The Sum of a CONFERENCE Had between TWO DIVINES OF THE Church of England. And Two CATHOLIC LAY-GENTLEMEN. At the Request, and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality, August 8. 1671.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel, for him and Matthew Turner. 1687.   

THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER.  
SInce Printing of Conferences seems now in Vogue, I will venture to be in the new Mode; I have so good an Example of it before me, that I hope no body will take it ill if I follow it. In the Year 1676. there happened a Conference about Points of Religion, between some Protestant Divines, and some Roman-Catholic Gentlemen, which after a long silence, has been now lately set out the 
A Relation of a Conference, Apr. 3. 1676.  second time, in a fine Dress, and with a long Preface: This gave me the Curiosity to seek further into those Matters, and meeting accidentally with a Copy of another Conference held in 1671. wherein some of the same Persons were concerned, I thought good to present you with it. By it's plain Expressions and unstudied Discourse, you may easily judge it to be the naked Truth of what was then spoken. Peruse it, and think seriously of it.   

The Sum of a Conference had between Two Divines of the Church of England, and Two Catholic Lay-Gentlemen, at the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality, Aug. 8. 1671.  
THE Persons for whom the Conference was intended, desired the Subject might be Schism.  
Subject agreed.  Drs. 
It is fit we presuppose some Principles before we enter into dispute.  Cath. 
Content.  Dr. 
1. Schism is a wilful Separation from the Communion of the Church, without cause.  Cath. 
Tho' we know very well there can be no cause of Schism, yet we will admit (to come quickly to the Question) your notion of Schism with these words without cause in your Definition of it.  Dr. 
2. Another Principle is, Men may without Crime separate from a Communion, in which they cannot continue without Sin.  Cath. 
Agreed.  Dr. 
3. There are certain Laws antecedent to Communion, by which every particular person ought to judge what Communion he ought to be of, or forsake.  Cath. 
We do admit, that there are external Motives antecedent to Communion, which do induce and oblige a particular person to choose the Communion of which he ought to be a Member, and to which he ought, being a Member, to submit in Faith and Government, of which every particular person may and aught to judge: But we do deny, that the interior Doctrines or general Practices of a Communion are subject to the Judgement of every particular Man; so that every private person judging this or that Doctrine or Practice to be False, Heretical, or Idolatrous, (tho' the Communion, of which he is a Member, judges it Catholic and Orthodox,) has lawful cause to separate himself from that Communion, without being guilty of Criminal Schism; for without this Distinction there could be no such thing as Schism in the World.  Dr. 
You must prove us guilty of Criminal Schism.  Cath. 
We will. In the year 1517, you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church, without cause; Ergo you are Criminal Schismatics.  Dr. 
I do deny that the Separation in the year, 1517, does concern us; nor do we think ourselves obliged to defend or justify it; we do only maintain, that the Church of England is not guilty of Criminal Schism.  Cath. 
The same Argument presses the Church of England, as the Lutherans; Let it be therefore put thus. In King Hen. the 8th. Ed. the 6th. or Queen Elizabeth's Days (date the Birth of your Church from what time you please) you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause; Ergo you, the Church of England, are guilty of Criminal Schism.  Dr. 
I deny your Antecedent, we did not separate without cause.  Cath. 
I prove it. If you had lawful cause, you can assign it; but you cannot assign any lawful cause; Ergo you did separate without cause.  Dr. 
I will assign the cause, It was thus. In the— Year of Henry the 8th. the Parliament declared, That the Right of Reforming the Church of this Kingdom was in the King; upon which the King did reform, and upon this Reformation the Pope did Excommunicate the King and Kingdom, which Excommunication was confirmed by another Pope in Queen Elizabeth's days; so that the Pope by Excommunicating made the Schism, and not we by Reforming.  Cath. 
