IT will seem a very needless labour to all considering persons, to go about the exposing and baffling so unreasonable and ill-grounded a pretence, That whatever is not read in Scripture, is not to be held an Article of Faith. For in making good this Asser­tion, they must either fasten their proofs on some other ground, or on the words of our Article; which are these, Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved there­by, [Page 56] is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Now it is such an affront to every mans eyes and understanding to infer from these words, That all our Articles must be read in Scripture, that we are confident every man will cry Shame on any that will pretend to fasten on our Church any such obligation from them. If these unlucky words, Nor may be pro­ved thereby, could be but dashed out, it were a won cause. But we desire to know what they think can be meant by these words? or what else can they signifie, but that there may be Articles of Faith, which though they be not read in Scripture, yet are proved by it. There be some Propositions so equi­valent to others, that they are but the same thing said in several words; and these, though not read in Scripture, yet are contained in it, since wheresoever the one is read, the other must necessa­rily be understood. Other Propositions there are, which are a necessary result either from two places of Scripture, which joined together yeild a third, as a necessa­ry issue; according to that eternal Rule [Page 57] of Reason and Natural Logick, That wherever two things agree in any Third, they must also agree among Themselves. There be also other Propositions that arise out of one single place of Scripture by a natural deduction; as if Jesus Christ be proved from any place of Scripture the Creator of the world, or that He is to be worshipped with the same Adora­tion that is due to the Great God, then it necessarily follows, that He is the Great God; because He does the Works, and receives the Worship of the Great God. So it is plain, that our Church by these words, Nor may be proved thereby, has so declared Her self in this point, that it is either very great want of conside­ration, or shameless impudence, to draw any such thing from our Articles.

But we being informed, that by this little art, as shuffling and bare so ever as it must appear to a just discerner, many have been disordered, and some prevailed on; We shall so open and expose it, that we hope it shall appear so poor and tri­fling that every body must be ashamed of it. It hath already shewed it self in France and Germany, and the Novelty of it took with many, till it came to be canvassed; and then it was found so [Page 58] weak, that it was universally cried down and hissed off the stage. But now that such decried wares will go off no-where, those that deal in them, try if they can vent them in this Nation.

It might be imagined, that of all per­sons in the world they should be the furthest from pressing us to reject all Ar­ticles of Faith that are not read in Scrip­ture; since whenever that is received as a Maxim, The Infallibility of their Church, the Authority of Tradition, the Supre­macy of Rome, the Worship of Saints, with a great many more must be cast out. It is unreasonable enough for those who have cursed and excommunicated us, because we reject these Doctrines, which are not so much as pretended to be read in Scripture; to impose on us the Reading all our Articles in these Holy Writings.

But it is impudent to hear persons speak thus, who have against the express and formal words of Scripture, set up the making and worshipping of Images; and these not only of Saints, (though that be bad enough), but of the Blessed Trinity, the praying in an unknown tongue, and the taking the Chalice from the people. Certainly this plea in such [Page 59] mens mouths is not to be reconciled to the most common rules of decency and discretion. What shall we then conclude of men that would impose rules on us, that neither themselves submit to, nor are we obliged to receive by any Do­ctrine or Article of our Church.

But to give this their Plea its full strength and advantage, that upon a fair hearing all may justly conclude its un­reasonableness, we shall first set down all can be said for it.

In the Principles of Protestants the Scriptures are the rule by which all Con­troversies must be judged; now they ha­ving no certain way to direct them in the exposition of them, neither Tradition, nor the Definition of the Curch: Either they must pretend they are Infallible in their Deductions, or we have no reason to make any account of them, as being Fallible and Vncertain; and so they can never secure us from error, nor be a just ground to found our Faith of any Propo­sition so proved upon: Therefore no Pro­position thus proved, can be acknowledged an Article of Faith. This is the bredth and length of their Plea, which we shall now examine.

And first, if there be any strength in [Page 60] this Plea, it will conclude against our sub­mitting to the express words of Scrip­ture as forcibly: Since all words, how formal soever, are capable of several ex­positions. Either they are to be under­stood literally or figuratively; either they are to be understood positively, or inter­rogatively: With a great many other va­rieties, of which all expressions are ca­pable. So that if the former Argument have any force, since every place is capa­ble of several meanings, except we be in­fallibly sure which is the true meaning, we ought by the same parity of Reason to make no account of the most express and formal words of Scripture; from which it is apparent, that what noise so­ever these men make of express words of Scripture, yet if they be true to their own argument, they will as little submit to these as to deductions from Scripture: Since they have the same reason to que­stion the true meaning of a place, that they have to reject an inference and de­duction from it. And this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a trick, under which there lies no fair deal­ing at all.

But to answer the Argument to all mens satisfaction, we must consider the [Page 61] nature of the Soul, which is a reasonable being; whose chief faculty is to discern the connexion of things, and to draw out such Inferences as flow from that con­nexion. Now, though we are liable to great abuses both in our judgments and inferences; yet if we apply these facul­ties with due care, we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reason­ings: Otherwise this being God's Image in us, and the Standard by which we are to try things, God has given us a false Standard; which when we have with all possible care managed, yet we are still ex­posed to fallacies and errors. This must needs reflect on the Veracity of that God that has made us of such a nature, that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing.

Therefore it must be acknowledged, that when our Reasons are well prepared according to those eternal rules of Pu­rity and Vertue, by which we are fitted to consider of Divine matters; and when we carefully weigh things, we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us. And though we be not infallible, so that it is still possible for us by precipitation, or undue preparation, to be abused into mistakes; yet we may [Page 62] be well assured that such Connexions and Inferences as appear to us certain, are infallibly true.

If this be not acknowledged, then all our obligation to believe any thing in Re­ligion will vanish. For that there is a God, that he made all things, and is to be acknowledged, and obeyed by his crea­tures; that our souls shall outlive their union with our bodies, and be capable of rewards and punishments in another state; that Inspiration is a thing possible; that such or such actions were above the power of nature, and were really per­formed. In a word, all the Maxims on which the belief, either of Natural Re­ligion, or Revealed, is founded, are such as we can have no certainty about them, and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them; if our faculty of Reason­ing in its clear deductions is not a suffi­cient warrant for a sure belief.

But to examin a little more home their beloved Principle, that their Church can­not err, must they not prove this from the Divine Goodness and Veracity, from some passages of Scripture, from mira­cles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their Church?

Now in yielding assent to this Do­ctrine [Page 63] upon these proofs, the mind must be led by many arguments, through a great many Deductions and Inferences. Therefore we are either certain of these deductions: Or we are not. If we are certain, this must either be founded on the Authority of the Church expounding them, or on the strength of the argu" ms="ments. Now we being to examin this Authority, not having yet submitted to it; this cannot determine our belief till we see good cause for it. But in the discerning this good cause of believing the Church Infallible, they must say that an uncontrollable evidence of reason is ground enough to fix our Faith on, or there can be no certain ground to believe the Church Infallible. So that it is ap­parent we must either receive with a firm perswasion what our souls present to us as uncontrollably true; or else we have no reason to believe there is a God, or to be Christians, or to be, as they would have us, Romanists.

And if it be acknowledged there is cause in some cases for us to be deter­mined by the clear evidence of Reason in its Judgments and Inferences; then we have this Truth gained, that our Rea­sons are capable of making true and cer­tain [Page 63] Inferences, and that we have good cause to be determined in our belief by these; and therefore Inferences from Scripture ought to direct our belief: Nor can any thing be pretended against this, but what must at the same time overthrow all Knowledg and Faith, and turn us sceptical to every thing.

We desire it be in the next place con­sidered what is the end and use of speech and writing, which is to make known our thoughts to others; those being ar­tificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others. Now every man that speaks pertinently, as he de­signs to be understood, so he chooses such expressions and arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to; and the clearer he speaks, he speaks so much the better: and every one that wraps up his mean­ing in obscure words, he either does not distinctly apprehend that about which he discourses, or does not design that those to whom he speaks should under­stand him, meaning only to amuse them. If likewise he say any thing from which some absurd Inference will easily be ap­prehended, he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of prejudice against [Page 65] what he says. For he must expect that as his Hearers senses receive his words or characters, so necessarily some figure or notion must be at the same time imprinted on their imagination, or pre­sented to their reason; this being the end for which he speaks, and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning, the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it. It must also be acknowledged, that all hearers must necessarily pass judgments on what they hear, if they do think it of that importance as to examine it. And this they must do by that natural faculty of making judgments and de­ductions, the certainty whereof we have proved to be the foundation of all Faith and Knowledge.

Now the chief rule of making true judgments, is, to see what consequences certainly follow on what is laid before us: If these be found absurd or impos­sible, we must reject that from which they follow as such.

Further, because no man says every thing that can be thought or said to any point, but only such things as may be the seeds of further enquiry and knowledg in their minds to whom he [Page 66] speaks; when any thing of great im­portance is spoken, all men do naturally consider what inferences arise out of what is said by a necessary Connexion: And if these deductions be made with due care, they are of the same force, and must be as true as that was from which they are drawn.

These being some of the Laws of Con­verse, which every man of common sense must know to be true, can any man think, that when God was revealing by inspired men his Counsels to mankind, in matters that concerned their eternal happiness, he would do it in any other way than any honest man speaks to ano­ther, that is, plainly and distinctly?

There were particular reasons why prophetical visions must needs be ob­scure; but when Christ appeared on earth, though many things were not to be fully opened till he had triumphed over death and the powers of darkness: Yet his design being to bring men to God, what he spoke in order to that, we must think he intended that they to whom he spake it might understand it, otherwise why should he have spoken it to them? and if he did intend they should understand him, then he must [Page 67] have used such expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their under­standings; 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 [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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 clea [...] day-light, I [Page 74] 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, [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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 ins [...]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 [Page 77] Civil and Spiritual from the first words of Genesis; Boniface the eighth, Extrav. lib. 1. cap 1. de Majoritate & obedien­tia. After he had stu­died to prove that the temporal and materi­al Sword, as well as the spiritual, was in the power of St. Peter, from these word; Behold two swords, & our Saviour's answer, It is enough. In the end he c [...]ncludes, Whosoever therefore resists this Power thus ordained of God, resists the Ordinance of God; except with Manichee he make two Beginnings, which we define to be false and heretical: For Moses testifies, that not in the Beginnings, but in the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. Therefore we declare, say, de­fine and pronounce, that it is of necessity to Salvation to every humane creature to be subject to the Pope of Rome: And it is plain this sub­jection must be that he had been pleading thorough that whole Decretal, which is the subjection of the Temporal Sword to the Spiritual. 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, [Page 78] 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 the other Prophe­cies [Page 79] in the Old Testament, from which we find the Apostles arguing to prove this foundation of their Faith, which every one may see do not contain in so many words that which was proved by them. But these being so obvious, we choose only to name this, all the rest be­ing of a like nature with it.

The next Controversy debated in that time was the obligation of the Mo­saical Law. The Apostles by the inspira­tion of the Holy Ghost made a formal Decision in this matter, yet there being great opposition made to that, St. Paul sets himself to prove it at full length, in his Epistle to the Galatians, where, be­sides other Arguments, he brings these two from the Old Testament; one was, that Abraham was justified by Faith be­fore the giving the Law; for which he cites these words, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: From which, by a very just consequence he infers, that as Abra­ham was blessed, so all that believe are blessed with him; and that the Law of Moses, that was 430 years after, could not disannul it, or make the promise of none effect; therefore we might now be justified by Faith without the Law, as [Page 80] well as he was. Another place he cites, is, The just shall live by Faith, and he subsumes, the Law was not of Faith; from which the Conclusion naturally fol­lows: Therefore the just lives not by the Law. He must be very blind that sees not a succession of many consequences in that Epistle of St. Paul's; all which had been utterly impertinent, if this new method had any ground for its preten­sion, and they might at one dash have overthrown all that he had said. But men had not then arrived at such devices as must at once overturn all the sense and reason of mankind. We hope what we premised will be remembred, to shew that the Apostles being infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, will not at all prove, that though this way of Arguing might have passed with them, yet it must not be allowed us: For their being infallibly directed, proves their Arguments and way of proceeding was rational and con­vincing, otherwise they had not pitched on it. And the persons to whom these Arguments were offered not acquiescing in their Authority, their Reasonings must have been good, otherwise they had ex­posed themselves and their cause to the just scorn of their enemies.

[Page 81]Having therefore evinced that both our Saviour and his Apostles did prove by consequences drawn from Scripture, the greatest and most important Articles of Faith; we judg that we may with very great assurance follow their ex­ample. But this whole matter will re­ceive a further confirmation: If we find it was the method of the Church of God in all ages to found her decisions of the most important Controversies on conse­quences from Scriptures. There were very few Hereticks that had face and brow enough to set up against express words of Scripture; for such as did so, rejected these Books that were so directly opposite to their errors; as the Mani­che [...]s did the Gospel of St. Matthew.

