The Sum of a CONFERENCE Had between TWO DIVINES OF THE Church of England And Two CATHOLIC LAY-GENTLEMEN At the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality August 8. 1671. Publisht with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel for him and Matthew Turner 1687. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER SInce Printing of Conferences seems now in Vogue I will venture to be in the new Mode I have so good an Example of it before me that I hope no body will take it ill if I follow it In the Year 1676. there happen'd a Conference about Points of Religion between some Protestant Divines and some Roman-Catholic Gentlemen which after a long silence has been now lately set out the second time in a fine Dress and with a long Preface This gave me the Curiosity to seek further into those Matters and meeting accidentally with a Copy of another Conference held in 1671. wherein some of the same Persons were concern'd I thought good to present you with it By it 's plain Expressions and unstudied Discourse you may easily judge it to be the naked Truth of what was then spoken Peruse it and think seriously of it The Sum of a Conference had between Two Divines of the Church of England and Two Catholic Lay-Gentlemen at the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality Aug. 8. 1671. THE Persons for whom the Conference was intended desir'd the Subject might be Schism Subject agreed Drs. It is fit we presuppose some Principles before we enter into dispute Cath. Content Dr. 1. Schism is a wilful Separation from the Communion of the Church without cause Cath. Tho' we know very well there can be no cause of Schism yet we will admit to come quickly to the Question your notion of Schism with these words without cause in your Definition of it Dr. 2. Another Principle is Men may without Crime separate from a Communion in which they cannot continue without Sin. Cath. Agreed Dr. 3. There are certain Laws antecedent to Communion by which every particular person ought to judge what Communion he ought to be of or forsake Cath. We do admit that there are external Motives antecedent to Communion which do induce and oblige a particular person to choose the Communion of which he ought to be a Member and to which he ought being a Member to submit in Faith and Government of which every particular person may and ought to judge But we do deny that the interior Doctrins or general Practices of a Communion are subject to the Judgment of every particular Man so that every private person judging this or that Doctrin or Practice to be False Heretical or Idolatrous tho' the Communion of which he is a Member judges it Catholic and Orthodox has lawful cause to separate himself from that Communion without being guilty of Criminal Schism for without this Distinction there could be no such thing as Schism in the World. Dr. You must prove us guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. We will. In the year 1517 you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you are Criminal Schismatics Dr. I do deny that the Separation in the year 1517 do's concern us nor do we think our selves oblig'd to defend or justifie it we do only maintain that the Church of England is not guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. The same Argument presses the Church of England as the Lutherans Let it be therefore put thus In King Hen. the 8th Ed. the 6th or Queen Elizabeths Days date the Birth of your Church from what time you please you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you the Church of England are guilty of Criminal Schism Dr. I deny your Antecedent we did not separate without cause Cath. I prove it If you had lawful cause you can assign it but you cannot assign any lawful cause Ergo you did separate without cause Dr. I will assign the cause It was thus In the Year of Henry the 8th the Parliament declared That the Right of Reforming the Church of this Kingdom was in the King upon which the King did reform and upon this Reformation the Pope did Excommunicate the King and Kingdom which Excommunication was confirm'd by another Pope in Queen Elizabeths days so that the Pope by Excommunicating made the Schism and not we by Reforming Cath. The Declaration above mentioned and the Reformation thereupon were antecedent to the Excommunication so that you must prove that the Parliament had just Power and Authority to make that Declaration and to Reform upon it and that they did indeed Reform and not spoil the Doctrin they undertook to mend for if it had not all its Proceedings were unjust and criminal and Excommunication was but the just and proper Punishment for that Crime And then sure it would be reckoned very strange to say That a lawful Authority punishing an Offender is made guilty of the Crime it punishes by inflicting that Punishment Dr. The Parliament did not ascribe any new Power to the King but only declar'd that the same was in him which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all And I can shew from time to time that the Popes Authority has been refus'd and his Legats forbid entrance into the Kingdom several times Cath. I pray shew substantially if you can that the Church of England before the Reformation did never at any time accept or which is positive did at all times refuse the Pope all sort of Authority and Superiority over them