The Declaration above mentioned, and the Reformation thereupon, were antecedent to the Excommunication; so that you must prove that the Parliament had just Power and Authority to make that Declaration, and to Reform upon it, and that they did indeed Reform, and not spoil the Doctrine they undertook to mend; for if it had not, all its Proceedings were unjust and criminal; and Excommunication was but the just and proper Punishment for that Crime: And then sure it would be reckoned very strange, to say, That a lawful Authority punishing an Offender, is made guilty of the Crime it punishes, by inflicting that Punishment.  Dr. 
The Parliament did not ascribe any new Power to the King; but only declared that the same was in him, which all Ages appropriated to their Kings, and was allowed by all; And I can show from time to time, that the Pope's Authority has been refused, and his Legates forbid entrance into the Kingdom several times.  Cath. 
I pray show substantially (if you can) that the Church of England before the Reformation, did never at any time accept, or (which is positive) did at all times refuse the Pope all sort of Authority and Superiority over them; else to quarrel sometimes with his Authority, or some part of it, or stop his Legates, might be just: For that it is possible for a Power which has lawful Authority, to challenge and demand some sort of Authority which is more than what is lawfully his; and in such case the Inferiors may at least remonstrate to their Superiors, if not oppose them in such unlawful Demands; and this might be the case between the Pope and the King of England at some particular time: At other times Inferiors might be stubborn and disobedient, and for a time deny that to their Superiors which is really due. Therefore to say, that the Kings of England did for a time oppose the Pope in some things, is not enough to prove the Declaration aforesaid (which was universal, denying him all Authority whatsoever,) to be no ascribing of new Power, but only a Declaration, that the same Power was in That King, which all Ages appropriated to their Kings, and was allowed by all; but the contrary, to what is now demanded to be proved (and must be proved before that Declaration can excuse the Declarers from the guilt of causeless Separation, and consequently Criminal Schism, and consequently of deserving justly Excommunication) is so evident, that I appeal to these present worthy persons, who are to judge in this point, whether this be not sufficiently manifest from the Histories which they themselves have read, and the general Confessions, which they themselves have met withal from very many even learned Protestants, That the Pope of Rome was at least Patriarch of the West, and, as such, had Patriarchal Authority, at least over the Church of England, and therefore was allowed to be the proper Judge of Ecclesiastical Matters, the very day before the foresaid Declaration was made; and therefore was the only proper Judge of the said Declaration, and the Authors of it, whether it were well and legally made: And this said Judge having judicially determined the said Declaration to be Schismatical, condemned it legally, and justly Excommunicated the Authors. Most certainly a Declaration made by every one, that pretends Power to make one, is not presently lawful, because it is pretended to be so. The late long Parliament pretended to declare, That the Supreme Power of England was in the People, and that the said People might Judge and Depose the King whenever he misused that Power, which the People entrusted him withal; and we know what followed upon it. I hope the Doctor will not justify that Declaration, nor can he show a disparity between this and the other, both being made by those, who were universally esteemed, at the time they made them, Subjects and Inferiors to those against whose Authority they made them, in those very Points, concerning which they did then declare.  Drs. 
The Pope was never content to be esteemed barely the Patriarch of the West; and there is great difference between the two Declarations, that in Hen. Eighth's time against the Pope, and that in King Charles the First's time against his Majesty.  Cath. 
It matters not now, whether the Pope were content or no to be barely esteemed Patriarch of the West; if he had reason to challenge more, that no ways justifies you; Do you allow, that he was Patriarch? If you do, answer the difficulty; and say, how his Inferiors came by a Power to Depose him; and as to the difference between the two Declarations, you must show it us, before we believe there is any.  Gentlemen to the Doctors. 
Sirs, we do not doubt, but that the Pope was allowed some Authority in England before the Separation, we do not therefore desire to dispute that; but supposing he had not, you separated yourselves from the great Body of all Christians United before in one Communion, we desire to know what cause you could have for that.  Drs. 
We had cause to separate, for that the Communion from which we separated, taught false Faith, and were guilty of Idolatry; I instance particularly in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and their Adoring the Host.  Cath. To the Company. 
