Conference Held About Religion at London, Conference report

Conference Held About Religion at London · Conference report

p. 1The RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE.

D. S. and M. B. went to M. L. T's, as they had been desired by L. T. to confer with some Persons upon the Grounds of the Church of England separating from Rome, and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our Church to theirs.

About half an hour after them, came in S. P. T. Mr. W. and three more. There were present seven or eight Ladies, three other Church-men, and one or two more. When we were all set D. S. said to S. P. T. that we were come to wait on them for justifying our Church; that he was glad to see we had Gentlemen to deal with, from whom he expected fair dealing, as on the other hand he hoped they should meet with nothing from us, but what became our Profession.

S. P. said, they had Protestants to their Wives, and there were other Reasons too to make them wish they might turn Protestants; therefore he desired to be satisfied in one thing: and so took out the Articles of the Church, and read these Words of the Sixth Article of the Holy Scriptures; [So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation.] Then he turned to the twenty eighth Article of the Lord's Supper, and read these Words, [And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith:] and added, he desired to know whether that was read in Scripture or not, and in what place it was to be found.

D. S. said, He must first explain that Article of the Scripture; for this method of proceeding was already sufficiently known and exposed; he clearly saw the snare they thought to bring him in, and the advantages they would draw from it. But it was the Cause of the Church he was to defend, which he hoped he was ready to seal with his Blood, and was not to be given up for a Trick. The Meaning of the sixth Article was, That nothing must be Received or Imposed, as an Article of Faith, but what was either expresly contained in Scripture, or to be deduced and proved from it by a clear Consequence: so that if in any Article of our Church which they rejected, he should either shew it in the express Words of Scripture, or prove it by a clear Consequence, he performed all required in this Article. If they would receive this, and fix upon it as the meaning of the Article, which certainly it was; then he would go on to the proof of that other Article he had called in question.

M. W. said, They must see the Article in express Scripture, or at least in some places of Scripture which had been so interpreted by the Church, the Councils or Fathers, or any one Council or Father. And he the rather pitched on this Article, because he judged it the only Article, in which all Protestants, except the Lutherans, were agreed.

D. S. said, It had been the art of all the Hereticks from the Marcionites days, to call for express Words of Scripture. It was well known, the Arrians set up their rest on this, That their Doctrine was not condemned by express words of Scripture; but that this was still rejected by the Catholick Church, and that Theodoret had written a Book, on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this Challenge; therefore he desired they would not insist on that which every p. 2body must see was not fair dealing, and that they would take the Sixth Article entirely, and so go to see if the other Article could not be proved from Scripture, though it were not contained in express words.

M. B. Added, that all the Fathers, writing against the Arrians, brought their proofs of the Consubstantiality of the Son, from the Scriptures, though it was not contained in the express words of any place. And the Arrian Council, that rejected the words Equisubstantial and Consubstantial, gives that for the reason, that they were not in the Scripture. And that in the Council of Ephesus, S. Cyril brought in many propositions against the Nestorians, with a vast collection of places of Scripture to prove them by; and though the quotations from Scripture contained not those propositions in express words; yet the Council was satisfied from them, and condemned the Nestorians. Therefore it was most unreasonable, and against the Practice of the Catholick Church, to require express words of Scripture, and that the Article was manifestly a disjunctive, where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse, either one or other.

S. P. T. said, Or was not in the Article.

M. B. said, Nor was a negative in a disjunctive proposition, as Or was an affirmative, and both came to the same meaning.

M. W. said, That S. Austin charged the Heretick to read what he said in the Scripture.

M. B. said, S. Austin could not make that a constant rule, otherwise he must reject the Consubstantiality which he did so zealously assert; though he might in disputing urge an Heretick with it on some other account.

D. S. said, The Scripture was to deliver to us the Revelation of God, in matters necessary to Salvation; but it was an unreasonable thing to demand proofs for a negative in it; for if the Roman Church have set up many Doctrines, as Articles of Faith, without proof from the Scriptures, we had cause enough to reject these if there was no clear Proofs of them from Scripture; but to require express words of Scripture for a Negative, was as unjust, as if Mahomet had said, the Christians had no reason to reject him, because there was no place in Scripture that called him an Impostor. Since then the Roman Church had set up the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, without either express Scripture or good Proofs from it, their Church had good cause to reject these.