else to quarrel sometimes with his Authority or some part of it or stop his Legats might be just For that it is possible for a Power which has lawful Authority to challenge and demand some sort of Authority which is more than what is lawfully his and in such case the Inferiors may at least remonstrate to their Superiors if not oppose them in such unlawful Demands and this might be the case between the Pope and the King of England at some particular time At other times Inferiors might be stubborn and disobedient and for a time deny that to their Superiors which is really due Therefore to say that the Kings of England did for a time oppose the Pope in some things is not enough to prove the Declaration aforesaid which was universal denying him all Authority whatsoever to be no ascribing of new Power but only a Declaration that the same Power was in That King which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all but the contrary to what is now demanded to be prov'd and must be prov'd before that Declaration can excuse the Declarers from the guilt of causeless Separation and consequently Criminal Schism and consequently of deserving justly Excommunication is so evident that I appeal to these present worthy persons who are to judge in this point whether this be not sufficiently
is Bread is also a Contradiction but where is that Proposition in Scripture or what Catholic in the World holds it We say that which was Bread ceases to be Bread and becomes the Body of Christ which is no more a Contradiction than to say that which was Water ceases to be Water and becomes Wine Drs. That Text you build your Faith upon This is my Body implies a Contradiction for it must signifie This Bread is my Body which is as much a Contradiction as Christ is a Vine or Christ is Bread which you have acknowledg'd already for a Contradiction or else it must be an identical enuntiation and signifie This my Body is my Body Cath. This Bread is my Body is a Contradiction but cannot be meant in the Text for in all Languages but English where the word which signifies this is alter'd according to the different Gender the Antecedent is of to which this word should relate it is always put in the Neuter Gender hoc in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek which it could not be if it were to agree with Bread or have relation to it that being always Masculin as panis in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek therefore to say this Bread in the Latin or Greek Language would be false Grammer and English I suppose has no reason to govern the other Languages but they it they being more and old against one and new Nor need it be This Body is my Body the Particle this is a Pronoun demonstrative signifying only some exterior Object undetermind'd as to its Nature or Name without some other additional Word as this is a Horse this is a Hat are I hope proper Speeches and therefore no Identical Enuntiations This only supposes an Object existing and expos'd to Sense and determin'd by the following word Hat or Horse of what Nature and Quality it is Besides This is my Body is an Efficient Proposition and is the cause of the change which is not wrought till the Proposition be compleated and therefore this is not determin'd till the whole be pronounc'd Drs. It is impossible it should be taken in your sense for Transubstantiation cannot be without a Miracle and no Miracle can be without appearing so to Sense Nay it would destroy all possibility of judging of any other Miracle they being not to be discern'd but by Sense which cannot be rely'd upon if it may be deceiv'd in this Cath. A Miracle may be and yet not appear to Sense to be so yet ought to be believ'd For the hypostatical Union was never discern'd by Sense yet is believ'd a true Miracle so that your first Proposition is false To your second I pray say whether it be possible for God to make a thing appear to Sense to be what it is not Then supposing it possible may not God discover to Man that he has made a thing to appear one thing and to be another as well as he has discover'd that the Divinity was united to Christs Humanity tho' no such thing appear'd If he may and do's ought I to believe Gods Word against my own Senses or my Senses against Gods Word Notwithstanding this my Senses shall judge of a Miracle at all times unless when God assures me upon his Word that his Omnipotency has interpos'd between my Senses and their Natural Object Drs. But we will shew you by the Fathers and not of the first 300 years but since that your Doctrin was not held neither in the Greek nor Latin Church Cath. We do expect you should shew us by the Scripture and Fathers of all Ages and do not care to be complemented or spar'd as to the first 300 years if you have any Authority from those times let us see them and very clearly that your contrary Doctrin was held else you cannot be justified or excused from Schism in your separation Dr. It is sufficient to shew against you that your Doctrin has not had that constant Succession you boast of And that I will do by producing Instances plain and clear that your Doctrin was not maintain'd in one certain Age since Christ Cath. Tho' that can never justifie your separation or make your Communion safe for if it were not safe to stay in the Roman Communion because a Doctrin believ'd by them was in one Age since