Tho' you may be pleased to remember, that we did at first deny, that any particular person, (and the same holds of particular Dioceses, Provinces, and Nations, all which United make but one Catholic Church, and therefore the biggest of them all to be considered only as a Member of the whole Body) has Power to judge, and condemn the Doctrines and Practices of the whole Church as false or Idolatrous, when the Body against this Member says, that the said Doctrines or Practices are Orthodox and Catholic, so as to have lawful cause to separate from the said whole Communion, without being guilty of criminal Schism; That what we said of a particular Person, holds to a Nation, or any Inferior Authority to a Superior, is evident, upon supposition, that God has required and commanded, that his Church be one, which could not be, if a Secular Sovereign Power has Authority to break its Unity, upon pretence of judging any one of its Doctrines or Practices false or Idolatrous: For if one may, another may; and than Switzerland may have as many Religions and Communions, as Cantons, and the World as many Churches as Secular Sovereigns, tho' God has said he will have but One: And here in England the Bishops may as well wave the Archbishops Authority, private persons pretend to Judge and Censure the Bishop's Power and Authority, or any one Man control the Authority of his Pastor. Tho' this we denied at first, and might therefore well refuse to proceed, till the Doctors had proved, that a single Person might condemn a whole Church's Doctrine legally, or a lesser Authority, judge and censure a greater; yet because perhaps this Method may have been proposed by yourselves, we are content to do any thing for your satisfaction: but than you must be pleased (considering our Communion at the time of the Separation was infinitely greater than the Reformers, as Learned and as Holy, for aught any body knows, and in possession for many hundred years of the Doctrines and Practices now condemned by these Reformers) to demand more clear and evident proofs against our Doctrines than we bring for them: for upon but equal proof, we that are forty to one (and every whit as learned as the others, especially having received, what we profess, from our Forefathers, from Christ's time, for aught any body knows; for no body can say when what we hold and practise begun) have no reason to submit to so much a less number, at the charge of so great a confusion, as must needs happen, and God's Command of Unity be broke into the bargain. You must therefore demand the most evident proofs that Nature can admit of, to prove those Doctrines of theirs, upon which they ground their Separation, or else it will be criminal Schism, and you must desert their Communion. If they attempt to prove it from Scripture, they must not bring obscure passages out of it, to oppose or interpret clear ones; for that is not to explicate, but to confound; not to draw Light and Truth out of Scripture, but to cast more Darkness upon it. Neither can an obscure and doubtful Title lawfully or reasonably cast any Body out of the possession of a belief, for which he has clear and evident ones to show. They must therefore bring Texts that prove their Points in Terms; for their interpretation is no more to be allowed of than ours, and Scripture ought to be taken literally, where the literal sense does not imply a contradiction.  Note. 
It may be reasonably supposed, that these undeniable Principles were the cause, why the Doctors (as it will appear in all this Conference) would never venture upon any citation of the Scripture to prove their Doctrine, for which they separated from the Roman Church, acknowledged then universally for the true Church, but were forced to fly to some obscure Sentences of the Fathers, even which will yet appear to make more for the Roman Church, than for the Reformers.  Drs. 
All Scriptures ought not to be expounded literally, which do not imply a Contradiction in a literal sense: I am a Vine, ought not to be expounded literally, yet it implies no Contradiction, or at lest no more than this, Christ is Bread.  Cath. 
I am a Vine does imply a Contradiction, for Christ cannot be Christ and a Vine at the same time; Christ is Bread, is also a Contradiction; but where is that Proposition in Scripture? or what Catholic in the World holds it? We say, that which was Bread ceases to be Bread, and becomes the Body of Christ, which is no more a Contradiction than to say, that which was Water, ceases to be Water, and becomes Wine.  Drs. 