But if we examine the method either of Councils in condemning Hereticks, or of the Fathers writing against them, we shall always find them proceeding up­on deductions and consequences from Scripture, as a sufficient ground to go upon. Let the Epistle both of the Coun­cil of Antioch to Samosatenus, and Denis of Alexandria's Letter to him be considered; and it shall be found how they drew their Definitions out of de­ductions from Scripture. So also Alex­ander [Page 82] Patriarch of Alexandria in his Epistle, in which he condemned AErius, proceeds upon deductions from Scrip­ture; and when the Council of Nice came to judg of the whole matter, if we give credit to Ge [...]sius, they canvassed many places of Scripture, that they might come to a decision; and that whole dispute, as he represents it, was all about Interences and Deductions from Scrip­ture. Hist. de L. Arrian, L. 1. It is true, F. Maimbourg in his Ro­mantick History of Arrianism would perswade us, that in that Counsel the Or­thodox, and chiefly the great Saints of the Council were for adhering closely to what they had received by Tradition, without attempting to give new Exposi­tions of Scripture, to interpret it any other way than as they had learned from these Fathers, that had been taught them by the Apostles. But the Arrians, who could not find among these that which they intended to establish, maintained on the contrary, that we must not confine our selves to that which hath been held by Antiqui [...]y, since none could be sure about that. Therefore they thought that one must search the truth of the Doctrine only in the Scriptures, which they could turn to their own meaning by their false [Page 83] subtitles. And to make this formal ac­count pass easily with his Reader, he vouches on the margin, Sozom. cap. 16. When I first read this, it amazed me to find a thing of so great consequence not so much as observed by the Writers of Controversies; but turning to Sozomen, I found in him these words, speaking of the Dispute about Arrius his opinions, the Disputation being, as is usual, carried out into different Enquiries; some were of opinion that nothing should be innova­ted beyond the Faith that was originally delivered; and these were chiefly those whom the simplicity of their manners had brought to Divine Faith without nice curiosity. Others did strongly or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter opinions without a strict trial of them. Now in these words we find not a word either of Orthodox or Arrian; so of which side either one or other were, we are left to conjecture. That Jesuite has been sufficiently exposed by the Writers of the Port-Royal, for his foul dealing on other occasions; and we shall have great cause to mistruth him in all his accounts, if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this; and that the party which he calls the Orthodox were [Page 84] really some holy, good men; but simple, ignorant, and [...]asily abused: And that the other party which he calls the Arri­an was the Orthodox, and more judicious, who readily forseeing the inconvenience which the simplicity of others would have involved them in, did vehement­ly oppose it; and pressed the Testimo­nies of the Fathers might not be blindly followed.

For proof of this, we need but con­sider that they anathematized these, who say that the Son was the work of the Father, as De De­cret. Synod. Nicen. Athanasius tells us, which were the very words of Denis of Alex­andria, of whom the Arrians Athan. Epist. de sen­tentia Dian. Alex. boasted much, and cited these words from him; and both De Sy­nod. Aron. Athanasius and Hi [...] lib. de Synod Hilary acknowledg that those Bishops that con­demned S [...]nos [...]tenus, did also reject the Consubstantial, and St. B [...]sil Epist. 41 says, De­nis sometimes denied, sometimes acknow­ledged the Consubstantial. Yet I shall not be so easy as Petavius and others of the Roman Church are in this matter; who acknowledg that most of the Fa­thers before the Council of Nice said many things that did not agree with the Rule of the Orthodox [...]aith; but am fully perswaded, that before that Coun­cil, [Page 85] the Church did believe that the Son was truly God, and of the same Divine substance with the Father: Yet on the other hand it cannot be denied, but there are many expressions in their Writings which they had not so well considered; and thence it is that St. Basil Epist. 41. observes how Denis in his opposition to Sabellius had gone too far on the other hand. Therefore there was a necessity to make such a Symbole as might cut off all equi­vocal and ambiguous forms of speech. So we have very good reason to conclude it was the Arrian party, that studied under the pretence of not innovating, to engage many of the holy, but simpler Bishops, to be against any new words or Symboles, that so they might still lurk undiscovered.

Upon what grounds the Council of Nice made their Decree and Symbole, we have no certain account, since their Acts are lost. But the best conjecture we can make, is from S. Athanasius, who, as he was a great Assertor of the Faith in that Council, so also he gives us a large ac­count of its Creed, in a particular Trea­tise, Lib. [...] Decret. Co [...]cil. Nicen. in which he jus [...]ifies their Sym­bole at great length out of the Scriptures, and tell us very formally they used the [Page 86] word Consubstantial, that the wickedness and craft of the Arrians might be dis­covered, and proves by many consequen­ces from Scriptures, that the words were well chosen; and sets up his rest on his Arguments from the Scriptures, though all his proofs are but consequen­ces drawn out of them. It is true, when he has done that, he also adds, that the Fathers at Nice did not begin the use of these words, but had them from those that went before them; and cites some passages from Theognistus, Denis of Alexandria, Denis of Rome, and Origen. But no body can imagin this was a full proof of the Tradition of the Faith. These were but a few later Writers, nor could he have submitted the decision of the whole Controversy to two of these, Denis of Alexandria and Origen, (for the other two, their works are lost) in whose Writings there were divers passa­ges that favoured the Arrians, and in which they boasted much. Therefore Athanasius only cites these passages to shew the words of these Symbole were not first coined by the Council of Nice. But neither in that Treatise, nor in any other of his Works, do I ever find that either the Council of Nice, or he who was the [Page 87] great Champion for their Faith, did study to prove the Consubstantiality to have been the constant Tradition of the Church: But in all his Treatises he at full length proves it from Scripture. So from the definition of the Council of Nice, and Athanasius his Writings, it ap­pears the Church of that Age thought that consequences clearly proved from Scripture were a sufficient ground to build an Article of [...]aith on.

With this I desire it be also considered, that the next great Controversy, that was carried on chiefly by S. Cyril against the Nestorians, was likewise all managed by consequences from Scripture, as will ap­pear to any that reads S. Cyril's Writings, inserted in the Acts of the Council of E­phesus, chiefly his Treatise to the Queens; and when he brought testimonies from the Fathers against Nesto [...]ius, which were read in the Council, Act. Conc. Ep [...]; Action. 1 [...]. they are all taken out of Fathers that lived after the Council of Nice, except only S. Cyprian, and Peter of Alexandria. If then we may collect from S. Cyril's Writings the sense of that Council, as we did from S. Athanasius that of the Council of Nice; we must conclude that their De­crees were founded on consequences [Page 88] drawn from Scripture; nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued succession of the Tradition. In like manner, when the Council of Cha [...]edon condemned Eu­tyches, Pope Leo's Epistle to [...]lavian was read, and all assented to it: So that upon the matter, his Epistle became the Decree of the Council, and that whole Epistle from beginning to end, is one entire series of consequences proved from Scripture and Reason: Act. Conc. Chalced. Action. 1 And to the end of that Epistle are added in the Acts of that Council testimonies from the Fathers, that had lived after the days of the Council of Nice. The [...]d. in Di [...]l. Theodoret and Gelasius Gelas. de dua [...]. naturis. also, who wrote against the Eutychians, do through their whole writings pursue them with consequences drawn from Scripture and Reason, and in the end set down testimonies from Fathers: And to instance only one more, when St. Austin wrote against the Pelagians, how many consequences he draws from Scripture, every one that has read him must needs know.

In the end let it be also observed, that all these Fathers when they argue from places of Scripture, they never attempt to prove that those Scriptures had been expounded in that sense they urge them [Page 89] in by the Councils or Fathers who had gone before them; but argue from the sense which they prove they ought to be understood in. I do not say all their con­sequences or expositions were wel-groun­ded; but all that has been hitherto set down, will prove that they thought Ar­guments drawn from Scripture when the consequences are clear, were of sufficient authority and force to end all Controver­sies. And thus it may appear that it is unreasonable, and contrary to the practice both of the ancient Councils and Fathers, to reject proofs drawn from places of Scripture, though they contain not in so many words that which is intended to be proved by them.

But all the Answer they can offer to this, is, that those Fathers and Councils had another authority to draw consequen­ces from Scripture, because the extra­ordinary presence of God was among them, and because of the Tradition of the Faith they builded their Decrees on, than we can pretend to, who do not so much as say we are so immediately dire­cted, or that we found our Faith upon the successive Tradition of the several ages of the Church.

To this I answer; First, it is visible, [Page 90] that if there be any strength in this, it will conclude as well against our using express words of Scripture, since the most express words are capable of several Ex­positions. Therefore it is plain, they use no fair dealing in this appeal to the for­mal words of Scripture, since the Argu­ment they press it by, do invalidate the most express testimonies as well as dedu­ctions.

Let it be further considered, that be­fore the Councils had made their Decrees, when Heresies were broached, the Fathers wrote against them, confuting them by Arguments made up of Scripture-conse­quences; so that before the Church had decreed, they thought private persons might confute Heresies by such conse­quences. Nor did these Fathers place the strength of their Arguments on Tradition, as will appear to any that reads but what S. Cyril wrote against Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus, and Pope Leo against Eutyches, before the Council of Chalce­don, where all their Reasonings are foun­ded on Scripture. It is true, they add some testimonies of [...]athers to prove they did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine of the Church: But it is plain, these they brought only as a confirmation of their [Page 91] Arguments, and not as the chief strength of their Cause; for as they do not drive up the Tradition to the Apostles days, setting only down some later testimonies; so they make no inferences from them, but barely set them down. By which it is evident, all the use they made of these, was only to shew that the [...]aith of the age that preceded them, was conform to the proofs they brought from Scriptures; but did not at all found the strength of their Arguments from Scripture, upon the sense of the Fathers that went before them. And if the Council of Nice had passed the Decree of adding the Con­substantials to the Creed, upon evidence brought from Tradition chiefly, can it be imagined that S. Athanasius, who knew well on what grounds they went, having born so great a share in their consultati­ons and debates, when he in a formal Treatise justifies that addition, should draw his chief Arguments from Scrip­ture and natural Reason; and that only towards the end, he should [...] us of four Writers, from whom he brings passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing.

In the end, when the Council had pas­sed their Decree, does the method of their [Page 92] dispute alter? Let any read Athanasius, Hil [...]ry, or St. Austin writing against the Arrians: They continue still to ply them with Arguments made up of consequen­ces from Scripture; and their chief Ar­gument was clearly a consequenco from Scripture, that since Christ was by the confession of the Arrians truly God, then he must be of the same substance, other­wise there must be more substances, and so more Gods, which was against Scrip­ture. Now, if this be not a consequence from Scripture, let every body judg. It was on this they chiefly insisted, and wa­ved the Authority of the Council of Nice, which they mention very seldom, or when they do speak of it, it is to prove that its Decrees were according to Scrip­ture.

[...]or proof of this, let us hear what St. Austin says Lib. 3. Cont. Max. 19. writing against Maximi­nus an Arrian [...]ishop, proving the Con­substantiality of the Son: This is that Consubstan [...]ial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Coun­ [...]il of Nice, against the Arrians; by the authority of Truth, and the truth of Au­thority, which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow under the Heretical Empe­ror Constantius, because of the newness of [Page 93] t [...]e words, which were not so well under­stood, as should have been: Since the an­cient Faith had brought them forth; but many were abused by the fraud of a few. And a little after he adds, But now nei­ther should I bring the Council of Nice, nor yet the Council of Arimini thereby to prejudg in this matter; neither am I bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by the authority of the former. Let one Cause and Reason contest and strive with the other from the authorities of the Scriptures, which are witnesses common to both, and not proper to either of us.

If this be not our plea, as formally as can be, let every Reader judg; from all which we conclude, That our method of proving Articles of Faith by Consequences drawn from Scripture, is the same that the Catholick Church in all the best ages made use of: And therefore it is unrea­sonable to deny it to us.

But all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative Evidence, if we find, that this very pre­tence of appealing to formal words of Scriptures, was on several occasions ta­ken up by divers Hereticks, but was al­ways rejected by the Fathers as absurd and unreasonable. The first time we find [Page 94] this plea in any bodies mouth, is upon the Question, Whether it was lawful for Christians to go to the Theaters, or other publick spectacles, which the Fathers set themselves mightily against, as that which would corrupt the minds of the people, and lead them to heathenish Idolatry. But others that loved those diverting fights, pleaded for them upon this ground, as Tertullian Lib. De Spect. c. 3. tells us in these words; The Faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous, calls for an authority from Scripture, for the discharge of these sights; and they became uncertain about it, be­cause such abstinence is no-where denoun­ced to the servants of God, neither by a clear signification, nor by name; as, Thou shalt not kill, Nor worship an Idol: But he proves it from the first Verse of the Psalms; for though that seems to belong to the Jews, yet (says he) the Scripture is always to be divided broad, where that discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us. And this agrees with that Maxim he has elsewhere, Lib. Adv. Gnost. c. 7. That the words of Scripture are to be understood, not only by their sound, but by their sense; and are not only to be heard with our ears, but with our minds.

[Page 95]In the next place, the Arrians designed to shroud themselves under general ex­pressions; and had found glosses for all passages of Scripture. So that when the Council of Nice made all these ineffectu­al, by putting the word Consubstantial into the Creed; then did they in all their Councils, and in all disputes, set up this plea, That they would submit to every thing was in Scripture, but not to any additions to Scripture. A large account of this we have from Athanasins, De Synod. Arim. & S [...]lenc. who gives us many of their Creeds. In that proposed at Arimini, these words were added to the Symbole, For the word Sub­stance, because it was simply set down by the Fathers, and is not understood by the people, but breeds scandal, since the Scrip­tures have it not, therefore we have thought fit it be left out, and that there be no more mention made of Substance concerning God, since the Scriptures no-where speak of the Substance of the Father and the Son. He also tells us, that at Sirmium they added words to the same purpose to their Sym­bole, rejecting the words of Substance or Consubstantial, because nothing is writ­ten of them in the Scriptures, and they transcend the knowledg and understand­ing of men.