Christs time not believ'd it can never be safe to abide in yours where many Doctrins are now believ'd which you acknowledge were not believ'd by the true Church for many Hundred years together Yet let us hear your proofs Dr. I will shew you a Homily us'd in the Saxon Church from which you shall see how that Church and your Augustin agree in this Doctrin Cath. At least 't is some kindness to grant Augustin to be ours who Converted England above 1000 years ago Narr Truly the Homily we did never see before nor never heard of it nor do we know what credit it bears nor can I remember the words exactly but in the first place the Doctor quoted for he produc'd two the sense was that the Bread and Wine which the Priest Consecrated at Mass was turn'd into the True Body and Blood of Christ which Text we pray'd the Doctor to read in English which he did and after a little stumble at the word Missam he told us he car'd not tho' he render'd it Mass which he did This very Quotation we urg'd against him but he told us this must be explain'd by another in which he brought us the same or like words again concerning the change but at the end of the Sentence were these words in a distinct remarkable Character not Corporally but Spiritually Where or by whom this Book was Printed we could not learn or what Authority it was of but it might very well be Authentick for all that distinction it being frequently us'd by Modern Catholics who are not deny'd to hold the Doctrin of Transubstantiation They commonly say that it is not chang'd Corporally taking Corporally to signifie carnally as the Capharnaits understood our Blessed Lord when he spoke of this Mystery but Spiritually taking that to signfie as St. Paul uses the word Spiritual speaking of the Resurrection where he says it is sown a natural Body it rises a Spiritual Body there is a natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body Now if this way of speaking be frequently us'd by those who are notwithstanding such an expression confess'd to hold Transubstantiation why must it signifie more evidently the contrary Doctrin in this Author than it do's in others especially when this Author delivers the Roman Doctrin in this point in his other expressions as evidently and plainly as can be and cites the Mass as the Doctor confesses But he stood not much upon this Question but laid his whole stress upon two others Dr. I will prove now evidently that your Doctrin was contradicted in the fifth Age both by the Greek and Latin Church nay by a Pope of Rome
manifest from the Histories which they themselves have read and the general Confessions which they themselves have met withal from very many even learned Protestants That the Pope of Rome was at least Patriarch of the West and as such had Patriarchal Authority at least over the Church of England and therefore was allow'd to be the proper Judge of Ecclesiastical Matters the very day before the foresaid Declaration was made and therefore was the only proper Judge of the said Declaration and the Authors of it whether it were well and legally made And this said Judge having judicially determin'd the said Declaration to be Schismatical condemned it legally and justly Excommunicated the Authors Most certainly a Declaration made by every one that pretends Power to make one is not presently lawful because it is pretended to be so The late long Parliament pretended to declare That the Supream Power of England was in the People and that the said People might Judge and Depose the King whenever he misused that Power which the People entrusted him withal and we know what followed upon it I hope the Doctor will not justifie that Declaration nor can he shew a disparity between this and the other both being made by those who were universally esteem'd at the time they made them Subjects and Inferiors to those against whose Authority they made them in those very Points concerning which they did then declare Drs. The Pope was never content to be esteem'd barely the Patriarch of the West and there is great difference between the two Declarations that in Hen. Eighth's time against the Pope and that in King Charles the First 's time against his Majesty Cath. It matters not now whether the Pope were content or no to be barely esteem'd Patriarch of the West if he had reason to challenge more that no ways justifies you Do you allow that he was Patriarch If you do answer the difficulty and say how his Inferiors came by a Power to Depose him and as to the difference between the two Declarations you must shew it us before we believe there is any Gentlemen to the Doctors Sirs we do not doubt but that the Pope was allow'd some Authority in England before the Separation we do not therefore desire to dispute that but supposing he had not you separated your selves from the great Body of all Christians United before in one Communion we desire to know what cause you could have for that Drs. We had cause to separate for that the Communion from which we separated taught false Faith and were guilty of Idolatry I instance particularly in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation and their Adoring the Host Cath. To the Company Tho' you may be pleas'd to remember that we did at first deny that any particular person and the same holds of particular Diocesses Provinces and Nations all which United make but one Catholic