourth Council of <hi>Late<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ran,</hi>
               <pb n="169" facs="tcp:62980:125"/>
and his Body, which was buried in <hi>Paris,</hi> was taken up and burnt; and then was it decreed, <hi>That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly contained under the kinds</hi> (or <hi>Species</hi>) <hi>of Bread and Wine, the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>All the while this Doctrine was car<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ried 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 cre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dulous and superstitious multitude, the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> did discover a cruelty and blood-thirstiness which no pen is able to set out to the full. what burnings and tortures, and what Croiss<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>des as against Infidels and <hi>Ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>humetans,</hi> did they set on against those poor innocent Companies, whom they with an enraged, wolvish and barba<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rous bloodiness studied to destroy? This was clearly contrary to the Laws of Humanity, the Rules of the Go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spel, and the Gentleness of Christ: How then could such companies of
<pb n="170" facs="tcp:62980:126"/>
Wolves pretend to be the followers of the Lamb. In the Primitive Church, the Bishops that had prosecuted the <hi>Priscillanists</hi> before the Emperor <hi>Maxi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mus,</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>If then any of that Church that live among us, plead for pity, and the not exe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cuting the Laws, and if they blame the severity of the Statutes against them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves, let them do as becomes honest men, and without disguise, disown and condemn those Barbarities, and them that were the promoters and pur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>suers 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
<pb n="171" facs="tcp:62980:126"/>
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 con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>demn 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.</p>
            <p>It was this same Council of <hi>Lateran,</hi> that established both Cruelty, Persecu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion and Rebellion into a Law, ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pointing, <hi>that all Princes should exter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>minate all Hereticks</hi> (this is the mercy of that Church which all may look for, if ever their power be equal to their malice) and did decree,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Cap.</hi> 3.</note> 
               <hi>That if any Temporal Lord being admonished by the Church, did neglect to purge his Lands, he should be first excommunicated, and if he con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinued a year in his contempt &amp; contumacy, notice was to be given of it to the Pope, who from that time forth should declare his Vas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sals absolved from the Fidelity they owed him, and expose his Lands to be invaded by Ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tholicks, who might possess them without any contradiction, having exterminated the He<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reticks out of them, and so preserve them
<pb n="172" facs="tcp:62980:127"/>
in the purity of the Faith.</hi> This Decree was made on the account of <hi>Raimond</hi> Count of <hi>Tholouse,</hi> who favoured the <hi>Albigenses,</hi> that were his Subjects; and being a Peer of <hi>France</hi> according to the first constitution under <hi>Hugo Capet</hi> King of <hi>France,</hi> was such a Prince in his own Dominions, as the Princes of <hi>Germany</hi> now are. He was indeed the King of <hi>France</hi> his Vassal; but it is clear from the History of that time, that the King of <hi>France</hi> would not interpose in that busi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ness.</p>
            <p>Yet the Popes in this same Council of <hi>Lateran,</hi> did by the advice of the Council, give to <hi>Simon Montfort</hi> (who was General of the <hi>Croissade,</hi> that the Pope sent against that Prince) all the L<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>nds that were taken from the Count of <hi>Tholouse.</hi> So that there was an Invasion both of the Count of <hi>Tholouse,</hi> and of the King of <hi>France</hi> his Rights. For if that Prince had done any thing amiss, he was only accountable to the King, and the other Peers of <hi>France.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>This Decree of the Council is pub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lished by Dom. <hi>Luc. Dachery</hi>;<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Tom.</hi> 7. <hi>Spic. and Tom.</hi> 11. <hi>of the Count.</hi> Print. <hi>anno</hi> 1672, p. 233.</note> so that it is plain, that the Pope got here a
<pb n="173" facs="tcp:62980:127"/>
Council <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>o set up Rebellion by authori<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>
               <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>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 trea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sonable and seditious Principles. For if it be true, that a General Council ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>king 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 Opi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nion, 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 <hi>Temporal Lords, that were under Soveraign Princes,</hi> such as the Count of <hi>Tholouse,</hi> and therefore Crowned heads need fear no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing from it: But though the De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cree runs chiefly against such, yet there are two Clauses in it that go further,