[Page 96]Thus we see how exactly the Plea of the Arrians agrees with what is now of­fered to be imposed on us.

But let us next see what the Father says to this: He first turns it back on the Ar­rians, and shews how far they were from following that Rule which they imposed on others. And if we have not as good reason to answer those so, who now take up the same Plea, let every one judg. But then the Father answers, it was no mat­ter though one used forms of speech that were not in Scripture, if he had still a sound or pious understanding; as on the contrary a heretical person, though he uses forms out of Scripture, he will not be the less suspected, if his understanding be cor­rupted; and at full length applies that to the Question of the Consubstantiality. To the same purpose, St. Hilary setting down the arguments of the Arrians against the Consubstantiality, De Synod. adv. Arrian. the third objection is, That it was added by the Council of Ni [...], but ought not to be received, because it is no-where written. But he answers, it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a word, when the thing e [...]pressed by the word has no difficulty.

We find likewise in the Conference St. Austin had with Maximinus, the Arrian [Page 97] Bishop Lib. 1. Con. Max. Arr. Ep. [...]., i [...] the very beginning the Ar­rian tells him, That he must hearken to what he brought out of the Scriptures, which were common to them all; but for words that were not in Scripture, they were in no case received by them. And afterwards he says Lib. 3. c. 3., we receive with a full veneration every thing that is brought out of the holy Scriptures, for the Scrip­tures are not in our dominion [...]hat they may be mended by us. And a little after adds, P [...]a [...]h is not gathered out of Argu­ments, but is proved by sure testimonies, therefore he seeks a testimony of the H [...] ­ly Ghost's being God. But to that St. Austin makes answer, that from the things that we read, we must understand the things that we read not.

And giving an account of another Conference Epist. 74. he had with Count Pascentius that was an Arrian, he tells, that the Arrian did most earnestly press that the word Consubstantial might be shewed in Scripture, repeating this frequently, and canvassing about it invidiously. To whom St. Austin answers, nothing could be more conten [...]ious than to strive about a Word when the Thing was certain, and asks him where the word Unbegotten (which the Arrians used) was in Scripture. [Page 98] And since it was no-where in Scripture, he from thence concludes, there might be a very good account given why a word that was not in Scripture might be well used. And by how many consequences he proves the Consubstantiality we cannot number, except that whole Epistle were set down.

And again, in that which is called an Epistle Epist. 78., but is an account of another Conference between that same Person and St. Austin, the Arri [...]n desired the Consub­stantiality might be accursed, because it was no-where to be found written in the Scriptures; and adds, that it was a grievous trampling on the Authority of the Scripture to set down that which the Scripture had not said; for if any thing be set down without Authority from the Divine Volumes, it is proved to be void; against which St. Austin argues at great length, to prove that it necessarily follows from other places o [...] Scripture.

In the Conference between Photinus, Sabellus, Arrius, and Athanasius, first published by Cassander Oper. Cass., as a work of Vi­gilius, but believed to be the work of Ge­l [...]sius an African; where we have a very full account of the Pleas of these several parties. Arrius challenges the Council [Page 99] of Nice for having corrupted the Faith with the addition of new words, and complains of the Consubstantial, and says, the Apostles, their Disciples, and all their successors downward, that had lived in the Confession of Christ to that [...]ime, were ig­norant of that word: And on this he in­sists with great vehemency, urging it over and over again, pressing Athanasius either to read it properly set down in Scripture, or to cast it out of his Confession; against which Athanasius replies, and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other Hereticks which were not written; Shew me these things, (says he) not from conjectures or probabilities, or things that do neighbour on reason, not from things that provoke us to understand them so, nor from the piety of Faith, per­swading such a profession; but shew it written in the pure and naked property of words, that the Father is Unbegotten, or Impassible. And then he tells Arrius, that when he went about to prove this, he should not say, the reason of Faith required this, piety teaches it, the conse­quence from Scripture forces me to this profession. I will not allow you, says he, to obtrude these things on me [...] because you reject me when I bring you such like [Page 100] things, for the profession of the Consub­stantial.

In the end he says, either permit me to prove the Consubstantial by consequences, or if you will not, you must deny all those things which you your self grant. And after Athanasius had urged this further, Probus, that sate Judg in the debate, said, Neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in Scripture: Therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish contest, but prove either the one or the other by a just consequence from Scrip­ture.

In the Macedonian Controversy against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, we find this was also their Plea; a hint of it was already mentioned in the Conference betwixt Maximi [...]us the Arrian Bishop, and S. Austin, which wehave more fully in St. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 37. who proving the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, meets with that objection of the Macedonians, that it was in no place of Scripture, to which he answers, Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not, as when God is said to sleep; some things truly are, but are no-where said, as the Fathers being Unbegotten, which they [Page 101] themselves believed, and concludes that these things are drawn from these things out of which they are gathered, though they be not mentioned in Scripture. Therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter, and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews, and that leaving Things, they followed Syllables: And shews how valid a good consequence is: As if a man, says he, speaks of a living creature that is reasonable, but mortal; I conclude it must be a man: Do I for that seem to rave? not at all; for these words are not more truly his that says them, than his that did make the saying of them necessary: So he infers, that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures, though they either were not at all, or not clearly in the Scriptures.

We find also in a Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Macedonian, that is in Athanasius's Works, but believed to be written by Maximus, after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature, such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost. In end the Macedonian flies to this known re­fuge, that it was no-where written that [Page 102] he was God, and so challenges him for saying that which was not in Scripture. But the Orthodox answers, that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascri­bed to the Holy Ghost, and since the Name follows the Nature, he concludes, if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself, did san­ctifie, and was increated, he must be God whether the other would or not. Then he asks, where it was written, That the Son was like the Father in his Essence? The Heretick answers, That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence. But the Orthodox replies (which we desire may be well considered), Were they moved to that from the sense of the Scripture, or was it of their own autho­rity or arrogance that they said any thing that was not written. The other con­fesses it was from the sense of the Scrip­ture, that they were moved to it; from this the Orthodox infers, that the sense of the Scripture teaches us that an un­created Spirit that is of God, and quick­ens and sanctifies, is a Divine Spirit, and from thence he concludes, He is God. Thus we see clearly, how exactly the Macedonians and these Gentlemen agree, and what arguments the Fathers furnish us with against them.

[Page 103]The Nestorian History followed this tract, and we find Nestorius both in his Letters Act. Syn. Eph. to Cyril of Alexandria, to Pope Celestin, and in these writings of his that were read in the Council of Ephesus Action. 1., gives that always for his reason of deny­ing the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God, because the Scriptures did no-where mention it, but call Her always the Mother of Christ, and yet that general Council condemned him for all that; and his Friend John Patriarch of Antioch earnestly pressed him by his Letters not to reject but to use that word, since the sense of it was good, and it agreed with the Scriptures; and it was generally used by many of the Fathers, and had never been rejected by any one.

This was also Eutyches his last re­fuge Act, 6. Sy [...] Constantin. in Act. 2. Chalcedon, when he was called to appear be­fore the Council at Constantinople, he pre­tended sickness, and that he would never stir out of his Monastery; but being of­ten cited, he said to those that were sent to him, In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found? To which they replied, In what Scripture was the Consubstantial to be found: Thus turn­ning his plea back on himself, as the Or­thodox [Page 104] had done before on the Arrians. Eutyches also when he made his appear­ance, he ended his defence with this, That he had not found that (to wit, of the two Natures) plainly in the Scripture, and that all the Fathers had not said it. But for all that, he was condemned by that Council which was afterwards ra­tified by the Universal Council of Chal­cedon. Yet after this repeated condem­nation the Eutychians laid not down this Plea, but continued still to appeal to the express words of Scripture; which made Theodoret write two Discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence, they are published in Athanasius his Works, [...] 2. [...]. among these Sermons against Hereticks: But most of these are Theo­doret's, as appears clearly from Photius [...] his account of Theodoret's Works; the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this Plea: The 12 th Discourse, which by Photius's account is the 16 th, has this title, To those that say we ought to receive the Expression, and not look to the Things signified by them, as tran­scending all men. The 19 th, or according to Photius, [...]. Cod. 46. the 23 th, is, To those who say we ought to believe simply as they say, and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient.

[Page 105]If I should set down all that is perti­nent to this purpose, I must set down the whole Discourses; but I shall gather out of them such things as are most pro­per. He first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable, that would receive the words of the sacred Writings without conside­ration, or good direction, not minding the pious scope for which they are written. For if (as they would have us) we do not consider what they mark out to us, but simply receive their words, then all that the Prophets and Apostles have written will prove of no use to those that hear them, for then they will hear with their ears, but not understand with their hearts; nor consider the consequence of the things that are said, according to the Curse in Isaias.— And after he had ap­plied this to those who misunderstood that place, the Word was made Flesh, he adds, Shall I hear a saying, and shall I not enquire into its proper meaning, where then is the proper consequence of what is said, or the profit of the hearer? Would they have men changed into the nature of bruits? If they must only re­ceive the sound of words with their [Page 106] ears, but no fruit in their soul from the [...]nderstanding of them. Contrariwise did St. Paul tell us, They who are per­fect have their senses exercised to dis­cern good and evil; but how can any discern aright if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said? And such he compares to beasts, and makes them worse than the clean beasts, who chew the cud; and, as a man is to consider what meats are set before him, so he must not snatch words strip'd of their meaning, but must carefully consider what is suitable to God, and profitable to us, what is the force of Truth, what a­grees with the Law, or answers to Na­ture; he must consider the genuineness of Faith, the firmness of Hope, the sin­cerity of Love, what is liable to no re­proach what is beyond envy, and wor­ [...]y of favour; all which things concur [...]word? pious meditations. And concludes thus, The sum of all is, he that receives any words, and does not consider the meaning of them, how can he understand those that seem to contradict others? where shall be find a fit answer? How shall be satisfy those that interrogate him, or defend that which is writ­ten?

[Page 107]These passages are out of the first Discourse, what follows is out of the second. In the beginning he says, though the Devil has invented many grievous Doctrines, yet he doubts if any former age brought forth any thing like that then broached. Former Heres [...]s had their own proper errors; but this that was now invented renewed all others, and exceeded all others. Which, says he, receives simply what is said, but does not enquire what is convenient, or inconvenient: But shall I believe with­out judgment, and not enquire what is possible, convenient, decent, acceptable to God, answerable to Nature, agreeable to Truth, or is a consequence from the scope, or suitable to the mystery, or to piety; or what outward reward, or inward fruit accompanies it; or must I reckon on none of these things. But the cause of all our adversaries errors, is, that with their ears they hear words, but have no understanding of them in their hearts; for all of them (and names diverse) [...] a trial, that they be not convinced, and at length shews what absurdities must follow on such a method. Instancing those places about which the Contest was with the [Page 108] Arrians, such as these words of Christ, The Father is greater than I. And shews what apparent contradictions there are, if we do not consider the true sense of places of Scripture that seem contradictory, which must be re­conciled by finding their true meaning; and concludes, so we shall either per­swade, or overcome our adversary; so we shall shew that the holy Scripture is consonant to its self; so we shall justly publish the glory of the Mystery, and shall treasure up such a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls; we shall neither believe without the Word, nor speak without Faith.

Now I challenge every Reader, to con­sider if any thing can be devised that more formally, and more nervously-overthrows all the pretences brought for this ap­peal to the express words of Scrip­ture.

And here I stop; for though I could carry it further, and shew that other Hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext: Yet I think all Im­partial Readers will be satisfied, when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand Heresies; condemned by the first four General Councils. And [Page 109] from all has been said, it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been bafled by Universal Councils and Fa­thers. Yet I cannot leave this with the Reader, without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered.

The first is, that which these Gen­tlemen would impose on us has been the plea of the greatest Hereticks have been in the Church. Those therefore who take up these weapons of Here­ticks, which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands; by the most Universal Councils, and the most Lear­ned Fathers of the Catholick Church, till at length they were laid aside by all men, as unfit for any service, till in this age some Jesuits took them up in defence of an often bafled Cause, do ve­ry unreasonably pretend to the Spirit or Doctrine of Catholicks, since they tread a path so oft beaten by all Here­ticks, and abhorred by all the Ortho­dox.

Secondly, we find the Fathers always begin their answering this pretence of Hereticks, by shewing them how many things they themselves believed, that were no-where written in Scripture. And [Page 110] this I believe was all the ground M. W. had for telling us in our Conference that St. Austin bade the Heretick read what he said.

I am confident that Gentleman is a man of Candour and Honour, and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy, as to have ci­ted this for such a purpose, if he had not taken it on trust from second hands. But he who first made use of it, if he have no other Authority of St. Austin's, which I much doubt, cannot be an honest man; who, because St. Austin to shew the Arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they believed, urges them with this, that they could not read all that they believed themselves, would from that conclude, St. Austin thought every Article of Faith must be read in so many words in Scripture. This is such a piece of Ingenuity as the Jesuits used in the Contest about St. Austin's Doctrine concerning the efficacy of Grace: When they cited as formal passages out of St. Austin, some of the Objections of the Semipelagians, which he sets down, and afterwards answers, which they brought without his an­swers, as his words, to shew he was of [Page 111] their side. But to return to our pur­pose; from this method of the Fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words, back on those who make use of it against us; and to ask them where do they read their Purga­tory, Sacrifice of the Mass, Tran [...]u [...] ­slantiation, the Pope's Supremacy, with a great many more things in the express words of Scripture.

