memory can serve me This I declare as I shall answer to God Signed as follows Gilbert Burnet April 6. 1676. This Narrative was read and I do hereby attest the truth of it Edw. Stillingfleet Being present at the Conference April 3. 1676. I do according to my best memory judge this a just and true Narrative thereof Will. Nailor The Addition which N. N. desired might be subjoined to the Relation of the Conference if it were published but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Conference THE substance of what N. N. desired me to take notice of was that our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life as almsgiving or any other good workâ— gives it where the bare external action if separated from a good intention and principle is not acceptable to God So that we must necessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this addition of Worthily that whoso eats his Flesh and drinks his Blood in the Sacrament Worthily hath everlasting life for he said he did not deny but the believing the death of Christ was necessary in communicating 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 is not only by Faith but also by Baptism that we become the Sons of God so also Christ saith he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved yet this doth not exclude repentance and amendment of life from being necessary to Salvation therefore the universality of the expression whoso eats does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it And so did conclude that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures we must prove from some clear Scriptures by arguments that consist of a Major and Minor that are either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them that Christ was no otherwise present in the Sacrament than spiritually as he is received by Faith And added that it was impertinent to bring impossibilities either from sense or reason against this if we brought no clear Scriptures against it To this he also added that when D. S. asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament he answered that he might really receive Christ's Body at his mouth though none of his senses could perceive him as a â—ole or pill is taken in a sirrup or any 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 Answer HAving now set down the strength of N.N. 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 worthily he affirms it I deny it for these reasons Christ in this discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was Moses his Law and that Moses gave Manna 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 they should never die for it should give them life Where it is apparent the bread and nourishment must be such as the life was which being internal and spiritual the other must be such also And verse 47. he clearly explains how that food was received he that believeth on me hath everlasting life Now having said before that this bread gives life and here saying that believing gives everlasting life it very reasonably follows that believing was the receiving this food Which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Jews having desired him evermore to give them that bread he answers verse 35. I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst 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 believing was the mean of receiving that bread And here it must be considered that Christ calls himself bread and says that a Man must eat thereof which must be understood figuratively and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse it is unjust to reject the applying the same Figures to other parts of it In fine Christ tells them this bread was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the World which can be applied 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 How can this man give us his flesh to eat To which Christs answer is so clear that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it He first tells them except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man they had no life in them Where on the way mark that drinking the blood is as necessary as eating the flesh and these words being expounded of the Sacrament cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the blood For suppose the Doctrine of the bloods concomitating the flesh were true yet even in that case they only eat the blood but cannot be said to drink the blood But from these words it is apparent Christ must be speaking chiefly if not only of the spiritual Communicating for otherwise no man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament The words are formal and positive 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 And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament appointed it to be given to infants immediately after they were baptized for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words And yet the Church of Rome will not deny but if any die before he is adult or if a person converted be in such circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the Sacrament and so dies without it he may have everlasting life therefore they must conclude that Christs flesh may be eaten by faith even without the Sacrament Again in the next verse he says Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse they being indeed the reverse of it Therefore since there is no addition of worthily 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 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 only of the spiritual Communicating by Faith As when it is said a man is a reasonable 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 seated 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 Communicating though the eating of Christs flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving 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 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 All this is made much clearer by the words that follow my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Now Christs flesh is so eaten as it is meat which I suppose none will question 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 Christ also says He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him This is the definition 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 carnal or corporal but of a spiritual eating of his flesh by faith All this is more confirmed by the Key our Saviour gives of his whole Discourse when the Iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings It is the spirit that quickneth or giveth the life he had been speaking of the flesh profiteth nothing the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are life From which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual life and in a spiritual manner But now I shall examine N.N. his reasons to the contrary 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 proviso that they were given with