M. W. said, The Article they desired to be satisfied in was, if he understood any thing, a positive Article, and not a negative.

M. B. said, The positive Article was, that Christ was received in the Holy Sacrament; but because they had (as our Church judged) brought in the Doctrine of the corporal presence without all reason, the Church made that Explanation, to cast out the other; so that upon the matter it was a negative. He added, that it was also unreasonable to ask any one place to prove a Doctrine by; for the Fathers in their Proceedings with the Arrians brought a great Collection of Places, which gave light to one another, and all concurred to prove the Article of Faith that was in Controversie: so if we brought such a consent of many Places of Scripture as proved our Doctrine, all being joyned together, we perform all that the Fathers thought themselves bound to do in the like case.

D. S. then at great length told them, The Church of Rome and the Church of England differed in many great and weighty points; that we were come thither to see, as these Gentlemen professed they desired, if we could offer good reason for them to turn Protestants, and as the Ladies professed a desire to be further established in the Doctrine of the Church of England; In order to which, none could think it a proper Method to pick out some words in the obscure corner of an Article, and call for express Scriptures for them. But the fair and fit way was to examine whether the Church of England had not very good reason to separate from the Communion of the Church of Rome; therefore, since it was for truth, in which our Souls are so deeply concerned, that we enquired, he desired they would joyn issue to examine either the grounds on which the Church of England did separate from the Church of Rome, or the Authority by which she did it: for if there was both good reason for it, and if those who did it, had a sufficient Authority to do it, then was the Church of England fully vindicated. He did appeal p. 3to all that were present, if in this offer he dealt not candidly and fairly, and if all other ways were not shufling. Which he pressed with great earnestness, as that only which could satisfie all Peoples Consciences.

M. W. and S. P. T. said, God forbid they should speak one word for the Church of Rome; they understood the danger they should run by speaking to that.

D. S. said, He hoped they looked on us as Men of more Conscience and Honesty, than to make an ill use of any thing they might say for their Church; that for himself he would die rather than be guilty of so base a thing, the very thought whereof he abhorred.

M. B. said, That though the Law condemned the endeavouring to reconcile any to the Church of Rome, yet their justifying their Church when put to it, especially to Divines, in order to satisfaction which they professed they desired, could by no colour be made a Transgression; And that as we engaged our Faith to make no ill use of what should be said, so if they doubted any of the other Company, it was S. P. his House, and he might order it to be more private if he pleased.

S. P. said, he was only to speak to the Articles of the Church of England, and desired express words for that Article. Upon this followed a long wrangling, the same things were said over and over again. In the end

M. W. said, They had not asked where that Article was read; that they doubted of it, for they knew it was in no place of Scripture, in which they were the more confirmed, because none was so much as alledged,

D. S. said, Upon the terms in the sixth Article he was ready to undertake the twenty eighth Article to prove it clearly by Scripture.

M. W. said, But there must be no Interpretations admitted of.

M. B. said, It was certain the Scriptures were not given to us, as Parrots are taught to speak words; we were endued with a faculty of understanding, and we must understand somewhat by every place of Scripture. Now the true meaning of the words, being that which God would teach us in the Scriptures, which way soever that were expressed, is the Doctrine revealed there; and it was to be considered, that the Scriptures were at first delivered ro plain and simple men, to be made use of by all without distinction: therefore we were to look unto them as they did; and so S. Paul wrote his Epistles, which were the hardest pieces of the New Testament, to all in the Churches to whom he directed them.

M. W. said, The Epistles were written upon emergent Occasions, and so were for the use of the Churches to whom they were directed.

D. S. said, Though they were written upon emergent Occasions, yet they were written by Divine Inspiration, and as a Rule of Faith, not only for those Churches, but for all Christians.

But as M. W. was a going to speak,

M. C. came in, upon which we all rose up till he was set; So being set, after some Civilities,

D. S. resumed a little what they were about, and told they were calling for express Scriptures to prove the Articles of our Church by.

M. C. said, If we be about Scriptures, where is the Judge that shall pass the Sentence who expounds them aright; otherwise the Contest must be endless.

D. S. said, He had proposed a matter that was indeed of weight; therefore he would first shew, that these of the Church of Rome were not provided of a sufficient or fit Judge of Controversies.