Thirdly, we see the peremptory an­swer the Fathers agree in, is, that we must understand the Scriptures, and draw just consequences from them, and not stand on words or phrases; but consider things: And from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us. It is in those great Saints, Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Austin, and Theodoret, that they will find out answer as, fully and formally, as need be; and to them we refer our selves.

But, Fourthly, To improve this be­yond the particular occasion that enga­ged us to all this enquiry, we desire it be considered then when such an objection was made, which those of the Church of Rome judg is strong to prove; we must rely on somewhat else than Scrip­ture, [Page 112] either on the Authority of the Church, or on the certainty of Tradi­tion. The first Councils and Fathers had no such apprehension.

All considering men, chiefly when they are arguing a nice Point, speak upon some hypothesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed, and must certainly discourse consequently to it. To instance it in this particular; If an Objection be made against the drawing consequences from Scripture, since all men may be mi­staken; and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings. A Papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say, it is true, any man may err, but the whole Church, either when assembled in a Council with the Holy Ghost in the midst of them, or when they convey down from the Apostles through age to age the Tradition of the Exposition of the Scriptures cannot err, for God will be with them to the end of the World.

A Protestant must on the other hand, according to his Principles, argue, that since man has a reasonable soul in him; he must be supposed endued with a fa­culty of making Inferences: And when any consequence is apparent to our un­derstandings, we ought and must be­lieve [Page 109] it as much as we do that from which the consequence is drawn. There­fore we must not only read, but study to understand the true meaning of Scrip­ture: And we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the Scriptures, if we find the Church of God in the pu­rest times, and the Fathers believing as we believe. If we should hear two persons that were unknown to us, ar­gue either of these two ways, we must conclude the one is a Papist, the other a Protestant, as to this particular.

Now I desire the Reader may com­pare what has been cited from the Fa­thers upon this subject: And see if what they write upon it does not ex­actly agree with our hypothesis and principles. Whence we may very just­ly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine; that in seeking out the decision of all Controversies, the Fathers went by the same Rules we go by, to wit, the clear sense of Scrip­tures, as it must appear to every con­sidering mans understanding, backed with the opinion of the Fathers that went be­fore them.

[Page 110]And thus far have I followed this Objection; and have, as I hope, to eve­ry Readers satisfaction made it out, that there can be nothing more unreasona­ble, more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church, to the nature of the soul of man, to the use and [...]nd of words and discourse, to the practice of Christ and his Apostles, to the constant sense of the Primitive Church, and that upon full and often renewed Contest with Hereticks upon this very head: Then to impose on us an Obligation to read all the Ar­ticles of our Church in the express words of Scripture.

So that I am confident this will ap­pear to every considering person, the most trifling and pitiful Objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason. And therefore it is hoped, that all persons who take any care of their souls, will examine things more narrowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them, or to be shaken by such Objections. And if all the scru­ple these Gentlemen have, why they do not joyn in Communion with the Church of E [...]gl [...]nd, lies in this; we expect they shall find it so entirely sa­tisfied, [Page 111] and removed out of the way, that they shall think of returning back to that Church where they had their Baptism and Christian Education, and which is still ready to receive them with open arms, and to restore such as have been over-reached into Error and Heresy, with the spirit of meekness. To which I pray God of his great mercy dispose both them and all others, who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest Church upon Earth; and have turned over to a most im­pure and corrupt Society. And let all men say Amen.

THere is only one Par­ticular of any impor­tance, that was men­tioned in the Confe­rence, to which we forgot to make any Answer at all, which was spoken by N.N. to this purpose; How was it possible, or to be imagined that the Church of God could ever have received such a Doctrine as the belief of Transubstantiation, if every age had not received it, and been instructed in it by their Fathers, and the Age that went be­fore it?

[Page 114]This by a pure forgetfulness was not answered; and one of these Gentlemen took notice of it to me, meeting with me since that time, and desired me to consider what a friend of N. N. has late­ly printed on this Subject, in a Letter concerning Transubstantiation, Directed to a Person of Honour: In which, a great many pretended Impossibilities of any such Innovation of the Doctrine are reckoned up; to shew it a thing both in­conceivable and unpracticable, to get the Faith of the Church changed in a thing of this nature.

This same Plea has been managed with all the advantages possible, both of Wit, Eloquence, and Learning, by Mr. Arnaud of the Sorbon; but had been so exposed and baffled by Mr. Claud, who, as he equals the other in Learning, Elo­quence, and Wit, so having much the better of him in the Cause and Truth he vindicates, has so foiled the other in this Plea, that he seeing no other way to pre­serve that high reputation which his other Writings, and the whole course of his Life had so justly acquired him; has gone off from the main Argument on which they begun, and betaken himself to a long and unprofitable Enquiry into [Page 115] the belief of the Greek Church, since her schisme from the Latine Church.

The Contest has been oft renewed, and all the ingenious and learned persons of both sides, have looked on with great expectations.

Every one must confess, M. Arnaud has said all can be said in such a Cause; yet it seems he finds himself often pinched, by the bitter (I had almost said scurri­lous) reproaches he casts on Mr. Claud, which is very unbecoming the Educati­on and other noble Qualities of that great man, whom for his Book of Fre­quent Communion, I shall ever honour. And it is a thing much to be lamented, that he was taken off from these more useful Labours, wherein he was engaged so much to the bettering this Age, both in discovering the horrid corruption of the Jesuits and other Casuists, not only in their Speculations about Casuistical Divinity, but in their hearing Confessi­ons, and giving easie Absolutions, upon trifling Penances, and granting Abso­lutions before the Penance was perfor­med, and in representing to us the true Spirit of Holiness and Devotion was in the Primitive Church.

But on the other hand, as Mr. Claud [Page 116] leaves nothing unsaid in a method fully answerable to the excellence of that truth he defends; so he answers these re­proaches in a way worthy of himself, or rather of Christ and the Gospel. If those excellent Writings were in English, I should need to say nothing to a point that has been so canvassed; but till some oblige this Nation by translating them, I shall say so much on this Head, as I hope shall be sufficient to convince every body of the emptiness, weakness and folly of this Plea.

And first of all, In a matter of fact concerning a change made in the Belief of the Church, the only certain method of enquiry, is, to consider the Doctrine of the Church in former Ages; and to compare that with what is now recei­ved; and if we see a difference between these, we are sure there has been a change; though we are not able to shew by what steps it was made; nay, though we could not so much as make it appear probable that such a change could be made.

To instance this in a plain case, of the change of the English Language since the dayes of William the Conqueror; that there has no such swarm of Foreigners [Page 117] broke in upon this Island, as might change our Language: One may then argue thus; Every one speaks the Lan­guage he heard his Parents, his Nurses, and others about him speak, when he was a Child; and this he continues to speak all his life, and his Children speak as they heard him speak: Upon which, a man of wit and phancy might say a great many things, to shew it impossible any such change should ever have been made, as that we now should speak so as not to understand what was said five or six hundred years ago. Yet if I find Chaucer, or any much ancienter Book, so written, that I can hardly make a shift to understand it, from thence, without any further reasoning how this could be brought about, I naturally must con­clude our Language is altered. And if any man should be so impertinent, as to argue, that could not be; for Children speak as their Nurses and Parents taught them, I could hardly answer him in pa­tience; but must tell him it is altered, without more ado.

If a Child were amused with such pretended Impossibilities, I would tell him, that Strangers coming among us, and our travelling to parts beyond the [Page 118] Seas, made us acquainted with other Languages; and Englishmen finding in other Tongues, some words and phrases, which they judged more proper than any they had, being also fond of new words, there was an insensible change made in every Age, which after five or six Ages, is more discernable: Just so, if I find most of all the Fathers either delivering their Opinions clearly in this matter, against the Doctrine of the Roman Church, or saying things utterly incon­sistent with it, I am sure there has been a change made; though I could not shew either the whole progress of it, or so much as a probable account how it could be done.

If men were as Machines or necessary Agents, a certain account might be gi­ven of all the events in all Ages; but there are such strange Labyrints in the minds of men, that none can trace them by any rational computation of what is likely.

There is also such a diversity between men and men, between Ages and Ages, that he should make very false accounts, that from the tempers and dispositions of men in this Age, should conclude what were possible or impossible many years ago.

[Page 119]In this Age, in which Printing gives notice of all things so easily and speedi­ly, and by the laying of Stages for the quick and cheap conveying Pacquets, and the publishing Mercuries, Gazettes, and Iournals, and the education of almost all persons to read and write Letters, and the curiosity by which all people are whetted to enquire into every thing; the state of Mankind is quite altered from what it was before, when few could read or write, but Clergy-men; so that they must be the Notaries of all Courts; who continue from that, to be called Clerks to this day; and that some Crimes, otherwise capital, were not punished with death, if the guilty person could but read.

When people were so ignorant of what was doing about them, when nei­ther Printing, nor Stages for Pacquets, were in being, at least in Europe, and when men were fast asleep in their Busi­ness, without amusing themselves what was doing about them in the world; it is the most unjust and unreasonable thing in nature, to imagine, that such things as are now next to impossible, were not then not only possible, but easie. So that all such calculations of Impossibilities from the [Page 120] state and temper of this Age, when ap­plied to the Ages before ours, is the most fallacious way of reckoning that can be.

For instance, how improbable, or next to impossible, is this following sto­ry, That the Bishops of the Imperial City of the Roman Empire, whose first true worth, together with the great­ness of that City, which was the Head and Metropolis of the Roman Empire, got them much esteem and credit in the world, should from small and low be­ginnings, have crept up to such a height of power, that they were looked on as the Head of all Power both Civil and Spiritual; and that as they overthrew all other Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Bishops of that See engrossing it to them­selves: so they were Masters of almost all the Crowns of Europe, and could change Governments, raise up, and as­sist new pretenders, call up by the prea­chings of some poor beggarly Friars, vast Armies, without pay, and send them whither they pleased: That they could draw in all the Treasure and Riches of Europe to themselves; that they brought Princes to lie thus at their feet, to suffer all the Clergy, who had a [Page 121] great interest in their Dominions, by the vast endowments of Churches and Abbeys, beside the power they had in all Families and Consciences, to be the sworn Subjects of these Bishops, and to be exempted from appearing in Secular Courts, how criminal soever they were?

That all this should be thus brought about without the expence of any vast Treasure, or the prevailing force of a conquering Army, meerly by a few tricks, that were artificially managed, of the belief of Purgatory, the power of absolving, and granting Indulgences, and the opinion of their being S. Peter's Successors, and Christ's Vicars on earth. And that all this while when on these false colours of Impostures in Religion, those designs were carried on, the Popes were men of the most lewd and flagiti­ous lives possible; and those who served them in their designs, were become the scandal and scorn of Christendom; and yet in all these Attempts, they prevail­ed for above seven or eight Ages.

Now if any man will go about to prove this impossible, and that Princes were alwayes jealous of their Authori­ty and their Lives, people alwayes loved [Page 122] their money and quiet, Bishops alwayes loved their Jurisdiction, and all men when they see designs carried on with colours of Religion, by men, who in the most publick and notorious instances shew they have none at all, do suspect a cheat, and are not to be wheedled. Therefore all this must be but a fable and a forgery, to make the Popes and their Clergyodious. Will not all men laugh at such a person, that against the faith of all History, and the authority of all Records, will deny a thing that was set up over all Europe for many Ages?

If then all this change in a matter that was temporal, against which the Secu­lar Interests of all men did oppose them­selves, was yet successful, and prevail­ed; how can any man think it unreason­able, that a speculative opinion might have been brought into the Church, by such Arts, and so many degrees, that the traces of the change should be lost?

We find there have been many other changes in sacred things, which will seem no less strange and incredible; but that we are assured whatsoever really has been, may be: and if things full as un­accountable have been brought about, it is absurd to deny that other things [Page 123] might not have run the same fate.

It is known that all people are more uneasie to changes in things that are vi­sible, and known to every body, than in things that are speculative, & abstracted, and known and considered but by a few: they are likewise more unwilling to part with things they are in possession of, and reckon their Rights, than to suffer new Opinions to be brought in among them; and let their Religion swell by additions. For it is undoubted that it is much more easie to imagine how a new Opinion should be introduced, than how an an­cient Practice and Right should be taken away. If then it be apparent, that there have been great changes made in the most visible and sensible parts of Religious Worship, by taking away some of the most ancient Customs and Rights of the people, over the whole Western Church, then it cannot be thought incredible, that a new specula­tive Opinion might have by degrees been brought in. This I shall instance in a few particulars.

The receiving the Chalice in the Sa­crament, was an ancient constant custom to which all the people had been long used; and one may very reasonably on [Page 124] this Hypothesis, argue, that could not be; for would the people especially in dark Ages, have suffered the Cup of the Blood of Christ to be taken from them, if they had not known that it had been taken from their Fathers.