That Text you build your Faith upon, This is my Body, implies a Contradiction; for it must signify, This Bread is my Body, which is as much a Contradiction, as Christ is a Vine, or Christ is Bread, which you have acknowledged already for a Contradiction; or else it must be an identical enuntiation, and signify, This my Body is my Body.  Cath. 
This Bread is my Body, is a Contradiction, but cannot be meant in the Text; for in all Languages (but English) where the word which signifies this is altered according to the different Gender the Antecedent is of, to which this word should relate, it is always put in the Neuter Gender, hoc in Latin, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, which it could not be, if it were to agree with Bread, or have relation to it, that being always Masculine, as panis in Latin, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek; therefore to say, this Bread in the Latin or Greek Language, would be false Grammar; and English, I suppose, has no reason to govern the other Languages, but they it, they being more and old, against one and new. Nor need it be, This Body is my Body; the Particle this is a Pronoun demonstrative, signifying only some exterior Object undeterminded, as to its Nature or Name, without some other additional Word, as this is a Horse, this is a Hat, are, I hope, proper Speeches, and therefore no Identical Enuntiations. This only supposes an Object existing and exposed to Sense, and determined by the following word Hat or Horse, of what Nature and Quality it is. Besides, This is my Body, is an Efficient Proposition, and is the cause of the change, which is not wrought till the Proposition be completed, and therefore this is not determined till the whole be pronounced.  Drs. 
It is impossible it should be taken in your sense, for Transubstantiation cannot be without a Miracle; and no Miracle can be without appearing so to Sense; Nay, it would destroy all possibility of judging of any other Miracle, they being not to be discerned but by Sense, which cannot be relied upon, if it may be deceived in this.  Cath. 
A Miracle may be, and yet not appear to Sense to be so, yet aught to be believed: For the hypostatical Union was never discerned by Sense, yet is believed a true Miracle; so that your first Proposition is false. To your second, I pray say, whether it be possible for God to make a thing appear to Sense to be, what it is not: Then supposing it possible, may not God discover to Man that he has made a thing to appear one thing, and to be another, as well as he has discovered, that the Divinity was united to Christ's Humanity, tho' no such thing appeared? If he may and does, ought I to believe God's Word against my own Senses, or my Senses against God's Word? Notwithstanding this, my Senses shall judge of a Miracle at all times, unless when God assures me upon his Word, that his Omnipotency has interposed between my Senses and their Natural Object.  Drs. 
But we will show you by the Fathers, and not of the first 300 years, but since, that your Doctrine was not held, neither in the Greek nor Latin Church.  Cath. 
We do expect you should show us by the Scripture and Fathers of all Ages, (and do not care to be complemented or spared as to the first 300 years, if you have any Authority from those times, let us see them) and very clearly, that your contrary Doctrine was held, else you cannot be justified or excused from Schism in your separation.  Dr. 
It is sufficient to show against you, that your Doctrine has not had that constant Succession you boast of: And that I will do by producing Instances plain and clear, that your Doctrine was not maintained in one certain Age since Christ.  Cath. 
Tho' that can never justify your separation, or make your Communion safe; for if it were not safe to stay in the Roman Communion, because a Doctrine believed by them, was in one Age since Christ's time, not believed, it can never be safe to abide in yours, where many Doctrines are now believed, which you acknowledge were not believed by the true Church for many Hundred years together: Yet let us hear your proofs.  Dr. 
I will show you a Homily used in the Saxon Church, from which you shall see how that Church and your Augustin agree in this Doctrine.  Cath. 
At lest 'tis some kindness to grant Augustin to be ours, who Converted England above 1000 years ago.  Narr. 