M. C. said, That was not the thing they were to speak to; for though we destroyed the Church of Rome all to nought, yet except we built up our own, we did nothing; therefore he desired to hear what he had to say for our own Church; he was not to meddle with the Church of Rome, but to hear and be instructed if he could see reason to be of the Church of England, for may be it might be somewhat in his way.

D. S. said, He would not examine if it would be in his way to be of the Church of England, or not, but did heartily acknowledge with great Civility that he was a very fair dealer in p. 4what he had proposed, and that now he had indeed set us in the right way, and the truth was we were extream glad to get out of the wrangling we had been in before, and to come to treat of matters that were of importance. So after some Civilities had passed on both sides,

D. S. said, The Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England, finding a great many abuses crept into the Church, particularly in the worship of God, which was chiefly insisted upon in the Reformation, such as the Images of the blessed Trinity, the Worship whereof was set up and encouraged; The turning the Devotions we ought to offer only to Christ, to the blessed Virgin, the Angels and Saints; That the worship of God was in an unknown Tongue; That the Chalice was taken from the People, against the express words of the Institution; That Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass were set up; That our Church had good reason to judge these to be heinous abuses, which did much endanger the Salvation of Souls; therefore, being the Pastors of the Church and being assisted in it by the Civil Powers, they had both good reason and sufficient Authority to reform the Church from these Abuses, and he left it to M. C. to chuse on which of these Particulars they should discourse.

M. B. said, The Bishops and Pastors having the charge of Souls were bound to feed the Flock with sound Doctrine, according to the word of God. So S. Paul when he charged the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the Flock, and to guard it against Wolves or Seducers; he commends them to the word of Gods Grace, which is the Gospel. And in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, wherein the Rules of the Pastoral charge are set down, he commands Timothy, and in him all Bishops and Pastors, to hold fast the Doctrine and form of sound words which he had delivered, and tells him, the Scriptures were able to make the man of God perfect. If then the Bishops and Pastors of this Church found it corrupted by any unsound Doctrine, or Idolatrous Worship, they were by the Law of God and the charge of Souls for which they were accountable, obliged to throw out these Corruptions, and reform the Church; and this the rather, that the first Question proposed in the Consecration of a Bishop, as it is in the Pontifical, is, Wilt thou teach these things which thou understandest to be in the Scripture, to the People committed to thee, both by thy Doctrine and Example? To which he answers: I will.

M. C. said, We had now offered as much as would be the subject of many days discourse, and he had but few minutes to spare: therefore he desired to be informed what Authority those Bishops had to judge in matters which they found not only in this Church, but in all Churches round about them, should they have presumed to judge in these matters.

D. S. said, It had been frequently the Practice of many Nations and Provinces to meet in Provincial Synods, and reform Abuses. For which he offered to prove they had both Authority and President. But much more in some Instances he was ready to shew of particulars that had been defined by General Councils, which they only applied to their Circumstances; and this was never questioned but Provincial Synods might do.

M. C. desired to be first satisfied, by what Authority they could cut themselves off from the Obedience of the See of Rome, in King Henry the VIII. his days. The Pope then was looked on as the Monarch of the Christian World in Spirituals, and all Christendom was one Church, under One Head, and had, been so for many Ages; So that if a Province or Country would cut themselves from the Body of this Nation; for instance, Wales, that had once distinct Princes, and say we acknowledge no right William the Conquerour had, so that we reject the Authority of those descended from him; they might have the same Plea which this our Church had. For the day before that Act of Parliament did pass, after the 20. of Henry the VIII. the Pope had the Authority in Spirituals, and they were his Subjects in Spirituals: Therefore their Declaring he had none, could not take his Authority from him, no more than the Long Parliament had right to declare by any Act, that the Sovereign Power was in the Peoples hands, in pursuance of which they cut off the Kings Head.