<pb n="174" facs="tcp:62980:128"/>
one is in these words, <hi>Saving alwayes the Right of the Principal Lord, provi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded he make no obstacle about it, nor cast in any impediment.</hi> Whence it plainly follows, that if the Soveraign, such as the King of <hi>France,</hi> in the case of <hi>Tholouse,</hi> did make any Obstacle, he forfeited his Right. The other clause is in these words, <hi>The same Law being nevertheless observed about those who have no principal Lords.</hi> In which are clear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly included all those Soveraigns, who depend and hold their Crowns immedi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ately from God.</p>
            <p>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 <hi>Emperors and Kings,</hi> they might reasonably have expected great opposition from them; but insinua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting 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 <hi>Lateran,</hi> as it established <hi>Transubstantiation,</hi> so did also Decree both <hi>Persecution and Rebellion</hi>: There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore the Reader may easily judge, what
<pb n="175" facs="tcp:62980:128"/>
account is to be made of that Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil, and what security any State can have of those who adhere to it.</p>
            <p>Our Saviour when he states the op<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>position between the <hi>Children of God,</hi> and <hi>the Children of the Devil,</hi> he gives this for the Character of the latter, that <hi>they did the works of their Father</hi>; and these he mentions are <hi>Lying</hi> and <hi>Mur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dering</hi>: We have seen sufficient evi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dence of the murdering Spirit which acted in that Church, when this Do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine was set up. But to compleat that black Character, let us but look over to the Council of <hi>Constance,</hi> which decreed that bold violation of the Command of Christ, <hi>Drink ye all of it</hi>; 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,<note place="margin">
                  <hi>Sess. 19.</hi>
               </note> 
               <hi>That all safe Conducts notwithstanding, or by what Bonds soever any Prince had engaged him<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>self, the Council was no way prejudiced, and that the Iudge competent might en<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quire into their Errors; and proceed other<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wise duly against them, and punish them according to Iustice, if they stubbornly
<pb n="176" facs="tcp:62980:129"/>
refuse to retract their Errours, al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>though trusting to their safe Conduct, they had come to the place of Iudg<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment, and had not come without it</hi>; and Declare, <hi>That whoever had pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mised any such thing to them, having done what in him lay, was under no further Obligation.</hi> Upon which, <hi>Si<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gismund</hi> broke his Faith to <hi>Iohn Hus</hi> and <hi>Ierome</hi> of <hi>Prague,</hi> and they were burnt.</p>
            <p>So that their Church, having in General Councils Decreed both <hi>Perfi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy</hi> and <hi>Cruelty,</hi> 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 be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginning, they cannot be looked on as the Children of God, but as the Children of the Devil.</p>
            <p>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
<pb n="177" facs="tcp:62980:129"/>
and Pharisees, <hi>a Generation of Vipers and Children of the Devil.</hi> There<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore 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 So<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ciety to the just censure of all impartial Persons, that so every one may see what a hazard his soul runs by engag<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing 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 princi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples. 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.</p>
            <p>Thus far we hope it hath been made evident enough, that there are no im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>possibilities in such a change of the Doctrine of the Church about this Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament, 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
<pb n="178" facs="tcp:62980:130"/>
so long on every step of the History I have vouched, as was necessary, de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>signing 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 <hi>Albertin</hi> a <hi>French</hi> Minister concerning <hi>this Sacrament</hi>; 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 an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swering 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.</p>
            <p>It being apparent then, that the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> 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.</p>
            <p>And, First, I suppose it will be grant<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed that a National Church may judge
<pb n="179" facs="tcp:62980:130"/>
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 Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stors 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 <hi>Samosatenus, Arrius, Pelagius,</hi> and a great many more were first condemned in Provincial Councils.</p>