a good intention and from a good principle therefore we must understand these words of our Saviour to have some such proviso in them All this concludes nothing It is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external action such a reserve must be understood And so S. Paul tells us if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor and had no Charity it profited him nothing And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action I should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood but that is the thing in question and I hope I have made it appear Our Saviour is speaking of an internal action and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed For he is speaking of that eating of his flesh which must necessarily 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 called reasonable though the reason is seated in the soul only 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 understanding makes them only externally and Sacramentally the Sons of 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 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved 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 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 Sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express Scriptures or by arguments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them it has no force at all in it I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the plea concerning the express words of Scripture and therefore 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 consider our contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words This is my body in which it is very absurd to ask for express 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 controverted place we must judge of it by the rules of common sense and reason of Religion and Piety and if a meaning be affixed to any place contrary to these we have good reason to reject it For we knowing all external things only by our senses by which only the miracles 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 determines our
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 From which words one of two consequences will necessarily follow either that the Consecrated Elements do really nourish 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 acknowledg 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 believe Christ's Body is only in the Elements when used will clearly leave the charge of Idolatry on that Church in their Processions and other adorations of the Host. But none is so express as Origen who on these words ' T is not that which enters within a man which defiles a man says If every thing that enters by the mouth goes into the belly and is cast into the draught then the food that is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer 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 understanding is clear-sighted and attentive 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. 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 th age as Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz and Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it whom for a reproach their adversaries called Stercoranists It is true other Greek Fathers were not of Origen's opinion but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies So Cyril of Ierusalem says that 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. The Homily of the Eucharist in a dedication that is in St. Chrysostom's works says Do not think that this is Bread and that this is Wine for they pass not to the draught as other victuals do And comparing it to wax put to the fire of which no ashes remain he adds So think that the Mysteries are consumed with the substance of our bodies John Damascene is of the same mind who says 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 Thus it will appear that though those last-cited-Fathers did not believe as Origen 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 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 Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures the Signs the Symboles the Types and Antitypes the Commemoration representation the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ. Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ had a real Body he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ and says He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Body 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 Now had Tertullian and the Church in his time believed Transubstantiation 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 common sense if he had believed Transubsubstantiation And the same Father in two other places before cited says Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread and that he represented his own Body by the Bread St. Austin says He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The same expressions are also in Bede Alcuine and Druthmar that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries But what St. Austin says elsewhere 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 If any place seem to command a crime or horrid action it is figurative and to instance it cites these words Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you which says he 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 Which words are so express and full that whatever those we deal with may think of them we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally Parallel to these are Origen's words who calls the understanding the words of our Saviour of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter a Letter that kills The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist a sign of Christ's Body in his Book against Adimantus 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 called the Life or Soul contrary to the New Testament To which St. Austin answers that it was so called not that it was truly the Soul or Life but the Sign of it and to shew that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the sign of his Body Where if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body it had been the most impertinent illustration 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 For the Sacrament being called the Type the Antitype the Symbole and Mystery of Christs Body and Blood The ancient Liturgies and Greek Fathers use these phrases so frequently that since