Church and therefore the biggest of them all to be consider'd only as a Member of the whole Body has Power to judge and condemn the Doctrins and Practices of the whole Church as false or Idolatrous when the Body against this Member says that the said Doctrins or Practices are Orthodox and Catholic so as to have lawful cause to separate from the said whole Communion without being guilty of criminal Schism That what we said of a particular Person holds to a Nation or any Inferior Authority to a Superior is evident upon supposition that God has requir'd and commanded that his Church be one which could not be if a Secular Sovereign Power has Authority to break its Unity upon pretence of judging any one of it's Doctrins or Practices false or Idolatrous For if one may another may and then Swisserland may have as many Religions and Communions as Cantons and the World as many Churches as Secular Sovereigns tho' God has said he will have but One And here in England the Bishops may as well wave the Arch-bishops Authority private persons pretend to Judge and Censure the Bishops Power and Authority or any one Man controul the Authority of his Pastor Tho' this we deny'd at first and might therefore well refuse to proceed till the Doctors had prov'd that a single Person might condemn a whole Church's Doctrin legally or a lesser Authority judge and censure a greater yet because perhaps this Method may have been propos'd by your selves we are content to do any thing for your satisfaction but then you must be pleas'd considering our Communion at the time of the Separation was infinitly greater than the Reformers as Learned and as Holy for ought any body knows and in possession for many hundred years of the Doctrins and Practices now condemn'd by these Reformers to demand more clear and evident proofs against our Doctrins than we bring for them for upon but equal proof we that are forty to one and every whit as learned as the others especially having receiv'd what we profess from our Fore-fathers from Christs time for ought any body knows for no body can say when what we hold and practise begun have no reason to submit to so much a less number at the charge of so great a confusion as must needs happen and God's Command of Unity be broke into the bargain You must therefore demand the most evident proofs that Nature can admit of to prove those Doctrins of theirs upon which they ground their Separation or else it will be criminal Schism and you must desert their Communion If they attempt to prove it from Scripture they must not bring obscure passages out of it to oppose or interpret clear ones for that is not to explicate but to confound not to draw Light and Truth out of Scripture but to cast more Darkness upon it Neither can an obscure and doubtful Title lawfully or reasonably cast any Body out of the possession of a belief for which he has clear and evident ones to shew They must therefore bring Texts that prove their Points in Terms for their interpretation is no more to be allow'd of than ours and Scripture ought to be taken literally where the literal sense does not imply a contradiction Note It may be reasonably suppos'd that these undeniable Principles were the cause why the Doctors as it will appear in all this Conference would never venture upon any citation of the Scripture to prove their Doctrin for which they separated from the Roman Church acknowledged then universally for the true Church but were forc'd to fly to some obscure Sentences of the Fathers even which will yet appear to make more for the Roman Church than for the Reformers Drs. All Scriptures ought not to be expounded literally which do not imply a Contradiction in a literal sense I am a Vine ought not to be expounded literally yet it implies no Contradiction or at least no more than this Christ is Bread. Cath. I am a Vine does imply a Contradiction for Christ cannot be Christ and a Vine at the same time Christ
Substance of Bread and Wine taken strictly and philosophically do remain But the Internal Substance of Bread and Wine may well pass into the Divine Substance and yet the Exterior Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine signifying the Properties and Accidents of Bread and Wine may well remain And that this must be the Sense of the Father is plain enough from his own words for he says absolutely and without any limitation That they pass into the Divine Substance which must be meant of the Interior Substance of Bread and Wine if any for 't is clear the Exterior remains and does not pass But then again he qualifies too the Nature which he says remains and calls it the Property of their Nature remaining Which Expression does as we think clear the distinction and determins to which side the strict and to which the popular Sense ought to be apply'd At least we are sure there can be no clear Evidence from hence against us which yet we must have before we can be remov'd from the long possession which we have had of a Doctrin and Practice of such concern as this Drs. The Exposition now given cannot be possibly the Fathers meaning for that that Sense would quite enervate the force of the Answer for the Answer must be proper to the Argument which it is intended to Answer and to the Point which the Argument was made use of to prove Now the Point to be prov'd was the Doctrin of the Eutychians viz. That the