Truly the Homily we did never see before, nor never heard of it, nor do we know what credit it bears, nor can I remember the words exactly; but in the first place the Doctor quoted, for he produced two, the sense was, that the Bread and Wine which the Priest Consecrated at Mass, was turned into the True Body and Blood of Christ; which Text we prayed the Doctor to read in English, which he did; and after a little stumble at the word Missam, he told us, he cared not tho' he rendered it Mass, which he did; This very Quotation we urged against him; but he told us this must be explained by another, in which he brought us the same, or like words again concerning the change, but at the end of the Sentence were these words in a distinct remarkable Character, not Corporally but Spiritually. Where, or by whom this Book was Printed, we could not learn, or what Authority it was of; but it might very well be Authentic, for all that distinction, it being frequently used by Modern Catholics, who are not denied to hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; They commonly say, that it is not changed Corporally, taking Corporally to signify carnally; as the Capharnaits understood our Blessed Lord, when he spoke of this Mystery; but Spiritually, taking that to signify, as St. Paul uses the word Spiritual, speaking of the Resurrection, where he says, it is sown a natural Body, it rises a Spiritual Body. there is a natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body; Now if this way of speaking be frequently used by those who are, notwithstanding such an expression, confessed to hold Transubstantiation; why must it signify more evidently the contrary Doctrine in this Author, than it does in others, especially when this Author delivers the Roman Doctrine in this point, in his other expressions, as evidently and plainly as can be, and citys the Mass as the Doctor confesses? But he stood not much upon this Question, but laid his whole stress upon two others.  Dr. 
I will prove now evidently, that your Doctrine was contradicted in the fifth Age, both by the Greek and Latin Church; nay by a Pope of Rome himself: For Gelasius disputing against the Eutychians, who maintained, that the Human Nature of Christ was changed into the Divine Nature, so that there was but one nature in Christ; confuted their Heresy, by showing, that the Human Nature was no more changed into the Divine Nature, than Bread was changed into the Body of Christ; that is, not at all; for Gelasius has these express words: Certe Sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter quod & per eadem efficimur divinae consortes naturae; & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini; & certe imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis in actione mysteriorum celebrantur; which is in English thus, Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take, is a Divine thing, and by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature; and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine, do not cease to be; and truly the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries: Where it is evident, that the substance of Bread and Wine, is not changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Theodoret proves the same thing; for he says, the Mystical Signs after Consecration do not recede from their Nature, but do remain in their former Substance, Figure and Form, and may be seen, and touched as before; this evidently contradicts Transubstantiation.  Cath. To the Company. 
We desire you to remember, that you must have clear proofs to justify the Alteration, much clearer than those in possession can bring for the Doctrine they continue to hold, and which the others would Reform: Be pleased to consider these two Quotations here brought (I suppose the clearest they have, if not all they have) and if they do not appear clear against them, I am confident they will appear, either Nonsense or Contradictions, and far enough from being clearer for them, than any we can bring for our Doctrine; which yet they ought to be, to excuse their Schism from being wilful and Criminal. We will examine Theodoret first. He writes against Eutyches (as the Doctor has told you) which he does by way of Dialogue between Eranistes an Eutychian, and Orthodoxus, which is himself, in these words.  Eranist. 
It happens luckily that you speak of the Divine 
Theod. Tom. 2. Dial. 2. pag. 236. Edit. Colon. 1617.  Mysteries, for even from that very thing I will show you, that the Body of our Lord is changed into another Nature; answer me therefore to what I ask.  Orthodox. 
I will answer.  Eran. 
What do you call that Gift which is brought, before the Invocation of the Priest?  Orth. 
That which is made Nourishment of a certain Grain.  Eran. 
How do we call the other Sign?  Orth. 
A Common Name, which signifies a kind of Drink.  Eran. 
But after Consecration what do you call them?  Orth. 
The Body of Christ, and the Blood of Christ.  Eran. 
And do you believe that you are made Partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ?  Orth. 
I do believe it.  Eran. 
As therefore the Symbol of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the Invocation of the Priest, and after the Invocation are changed and are made another thing: So the Body of our Lord after Assumption is changed into the Divine Substance.  Orth. 
Thou art catched in the Net, which thou thyself hast woven: For the Mystical Signs after Consecration do not recede from their Nature, but do remain in their former Substance and Figure and Form, and may be touched as before; but are understood to be what they are made, and are believed, and are Adored as being the same things which they are believed.  Cath. 