            <p>Secondly, if such Heresies be spread in places round about, the Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>shops 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 them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves and their own Church, for none can be bound to be damned for com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pany. The Pastors of every Church owe a Charity to their neighbour Chur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ches, 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 <hi>Arrians,</hi> did reform their own Churches when they were placed in
<pb n="180" facs="tcp:62980:131"/>
any Sees that had been corrupted by <hi>Arrianism.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Thirdly, No time can give prescrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion against truth, and therefore had any errour been ever so antiently re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceived 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 <hi>Arrianism,</hi> had good reason to reform from that errour. So the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> will ackowledge that the Greek Church, or our Church ought to forsake their present Doctrines, though they have been long received.</p>
            <p>Fourthly, No later Definitions of Councils or Fathers ought to derogate from the ancienter Decrees of Councils or opinions of the Fathers; otherwise the <hi>Arrians</hi> had reason to have justified their submitting to the Councils of <hi>Sirmium, Arimini,</hi> and <hi>Millan,</hi> and rejecting that of <hi>Nice:</hi> therefore we ought in the first place to consider the Decrees and opinions of the most Primitive antiquity.</p>
            <p>Fifthly, No succession of Bishops how clear so ever in its descent from
<pb n="181" facs="tcp:62980:131"/>
the Apostles, can secure a Church from errour. Which the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> must acknowledge, since they can nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther deny the succession of the Greek Church, nor of the Church of <hi>Eng<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>land.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Sixthly, If any Church continues so hardned in their errours that they break Communion with another Church for reforming, the guilt of this breach must lie at their door who are both in the Errour, and first reject the other, and refuse to reform or communicate with other Churches.</p>
            <p>Upon every one of these particulars (and they all set together compleat the plea for the Church of <hi>England</hi>) I am willing to joyn Issue, and shew they are not only true in themselves, but must be also acknowledged by the Princi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi>: So that if the grounds of controversy, on which our Reformation did proceed, were good and justifiable, it is most unrea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sonable to say our Church had not good right and authority to make it.</p>
            <p>It can be made appear that for above two hundred years before the Refor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mation, there were general complaints among all sorts of pesons, both tho
<pb n="182" facs="tcp:62980:132"/>
subtle Schoolmen and devout Contem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>platives, both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks did complain of the corruptions of the Church, and called aloud for a Refor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mation both of Faith and Manners: even the Council of <hi>Pisa</hi> a little before <hi>Luthers</hi> days, did Decree, <hi>There should be a Reformation both of Faith and Manners, and that both of the Head and Members.</hi> But all these complaints turned to nothing, abuses grew daily, the interests of the Nephews and other corrupt intrigues of the Court of <hi>Rome</hi> always obstructing good motions and cherishing ill Customs, for they brought the more Grist to their Mill. When a Reformation was first called for in <hi>Ger<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>many,</hi> instead of complying with so just a desire, all that the Court of <hi>Rome</hi> thought on, was how to suppress these complaints, and destroy those who made them.</p>
            <p>In end, when great Commotions were like to follow, by the vast multi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tudes of those who concurred in this desire of Reforming, a Council was called, after the Popes had frequently prejudged in the matter, and Pope <hi>Leo</hi> had with great frankness condemned most of <hi>Luthers</hi> opinions. From that
<pb n="183" facs="tcp:62980:132"/>
Council no good could reasonably be expected, for the Popes had already engaged so deep in the quarrel, that there was no retreating, and they or<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dered the matter so, that nothing could be done but what they had a mind to: all the Bishops were at their Consecration their sworn vassals: no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing could be brought into the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cil without the Legates had proposed it. And when any good motions were made by the Bishops of <hi>Spain</hi> or <hi>Ger<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>many,</hi> they had so many poor <hi>Italian</hi> Bishops kept there on the Popes charges, that they were always masters of the vote: for before they would hold a Session about any thing, they had so canvassed it in the Congregations, that nothing was so much as put to the hazard. All these things appear even from Cardinal <hi>Pallavicini's</hi> History of that Council.</p>
            <p>While this Council was sitting, and some years before, many of this Church were convinced of these corruptions, and that they could not with a good Conscience joyn any longer in a wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ship so corrupted; yet they were satis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied to know the truth themselves and to instruct others privately in it, but
<pb n="184" facs="tcp:62980:133"/>