Upon which it is easie to conceive how many speculative Impossibilities an ingenious man may devise; and yet we know they were got to part with it by degrees; first, the Bread was given dipt in the Cup, for an Age or two; and then the people judged they had both together: This step being made, it was easie afterwards to give them the Bread undipt, and so the Chalice was taken away quite from the Laity, with­out any great opposition, except what was made in Bohemia.

Next to this, let us consider how naturally all men are apt to be fond of their Children, and not to suffer any thing to be denied them, by which they conceive they are advantaged: Upon which one may reckon, once we are sure it was the universally received custom, for many Ages, over the whole Latine Church, that all Children had the Eu­charist given them immediately after they were baptized. And the Rubrick [Page 125] of the Roman Missal ordered, Ord. Rom. in Pascha. they should not be suffered to suck after they were baptized, before they had the Eu­charist given them, except in cases of necessity. This Order is believed to be a work of the eleventh Century; so late­ly was this thought necessary in the Ro­man Church.

All men know how careful most Pa­rents, even such as have not much Re­ligion themselves, are, that nothing be wanting about their Children; and it was thought simply necessary to salva­tion that all persons had the Eucharist. How many imaginary difficulties may one imagine might have obstructed the changing this Custom? One would ex­pect to hear of tumults and stirs, and an universal conspiracy of all men to save this Right of their Children? Yet Hugo de Sancto Victore tells us, how it was wearing out in his time; and we find not the least opposition made to the ta­king it away.

A third thing, to which it is not easie to apprehend how the Vulgar should have consented, was, the denying them that right of Nature and Nations, that overy body should worship God in a known Tongue. In this Island, the [Page 126] Saxons had the Liturgy in their Vulgar Tongue; and so it was also overall the world: And from this might not one ve­ry justly reckon up many high improba­bilities to demonstrate the setting up the Worship in an unknown Tongue, could never be brought about, and yet we know it was done.

In end, I shall name only one other particular, which seems very hard to be got changed, which yet we are sure was changed; This was, the popular Ele­ctions of the Bishops and Clergy, which, as is past dispute, were once in the hands of the people; and yet they were got to part with them, and that at a time when Church-preferments were raised very high in all secular advantages; so that it may seem strange, they should then have been wrought upon to let go a thing, which all men are naturally inclined to desire an interest in; and so much the more, if the dignity or riches of the fun­ction be very considerable; and yet though we meet in Church-History ma­ny accounts of tumults that were in those Elections, while they were in the peoples hands; yet I remember of no tumults made to keep them, when they were ta­ken out of their hands.

[Page 127]And now I leave it to every Readers Conscience, if he is not perswaded by all the conjectures he can make of Man­kind, that it is more hard to conceive, how these things, that have been na­med, of which the people had clear pos­session, were struck out, than that a speculative Opinion, how absurd soever, was brought in, especially in such Ages as these were, in which it was done.

This leads me to the next thing, which is, to make some reflexions on those Ages, in which this Doctrine crept into the Church. As long as the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost continued in the Church, the simplicity of those that preached the Gospel, was no small con­firmation of that authority that accom­panied them; so that it was more for the honour of the Gospel, that there were no great Scholars or Disputants to promote it: But when that ceased, it was necessary the Christian Religion should be advanced by such rational means as are suitable to the Soul of man: If it had begun only upon such a founda­tion, men would not have given it a hearing; but the Miracles which were at first wrought, having sufficiently allarm'd the world, so that by them [Page 128] were inclined to hearken to it: Then it was to be tried by those Rules of Truth and Goodness, which lie engraven on all mens Souls. And therefore it was ne­cessary, those who defended it, should both understand it well, and likewise know all the secrets of Heathenism, and of the Greek Philosophy.

A knowledge in these being thus necessary, God raised up among the Phi­losophers divers great persons, such as Justin, Clement, Origen, and many others, whose minds being enlight­ned with the knowledge of the Go­spel, as well as endued with all other humane Learning, they were great supports to the Christian Religion. Afterwards many Heresies being broach­ed about the Mysteries of the Faith, chiefly those that relate to the Son of God, and his Incarnation, upon which followed long contests: for managing these, a full understanding of Scripture was also necessary; and that set all per­sons mightily to the study of the Scrip­tures.

But it is not to be denied, great cor­ruptions did quickly break in, when the Persecutions were over; and the Church abounded in peace and plenty; not but [Page 129] that the Doctrine was preserved pure long after that: There were also many shining Lights, and great Fathers, in that and in the following Age; yet from the Fathers of these two Ages, Greg. Nazian, Orat. I. Ap [...]ll. & 20. Orat. Chrisoft. l. [...]. de sacer. 6. 10. and from the great disorders were in some of their Councils, as in the case of Atha­nasiaus, and the second Ephesin Council, we may clearly see how much they were degenerating from the primitive pu­rity.

Many Contests were about the prece­dency of their Sees, great Ambition and Contention appeared in their Synods, which made Nazianzen hate and shun them, expecting no good from them. These and such like things brought very heavy Judgments and Plagues on the Church, and the whole Roman Empire, in the fifth Century: For vast swarms of Armies out of Germany and the Northern Nations brake in upon the Western Em­pire, and by a long succession of new Invaders all was sackt and ruined.

The Goths were followed by the Van­dals, the Alains, the Gepides, the Franks, the Sweves, the Huns, and in the end the Lombards. Those Nations were for the greatest part Arrians, but all were bar­barous and rude; and their hatred of [Page 130] the Faith, joyned to the barbarity of their tempers, set them with a strange fury on destroying the most sacred things. And to that we owe the loss of most of the primitive Writings, and of all the authentical Records of the first Persecutions; scarce any thing re­maining, but what Eusebius had before gathered together out of a former de­struction was made of such things under Diocletian.

Nor did the Glory of the Eastern Em­pire long survive the Western, that fell before these Invaders: But in Europe, by the Impression of the Bulgars; and in Asia, by the Conquests made, first by the Saracens, then by the Turks, their Greatness was soon broken; though it lasted longer under that oppressed con­dition, than the other had done.

Thus was both the Greek and the La­tine Church brought under sad oppres­sion and much misery. And every body knows, that the natural effect that state of life brings over the greatest minds, when there is no hope of getting from under it, is to take them off from study and learning; and indeed to sub­due their Spirits as well as their Bodies. And so it proved, for after that, an [Page 131] ignorance and dulness did to that de­gree overspread all Europe, that it is scarce to be expressed. I do not deny, but there might be some few Instances of considerable Men, giving an allow­ance for the time they lived in.

For the Laity, they were bred up to think of nothing but to handle their Arms, very few could so much as read; and the Clergy were not much better, read they could, but in many that was all; a corrupt Latin they understood, which continued to be the vulgar Tongue in Italy a great while after: They had heard of Greek and Hebrew, but understood them as little, as we do the Mexican or Peruvian Tongue.

They had scarce any knowledge of the Greek Fathers, a few very ill Transla­tions of some of them was all they had. The Latin Fathers were read by some of the more learned, but for any di­stinct understanding of Scriptures, or the natures of things, God knows they had it not. I design a short Discourse, and therefore shall not stay to make this out, which every Body that has but looked a little on the Writings of these Ages, knows to be true.

Another Effect of their Ignorance [Page 132] was, that they were easily imposed on by supposititious Writings, that went un­der the Names of the Fathers, but were none of theirs. Gelasius threw out a great many that were breaking out in his time, but the Trade was prospe­rous, and went on to that height, that it cost the Criticks of these two last Ages much pains to distinguish true from forged, and the genuine from what was interpolated. And indeed the Popes were much beholden to the for­gery of the Decretal Epistles, in which Work a great many Epistles were pub­lished by Isidore in the eighth Century, as the Epistles of the Popes of the first four Centuries after Christ: By which they were represented as giving orders, and making definitions over the whole Church in a full form, and with the stile of an absolute Authority.

These were rejected by many, but mightily supported by all the Flatterers of the Court of Rome; So that they were in the end after some contest ge­nerally received, and held Presidents to the succeeding Popes, who wrote very skilfully after that Copy. Many other Forgeries were also much cherished, which I shall instance only in one other [Page 133] particular, that relates to what is now in my eye.

A Sermon of Arnold of Bonneval (which is now proved clearly to be his) was published in St. Cyprian's Works as his Sermon of the Supper of our Lord, though this Arnold lived about nine hun­dred years after him. Now such a Ser­mon being generally read as St. Cyprian's, no wonder it gave that Doctrine of Transubstantiation great credit.

These Writings are now discovered to be such forgeries, that all considering Men of their own Church are ashamed of them, and disown them. So do Baronius and Bellarmin the Decretals; and Sirmondus, Launnoy, and many more, reject other forgeries. Yet here is a high pitch of Impudence that most of all their Writers of Controversie are guilty of, to cite these very Writings (which are now universally agreed to be spurious) still under those great Names, which forgery gave them.

As the Author of that Letter about Transubstantiation, cites a passage from St. Cyprian's Sermon De Coena Domini, though it is agreed to by Sixtus Senensis, Possevin, Bellarmin, Raynaud, and Labbe, to be none of his; and the Publishers of [Page 134] the Office of the Sacrament, in the Table at the end of it, acknowledge it was written by Arnold of Bonneval, a Friend of St. Bernard's. After these Au­thorities it is indeed strange, that such sophisticated stuff should be over and over again offered to us. And it was no wonder, such forgeries were gene­rally received, when that Church gave them such Authority, as to take many Lessons out of the most spurious Le­gends and put them in their Breviary.

Of all these dark Ages, the tenth was certainly the midnight of the Church: We have scarce any Writer for that whole Age, so that it is generally called the Iron Age, an Age of Darkness and Wickedness; and therefore a very fit time for Superstition and Errour to work in. And thence we may well in­fer, that in Ages that were so exceeding ignorant, and in which Men scarce thought of Religion, it was no hard thing to get any Errour received and established.

But this is not all. These were also Ages of great licentiousness and disor­der; for though the barbarous Nations were afterwards converted to the ortho­dox Faith, (though by the way it were [Page 135] easie to shew these Conversions had no­thing like the first Conversion of the World to Christianity in them) yet their Barbarity remained with them, and the Churchmen became so corrupt and vicious, that they could not have a face to reprove them for those Vices, of which themselves were scandalously guilty.

From the Sixth Century downward what a race of Men have the Popes been? chiefly in the Ninth and Tenth Century. And indeed any Religion that remained in the World had so retired into Cloysters and Monasteries, that very little of it remained. These Houses were Seminaries of some Devotion, while they were poor and busied at work, according to their first founda­tion; but when they were well en­dowed, and became rich, they grew a scandal to all Christendom. All the pri­mitive Discipline was laid down, Chil­dren were put into the highest Prefer­ments of the Church, and Simony over­run the Church. These are matters of fact, that cannot be so much as que­stioned, nor should I, if put to prove them, seek Authorities for them any where else than in Baronius; who, for [Page 136] all his design to serve the Interest of that Church, yet could not prevaricate so far, as to conceal things that are so openly and uncontestedly true.

Now from the Darkness and Cor­ruption of these Ages, I presume to offer some things to the Readers consi­deration.

First, Ignorance alwayes inclines people to be very easie to trust those, in whom they have confidence; for being either unwilling to trouble themselves with painful and sollicitous enquiries, or unable to make them, they take things on trust, without any care to search into them. But this general Maxim must needs be much more cer­tain, when subjection to the Church, and the belief of every thing established, was made a very substantial part of Re­ligion, or rather that alone which might compense all other defects.

Secondly, Ignorance naturally in­clines people to Superstition, to be soon wrought on, and easily amused, to be full of fears, and easie to submit to any thing that may any way overcome these fears. A right sense of God and Divine Matters, makes one have such a taste of Religion, that he is not at all subject [Page 137] to this distemper, or rather Monster, begotten by the unnatural commixture of some Fear of God and Love of Sin, both being disordered by much igno­rance; hence sprang most of the Ido­latrous Rites of Heathenism, and all people so tempered are fit for the like humour to work upon.

Thirdly, The Interests of Church­men, led them mightily to study the setting this Opinion on foot. This alone set them as high, as mortal Men could be, and made them appear a most sacred sort of a Creature. All the wonders of the Prophets and Apostles were but sorry matters to it: What was Moses calling for Manna from Heaven and Water from the Rock? Elija's bringing sometimes Fire and sometimes Rain from Heaven? what were the Apostles raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, and feet to the lame? To the an­nihilating the substance of Bread and Wine, and bringing in their stead, not some other common matter, but the Flesh and Blood of the Ever-Blessed Je­sus. He who could do this, no wonder he were reverenced, enriched, secure from all danger, exempt from all Civil Jurisdiction, and cherished with all ima­ginable [Page 138] respect and kindness. So that it is no strange thing, that Churchmen were much inclined to favour an Opi­nion, that favoured their Interests so much.

Fourthly, The Churchmen of these Ages were very likely to be easily drawn to any thing, which might so much advance their designs; that were grown very high, especially from the days of Pope Gregory the Great. They were struggling with the Civil Powers for dominion, and pursued that for many years, and spared neither labour nor the lives of Men to attain it. And it is not to be thought, but Men who did pro­digally throw away many thousands in a quarrel, would without very nice disputing, cherish any opinion that might contribute toward that end. And as this was of great use to them, so they very much needed both it, and all such like shifts; for they had none of that sublime Sanctity, nor high Learning, or lofty Eloquence, which former Churchmen had, and by which they had acquired great esteem in the World.