Human Nature of Christ was chang'd into the Divine to prove which the Eutychians urg'd the change in the Sacrament and from thence urg'd to the change of the Natures to which the Father answer'd that there was no change in the Sacrament nor no more change in the Natures than there was in the other This must needs be the meaning of the Father Cath. The Exposition above given by us makes the Fathers words very much more a proper Answer to the Eutychians Argument than they could be otherways for whereas he asserted an absolute and total Conversion of the Human Nature in Christ into the Divine so that it was wholly devour'd and swallow'd up by it like a drop of Hony by the Sea and endeavor'd to illustrate it from the change of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ as a Point acknowledg'd by both Parties to this the Father answer'd that the very Instance he gave was against himself for that after the change in the Sacrament there were still two Natures remaining viz. the Nature of Christs Body in the strict Sense and the Nature of Bread as above Explicated for the Natural Properties in the popular Sense And this being sufficient to retort the Eutychian's Argument upon himself by shewing him there was not such a change in the Sacrament as he vainly imagin'd in the Incarnation it was all that was necessary for the Father's design in that place For as for the Interior change himself acknowledged it as well as the Eutychian Are these all the Authorities you have Dr. These are enough for they are very plain Cath. We will leave that to judgment But withal we hope the Company will remember they must be much plainer than any we can bring for our selves We therefore desire now to shew some for us And because we will shew how truly the Doctor has asserted That in an Age since the first 300 years this Doctrin was generally contradicted and the contrary Doctrin viz. that of the Church of England generally profess'd and taught for that he must be suppos'd to have design'd to prove or else he do's nothing in Justification of his Separation and has pitch'd upon the fifth Century to make good his Assertion we will insist particularly upon the Authority of Fathers of that very Century And first we desire him to consider St. Austin Tom. 8. in Psal 98. Printed at Venice An. 1584. Where he says Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam sanctum est Quid habemus adorare Scabellum pedum ejus sed videte Fratres quid nos jubeat adorare Alio loco Scriptura dicit coelum mihi sedes est terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Ergo terram nos jubet adorare quia alio loco dixit quod sit scabellum Dei quomodo adorabimus terram cum dicat aperte Scriptura Dominum Deum tuum adorabis hic dicit Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Exponens autem mihi quid sit scabellum pedum ejus dicit Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Anceps factus sum timeo adorare terram ne damnet me qui fecit coelum terram Rursum timeo non adorare scabellum pedum Domini mei quia Psalmus mihi dicit Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Quaero quid sit scabellum pedum ejus dicit mihi Scriptura Terra scabellum pedum meorum Fluctuans converto me ad Christum quia ipsum quaero hic invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum ejus Suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit quiain ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit inventum est quomodo adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini non solum non peccemus adorando sed peccenius non adorando We desire the Doctor will be pleas'd to put this place of the Father into English that the Company may judge of the Sense of it especially at the latter end which is chiefly to our purpose Dr. I will it is thus Wavering I turn my self to Christ because I seek him here and I find how the Earth may be Ador'd without impiety without impiety his Foot-stool may be Ador'd For of Earth he took Earth because Flesh is of Earth and he took Flesh of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary and because he walked here in that Flesh and gave that Flesh to us to Eat for our Salvation but no Man Eats that Flesh unless he first Adores we have found out how such a Footstool of our Lord may be Ador'd and not only not sin by Adoring but we sin by not Adoring This is the English of the words quoted which makes nothing against us for we in the Church of England do always Adore when we do receive Cath. What do you Adore when you receive Do you Adore that which you do receive If you do then that which you receive is the Flesh of Christ or you are Idolaters as lately great pains has been taken to prove If you do not Adore that which you receive as the Object of your Adoration but something else then you will find that St. Austin is against you for that he Ador'd the Footstool that is the Flesh i. e. that Flesh which