formed no separated Church; waiting for what issue God in his Providence might bring about. But with what violence and cruelty their enemies, who were generally those of the Clergy, pursued them, is well enough known: Nor shall I repeat any thing of it, lest it might be thought an invidious ag<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gravating of things that are past. But at length, by the death of King <hi>Henry</hi> the eighth, the Government fell in the hands of persons well affected to the Reformation. It is not material what their true motives were, for <hi>Jehu</hi> did a good work when he destroyed the Idolatry of <hi>Baal,</hi> though neither his motives nor method of doing it are justifiable: nor is it to the purpose to examine, how those Bishops that re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>formed could have complied before with the corruptions of the <hi>Roman</hi> Church and received orders from them. <hi>Meletius,</hi> and <hi>Felix,</hi> were placed by the <hi>Arrians,</hi> the one at <hi>Antioch</hi> in the room of <hi>Eustathius,</hi> the other at <hi>Rome,</hi> in <hi>Liberius</hi> his room, who were both banished for the Faith: and yet both these were afterwards great Defenders of the truth; and <hi>Felix</hi> was a martyr for it, against these very Hereticks
<pb n="185" facs="tcp:62980:133"/>
with whom they complied in the be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginning. So whatever mixture of car<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal ends might be in any of the Secular men, or what allay of humane infirmi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ty and fear might have been in any of the Ecclesiasticks; that can be no pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>judice to the cause: for men are always men, and the power of God does often appear most eminently when there is least cause to admire the instruments he makes use of.</p>
            <p>But in that juncture of affairs the Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>shops and Clergy of this Church seeing great and manifest corruptions in it, and it being apparent that the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> would consent to no reforma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion to any good purpose, were obliged to reform, and having the Authority of King and Parliament concurring, they had betrayed their consciences and the charge of Souls for which they stood engaged, and were to answer at the great day, if they had dallied longer, and not warned the people of their danger, and made use of the inclinati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons of the Civil Powers for carrying on so good a work. And it is the lasting glory of the reformation, that when they saw the Heir of the Crown was inflexibly united to the Church of
<pb n="186" facs="tcp:62980:134"/>
               <hi>Rome,</hi> they proceeded not to extream courses against her; for what a few wrought on by the ambition of the Duke of <hi>Northumberland</hi> were got to do, was neither the deed of the Nati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on, nor of the Church, since the Repre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sentatives of neither concurred in it. But the Nation did receive the righte<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous Heir: and then was our Church crowned with the highest glory it could have desired, many of the Bishops who had been most active in the Reformati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on sealing it with their blood, and in death giving such evident proofs of holy and Christian constancy, that they may be justly matched with the most Glorious Martyrs of the Primitive Church. Then did both these Churches appear in their true colours, That of <hi>Rome</hi> weltring in the blood of the Saints and insatiately drinking it up: and our Church bearing the Cross of Christ and following his example. But when we were for some years thus tried in the fire, then did God again bless us with the protection of the rightful and lawful Magistrate. Then did our Church do as the Primitive Church had done under <hi>Theodosius,</hi> when she got out from a long and cru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>el
<pb n="187" facs="tcp:62980:134"/>
persecution of the <hi>Arrians</hi> under those enraged Emperours <hi>Constantius</hi> and <hi>Va<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lens.</hi> They reformed the Church from the Arrian Doctrine, but would not imitate them in their persecuting spi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rit. And when others had too deep re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sentments of the ill usage they had met with under the Arrian Tyranny, <hi>Nazi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>anzen</hi> and the other holy Bishops of that time did mitigate their animosi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ties: So that the Churches were only taken from the Arrians, but no storms were raised against them.</p>
            <p>So in the beginning of Queen <hi>Eli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>zabeths</hi> reign, it cannot be denied that those of that Church were long suffered to live at quiet among us with little or no disturbance, save that the Churches were taken out of their hands. Nor were even those who had bathed them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves in so much blood made exam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ples, so entirely did they retain the meekness and lenity of the Christian spirit. And if after many years quiet, those of that Religion when they met with no trouble from the government, did notwithstanding enter into so ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny plots and conspiracies against the Queens person and the established go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vernment, was it any wonder that se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>vere
<pb n="188" facs="tcp:62980:135"/>