D. S. said, The first General Councils, as they established the Patriarchal Power, so the Priviledges of several Churches were preserved entire to them, as in the case of Cyprus; that the British Churches were not within the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of Rome; that afterwards the Bishops of Rome, striking in with the Interests of the Princes of Europe, and watching and p. 5improving all Advantages, got up by degrees through many Ages into that height of Authority, which they managed as ill as they unjustly acquired it, and particularly in England; where, from King William the Conqueror's days, as their illegal and oppressive Impositions were a constant Grievance to the People, so our Princes and Parliaments were ever put to struggle with them. But to affront their Authority, Thomas Becket, who was a Traitour to the Law, must be made a Saint, and a day kept for him, in which they were to pray to God for Mercy through his Merits. It continuing thus for several Ages, in the end a vigorous Prince arises, who was resolved to assert his own Authority. And he, looking into the Oaths the Bishops swore to the Pope, they were all found in a Praemunire by them. Then did the whole Nation agree to assert their own freedom, and their Kings Authority. And 'twas considerable, that those very Bishops, that in Queen Maries days did most cruelly persecute those of the Church of England, and advance the Interests of Rome, were the most zealous Assertors and Defenders of what was done by King Henry the VIII. Therefore the Popes Power in England, being founded on no just Title, and being managed with so much Oppression, there was both a full Authority and a great deal of reason for rejecting it. And if the Maior Generals, who had their Authority from Cromwell, might yet have declared for the King, who had the true Title, and against the Usurper; so the Bishops, though they had sworn to the Pope, yet that being contrary to the Allegiance they ow'd the King, ought to have asserted the Kings Authority, and rejected the Pope's.

M. B. said, It seemed M. C. founded the Popes Right to the Authority he had in England chiefly upon Prescription. But there were two things to be said to that; First, that no Prescription runs against a divine right. In the clearing of Titles among Men, Prescription is in some Cases a good Title: But if by the Laws of God the Civil Powers have a supream Authority over their Subjects, then no Prescription whatsoever can void this. Besides, the Bishops having full Authority and Jurisdiction, this could not be bounded or limited by any Obedience the Pope claimed from them. Further, there can be no Prescription in this case, where the Usurpation has been all along contested and opposed. We were ready to prove, that in the first Ages all Bishops were accounted Brethren, Colleagues, and fellow-Bishops with the Bishop of Rome. That afterwards, as he was declared Patriarch of the West, so the other Patriarchs were equal in Authority to him in their several Patriarchates. That Britain was no part of his Patriarchate, but an exempt, as Cyprus was. That his Power as Patriarch was only for receiving Appeals, or calling Synods, and did not at all encroach on the Jurisdiction of other Bishops in their Sees; and that the Bishops in his Patriarchate did think they might separate from him. A famous Instance of this was in the sixth Century, when the Question was about the tria Capitula, for which the Western Bishops did generally stand, and Pope Vigilius wrote in defence of them; but Iustinian the Emperour having drawn him to Constantinople, he consented with the Fifth Council to the condemning them. Upon which at his return many of the Western Bishops did separate from him. And as Victor, Bishop of Tunes tells us (who lived at that time) That Pope was Synodically excommunicated by the Bishops of Africk. It is true, in the eighth Century the Decretal Epistles being forged, his Pretentions were much advanced: yet his universal jurisdicton was contested in all Ages, as might be proved from the known instance of Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, and many more. Therefore, how strong soever the Argument from Prescription may be in Civil things, it is of no force here.

M. C. said, Now we are got into a contest of 1700 years story, but I know not when we shall get out of it. He confessed there was no Prescription against a divine right, and acknowledged all Bishops were alike in their Order, but not in their Jurisdiction; as the Bishop of Oxford was a Bishop as well as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and yet he was inferiour to him in Jurisdiction: But desired to know, what was in the Popes Authority that was so intolerable.

D. S. said, That he should only debate about the Popes Jurisdiction, and to his question, for one Particular, That from the days of Pope Paschal the II. all Bishops swear Obedience to the Pope, was intolerable Bondage.

p. 6M. C. said, Then will you acknowledge that before that Oath was imposed the Pope was to be acknowledged? adding, That let us fix a time wherein we say the Pope began to usurp beyond his just Authority, and he would prove by Protestant Writers that he had as great Power before that time.

M. B. said, Whatever his Patriarchal Power was, he had none over Britain: For it was plain, we had not the Christian Faith from the Roman Church, as appeared from the very story of Austin the Monk.

S. P. T. said, Did not King Lucius write to the Pope upon his receiving the Christian Faith?

M. C. said, He would wave all that, and ask, If the Church of England could justifie her forsaking the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, when all the rest of the Christian World submitted to it?

D. S. said, He wondered to hear him speak so: Were not the Greek, the Armenian, the Nestorian, and the Abissen Churches separated from the Roman?