I pray be pleased to ask the Doctor whether this whole Discourse now cited be not built and founded upon the Supposition of Transubstantiation.  Drs. 
I do acknowledge the Argument is founded upon that Supposition; but it is brought by an Heretic, an Eutychian, which is not much for the credit of your Doctrine.  Cath. 
Yes, we account it much for the credit of our Doctrine, that you cannot name any Age, in which you are not forced to allow, that it was Professed. You say it was Professed in this Age only by Heretics: Make that out, if you can, more clear than I will the contrary; I do assure you, your two Quotations will not do it, as I will show you presently; but the contrary seems evident, viz. That the Heretics did not differ from the Catholics in this Point: For Eutyches, who was Condemned at a General Council, for maintaining one Nature only in Christ, would certainly have been Condemned at the same time for holding Transubstantiation, had it been esteemed an Error by that Age, especially so Absurd, Monstrous, and Idolatrous an one, as Doctor— calls it in his new Book; but he was not Condemned, nor so much as Accused of Error in this Point, either by Council, or any particular Writer of those many, which have wrote against him, and yet you do acknowledge, that he and his Adherents held Transubstantiation: Besides, you confess that his Argument was against an Orthodox Catholic, founded upon this Supposition; therefore most certainly he took it for granted, that the Catholics allowed the Supposition; for it would have been ridiculous to dispute upon a Supposition, which he knew his Adversary denied. I should account it absurd for me to argue against a Protestant upon supposition of Transubstantiation, which I know they deny; and so it would have been in Eranist, if he had not known that his Adversary owned that Doctrine▪ which he made the Foundation of his Argument. Besides, Theodoret himself, an Orthodox Catholic, making this Discourse by way of Dialogue, would make himself ridiculous to frame it upon a Supposition which he denied. After all this, the place now cited, is so far from being so clear against us, as it ought to be to vanquish our standing Possession, that the Century-Writers of Magdeburg, who were 
Magd Cent. 5. cap. 4. de Inclinatione Doct. tit. de Coena Domini.  great Enemies of Popery and Transubstantiation, do condemn Theodoret of that Doctrine from this very place, and do say he speaks dangerously of the Lords Supper, in saying, that after Consecration the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood are changed and made another thing. And the words next after these, which you quote as such clear ones against our Doctrine, must either import Idolatry according to the aforesaid new Book, or Nonsense, if they do not imply the Actual Presence of Christ's Person by Transubstantiation; for he says, they (the Mystical Signs) are understood what they are made and believed, and are Adored as being the same things they are believed: So that the whole Sense is thus; The Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before, and another after Consecration; yet they continue so in their Nature, Substance, Figure, and Form, as to be seen and touched as before; but are understood to be what they are made by Consecration, and are Believed, and are Adored as being the same thing they are believed, i. e. notwithstanding they are changed, they appear to our Sense (as to their Nature, Substance, etc.) to be seen and touched as before: but are believed to be somewhat else, i. e. what they are made: And this Belief is not Chimerical or Imaginary, but the things are really what they are believed to be, and for that they are so, are Adored; so that they must be really changed into Christ's Body, for else they could not be Adored without Idolatry: The very Words, as they lay, convinced the Magdeburgenses, that Theodoret held Transubstantiation; and, I suppose, had not these two Words Nature and Substance been in the Quotation but only Figure and Form, we had never heard of it at this time. If therefore I show you, that Nature and Substance are frequently taken to signify that which is as consistent with our Exposition, and the Catholic meaning of Theodoret, as Figure and Form in this place are, I shall not only make it cease to be clear against us, but also show that it will be clear for us. Nature and Substance do sometimes signify what the Philosophers call properly Substance, as distinguished from Accidents, i. e. Matter and Form. And thus taken it can be no Object of Sense, can neither be seen nor touched. Sometimes it signifies the Properties, natural Qualities, and Accidents with which those Substances are clothed. Physicians frequently say, that they have the Substance of Herbs in their Medicines, when they have only the Virtue of those Herbs, and not all the Matter and Form: So we say of Meat, that it has but little Juice or Substance, when it has but little Virtue or good natural Qualities. The Fathers say, that the Substance of Man was depraved by Original Sin, i. e. the Inclinations and natural Affections: St. Paul says, that by Nature we are the Children of Wrath, that the Gentiles by Nature perform the Law: In all which Speeches, and a hundred other, Nature and Substance do not signify strictly, as Philosophers use those Words, when they are opposed to Accidents, but Popularly and Vulgarly, and signify no more than Properties, Conditions, Qualities, etc. Now supposing Theodoret to take Substance and Nature in this place, in the latter Sense, and to mean by them no more than the exterior Substance, or visible and sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine, the