Laws were made against them, and those Emissaries who under a pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tence of coming in a mission, were sent as spies and agents among us to fill all with blood and confusion? Whom had they blame for all this but themselves? or was this any thing but what would have been certainly done in the gen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tlest and mildest government upon earth? For the Law of self-preservati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on is engraven on all mens natures, and so no wonder every State and govern<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment sees to its own security against those who seek its ruine and destructi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on: and it had been no wonder if up<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on such provocations there had been some severities used which in them<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selves were unjustifiable: for few take reparation in an exact equality to the damage and injury they have received. But since that time they have had ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry little cause to complain of any hard treatment; and if they have met with any, they may still thank the officious insolent deportment of some of their own Church, that have given just cause of jealousie and fear.</p>
            <p>But I shall pursue this discourse no farther, hoping enough is already said upon the head that engaged me to it,
<pb n="189" facs="tcp:62980:135"/>
to make it appear, that it was possible the Doctrine of the Church should be changed in this matter, and that it was truly changed. From which I may be well allowed to subsume, that our Church discovering that this change was made, had very good reason and a sufficient authority to reform this corruption, and restore the Primitive Doctrine again.</p>
            <p>And now being to leave my Reader, I shall only desire him to consider a little of how great importance his eternal concerns are, and that he has no rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son to look for endless happiness, if he does not serve God in a way suitable to his will. For what hopes soever there may be for one who lives and dies in some unknown error, yet there are no hopes for those that either neglect or despise the truth, and that out of hu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mour or any other carnal account give themselves up to errours, and willingly embrace them.</p>
            <p>Certainly God sent not his Son in the world, nor gave him to so cruel a death, for nothing. If he hath revealed his Counsels with so much solemnity, his designs in that must be great and wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thy of God: The true ends of Religi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
<pb n="190" facs="tcp:62980:136"/>
must be the purifying our Souls, the conforming us to the Divine Na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture, the uniting us to one another in the most tender bonds of Love, Truth, Justice and Goodness, the raising our minds to a Heavenly and contemplative temper, and our living as Pilgrims and strangers on this earth, ever waiting and longing for our change. Now we dare appeal all men to shew any thing in our Religion or Worship, that ob<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>structs any of these ends; on the con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trary the sum and total of our Doctrine is, the conforming our selves to Christ and his Apostles, both in faith and life, So that it can scarce be devised what should make any body that hath any sense of Religion, or regard to his Soul, forsake our Communion, where he finds nothing that is not highly suitable to the Nature and ends of Religion; and turn over to a Church that is founded on and cemented in car<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal interests: the grand design of all their attempts being to subject all to the Papal tyranny, which must needs ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pear visibly to every one whose eyes are opened. For attaining which end they have set up such a vast company of additions to the simplicity of the
<pb n="191" facs="tcp:62980:136"/>
Faith and the purity of the Christian Worship, that it is a great work even to know them.</p>
            <p>Is it not then a strange choice? to leave a Church that worships God so as all understand what they do and can say <hi>Amen</hi>; to go to a Church where the worship is not understood, so that he who officiats is a Barbarian to them: A Church which worships God in a spiritual &amp; un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>exceptionable manner; to go to a Church that is scandalously (to raise this charge no higher) full of images and pictures, and that of the blessed Trinity, before which prostrations and adorations are daily made: A Church that directs her devotions to God, and his Son Jesus Christ; to go to a Church that without any good warrant not only invocates Saints and Angels, but also in the very same form of words, which they offer up to God and Jesus Christ, which is a thing at least full of scandal, since these words must be strangely wrested from their natural meaning, otherwise they are high blasphemies: A Church that commemorates Christs death in the Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crament, and truly communicates in his body and blood, with all holy reverence and due preparation<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> to go to a Church
<pb n="192" facs="tcp:62980:137"/>
that spends all her devotion in an out<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ward adoring the Sacrament, without communicating with any due care, but resting in the Priestly absolution allows it upon a single attrition: A Church that administers all the Sacraments Christ appointed, and as he appointed them; to go to a Church that hath added many to those he appointed, and hath maimed that he gave for a pledge of his presence when he left this earth. In a word, that leaves a Church that submits to all that Christ and his Apostles taught, and in a secondary order to all delivered to us by the Primitive Church; to go to a Church that hath set up an authority that pretends to be equal to these sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cred oracles, and has manifestly cancel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led most of the Primitive Constitutions.</p>