M. C. said, He wondered as much to hear him reckon the Nestorians among the Churches that were condemned Hereticks.

D. S. said, It would be hard for him to prove them Nestorians.

M. C. asked, why he called them so then?

D. S. answered, Because they were generally best known by that Name.

M. W. said, Did not the Greek Church reconcile it self to the Roman Church at the Council of Florence?

D. S. said, Some of their Bishops were partly trepanned, partly threatned into it; but their Church disowned them and it both, and continues to do so to this day.

M. W. said, Many of the Greek Church were daily reconciled to the Church of Rome, and many of the other Eastern Bishops had sent their Obedience to the Pope.

D. S. said, They knew there was enough to be said to these things, that these Arts were now pretty well discovered: but he insisted to prove, the Usurpations of Rome were such as were inconsistent with the supreme civil Authority, and shewed the Oath in the Pontificale, by which, for instance, If the Pope command a Bishop to go to Rome, and his King forbid it, he must obey the Pope, and disobey the King.

M. C. said, These things were very consistent, that the King should be Supream in Civils, and the Pope in Spirituals; so that if the Pope commanded a thing that were Civil, the King must be obeyed and not he.

M. B. said, By the words of the Oath, the Bishops were to receive and help the Pope's Legates both in coming and going. Now suppose the King declared it Treason to receive the Legate, yet in this case the Bishops are sworn to obey the Pope, and this was a Case that fell out often.

D. S. instanced the Case of Queen Mary.

M. C. said, If he comes with false Mandates he is not a Legate.

M. B. said, Suppose, as has fallen out an hundred times, he comes with Bulls, and well warranted, but the King will not suffer him to enter his Dominions, here the Bishops must either be Traitors, or Perjured.

M. C. said, All these things must be understood to have tacite Conditions in them, though they be not expressed, and gave a Simile which I have forgot.

D. S. said, It was plain, Paschal the Second devised that Oath on purpose to cut off all those Reserves of their Duty to their Princes. And therefore the Words are so full and large, that no Oath of Allegiance was ever conceived in more express terms.

M. B. said, It was yet more plain from the Words that preceed that Clause about Legates, that they shall be an no Counsel to do the Pope any injury, and shall reveal none of his secrets. By which a Provision was clearly made, that if the Pope did engage in any Quarrel or War with any Prince, the Bishops were to assist the Popes as their sworn Subjects, and to be faithful Spies and Correspondents to give Intelligence. As he was saying this, L. T. did whisper D. S. who presently told the Company, That the Ladies, at whose desire we came thither, entreated we p. 7would speak to things that concerned them more, and discourse on the Grounds on which the Reformation proceeded; and therefore since he had before named some of the most considerable; he desired we might discourse about some of these.

M. C. said, Name any thing in the Roman Church that is expresly contrary to Scriptures; but bring not your Expositions of Scripture to prove it by, for we will not admit of these.

M. B. asked, If they did not acknowledge that it was only by the Mediation of Christ that our Sins were pardoned, and eternal Life given to us.

M. C. answered, No question of it at all.

M. B. said, Then have we not good reason to depart from that Church, that in an Office of so great and daily use as was the Absolution of Penitents, after the words of Absolution enjoyns the following Prayer to be used (which he read out of their Ritual) [The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, and whatever good thou hast done, or evil thou hast suffered, be to thee for the remission of Sins, the encrease of Grace, and the reward of Eternal Life] from whence, it plainly follows, that their Church ascribes the pardon of all Sins, and the eternal Salvation of their Penitents, to the Merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints, as well as the Passion of our blessed Saviour.

M. C. said, Here was a very severe Charge put in against their Church without any reason, for they believed that our sins are pardoned, and our souls are saved, only by the Merits of Jesus Christ; but that several things may concur in several orders or ways to produce the same effects: so although we are pardoned and saved only through Jesus Christ, yet, without Holiness we shall never see God; we must also suffer whatever Crosses he tries us with. So that these, in another sense, procure the pardon of our sins, and eternal salvation. Thus in like manner the Prayers of the blessed Virgin and the Saints are great helps to our obtaining these: therefore though these be all joyned together in the same Prayer, yet it was an unjust Charge on their Church to say they make them equal in their value or efficiency.

M. B. said, The thing he had chiefly excepted against in that Prayer, was, that these things are ascribed to the Merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints. Now he had only spoken of their Prayers, and he appealed to all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them, and the sense the other had offered was not forced.