and yet they were of the meaner sort and of very ordinary capacities to whom he addressed his discourses 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 conclude 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 understand all that God will have us believe and do in order to salvation And therefore if we apply and use our faculties aright joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for truth earnest prayers that God by his Grace may so open our understandings and present Divine truths to them that we may believe 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 We know the pompous Objection against this is How comes it then that there are so many errors and divisions among Christians especially those that pretend the greatest acquaintance with Scriptures To which the Answer is so obvious and plain that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an Argument Does not the Gospel 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 certain ways in the Gospel to avoid it Therefore as the sins mankind generally live in leave no imputation on the Gospel so neither do the many Heresies and Schisms conclude that the Gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the knowledg 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 holiness 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 infallible way to end all Controversies when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt lusts and passions of men since the one is more opposite to the design and life of Religion than the other 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 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 Parents 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 acceptably so that though he fail in many 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 Divine 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 And from these we hope it will appear that every man may attain all necessary knowledg if he be not wanting to himself Now when a man attains this knowledg he acquires it and must use it as a rational being and so must make judgments 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 therefore 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 inferences as flow from a necessary connexion with the true meaning of any place of Scripture To instance this in the argument we insisted on to prove the mean by which Christ is received in the Sacrament is Faith from these words Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life 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 necessitated to stand to that exposition for if they will have the words This is my Body to be understood literally much more must they assert the phrases of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be literal for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words This is my Body they then expounding these words of St. Iohn of the Sacrament there cannot be imagined a closser Contexture than this which follows The eating Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood is the receiving him in the Sacrament therefore everyone that receives him in the Sacrament must have eternal life Now all that is done in the Sacrament is either the external receiving the Elements Symboles or as they phrase it the accidents of Bread and Wine and under these the Body of Christ or the internal and spiritual 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. Paul tells us 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 Therefore it is only the internal receiving of Christ by Faith that gives eternal life from which another necessary inference directs us also to conclude that since all that eat his Flesh and drink his Blood have eternal life and since it is only by the internal communicating that we have eternal life therefore these words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood can only be understood of internal communicating therefore they must be spiritually understood 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 conclusions as follow it with a clear and just consequence and if we clearly apprehend the consequence of any proposition we can no more doubt the truth of the consequence than of the proposition from which it sprung For if I see the air full of a cleaâ— day-light I must certainly conclude the Sun is risen and I have the same assurance about the one that I have about the other There is more than enough said already for discovering the vanity and groundlesness of this method of arguing But to set the thing beyond all dispute let us consider the use which we find our Saviour 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 before 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 understandings are darkned and disordered ought not to pretend to argue as they did But for clearing this it is to be observed that when any person Divinely assisted having sufficiently proved his inspiration declares any thing in the name of God we are bound to submit to it or if such a person by that same Authority offers any Exposition of Scripture he is to be believed without further dispute But when an inspired person argues with any that does not acknowledg 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 Argument from any thing already agreed to and if the Argument be not good it is so far from being the better by the authority of him that useth it that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his Authority that understands a consequence so ill as to use a bad Argument to use it by This being premised When our Saviour was to prove against the Sadducees the truth of the Resurrection from the Scriptures he cites out of the Law that God was the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob since then God is not God of the dead but of the living Therefore Abraham Isaac and Jacob did live unto God From which he proved the Souls having a being distinct from the Body and living after its separation from the Body which was the 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 Argument For the Sadducees might have told him they appealed to the express words of Scripture But alas they understood not these new-found Arts but submitting to the evident force of that consequence were put to silence and the multitudes were astonished at his Doctrine 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 Authority would never have acquiesced in any Argument because he used it if it had not strength in it self for an ill Argument is an ill Argumont use it whoso will For insâ—ance If I see a man pretending that he sits in an Infallible Chair and proving what he delivers by the most impertinent allegations of Scripture possible as if he attempts to prove the Pope must be the Head of all Powers Civil and Spiritual from the first words of Genesis where it being said In the Beginning and not in the Beginnings 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 Having found our Saviour's way of Arguing to be so contrary to this new method these Gentlemen would impose on us let us see how the Apostles drew their proofs for matters in Controversy from Scriptures The two great Points they had most occasion to argue upon were Iesus Christ's being the true Messiah and the freedom of the Gentiles from any obligation to the observance of the Mosaical Law Now let us see how they proceeded in both these For the first In the first Sermon after the effusion of the Holy Ghost St. Peter proves the truth of Christ's Resurrection from these words of David Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption Now he shews that these words could not be meant of David who was dead and buried therefore being a Prophet he spake of the Resurrection of Christ. If here were not consequences and deductions let every one judg Now these being spoken to those who did not then believe in Christ there was either sufficient force in that Argument to convince the Jews otherwise these that spake them were very much both to be blamed and despised for offering to prove a matter of such importance by a consequence But this being a degree of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost we must acknowledg there was strength in their Argument and therefore Articles of Faith whereof this was the Fundamental may be proved from Scripture by a consequence We might add to this all