            <p>But it is not enough to remain in the Communion of our Church; for if we do not walk conform to that holy Faith taught in it, we disgrace it. Let all there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore that have zeal for our Church, ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>press it chiefly in studying to purify their hearts and lives, so as becomes <hi>Christians,</hi> and <hi>reformed Christians,</hi> and then others that behold us, will be ashamed when they see such real confutations of the calumnies of our
<pb n="193" facs="tcp:62980:137"/>
adversaries, which would soon be turn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed back on them with a just <gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> if there were not too many adv<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ntages given by our divisions, and other dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>orders. But nothing that is personal ought to be charged on our Church: and who<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ver object any such things, of all persons in the world, they are the most inexcusable, who being so highly guilty themselves, have yet such undaunted brows, as to charge those things on us, which if they be practised by any among us, yet are disallowed; but among them have had all encou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ragement and authority possible from the corruptions both of their Popes, and Casuists. But here I break off, pray<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing God he may at length open the eyes of all Christendom that they may see and love the truth, and walk according to it. Amen.</p>
            <trailer>FINIS.</trailer>
         </div>
      </body>
      <back>
         <div type="publishers_advertisement">
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:138"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:138"/>
            <head>Books sold by <hi>Moses Pitt</hi> at the Angel in S. <hi>Paul's Church-yard.</hi>
            </head>
            <p>THere is newly published two <hi>Re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cantation Sermons</hi> (Preached at the French-Church in the <hi>Savoy</hi>) by two Converted <hi>Romanists,</hi> Mr. <hi>De la Motte,</hi> late Preacher of the Order of the <hi>Carmelites</hi>; and Mr. <hi>De Luzanzy,</hi> Licentiate in Divinity; wherein the Corrupt Doctrines of the Church of <hi>Rome</hi> are laid open and confuted. Both Printed in <hi>French</hi> and <hi>English.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Also two other Sermons, one Preach<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed before the King at <hi>White Hall, Jan.</hi> 30. 1676. by <hi>Henry Bagshaw,</hi> D. D. the other before the Lord Mayor <hi>Dec.</hi> 19. 1675. by <hi>John Cook 4<hi rend="sup">o</hi>.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <hi>Theses Theologicae</hi> variis Temporibus in Academia <hi>Sedanensi</hi> editae &amp; ad disputandum propolitae. Authore <hi>Lu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dovico le Blanc</hi> verbi Divini Ministro &amp; Theologiae prosessore. In qua expo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nitur sententia Doctorum Ecclesiae Ro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>manae, &amp; Protestantium. Fol. pr. 20<hi>s.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <hi>A Sober answer</hi> to the most material thing<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap> in a discourse called <hi>Naked Truth.</hi> 4<hi rend="sup">o</hi> pr. 6<hi>d.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:62980:139"/>
               <hi>Mystery of Iniquity unva<gap reason="illegible" resp="#PDCC" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>led</hi> in a Discourse, wherein is held forth the opposition of the Doctrine, Worship, and Practices of the Roman Church, to the Nature, Designs, and Characters of the Christian faith, by <hi>Gilbert Bur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>net.</hi> 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi>. price 1<hi>s.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>A Collection of <hi>Popish Miracles</hi> wrought by Popish Saints, both during their lives and after their death, col<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lected out of their own Authors. 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi> price 1<hi>s.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <hi>Art of Speaking</hi> by the Authors of <hi>Ars Cogitandi</hi> now in the Press. 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi>.</p>
            <p>History of the late Revolution of the Empire of the great <hi>Mogol,</hi> with a de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>scription of the Country. 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi>. price 7<hi>s.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>History of the Conquest of <hi>China</hi> by the Tartars. 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi> price 4<hi>s.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <hi>Poetical Histories,</hi> being a collecti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on of all the Stories necessary for a per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fect understanding of the <hi>Greek</hi> and <hi>Latine</hi> Poets and other antient Au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thors. 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi> price 3<hi>s.</hi> 6<hi>d.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>A Voyage to <hi>Taffaletta.</hi> 8<hi rend="sup">o</hi> price 18<hi>d</hi>
            </p>
            <p>
               <hi>Catalogus Librorum</hi> in Regionibus Transmarinis nuper editorum. Fol.</p>
            <pb facs="tcp:62980:139"/>
         </div>
      </back>
   </text>
</TEI>