M. C. said, By Merits were understood Prayers, which had force and merit with God.

M. B. said, That could not be, for in another Absolution, in the Office of our Lady, they pray for Remission of sins through the Merits and Prayers of the blessed Virgin: so that by Merits must be meant somewhat else than their Prayers.

M. C. said, That as by our Prayers on earth we help one anothers souls, so by our giving alms for one another we might do the same; so also the Saints in Heaven might be helpful to us by their Prayers and Merits. And as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet, and said he was in great haste, and much business lay on him that day; but said to D. S. That when he pleased, he would wait on him, and discourse of the other particulars at more length.

D. S. assured him, that whenever he pleased to appoint it, he should be ready to give him a meeting. And so he went away.

Then we all stood and talked to one another, without any great order, near half a hour, the Discourse being chiefly about the Nags-head Fable.

D. S. appealed to the publick Registers, and challenged the silence of all the Popish Writers all Queen Elizabeth's Reign, when such a story was fresh and well known: and if there had been any colour for it, is it possible they could keep it up, or conceal it?

S. P. T. said, All the Registers were forged, and that it was not possible to satisfie him in it, no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand: and being desired to read Dr. Bramhali's Book about it, he said he had read it six times over, and that it did not satisfie him.

M. B. asked him, How could any matter of Fact that was a hundred years old be proved, if the publick Registers, and the instruments of publick Notaries were rejected? and this the more, that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner, nor escape the knowledge of their Adversaries, who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing p. 8and proving it; yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that Race was alive, is as … an Evidence as can be, that the Forgery was on the other side.

D. S. did clear the Objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament, that it was only for making the Ordination legal in England, since in Edw. 6. time the Book of Ordination was not joyned in the Record to the Book of Common-Prayer; from whence Bishop Bonner took occasion to deny their Ordination, as not according to Law; and added, that Saunders, who in Queen Elizabeth's time denied the validity of our Ordination, never alledged any such story. But as we were talking freely of this,

M. W. said, once or twice, they were satisfied about the chief Design they had in that meeting, to see if there could be alledged any place of Scripture to prove that Article about the blessed Sacrament, and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Triumph. Upon which,

D. S. desired all might sit down again, that they might put that matter to an issue: so a Bible was brought, and

D. S. being spent with much speaking, desired M. B. to speak to it.

M. B. turned to the 6th Chap. of Iohn, vers. 54. and read these words, Whose eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal Life, and added, These words were, according to the common Interpretation of their Church, to be understood of the sacramental Manducation.

This M. W. granted, only M. B. had said, all the Doctors understood these words so, and

M. W. said, That all had not done so, which

M. B. did acknowledge, but said it was the received Exposition in their Church, and so framed his Argument. Eternal Life is given to every one that receives Christ in the Sacrament. But by Faith only we get eternal Life; therefore by Faith only we receive Christ in the Sacrament. Otherwise, he said, unworthy Receivers must be said to have eternal Life, which is a contradiction, for as such they are under Condemnation; yet the unworthy Receivers have the external Manducation: therefore that Manducation that gives eternal Life with it, must be internal and spiritual, and that is by Faith.

A Person, whose Name I know not, but shall henceforth mark him N. N. asked what M. B. meant, by Faith only?

M. B. said, By Faith he meant such a believing of the Gospel, as carried along with it Evangelical Obedience: by Faith only, he meant Faith as opposite to sense.

D. S. asked him if we received Christ's Body and Blood by our Senses?

N. N. said, we did.

D. S. asked which of the senses, his Taste, or Touch, or Sight, for that seemed strange to him?

N. N. said, We received Christ's Body with our senses, as well as we did the substance of Bread; for our senses did not receive the substance of Bread: and did offer some things to illustrate this, both from the Aristotelian and Cartesian Hypothesis.

D. S. said, He would not engage in that Subtlety which was a digression from the main Argument, but he could not avoid to think it a strange Assertion, to say we received Christ by our senses, and yet to say he was so present there, that none of our senses could possibly perceive him. But to the main Argument.

M. W. denied the Minor, that by Faith only we have eternal Life.

M. B. proved it thus, The Sons of God have eternal Life, but by Faith only we become the Sons of God: therefore by Faith only we had eternal Life.