Now the Churchmen in these days, having a great mind to preserve or ra­ther to encrease that esteem; but wan­ting [Page 139] those qualities which on a reaso­nable account might have acquired it, or preserved it, must needs think of somewhat else to do it by; and so found out many Arts for it, such as the Belief of Purgatory, the Priestly Absolution upon Confession, together with the re­served Cases, Indulgences, and the Popes power of taking Souls out of Purgatory. And if it be not full as un­reasonable, to think the Pope should be believed vested with a power of par­doning Sin, and redeeming from Pur­gatory, as that Transubstantiation should have been received, let any Man judge.

Fifthly, There was such a vast num­ber of Agents and Emissaries sent from Rome, to all the Parts of Europe, to carry on their designs, that we can hardly think it possible any thing could have withstood them. In such Ages, by gi­ving some terrible name to any thing, it was presently disgraced with the Vulgar; a clear instance of this was the Fate of the Married Clergy.

Gregory the Seventh, who as Cardinal Benno (who knew him) represents him, was one of the worst Men that ever was born, and first set on foot the Popes pre­tensions to the Civil Authority, and the [Page 140] Power of deposing Princes, and putting others in their places; did prosecute the Married Clergy with great vehemency. This he could not do on any pious or chaste account, being so vile a Man as he was: But being resolved to bring all Prin­ces to depend on him, there was no way so like to attain that, as to have all the Clergy absolutely subject to him: This could not be hoped for, while they were married, and that the Princes and seve­ral States of Europe had such a pawn of their fidelity, as their Wives and Chil­dren; therefore because the persons of the Clergy were accounted sacred, and liable to no punishment, that there might be nothing so nearly related to them, wherein they might be punished, as their Wives and Children, he drave this furiously on; and to give them some ill favoured Name, called them Nico­laitans, which are represented in the Revelation so vile and odious.

This was the most unjust thing in the World: They might have called them Pharisees or Sadducees as well, for all the ancient Writers tell us, that Nicolas having a beautiful Wife was jealous, and the Apostles challenging him of it, he said, he was so far from [Page 141] it, that he was willing to make her common, and thence some set up the community of Wives, and were from him called the Nicolaitans.

But because Women and Marriage were in the case, and it was a hateful word, this was the Name by which the married Clergy were every where made so odious; and though it was much the Interest of Princes to have had the Mar­riage of the Clergy to be left free, yet the Popes were too hard for them in it. Thus were the Agents of Rome able to prevail in every thing they set them­selves to. So the Opposers of this Do­ctrine were called by the hateful Names of Stercoranists and Panites.

Sixthly, When all Religion was pla­ced in externals, and splendid Rites and Ceremonies came to be generally looked on as the whole business of Religion, peoples minds were by that much dispo­sed to receive anything, that might intro­duce external pomp and grandeur into their Churches; being willing to make up in an outward appearance of wor­shipping the Person of Christ, what was wanting in their obedience to his Gospel.

And now I appeal to any honest Man, if upon the suppositions I have laid [Page 142] down, it be at all an unaccountable thing, that a great company of igno­rant and debauched Clergymen, should set themselves to cherish and advance a belief, which would redeem them from all the Infamy their other Vices were ready to bring upon them; and they resolving on it, if it was hard for them, especially in a course of some Ages, to get an ignorant, credulous, supersti­tious, and corrupt multitude, to receive it without much noise or adoe.

I believe no man will deny, but upon these suppositions the thing was very like to succeed. Now that all these sup­positions are true (to wit) that both Clergy and Laity in those Ages, chiefly in the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Cen­turies, were ignorant, and vicious to the height; is a thing so generally known, and so universally confessed by all their own Historians, that I hardly think any man will have brow enough to deny it.

But there are many other things, which will also shew how possible, nay feasible such a change may be.

First, This having never been con­demned by a formal Decision in any former Age, it was more easie to get it brought in; for no Council or Father [Page 143] could condemn or write against any Er­rour, but that which was maintained or abetted by some man, or company of men, in or before their time. Since then this had not been broached in the former Ages, the promoters of it had this advantage, that no former Deci­sion had been made against them; for none ever thought of condemning any Heresie before it had a being.

Secondly, This Errour did in the outward found agree with the words of the Institution, and the forms used in the former Liturgies, in which the Elements were said to be changed into the true and undefiled Body of Christ. A Do­ctrine then that seemed to establish no­thing contrary to the ancient Liturgies, might easily have been received, in an Age, in which the outward sound and appearance was all they looked to.

Thirdly, The passage from the be­lieving any thing in general, with an indistinct and confused apprehension, to any particular way of explaining it, is not at all hard to be conceived, espe­cially in an Age, that likes every thing the better, the more mysterious it seem. In the preceding Ages, it was in general received, that Christ was in the Sacra­ment, [Page 144] and that by the Consecration the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood. And although many of the Fathers did very formally explain in what sense Christ was present, and the Elements were changed, yet there ha­ving been no occasion given to the Church, to make any formal decision about the manner of it, every one thought he was left at liberty to explain it as he pleased. And we may very reasonably suppose, that many did not explain it at all, especially in these Ages, in which there was scarce any preaching or instructing the people. By this means the people did believe Christ was in the Sacrament, and that the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood, with­out troubling themselves to examin how it was, whether spiritually or corpo­rally. Things being brought to this, in these Ages, by the carelesness of the Clergy, the people were by that, suf­ficiently disposed to believe any particu­lar manner of that presence, or change, their Pastors might offer to them.

Fourthly, There being no visible change made in any part of the Worship; when this Doctrine was first brought in, it was easie to innovate, in these [Page 145] Ages, in which people looked only at things that were visible and sensible: Had they brought in the Adoration, Processions, or other consequences of this Doctrine along with it, it was like to have made more noise; for people are apt to be startled when they see any no­table change in their Worship: But this belief was first infufed in the people, and Berengarius was condemned. The Coun­cil of Lateran had also made the Decree about it, before ever there were any of these signal alterations attempted.

And after that was done, then did Honorius decree the adoration; and Urban the fourth, Greg. Decret. lib. 3. [...] 42. cap. 10. upon some pretended Visions of Eve Julian, and Isabella, did appoint the Feast of the Body of Christ, called now generally, The Feast of God, or Corpus Christi Feast; which was con­firmed by Pope Clement the fifth, Clement. lib. 3. tit. 16. in the Council of Vienna; and ever since that time they have been endeavouring by all the devices possible; to encrease the de­votion of the people to the Hoft.

So that Mr. Arnaud in many places acknowledges they are most gross Idola­ters if their Doctrine be not true, which I desire may be well considered, since it is the opinion of one of the most consi­dering [Page 146] and wisest, and most learned per­sons of that Communion, who has, his whole life set his thoughts chiefly to the examining of this Sacrament, and knows as well as any man alive, what is the real sense of the Worshippers in that Church.

But to return to that I am about, it is very unreasonable to think that the peo­ple in those dark Ages, did concern themselves in the speculative opinions were among Divines, so that the vulgar could not busie themselves about it, but when this Opinion was decreed, and generally received and infused in the Lai­ty, for almost one age together, then we need not wonder to see notable alte­rations following upon it, in their wor­ship, without any opposition or contest; for it was very reasonable such Conse­quences should have followed such a Do­ctrine.

But that before that time there was no adoration of the Elements, is a thing so clear, that it is impudence to deny it; there was no prostration of the body, or kneeling to be made, either on Lords dayes, or all the time between Easter and Pentecost, by the twentieth Canon of the Council of Nice.

[Page 147]None of the ancient Liturgies do so much as mention it; but the contrary is plainly insinuated by S. Cyril of Ierusa­lem. None of that great number of Writers about Divine Offices, that lived in the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Centuries, published by Hittorpius, so much as mention it: Though they be very particular in giving us an ac­count of the most inconsiderable parts of the Divine Offices, and of all the circumstances of them, Honorius when he first decreed it, does not alledge presi­dents for it; but commands the Priests to tell the people to do it; whereas, if it had been appointed before, he must ra­ther have commanded the Priests to have told the people of their sacrilegious contempt of the Body of Christ, notwith­standing the former Laws and Practice of the Church: But it is apparent his way of enjoyning it, is in the style of one that commands a new thing, and not that sets on the execution of what was for­merly used: Yet this was more warily appointed by Honorius, who enjoyned on­ly an inclination of the Head to the Sacra­ment; but it was set up bare faced by his Successor Gregory the ninth, who ap­pointed [Page 148] (as the Historians tell us, though it be not among his Decretals) a Bell to be rung, auc [...]or ad n. 1240. [...]rantz. sex. [...]b. 8. cap. 10. to give notice at the consecration and elevation, that all who heard it, might kneel, and joyn their hands in adoring the Host. So that any passages of the Fa­thers that speak of Adoration or Venera­tion to the Sacrament, must either be un­derstood of the inward Adoration the Communicant offers up to God the Fa­ther, and his blessed Son, in the com­memoration of so great a mystery of Love, as appeared in his death, then represented and remembred. Or these words are to be taken in a large sense, and so we find, they usually called the Gospels, their Bishops, Baptism, the Pascha, and al­most all other sacred things, venerable.

And thus from many particulars it is apparent, that the bringing in the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation is no unac­countable thing.

But I shall pursue this yet further, for the Readers full satisfaction, and shew the steps by which this Doctrine was in­troduced.

We find in the Church of Corinth the receiving the Sacrament was looked on, but as a common entertainment, and was gone about without great care or [Page 149] devotion, which S. Paul charges severe­ly on them; and tells them what heavy judgments had already fallen on them, for such abuses, and that heavier ones might be yet looked for, since they were guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, by their unworthy receiving.

Upon this the whole Christian Church was set to consider, in very good earnest, how to prepare themselves aright for so holy an action; and the receiving the Sacrament, as it was the greatest 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 [Page 150] action of the Mysteries, but those who were qualified to receive; so if any such had gone out of the Church without participating, 9 Apost. Can. and 2 Can. Antioch. 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.

[Page 151]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 [...]avishing Art in which he was so great a [Page 152] 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] 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 [Page 155] 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, doe not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us (to wit) That the Sa­crament was still the substance of Bread and Wine; and Damascene, the zealous Defender of Images, clearly insinuates his believing the substance of Bread and Wine remained, and did nourish our Bodies. Let it be therefore considered, that when that Council of Nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the Council of Constanti­nople, they never once blame them for saying, the substance of Bread and Wine was in the Sacrament. It is true, they condemned them for saying the Sacra­ment was the Image of Christ, denying that any of the Fathers had called it so; al­ledging that the Symboles were called [Page 156] Antitypes by the Fathers, only before the consecration, and not after; De [...]id. orth.. lib. 4. cap. 14. in which they followed Damascene, who had fallen in the same Errour before them. But this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact, that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that Council, were there no more to be said against it: For this was either very gross ignorance, or effronted impudence, since in above twenty Fa­thers that were before them, the Sacra­ment is called the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Body; and at the same time, that Damascene, who was then looked on as the great Light of the East, did con­demn the calling the Sacrament, the Fi­gure of Christ's Body. The venerable Bede, Bed. in Psal. 3. & Mark 14. that was looked on as the great Light of the West, did according to the stile of the primitive Church, and in S. Austin's words, call it, The Figure of Christ's Body.

I shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended General Council, because I know a full account of them is expected from a better Pen; only in this particular I must desire the Reader to take notice, that the Coun­cil of Constantinople did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine about the Sacra­ment; [Page 157] and did use it as an Argument in the other Controversie concerning I­mages, without any design at all about the Eucharist. But on the other hand, the second Council of Nice did innovate and reject a form of speech, which had been universally received in the Church, before their time; and being engaged with all possible spight against the Council of Constantinople, resolved to con­tradict every thing they had said, as much as could be: So that in this we ought to look on the Council of Constantinople, as delivering what was truly the tradition of the Church, and on the second Coun­cil of Nice, as corrupting it.

About thirty years after that Coun­cil, Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corbie, wrote about the Sacrament, and did formally assert the Corporal Presence, in the Ninth Century. The greatest Pa­trons of this Doctrine, such as Bellar­mine and Sirmondus, both Jesuites, con­fess, he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. And Paschase himself, in his Letter to his Friend Frudegard, regrates that He was so slow in believing and assenting to his Do­ctrine; and does also acknowledge, that [Page 158] by his Book he had moved many to the un­derstanding of that Mystery; and it is ap­parent by that Letter, that not only Frudegard, but others were scandalized at his Book, for he writes, I have spoken of these things more fully, and more expres­ly, because I understand that some challenge me, that in the Book I have published of the Sacraments of Christ, I have ascribed ei­ther more or some other thing than is conso­nant to Truth, to the words of our Lord. Of all the Writers of that Age, or near it, only one (and his Name we know not, the Book being anonymous) was of Paschase's opinion.