excepted against in that prayer was that these things are ascribed to the merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints Now he had only spoken of their prayers and he appealed â—o all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them and the sense the other had offered was not forced M. C. said By merits were understood prayers which had force and merit with God M. B. said That could not be for in another absolution in the office of our Lady they pray for remission of sins through the merits and prayers of the blessed Virgin So that by merits must be meant somewhat else than their prayers M. C. said That as by our prayers on earth we help one anothers Souls so by our giving almes for one another we might do the same so also the Saints in Heaven might be helpful to us by their prayers and merits And as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet and said he was in great hast and much business lay on him that day but said to D. S. That when he pleased he would wait on him and discourse of the other particulars at more length D. S. assured him that when ever he pleased to appoint it he should be ready to give him a meeting And so he went away Then we all stood and talked to one another without any great order near half an hour the discourse being chiefly about the Nags-head fable D. S. apealed to the publick Registers and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all Queen Elizabeth's Reign when such a story was fresh and well known and if there had been any colour for it is it possible they could keep it up or conceal it S. P. T. said All the Registers were forged and that it was not possible to satisfy him in it no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand and being desired to read Doctor Bramhall's book about it he said he had read it six times over and that it did not satisfie him M. B. asked him how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved if the publick Registers and the instruments of publick Notaries were rejected and this the more that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner nor escape the knowledge of their adversaries who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that race was alive is as clear an evidence as can be that the forgery was on the other side D. S. Did clear the objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament that it was only for making the ordination legal in England since in Edward the sixth's time the book of ordination was not joined in the record to the book of Common-Prayer from whence Bishop Bonner took occasion to deny their ordination as not according to Law and added that Saunders who in Queen Elizabeth's time denied the validity of our ordination never alledged any such story But as we were talking freely of this M. W. said once or twice they were satisfied about the chief design they had in that meeting to see if there could be alledged any place of Scripture to prove that Article about the blessed Sacrament and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Triumph Upon which D. S. desired all might sit down again that they might put that matter to an issue so a Bible was brought and D. S. Being spent with much speaking desired M. B. to speak to it M. B. turned to the 6th Chap. of S. Iohn verse 54. and read these words Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and added these words were according to the common interpretation of their Church to be understand of the Sacramental manducation This M. W. granted only M. B. had said all the Doctors understood these words so and M. W. said That all had not done so which M. B. did acknowledge but said it was the received exposition in their Church and so framed his argument Eternal life is given to every one that receives Christ in the Sacrament But by Faith only we get eternal life Therefore by Faith only we receive Christ in the Sacrament Otherwise he said unworthy receivers must be said to have eternal life which is a contradiction for as such they are under condemnation yet the unworthy receivers have the external manducation therefore that Manducation that gives eternal life with it must be internal and spiritual and that is by Faith A person whose name I know not but shall henceforth mark him N. N. asked what M. B. meant by Faith only M. B. said By Faith he meanâ— such a believing of the Gospel as carried along with it Evangelical obedience by Faith only he meant Faith as opposite to sense D. S. asked him if we received Christ's body and blood by our senses N. N. said we did D. S. asked which of the senses his taste or touch or sight for that seemed strange to him N. N. said We received Christs body with our senses as well as we did the substance of bread for our senses did not receive the substance of bread and did offer some things to illustrate this both from the Aristotelian and Cartesian Hypothesis D. S. said He would not engage in that subtlety which was a digression from the main argument but he could not avoid to think it a strange assertion to say we received Christ by our senses and yet to say he was so present there that none of our senses could possibly perceive him But to the main argument M. W. denied the minor that by Faith only we have eternal life M. B. proved it thus The Sons of God have eternal life But by Faith only we become the Sons of God Therefore by Faith only we had eternal life M. W. said Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture he would reject the argument M. B. said That if he did demonstrate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest construction possible equivalent to clear places of Scripture then his proofs were good therefore he desired to know which of the two propositions he should prove either that the Sons of God have eternal life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial people would be of his mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called