M. W. said, Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture, he would reject the Argument.

M. B. said, That if he did demonstrate that both the Propositions of his Argument were in the strictest Construction possible equivalent to clear places of Scripture, then his Proofs were good; therefore he desired to know which of the two Propositions he should prove, either that the Sons of God have eternal Life, or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God.

M. W. said, He would admit of no consequences, how clear soever they seemed, unless he brought him the express words of Scripture, and asked if his consequences were infallible.

p. 9D. S. said, If the Consequence was certain, it was sufficient; and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear Consequences drawn from Scripture, which he thought (and he believed all impartial People would be of his Mind) was as great an advantage to any cause, as could be desired: So we laid aside that Argument, being satisfied that the Article of our Church, which they had called in question, was clearly proved from Scripture.

Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence, and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it.

M. B. said, If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament, than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha, the Angel was passing by their Houses, and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians; then we have no reason at all; but so it is that we have no more reason.

N. N. denied this, and said we had more reason.

M. B. said, All the reason we had to believe it was, because Christ said, This is my body; but Moses said of the Paschal festivity, This is the Lords Passover; which was always repeated by the Jews in that Anniversary. Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first born of AEgypt. If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense, we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses: But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense, as the commemoration of the Lords Passover, then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense.

The reason is clear; for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha, and he using in every thing, as much as could agree with his blessed designs, forms as near the Jewish Customs as could be, there is no reason to think he did use the words, this is my body, in any other sense than the Jews did, this is the Lords Passover.

N. N. said, The disparity was great. First, Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body. Secondly, It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense, because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb, but this is not so. Thirdly, The Jewish Church never understood these words literally, but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally. Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible, for how could any such Opinion have crept in, in any Age, if it had not been the Doctrine of the former Age?

M. B. said, Nothing he had alledged was of any force. For the first, Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution. If then it be proved that by saying, This is my body, he only meant a Commemoration, his promise must only relate to his Death commemorated in the Sacrament. To the second, the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words; for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal Presence, it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us, and his Blood as it was shed for us, which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago, it is as impossible that should be literally given at every Consecration, as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity. And here was a great mistake they went on securely in; that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament, is the Body of Christ, as he is now glorified in Heaven; for by the words of the Institution it is clear, that we receive his Body as it was given for us when his Blood was shed on the Cross, which being impossible to be reproduced now, we only can receive Christ by Faith. For his third difference, that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so, we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first six Ages. Could any thing be more express than Theodoret, who arguing against the Eutychians that the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance, illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own Substance.

M. W. said, We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament, but when they treat of it on Design and with Deliberation. But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril of Ierusalem, who in his fourth Mist. Catechism p. 10says expresly, Though thou see it to be bread, yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Jesus; doubt it not, since he had said, This is my Body. And for a proof, instances Christ's changing the Water into Wine.

D. S. said, He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter, not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on Peoples Devotion, in which case it is natural for all Persons to use high Expressions; but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place. If then it should appear, that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople, and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation, and assert that the substance of the Bread and Wine did remain; he hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did.

M. W. desired we would then answer the Words of Cyril.

M. B. said, It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal Dispute about the Passages of the Fathers, especially the Books not being before us; therefore he promised an Answer in Writing to the Testimony of S. Cyril. But now the matter was driven to a point, and we willingly undertook to prove, that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation, but taught plainly the contrary: the Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration, they call them Mysteries, Types, Figures, Symbols, Commemorations, and Signs of the body and blood of Christ: They generally deliver, that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament, which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation. All this we undertook to prove by undeniable Evidences within a very few days or weeks.

M. W. said, He should be glad to see it.

D. S. said, Now we left upon that Point which by the Grace of God we should perform very soon; but we had offered to satisfie them in the other grounds of the Separation from the Church of Rome: if they desired to be farther informed we should wait on them when they pleased.

So we all rose up and took leave, after we had been there about three hours. The Discourse was carried on, on both sides, with great Civility and Calmness, without Heat or Clamour.

This is as far as my Memory, after the most fixed attention when present, and careful Recollection since, does suggest to me, without any Biass or Partiality, not having failed in any one material thing as far as my memory can serve me:

This I declare as I shall answer to God. Signed as follows, Gilbert Burnet.

This Narrative was read, and I do hereby attest the truth of it. Edw. Stillingfleet.

Being present at the Conference, I do, according to my best memory, judge this a just and true Narrative thereof. Will. Nailor.