But we find all the great men of that Age were of another mind, and did clearly assert, that in the Sacrament, the Substance of Bread and Wine re­mained, and did nourish our Bodies as other meats do. These were Rabanus Maur [...]s, Archbishop of Mentz, Ama­larius, Archbishop of Treves, or as o­thers say, Metz, Heribald, Bishop of Auxerre, Bertram, Iohn Scot Erigena, Wala­fridus Strabo, Florus and Christian Druth­mar. And three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase. The anony­mous Writer that defends him, sayes, That Raban did dispute at length against [Page 159] him in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon, for say­ing it was that Body that was born of the Virgin, and was crucified, and raised again, that was daily offered for the life of the World. That is also condemned by Ra­ban in his Penitential, cap. 33. who re­fers his Reader to that Epistle to Abbot Egilon. And for Bertram, he was com­manded by Charles the Bald, then Em­peror, to write upon that matter, which in the beginning of his Book he pro­mises to do, not trusting to his own wit, but following the steps of the Holy Fathers. It is also apparent by his Book, that there were at that time different Perswasions about the Body of Christ in the Sacra­ment; some believing it was there without any Figure; others saying, it was there in a Figure and Mystery. Upon which he ap­prehended, there must needs follow a great Schism. And let any read Paschase's Book, and after that Bertram's, and if he have either honesty, or at least, shame re­maining in him, he must see it was in all points the very same Controversie that was canvassed then between them, and is now debated between the Church of Rome and us.

Now that Raban and Bertram were two of the greatest and most learned men [Page 160] of that Age, cannot be denied: Raban passes without contest amongst the first men of the Age; and for Bertram, we need neither cite what Trithemius sayes of him, nor what the Disciples of S. Austin, in the Port-Royal, have said to magnifie him, when they make use of him to esta­blish the Doctrine of the efficacy of Grace. It is a sufficient evidence of the esteem he was in, that he was made choice of by the Bishop of France, to de­fend the Latine Church against the Greeks; and upon two very important Controversies that were moved in that Age; the one being about Predestinati­on and Grace, the other, that which we have now before us, He, though a private Monk, raised to no dignity, was commanded by the Emperor to write of both these; which no man can imagine had been done, if he had not been a man much famed and esteemed; and way in which he writes, is solid and worthy of the reputation he had acqui­red: He proves both from the words of Institution, and from S. Paul, that the Sacrament was still Bread and Wine. He proves from S. Austin, that these were Mysteries and Figures of Christ's Body and Blood. And indeed considering [Page 161] that Age, he was an extraordinary wri­ter.

The third that did write against Pas­chase, was Iohn Scot, otherwise called Erigena, who was likewise commanded to write about the Sacrament, by that same Emperor. He was undoubtedly the most learned and ingenious man of that Age, as all our English Historians tell us; chiefly William of Malmsbury: He was in great esteem both with the Emperor, and our great King Alfred. Lib. 2. de G [...], Reg. He was ac­counted a Saint and a Martyr; his memo­ry was celebrated by an Anniversary on the tenth of November. He was also very learned in the Greek, and other Oriental Tongu [...]s, which was a rare thing in that Age. This Erigena did formally refute Pas­chase's Opinion & assert ours. It is true, his Book is now lost, being 200 years after burned by the C. of Vercel; but though the Church of Lyons does treat him very severely in their Book against him, and fastens many strange opinions upon him, in which there are good grounds to think they did him wrong; yet they no where chalenge him for what he wrote about the Sacrament; which shews they did not condemn him for that; though they [Page 162] speak of him with great animosity, be­cause he had written against Predestina­tion and Grace efficacious of it self, which they defended. It seems most probable that it was from his Writings, that the Homily read at Easter by the Saxons here in England, does so formally contradict the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation. And now let the Reader judge, if it be not clear that Paschase did inno­vate the Doctrine of the Church in this point, but was vigorously opposed by all the great men of that Age.

For the following Age, all Historians agree, it was an Age of most prodigious Ignorance and Debauchery, and that amongst all sorts of people, none being more signally vicious than the Clergy; and of all the Clergy, none so much as the Popes, who were such a succession of Monsters, that Baronius cannot for­bear making the saddest exclamations possible concerning their cruelties, de­baucheries, and other vices: So that, then, if at any time, we may conclude all were asleep, and no wonder if the tares Paschase had sown, did grow up; and yet of the very few writings of the Age that remain, the far greater number [Page 163] seem to favour the Doctrine of Bertram. But till Berengarius his time, we hear nothing of any contest about the Eucha­rist. So here were two hundred years spent in an absolute ignorance and for­getfulness of all divine things.

About the middle of the 11th. Cent. Bruno Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius, who was born in Towrs, but was Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Angiers, did openly teach, that Christ was in the Sacrament only in a Figure. We hear little more of Bruno; but Be­rengarius is spoken of by many Histo­rians, Sigebert; Plat­ma, Antonin. Sabellicus, Chron. Mont. Cassin. Sigoni­us, Vignier, Guitmond, and chiefly William of Malmesburg as a man of great Learning and Piety, and that when he was cited to the Council at Rome, before Nicolaus the second, none could resist him; that he had an excellent faculty of speaking, and was a man of great Gravity; that he was held a Saint by many: He did abound in Charity, Humility, and good Works, and was so chast, that he would not look at a beautiful woman. And Hildebert Bishop of Mans, whom S. Bernard commends highly, made such an Epitaph on him, that notwith­standing all the abatements we must make for Poetry, yet no man could write so of an ordinary person.

[Page 164]This Berengarius wrote against the corporal Presence, calling it a stupidity of Paschase's and Lanfrank's, who denied that the substance of Bread and Wine re­mained after Consecration. He had many followers, Edit. Antwerp. 1608. as Sigebert tells us: And William of Malmesbury and Matthew Paris tell us his Doctrine had overspred all France. It were too long to shew with what impudent corrupting of Antiquity those who wrote against him, did stuff up their Books. Divers Councils were held against him, and he through fear, did frequently waver; for when other Arguments proved too weak to convince him, then the Faggot, which is the sure and beloved Argument of that Church, prevailed on his fears; so that he burnt his own Book, and signed the condemnation of his own Opinion at Rome; this he did, as Lanfranke upbraids him, not for love of the Truth, but for fear of Death: which shewes he had not that love of the Truth, and constancy of mind he ought to have had. But it is no prejudice against the Doctrine he taught, that he was a man not only sub­ject to, but overcome by so great a temp­tation; for the fear of death is natural to all men.

[Page 165]And thus we see, that in the ninth Century our Doctrine was taught by the greatest writers of that time, so that it was then generally received, and not at all condemned either by Pope or Coun­cil. But in the eleventh Century, up­on its being defended, it was condemn­ed. Can there be therefore any thing more plain, than that there was a change made, and that what in the one Age was taught by a grea number of writers, with­out any censure upon it, was in another Age anathematized? Is there not then here a clear change? And what has been done, was certainly possible, from whence we conclude with all the justice and rea­son in the world, that a change was not only possible, but was indeed made. And yet the many repeated condemnations of Berengarius, shew, his Doctrine was too deeply rooted in the minds of that Age, to be very easily suppressed; for to the end of the eleventh Century, the Popes continued to condemn his Opinions, even after his death.

In the beginning of the twelfth Cen­tury, Honorius of Autun, who was a con­siderable man in that Age, did clearly as­sert the Doctrine of the Sacraments nou­rishing [Page 166] our Bodies, and is acknowledged by Thomas Waldensis, to have been a fol­lower of Berengarius his Heresie. And about the eighteenth year of that Age, that Doctrine was embraced by great numbers in the South of France, who were from their several Teachers called Petrobrusians, Henricians, Waldenses, and from the Countrey, where their num­bers were greatest, Albigenses; whose Confession, dated the year 1120, bears, That the eating of the Sacramental Bread, was the eating of Iesus Christ in a figure; Jesus Christ having said, as oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me.

It were needless to engage in any long account of these people; the Writers of those times have studied to represent them in as hateful and odious Chara­cters, as it was possible for them to de­vise; and we have very little remain­ing that they wrote. Yet as the false Witnesses that were suborned to lay heavy things to our Blessed Saviour's Charge, could not agree among them­selves; so for all the spite with which these Writers prosecute those poor In­nocents, there are such noble Chara­cters given, even by these enemies, of [Page 167] their piety, their simplicity, their pati­ence, constancy, and other virtues; that as the Apologists for Christianity, do justly glory in the testimonies Pliny, Lu­cian, Tacitus, Iosephus, and other de­clared Enemies give; so any that would study to redeem the memory of those multitudes, from the black aspersions of their foul-mouthed Enemies, would find many passages among them to glory much in, on their behalf, which are much more to be considered than those virulent Calumnies with which they labour to blot their Memories: But neither the death of Peter de Bruis, who was burnt, nor 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, [Page 168] 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. De Sacram. Al [...]ar. c. 13.

In that Age Steven Bishop in Edue [...] 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, Li [...]. 4. dis [...]. 11. 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; Anno 1215. cap. [...]. for which he was con­demned in the fourth Council of Late­ran, [Page 169] 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 Croiss [...]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 [Page 170] 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 [Page 171] 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, Cap. 3. 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 [Page 172] 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 L [...]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; Tom. 7. Spic. and Tom. 11. of the Count. Print. anno 1672, p. 233. so that it is plain, that the Pope got here a [Page 173] Council [...]o set up Rebellion by authori­ [...]y, against the express rules of the Gospel, this almost their whole Church accounts a General Council, a few only among us excepted, who know not how to approve themselves good Subjects, if they own that a General Council, which does so formally establish trea­sonable and seditious Principles. For if it be true, that a General Council ma­king a definition in an Article of Faith, is to be followed and submitted to by all men, the same Arguments will prove that in any controverted practical Opi­nion, we ought not to trust our own Reasons, but submit to the Definition of the Church; for if in this Question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the Scriptures, and reject this Decree, why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom. It is true, the words of the Decree seem only to relate to Temporal Lords, that were under Soveraign Princes, such as the Count of Tholouse, and therefore Crowned heads need fear no­thing from it: But though the De­cree runs chiefly against such, yet there are two Clauses in it that go further, [Page 174] one is in these words, Saving alwayes the Right of the Principal Lord, provi­ded he make no obstacle about it, nor cast in any impediment. Whence it plainly follows, that if the Soveraign, such as the King of France, in the case of Tholouse, did make any Obstacle, he forfeited his Right. The other clause is in these words, The same Law being nevertheless observed about those who have no principal Lords. In which are clear­ly included all those Soveraigns, who depend and hold their Crowns immedi­ately from God.

Now it is apparent, the Design of these words so couched, was once to bring all Soveraigns under that lash, before they were aware of it; for had they named Emperors and Kings, they might reasonably have expected great opposition from them; but insinua­ting it so covertly, it would pass the more easily: Yet it is plain, nothing else can be meant, or was intended by it; so that it is clear, that the fourth Council of Lateran, as it established Transubstantiation, so did also Decree both Persecution and Rebellion: There­fore the Reader may easily judge, what [Page 175] account is to be made of that Coun­cil, and what security any State can have of those who adhere to it.

Our Saviour when he states the op­position between the Children of God, and the Children of the Devil, he gives this for the Character of the latter, that they did the works of their Father; and these he mentions are Lying and Mur­dering: We have seen sufficient evi­dence of the murdering Spirit which acted in that Church, when this Do­ctrine was set up. But to compleat that black Character, let us but look over to the Council of Constance, which decreed that bold violation of the Command of Christ, Drink ye all of it; by taking the Chalice from the Laity: And there we find Perfidy, which is the basest and worst kind of Lying, also established by Law: For it was Decreed by them, Sess. 19. That all safe Conducts notwithstanding, or by what Bonds soever any Prince had engaged him­self, the Council was no way prejudiced, and that the Iudge competent might en­quire into their Errors; and proceed other­wise duly against them, and punish them according to Iustice, if they stubbornly [Page 176] refuse to retract their Errours, al­though trusting to their safe Conduct, they had come to the place of Iudg­ment, and had not come without it; and Declare, That whoever had pro­mised any such thing to them, having done what in him lay, was under no further Obligation. Upon which, Si­gismund broke his Faith to Iohn Hus and Ierome of Prague, and they were burnt.

So that their Church, having in General Councils Decreed both Perfi­dy and Cruelty, it is easie to infer by what Spirit they are acted, and whose Works they did. If then they did the Works of the Devil, who was a Liar and Murderer from the be­ginning, they cannot be looked on as the Children of God, but as the Children of the Devil.

If this seem too severe, it is nothing but what the force of Truth draws from me, being the furthest in the world from that uncharitable temper of aggravating things beyond what is just; but the Truth must be heard, and the Lamb of God could call the Scribes [Page 177] and Pharisees, a Generation of Vipers and Children of the Devil. There­fore if a Church be so notoriously guilty of the most Infamous Violation of all the Laws of Humanity, and the security which a publick faith must needs give, none is to be blamed for laying open and exposing such a So­ciety to the just censure of all impartial Persons, that so every one may see what a hazard his soul runs by engag­ing in the Communion of a Church that is so foully guilty: for these were not personal failings, but were the Decrees of an authority which must be acknowledged by them Infallible, if they be true to their own princi­ples. So that if they receive these as General Councils, I know not how they can clear all that Communion from being involved in the guilt of what they Decreed.

Thus far we hope it hath been made evident enough, that there are no im­possibilities in such a change of the Doctrine of the Church about this Sa­crament, as they imagine. And that all these are but the effects of wit and fancy, and vanish into nothing when closely canvassed. I have not dwelt [Page 178] so long on every step of the History I have vouched, as was necessary, de­signing to be as short as was possible, and because these things have been at full length set down by others, and particularly in that great and learned work of Albertin a French Minister concerning this Sacrament; In which the Doctrines of the Primitive Church and the steps of the change that was made, are so laid open, that no man has yet so much as attempted the an­swering him: and those matters of fact are so uncontestedly true, that there can be little debate about them, but what may be very soon cleared, and I am ready to make all good to a tittle when any shall put me to it.