Proposition of which so palpable a Contradiction is predicated must needs be under some other Signification besides it's Literal one because this Predicate so peremptorily Negative is not Bread and so determin'd positively but Christs Body are so evident and plain that they are not capable of being misconstrued especially being Predicates which always limit and determin the Subject So that Bread is so call'd because it once was Bread as Moses his Rod tho' chang'd into a Serpent was notwithstanding call'd a Rod because it had been so and still appears to the Senses to be Bread as the Father here tells us with this Reduplication for fear of mistake yet it is not Bread. I cannot use plainer words to explicate the Father than his own He that can make Protestantism out of these Texts may expound Bellarmin and the Council of Trent when they please and make them Protestants too As to your Demand that we should shew that the Substance of Bread ceases I think you never need have it shewn plainer than in the words before you which say that that which seems Bread is not Bread I suppose by Substance of Bread you mean the Being of Bread therefore the Being ceasing the Substance must cease but the Being ceases according to this Text for that which was Bread is not Bread therefore the Substance ceases and there is a change which you grant wonderful and what can this change be but this Substance ceasing to be is chang'd into another Substance which we call Transubstantiation And yet Because St. Cyprian lies here before us I will shew you a Quotation out of him where he says that Bread is chang'd not only in Effigie or Similitude but in Nature being by the Omnipotent Power of God made Flesh Dr. I wonder you should quote that place out of St. Cyprian which is notoriously known to be none of his for the Manuscript of that Work is now in Oxford Library and bears the Name of another Author some Hundred Years younger than St. Cyprian Cath. But do you acknowledge that the words quoted out of this Work be it whose it will do signifie Transubstantiation Drs. We do not deny but that many Authors of latter Ages have writ very odly of that Point and we do think this among the rest one of them Cath. This is the first time that ever we heard of any such Manuscript of this work in Oxford and yet I have met with many Protestants that have made it their business to prove it none of St. Cyprians and 't is much that none of them should ever hear of this Manuscript and urge it if it were so evidently known to be another Man's and whose and of what Age. But this I am sure that Cocus the famous Man for excepting against places brought by Catholics for their Doctrins do's impugn this Book chiefly from Bellarmin's Confessions who indeed do's say that it may seem to be none of St. Cyprians but adds immediately after that it was the work of some Learned Man of the same Age as our Adversaries acknowledge to which Cocus says nothing and therefore may well be thought to allow it Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament upon 1 Cor. cap. 7. fol. 282. says the Author de Coena Domini which is the Work now mentioned was not in time much Inferior to Cyprian And Erasmus a great Man with the Protestants in his Annotations annexed to St. Cyprians Works Printed at Basil 1558. fol. 287. affirmeth it to be the Work of some Learned Man of that Age so that taking Cocus his silence to what Bellarmin says and Mr. Fulk and Erasmus their plain affirmations of the Age of this Work to be worth any thing and taking this Doctors Confession that the words in this Work are odd as savoring of Transubstantiation you have an Argument of Transubstantiation in St. Cyprians Age or at least of a time not much inferior Gentlem. to the Doctor Sir I have observ'd the Discourse as well as I could and I find the great Point in Dispute is what the Fathers held a great while ago As to the Doctrin in debate you have brought places of both sides which we must consider more at leisure but at present will you be pleas'd to Answer me a Question or two which occur to me to ask Dr. With all my Heart Gent. How long is it since Transubstantiation the word I mean has been Establish'd Dr. Ever since the Lateran Council about 450 Years ago Gent. Did the Church understand the word Transubstantiation then to signifie any new Doctrin or only to express the very self same Doctrin which they believ'd before Dr. We do believe that the word was not taken to signifie any thing but what was believ'd before Gent. When did the Church begin to believe that Doctrin which it seems it did believe at and before the Lateran Council and thought then well express'd by the word Transubstantiation Dr. We confess we cannot tell for great Errors arrive often from little beginnings and do grow up insensibly Gent. How long was it after the Lateran Council before this Doctrin was complain'd of Dr. About three hundred years Gent. How came we to discern this to be an Error three hundred years after which our Forefathers held for a Truth three hundred years together in express Terms and no body knows how much longer they held the same thing in other Terms Is it not much an Error could be so general and so long maintain'd without any Opposition or Notice taken of its Birth or Origin Dr. It was not so General but that some oppos'd it as the Waldenses but it is not strange that an Error should be general and long maintain'd for the Church of Rome says that the Greek Church err'd generally and long in teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Son. Cath. But the Church of Rome never taught that the whole Catholic Church err'd in teaching that Doctrin for though that part which is now call'd the Greek Church be condemn'd for that Error yet we know how and when it began and who oppos'd it we know that very many of the Greeks never consented to it but did then and have always since continued in Communion with the Church of Rome so that that Error was so far from being general that it was always oppos'd by the Latin Church and great part of the Greeks too whereas no Body oppos'd Transubstantiation but known Heretics who began before the Lateran Council we speak of and were condemn'd by it and were such as the Waldenses a People as I suppose you would be loath to own for your Predecessors And that all the World should consent so quietly all at one time to adore that for God which the day before was universally believ'd to be but a piece of Bread and was us'd accordingly and no Man living in the World take notice when this was done nor upon what occasion or give it the least Opposition is a Miracle