other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or conveigh it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this answer to it is but meer trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOUR Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first Six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions First That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The Second was That after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symboles the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the Body and the Blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his Body and Blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine Otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat 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 convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the First we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the Flesh and the Blood of the Incarnate Jesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wiâ—e and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and Wine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the Eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the Flesh and Blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the â—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 arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the Body of his Lord and the Cup of his Blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ for says he that Bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Honey he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says 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 Saint Cyprian says 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 Berries his Blood he signifies our flock which is joined together in the mixture of an united multitude And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice he says 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 And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose Epiphanius says Christ in the Supper rose and took these things
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 undertake 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 Fathers 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 received but once and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the year as they had to speak of the Eucharist 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 express a change of the Baptismal Water as of the Eucharistical Elements From whence it may appear that their great zeal to prepare persons to a due value of these holy actions and that they might not look on them as a vulgar ablution 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 expositions of what they say about the Eucharist But that we may not leave this without some proof we shall set down the words of Facundus who says The Sacrament of Adoption that is Baptism may be called Adoption as the Sacrament 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 contain 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 Believers in Christ when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are 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 And we leave every one to gather from these words if the cited Father could believe Transubstantiation and if he did not think that Baptism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God as the Eucharist was his Body and Blood which these of Rome acknowledge is only to be meant in a moral sense 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 Eucharist can doubt of it St. Austin says That Sacraments must have some similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments otherwise they could not be Sacraments So he says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood So the Sacrament of Faith that is Baptism is Faith But more expresly speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise he says 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 celebrated by the Sacrament of the remembrance of it But he explains this more fully on the 98 th Psalm where he having read ver 5. Worship his footstool and seeking for its true meaning expounds it 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 adored it 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 Rome 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 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 says he 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 our Lord 's saying for had they been meek and not hard they should have said within themselves He says not this without a cause but because there is some Sacrament 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 And adds understand spiritually that which I have said for it is not this Body which you 〈◊〉 that you are to eat or to drink this 〈◊〉 which they are to shed who shall 〈◊〉 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 visibly yet it must be understood invisibly From which it is as plain as can be that St. Austin 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 Sacrament and spiritually and invisibly 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 absence For though it naturally followes 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 So Gaudentius says This is the hereditary gift of his New Teststament which that night he was betrayed to be crucified 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 precious Blood and by the image of his own passion Primasius compares the Sacrament to a pledg which one when he is dying leaves to any whom he loved 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 represented And thus
we doubt not but we have brought proofs which in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition which we leave and go on to the third which was That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For this our first Proof is taken from Origen who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten and passing to the belly adds 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 continues 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 Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacrament and the incarnate Word of which no wicked person can partake And he also says They that are good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven and the wicked eat Dead Bread which is Death Zeno Bishop of Verona that as is believed lived near Origen's time says as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona There is cause to fear that be in 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 St. Jerom on the 66 th of Isa. says 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 And on the 8 th chap. of Hos. he says They eat not his flesh whose flesh is the food of them that believe To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22 th of Jeremy and on the 10 th of Zech. St. Austin says 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 matter to his judgment And speaking of those who by their uncleanness become the members of an Harlot he says Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his members And besides he adds 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 To this we shall add that so oft cited passage Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord the other he means Judas the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. 