It being apparent then, that the Church of Rome has usurped an undue and unjust authority over the other States and Nations of Christendom, and has made use of this Dominion to introduce many great corruptions both in the Faith, the Worship, and Government of the Church; nothing remains but to say a little to justify this Churches Reforming these abuses.

And, First, I suppose it will be grant­ed that a National Church may judge [Page 179] a Doctrine to be Heretical, when its opposition to the Scripture, Reason, and the Primitive Doctrine is apparent: for in that case the Bishops and Pa­stors being to feed and instruct the Church, they must do it according to their Consciences, otherwise how can they discharge the Trust, God and the Church commit to their charge? And thus all the ancient Hereticks, such as Samosatenus, Arrius, Pelagius, and a great many more were first condemned in Provincial Councils.

Secondly, if such Heresies be spread in places round about, the Bi­shops of every Church ought to do what they can to get others concur with them in the condemning them; but if they cannot prevail, they ought nevertheless to purge them­selves and their own Church, for none can be bound to be damned for com­pany. The Pastors of every Church owe a Charity to their neighbour Chur­ches, but a Debt to their own, which the Stubborness of others canot excuse them from. And so those Bishops in the Primitive Church, that were environed with Arrians, did reform their own Churches when they were placed in [Page 180] any Sees that had been corrupted by Arrianism.

Thirdly, No time can give prescrip­tion against truth, and therefore had any errour been ever so antiently re­ceived in any Church, yet the Pastors of that Church finding it contrary to truth ought to reform it: the more antient or inveterate any errour is, it needs the more to be looked to. So those Nations that were long bred up in Arrianism, had good reason to reform from that errour. So the Church of Rome will ackowledge that the Greek Church, or our Church ought to forsake their present Doctrines, though they have been long received.

Fourthly, No later Definitions of Councils or Fathers ought to derogate from the ancienter Decrees of Councils or opinions of the Fathers; otherwise the Arrians had reason to have justified their submitting to the Councils of Sirmium, Arimini, and Millan, and rejecting that of Nice: therefore we ought in the first place to consider the Decrees and opinions of the most Primitive antiquity.

Fifthly, No succession of Bishops how clear so ever in its descent from [Page 181] the Apostles, can secure a Church from errour. Which the Church of Rome must acknowledge, since they can nei­ther deny the succession of the Greek Church, nor of the Church of Eng­land.

Sixthly, If any Church continues so hardned in their errours that they break Communion with another Church for reforming, the guilt of this breach must lie at their door who are both in the Errour, and first reject the other, and refuse to reform or communicate with other Churches.

Upon every one of these particulars (and they all set together compleat the plea for the Church of England) I am willing to joyn Issue, and shew they are not only true in themselves, but must be also acknowledged by the Princi­ples of the Church of Rome: So that if the grounds of controversy, on which our Reformation did proceed, were good and justifiable, it is most unrea­sonable to say our Church had not good right and authority to make it.

It can be made appear that for above two hundred years before the Refor­mation, there were general complaints among all sorts of pesons, both tho [Page 182] subtle Schoolmen and devout Contem­platives, both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks did complain of the corruptions of the Church, and called aloud for a Refor­mation both of Faith and Manners: even the Council of Pisa a little before Luthers days, did Decree, There should be a Reformation both of Faith and Manners, and that both of the Head and Members. But all these complaints turned to nothing, abuses grew daily, the interests of the Nephews and other corrupt intrigues of the Court of Rome always obstructing good motions and cherishing ill Customs, for they brought the more Grist to their Mill. When a Reformation was first called for in Ger­many, instead of complying with so just a desire, all that the Court of Rome thought on, was how to suppress these complaints, and destroy those who made them.

In end, when great Commotions were like to follow, by the vast multi­tudes of those who concurred in this desire of Reforming, a Council was called, after the Popes had frequently prejudged in the matter, and Pope Leo had with great frankness condemned most of Luthers opinions. From that [Page 183] Council no good could reasonably be expected, for the Popes had already engaged so deep in the quarrel, that there was no retreating, and they or­dered the matter so, that nothing could be done but what they had a mind to: all the Bishops were at their Consecration their sworn vassals: no­thing could be brought into the Coun­cil without the Legates had proposed it. And when any good motions were made by the Bishops of Spain or Ger­many, they had so many poor Italian Bishops kept there on the Popes charges, that they were always masters of the vote: for before they would hold a Session about any thing, they had so canvassed it in the Congregations, that nothing was so much as put to the hazard. All these things appear even from Cardinal Pallavicini's History of that Council.

While this Council was sitting, and some years before, many of this Church were convinced of these corruptions, and that they could not with a good Conscience joyn any longer in a wor­ship so corrupted; yet they were satis­fied to know the truth themselves and to instruct others privately in it, but [Page 184] formed no separated Church; waiting for what issue God in his Providence might bring about. But with what violence and cruelty their enemies, who were generally those of the Clergy, pursued them, is well enough known: Nor shall I repeat any thing of it, lest it might be thought an invidious ag­gravating of things that are past. But at length, by the death of King Henry the eighth, the Government fell in the hands of persons well affected to the Reformation. It is not material what their true motives were, for Jehu did a good work when he destroyed the Idolatry of Baal, though neither his motives nor method of doing it are justifiable: nor is it to the purpose to examine, how those Bishops that re­formed could have complied before with the corruptions of the Roman Church and received orders from them. Meletius, and Felix, were placed by the Arrians, the one at Antioch in the room of Eustathius, the other at Rome, in Liberius his room, who were both banished for the Faith: and yet both these were afterwards great Defenders of the truth; and Felix was a martyr for it, against these very Hereticks [Page 185] with whom they complied in the be­ginning. So whatever mixture of car­nal ends might be in any of the Secular men, or what allay of humane infirmi­ty and fear might have been in any of the Ecclesiasticks; that can be no pre­judice to the cause: for men are always men, and the power of God does often appear most eminently when there is least cause to admire the instruments he makes use of.

But in that juncture of affairs the Bi­shops and Clergy of this Church seeing great and manifest corruptions in it, and it being apparent that the Church of Rome would consent to no reforma­tion to any good purpose, were obliged to reform, and having the Authority of King and Parliament concurring, they had betrayed their consciences and the charge of Souls for which they stood engaged, and were to answer at the great day, if they had dallied longer, and not warned the people of their danger, and made use of the inclinati­ons of the Civil Powers for carrying on so good a work. And it is the lasting glory of the reformation, that when they saw the Heir of the Crown was inflexibly united to the Church of [Page 186] Rome, they proceeded not to extream courses against her; for what a few wrought on by the ambition of the Duke of Northumberland were got to do, was neither the deed of the Nati­on, nor of the Church, since the Repre­sentatives of neither concurred in it. But the Nation did receive the righte­ous Heir: and then was our Church crowned with the highest glory it could have desired, many of the Bishops who had been most active in the Reformati­on sealing it with their blood, and in death giving such evident proofs of holy and Christian constancy, that they may be justly matched with the most Glorious Martyrs of the Primitive Church. Then did both these Churches appear in their true colours, That of Rome weltring in the blood of the Saints and insatiately drinking it up: and our Church bearing the Cross of Christ and following his example. But when we were for some years thus tried in the fire, then did God again bless us with the protection of the rightful and lawful Magistrate. Then did our Church do as the Primitive Church had done under Theodosius, when she got out from a long and cru­el [Page 187] persecution of the Arrians under those enraged Emperours Constantius and Va­lens. They reformed the Church from the Arrian Doctrine, but would not imitate them in their persecuting spi­rit. And when others had too deep re­sentments of the ill usage they had met with under the Arrian Tyranny, Nazi­anzen and the other holy Bishops of that time did mitigate their animosi­ties: So that the Churches were only taken from the Arrians, but no storms were raised against them.

So in the beginning of Queen Eli­zabeths reign, it cannot be denied that those of that Church were long suffered to live at quiet among us with little or no disturbance, save that the Churches were taken out of their hands. Nor were even those who had bathed them­selves in so much blood made exam­ples, so entirely did they retain the meekness and lenity of the Christian spirit. And if after many years quiet, those of that Religion when they met with no trouble from the government, did notwithstanding enter into so ma­ny plots and conspiracies against the Queens person and the established go­vernment, was it any wonder that se­vere [Page 188] Laws were made against them, and those Emissaries who under a pre­tence of coming in a mission, were sent as spies and agents among us to fill all with blood and confusion? Whom had they blame for all this but themselves? or was this any thing but what would have been certainly done in the gen­tlest and mildest government upon earth? For the Law of self-preservati­on is engraven on all mens natures, and so no wonder every State and govern­ment sees to its own security against those who seek its ruine and destructi­on: and it had been no wonder if up­on such provocations there had been some severities used which in them­selves were unjustifiable: for few take reparation in an exact equality to the damage and injury they have received. But since that time they have had ve­ry little cause to complain of any hard treatment; and if they have met with any, they may still thank the officious insolent deportment of some of their own Church, that have given just cause of jealousie and fear.

But I shall pursue this discourse no farther, hoping enough is already said upon the head that engaged me to it, [Page 189] to make it appear, that it was possible the Doctrine of the Church should be changed in this matter, and that it was truly changed. From which I may be well allowed to subsume, that our Church discovering that this change was made, had very good reason and a sufficient authority to reform this corruption, and restore the Primitive Doctrine again.

And now being to leave my Reader, I shall only desire him to consider a little of how great importance his eternal concerns are, and that he has no rea­son to look for endless happiness, if he does not serve God in a way suitable to his will. For what hopes soever there may be for one who lives and dies in some unknown error, yet there are no hopes for those that either neglect or despise the truth, and that out of hu­mour or any other carnal account give themselves up to errours, and willingly embrace them.

Certainly God sent not his Son in the world, nor gave him to so cruel a death, for nothing. If he hath revealed his Counsels with so much solemnity, his designs in that must be great and wor­thy of God: The true ends of Religi­on [Page 190] must be the purifying our Souls, the conforming us to the Divine Na­ture, the uniting us to one another in the most tender bonds of Love, Truth, Justice and Goodness, the raising our minds to a Heavenly and contemplative temper, and our living as Pilgrims and strangers on this earth, ever waiting and longing for our change. Now we dare appeal all men to shew any thing in our Religion or Worship, that ob­structs any of these ends; on the con­trary the sum and total of our Doctrine is, the conforming our selves to Christ and his Apostles, both in faith and life, So that it can scarce be devised what should make any body that hath any sense of Religion, or regard to his Soul, forsake our Communion, where he finds nothing that is not highly suitable to the Nature and ends of Religion; and turn over to a Church that is founded on and cemented in car­nal interests: the grand design of all their attempts being to subject all to the Papal tyranny, which must needs ap­pear visibly to every one whose eyes are opened. For attaining which end they have set up such a vast company of additions to the simplicity of the [Page 191] Faith and the purity of the Christian Worship, that it is a great work even to know them.

Is it not then a strange choice? to leave a Church that worships God so as all understand what they do and can say Amen; to go to a Church where the worship is not understood, so that he who officiats is a Barbarian to them: A Church which worships God in a spiritual & un­exceptionable manner; to go to a Church that is scandalously (to raise this charge no higher) full of images and pictures, and that of the blessed Trinity, before which prostrations and adorations are daily made: A Church that directs her devotions to God, and his Son Jesus Christ; to go to a Church that without any good warrant not only invocates Saints and Angels, but also in the very same form of words, which they offer up to God and Jesus Christ, which is a thing at least full of scandal, since these words must be strangely wrested from their natural meaning, otherwise they are high blasphemies: A Church that commemorates Christs death in the Sa­crament, and truly communicates in his body and blood, with all holy reverence and due preparation [...] to go to a Church [Page 192] that spends all her devotion in an out­ward adoring the Sacrament, without communicating with any due care, but resting in the Priestly absolution allows it upon a single attrition: A Church that administers all the Sacraments Christ appointed, and as he appointed them; to go to a Church that hath added many to those he appointed, and hath maimed that he gave for a pledge of his presence when he left this earth. In a word, that leaves a Church that submits to all that Christ and his Apostles taught, and in a secondary order to all delivered to us by the Primitive Church; to go to a Church that hath set up an authority that pretends to be equal to these sa­cred oracles, and has manifestly cancel­led most of the Primitive Constitutions.

But it is not enough to remain in the Communion of our Church; for if we do not walk conform to that holy Faith taught in it, we disgrace it. Let all there­fore that have zeal for our Church, ex­press it chiefly in studying to purify their hearts and lives, so as becomes Christians, and reformed Christians, and then others that behold us, will be ashamed when they see such real confutations of the calumnies of our [Page 193] adversaries, which would soon be turn­ed back on them with a just [...] if there were not too many adv [...]ntages given by our divisions, and other dis­orders. But nothing that is personal ought to be charged on our Church: and who [...]ver object any such things, of all persons in the world, they are the most inexcusable, who being so highly guilty themselves, have yet such undaunted brows, as to charge those things on us, which if they be practised by any among us, yet are disallowed; but among them have had all encou­ragement and authority possible from the corruptions both of their Popes, and Casuists. But here I break off, pray­ing God he may at length open the eyes of all Christendom that they may see and love the truth, and walk according to it. Amen.