ten times greater if there be any Degrees in Miracles than this which you cannot believe for its difficulty viz. Transubstantiation especially when we can shew in every Age when any Opposition was made to this Doctrin who they were that did it and what became of them Berengarius was above a hundred years before the Lateran Council yet we can shew that he was oppos'd by Bishops and Fathers of almost all Countries as by Lanfranck of Canterbury Durandus Troaernensis Guitmundus four Bishops of Rome and by the Pastors of all Countries how he recanted three times and how he died Joannes Scotus Erigena who lived about two hundred years before and had laid some Grounds for Berengarius his Error was treated as an Innovator by Hincmarus and others himself forced to retire out of France and his Book not heard of again till two hundred years after and no Man living can tell us when this absurd Doctrin as the Doctor calls it which has had such Success in the World as to obtain Belief universally for several hundred years ever had any Beginning or any considerable Opposition For though the Word Transubstantiation was not commonly us'd before the Council of Lateran it matters not nor makes any new Belief since it has always been the constant practice of the Church in the General Councils when it did condemn Heretical Opinions or decide any Point in debate to expound the true Sense of Scripture upon that very Point by some very significant Word to leave no occasion of Cavilling or Disputing upon its Decisions declaring by an explicit Act and positive Definition what was the true Sense of Soripture and what implicitly all the whole Catholic Church did believe before as it appears in several other Councils as in that of Nice against the Arians where the Word Consubstantial was found out to condemn their Heresie they pretending that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of like Substance to the Father when the Council defin'd him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the same Substance or Consubstantial The same you may observe in the Council of Chalcedon where Nestorius was condemn'd by the new distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gent. Supposing Sir that the Roman Doctrin in this Point be false and their practice Idolatry and yet both were Universal for several Ages together which way can the Church of England pretend to good and lawful Ordination for they pretend to none but what they receiv'd from Idolaters i. e. the Church of Rome Dr. Very well for though they were Idolâ—ters they might give good and lawful Ordinations for the very Church of Rome holds that mortal sin do's not hinder a Bishop or Priest from executing his Function Cath. All Mortal Sins may not hinder a Bishop from executing his Function or giving good and lawful Ordination yet some may For if a Bishop should become a Jew and the same thing may be said if he becomes an Idolater you surely will not allow him to give good and lawful Christian Ordination For that which destroys the Essence of a Church or a Christian must needs disable those it falls upon from giving legal Commissions at least to others to govern the Church or to administer the Sacraments of Christ Drs. There are two sorts of Idolatry one of the Heathens and another if you will have it of the Church of Rome Cath. We will have any thing that you will make evident but when you tell us of two sorts of Idolatries I hope you do not mean Material and Formal Idolatry the first of which if purely such is no Crime We speak all along of Formal Idolatry which you must accuse the Church of Rome of or else 〈◊〉 nothin◠〈◊〉 if you do I pray shew how the naturâ— of formal 〈◊〉 becomes chang'd by its relation to Heathens from what it is when it relates to a Papist I doubt you mean by your two sorts of Idolatry Idolatry which is Idolatry and Idolatry which is not Idolatry like the honest Preacher 〈◊〉 talk'd of three sorts of Seekers one that sought and found another who sought and did not find and a third which neither sought nor found the first Idolatry 〈◊〉 belong to the Heathens and the second the no Idolatry to the Papists And now we shall leave it to the Judgment of this worthy Company to consider how clear and evident you have made it that you had such just Cause to separate from the whole Church as to excuse you from formal or Criminal Schism FINIS A Relation of a Conference Apr. 3. 1676. Theod. Tom. 2. Dial. 2. pag. 236. Edit Colon. 1617. Magd Cent. 5. cap. 4. de Inclinatione Doct. tit de Coena Domini Ibid. Dial. 2. pag. 234. St. Cyp. de Câ—en Domini