Text is evidently for us. And that the Father must take the Words in this popular Sense, is evident from the whole Discourse: For he says first, That before Consecration they are one thing, and after Consecration they are changed and made another thing: Now if they be changed and made another thing, the change must be either in the Interior or Exterior Substance; but it is most plain, they are not changed in the Exterior Substance, for as to that, they remain visibly the same, and do not recede from their Nature, as Sense assures us; Ergo, it must be in their Interior Substance, which is not liable to Sense; and therefore, as the Father in this very place says, They are seen and touched as before, but are believed to be another thing, i. e. what they are made, and are adored as being what they are believed. The Doctor has told you in the late Book I mentioned, the danger of adoring any thing but God; therefore, according to him, this Father must hold these Symbols he here speaks of, to be changed into the Body of our Lord, before they become the Object of Adoration, or else he must be guilty of Idolatry, in teaching that something besides God ought to be Adored, i. e. Worshipped with Divine Honor. As to the place quoted out of Gelasius, the same distinction above of the sense of the Words, Nature and Substance, solves that; And that there must be such a distinction in the Words of this Father, is most evident; for without that, he contradicts himself in the Words quoted; for he has two Words five times in ten lines; and if in all these Places they must signify strictly, the Father talks Nonsense, and so, far enough from being a good Authority to justify a Separation. But if the Words must be taken in divers Senses, and it not being evident which Sense is applicable to this or that place, than it is at least uncertain and dark, and consequently not fit (as not being so clear as it should) to justify a Separation. But if the Place itself, from its own terms, disposes us to apply the strict Sense in this or that Part, and the popular Sense in this or that other, so as to countenance Transubstantiation, than this Quotation will be very far from doing them any Service. Now let us consider the Words: He says, By the Sacrament we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature, yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be. If Nature must be taken strictly and philosophically in both places, than we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature strictly and philosophically, and not only effectually or virtually: then the Divine Nature must be actually there, and yet the Nature of Bread and Wine will not cease to be there; so that this perhaps thus far might favour Lutheranism, but can no way help the Church of England: Then follow these words, And surely the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the Action of those Mysteries. We do own this Expression, and do acknowledge it is frequent amongst the Fathers to say, that the blessed Sacrament is a Figure of Christ's Passion, and that the Exterior Substances, which we see, are a Figure to us of the Interior Substance of Christ's Body and Blood, which we see not, but are to believe to be contained under those Species: Then he goes on and says, Therefore it appears evidently enough to us, that that is to be understood by us in our Lord Christ himself, which we profess in the Image of him, Observe, that Image is here used, as we said above, We celebrate and take them, and even as they pass into this, to wit, the Divine Substance, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, remaining notwithstanding in the Property of their Nature, etc. We spoke to the signification of the Word Nature above, speaking to the foregoing Words of this Father: Now let us consider the Word Substance, which the Protestants must have to signify strictly and philosophically in the Words before, or else this Quotation proves nothing: But that being supposed, they must show us, that it signifies otherways in these last Words, They pass into the Divine Substance, or else they must grant, that it signifies strictly here also; and than it is Nonsense, for it amounts to thus much, The Elements of Bread and Wine pass into the Divine Substance strictly and philosophically, and we are made partakers of the Divine Nature strictly, etc. Yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be strictly and philosophically. Can any Body understand this? What does pass into the Divine Substance? Nothing sure, if the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine taken strictly and philosophically do remain: But the Internal Substance of Bread and Wine may well pass into the Divine Substance, and yet the Exterior Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine, signifying the Properties and Accidents of Bread and Wine, may well remain. And that this must be the Sense of the Father, is plain enough from his own words; for he says absolutely, and without any limitation, That they pass into the Divine Substance, which must be meant of the Interior Substance of Bread and Wine, if any; for 'tis clear, the Exterior remains, and does not pass. But then again, he qualifies too the Nature, which he says remains, and calls it the Property of their Nature remaining: Which Expression does, as we think, clear the distinction, and determins to which side the strict, and to which the popular Sense ought to be applied: At least, we are sure there can be no clear Evidence from hence against us, which yet we must have before we can be removed from the long possession, which we have had of a Doctrine and Practice of such concern as this.  Drs. 