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 consâ—ant belief of the Greek-Church to this day shall be proved if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter 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 writings that they thought 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 drinking his Blood were to be understood spiritually It is no less clear that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross and not as he is now in the glory of the Father And from hence it was that they came to order their Eucharistical forms so as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption Besides they always speak of Christ as absent from us according to his Flesh and Human Nature and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit 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 Heaven 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 But to give yet further evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine let us but reflect a little on the consequences that necessarily follow it which be 1. That a Body may be by the Divine power in more places at once 2. That a Body may be in a place without extension or quantity so a Body 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 substance such as colour smell taste and figure can remain without any Body or substance in which they subsist 5. That our senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident representations 6. Great doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received or if it should come to be corrupted or to be snatched by a Mouse or eat by any vermine All these are the natural and necessary effects of this Doctrine and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching understanding but are such as stare every body full in the face And hence it is that since this was submitted to in the Western Church the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered and new Maxims and Definitions were found out to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression to receive these as principles by which their minds being full of those first prejudices might find no difficulty to believe this Now it is certain had the Fathers believed this they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith and were so far from being short or defective in it that they rather over-do it and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but about Original sin the derivation of our Souls the operation of the Grace of God in our hearts and the Resurrection of our bodies should yet have been so
prepare themselves aright for so holy an action and the receiving the Sacrament as it was the greatest Symbole 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. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians did study mightily to awaken all to great preparation and devotion when they received the Sacrament For all the primitive devotion about the Sacrament was only in order to the receiving it and that modern worship of the Church of Rome of going to hear Mass without receiving was a thing so little understood by them that as none were suffered to be present in the action of the Mysteries but those who were qualified to receive so if any such had gone out of the Church without participating they were to be separated from the Communion of the Church as the authors of disorder in it Upon this Subject the Fathers employed all their Eloquence and no wonder if we consider that it is such a commemoration of the death of Christ as does really communicate to the worthy Receiver 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 awakening reverence and fear that the contemptible Elements of Bread and Wine might not bring a cheapness and disesteem upon these holy Mysteries or for perswading their Communicants to all serious and due preparation upon so great an occasion 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 Panegyricks or Perswasives where many things are always said that if right understood have nothing in them to startle any body but if every phrase be examined Grammatically 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. Austin observed on this very occasion to say this day Christ was born or died or rose again in 〈◊〉 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 ordinary stile of him that uses these expressions 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. Chrysostome 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 â—avishing Art in which he was so great a Master what wonder is it Therefore great allowances must be made in such a case 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 needful for men of riper and stronger understandings He would take very ill measures that would judge of the future 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. Cyril's there be some high expressions used it is no strange thing for naturally all men on such occasions use the highest and biggest words they can invent 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 inflamed with much fervor are apt to look only to one thing at once and if a visible 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 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 danger on the other side of excessive adoring or magnifying it No wonder if in some of their Discourses an immoderate use of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and candid interpretation 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 Treatises when they are in colder blood examining things they use such expressions 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 Arrians confess the Fathers before the Council of Nice were guilty of who writing against Sabellius with too much vehemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Cyril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Eutychians did run to such excesses as drew upon them the condemnation of the Fifth General Council 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 Constantinople in the condemning of Images declared there was no other Image of Christ to be received but the Blessed Sacrament in which the substance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ making a difference between that which is Christs Body by nature and the Sacrament which is his Body by Institution Now it is to be considered that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the Greek Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemning 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 received Doctrine of the Church The one that in the Sacrament the substance 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 Sacrament Now the second Council of Nice being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible
all the following Cruelties that were as terrible as could be invented by all the fury of the Court of Rome managed by the Inquisitions of the Dominicans whose Souls were then as black as their Garments could bear down or extinguish that light of the Truth in which what was wanting in Learning Wit or Order was fully made up in the simplicity of their Manners and the constancy of their Sufferings And it were easie to shew that the two great things they were most persecuted for were their refusing subjection to the See of Rome and their not believing the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence nor were they confined to one Corner of France only but spred almost all Europe over In that Age Steven Bishop in Edueâ— is the first I ever find cited to have used the word Transubstantiation who expressly sayes That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Some place him in the beginning some in the middle of that Age for there were two Bishops of that See both of the same Name the one Anno 1112. the other 1160. And which of the two it was is not certain but the Master of the Sentences was not so positive and would not determine whether Christ was present formally substantially or some other way But in the beginning of the thirteenth Century one Amalric or Almaric who was in great esteem for Learning did deny Transubstantiation saying That the Body of Christ was no more in the Consecrated Bread than in any other Bread or any other thing for which he was condemned in the fourth Council of Lateran and his Body which was buried in Paris was taken up and burnt and then was it decreed That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly contained under the kinds or Species of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood All the while this Doctrine was carried on it was managed with all the ways possible that might justly create a prejudice against them who set it forward for besides many ridiculous lying wonders that were forged to make it more easily believed by a credulous and superstitious multitude the Church of Rome did discover a cruelty and blood-thirstiness which no pen is able to set out to the full what burnings and tortures and what Croissâ—des as against Infidels and Mahumetans did they set on against those poor innocent Companies whom they with an enraged wolvish and barbarous bloodiness studied to destroy This was clearly contrary to the Laws of Humanity the Rules of the Gospel and the Gentleness of Christ How then could such companies of Wolves pretend to be the followers of the Lamb. In the Primitive Church the Bishops that had prosecuted the Priscillanists before the Emperor Maximus to the taking away their lives were cast out of the Communion of the Church but now did these that still pretended to be Christ's Vicars shew themselves in Antichrist's Colours dipt in blood If then any of that Church that live among us plead for pity and the not executing the Laws and if they blame the severity of the Statutes against themselves let them do as becomes honest men and without disguise disown and condemn those Barbarities and them that were the promoters and pursuers of them for those practices have justly filled the world with fears and jealousies of them that how meekly soever they may now whine under the pretended oppression of the Laws they would no sooner get into power but that old Leaven not being yet purged out of their hearts they would again betake themselves to fire and faggot as the unanswerable Arguments of their Church and so they are only against persecution because they are not able to persecute but were they the men that had the power it would be again a Catholick Doctrine and Practice But when they frankly and candidly condemn those Practices and Principles they will have somewhat to plead which will in reason prevail more than all their little Arts can do to procure them favour It was this same Council of Lateran that established both Cruelty Persecution and Rebellion into a Law appointing that all Princes should exterminate all Hereticks this is the mercy of that Church which all may look for if ever their power be equal to their malice and did decree That if any Temporal Lord being admonished by the Church did neglect to purge his Lands he should be first excommunicated and if he continued a year in his contempt contumacy notice was to be given of it to the Pope who from that time forth should declare his Vassals absolved from the Fidelity they owed him and expose his Lands to be invaded by Catholicks who might possess them without any contradiction having exterminated the Hereticks out of them and so preserve them in the purity of the Faith This Decree was made on the account of Raimond Count of Tholouse who favoured the Albigenses that were his Subjects and being a Peer of France according to the first constitution under Hugo Capet King of France was such a Prince in his own Dominions as the Princes of Germany now are He was indeed the King of France his Vassal but it is clear from the History of that time that the King of France would not interpose in that business Yet the Popes in this same Council of Lateran did by the advice of the Council give to Simon Montfort who was General of the Croissade that the Pope sent against that Prince all the Lâ—nds that were taken from the Count of Tholouse So that there was an Invasion both of the Count of Tholouse and of the King of France his Rights For if that Prince had done any thing amiss he was only accountable to the King and the other Peers of France This Decree of the Council is published by Dom. Luc. Dachery so that it is plain that the Pope got here a Council â—o set up Rebellion by authoriâ—y against the express rules of the Gospel this almost their whole Church accounts a General Council a few only among us excepted who know not how to approve themselves good Subjects if they own that a General Council which does so formally establish treasonable and seditious Principles For if it be true that a General Council making a definition in an Article of Faith is to be followed and submitted to by all men the same Arguments will prove that in any controverted practical Opinion we ought not to trust our own Reasons but submit to the Definition of the Church for if in this Question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the Scriptures and reject this Decree why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom It is true the words of the Decree seem only to relate to Temporal Lords that were under Soveraign Princes such as the Count of Tholouse and therefore Crowned heads need fear nothing from it But though