The Exposition now given, cannot be possibly the Father's meaning, for that that Sense would quite enervate the force of the Answer; for the Answer must be proper to the Argument, which it is intended to Answer, and to the Point which the Argument was made use of to prove: Now the Point to be proved was the Doctrine of the Eutychians, viz. That the Human Nature of Christ was changed into the Divine; to prove which, the Eutychians urged the change in the Sacrament, and from thence urged to the change of the Natures; to which the Father answered, that there was no change in the Sacrament, nor no more change in the Natures, than there was in the other: This must needs be the meaning of the Father.  Cath. 
The Exposition above given by us makes the Father's words very much more a proper Answer to the Eutychians Argument, than they could be otherways; for whereas he asserted an absolute and total Conversion of the Human Nature in Christ, into the Divine, so that it was wholly devoured and swallowed up by it, like a drop of Honey by the Sea; and endeavoured to illustrate 
Ibid. Dial. 2. pag. 234.  it from the change of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ, as a Point acknowledged by both Parties; to this the Father answered, that the very Instance he gave was against himself; for that after the change in the Sacrament, there were still two Natures remaining, viz. the Nature of Christ's Body in the strict Sense, and the Nature of Bread as above Explicated, for the Natural Properties, in the popular Sense. And this being sufficient to retort the Eutychian's Argument upon himself, by showing him there was not such a change in the Sacrament, as he vainly imagined in the Incarnation, it was all that was necessary for the Father's design in that place: For as for the Interior change, himself acknowledged it, as well as the Eutychian. Are these all the Authorities you have?  Dr. 
These are enough, for they are very plain.  Cath. 
We will leave that to judgement: But withal, we hope the Company will remember, they must be much plainer than any we can bring for ourselves: We therefore desire now to show some for us. And because we will show how truly the Doctor has asserted, That in an Age since the first 300 years, this Doctrine was generally contradicted, and the contrary Doctrine, viz. that of the Church of England, generally professed and taught (for that he must be supposed to have designed to prove, or else he does nothing in Justification of his Separation) and has pitched upon the fifth Century to make good his Assertion, we will insist particularly upon the Authority of Fathers of that very Century: And first, we desire him to consider, St. Austin, Tom. 8. in Psal. 98. Printed at Venice, An. 1584. Where he says, Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum, & adorate Scabellum pedum ejus, quoniam sanctum est: Quid habemus adorare? Scabellum pedum ejus; sed videte Fratres, quid nos jubeat adorare. Alio loco Scriptura dicit, coelum mihi sedes est, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Ergo terram nos jubet adorare, quia alio loco dixit, quod sit scabellum Dei, & quomodo adorabimus terram, cum dicat aperte Scriptura, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, & hic dicit, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus? Exponens autem mihi quid sit scabellum pedum ejus, dicit, Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum: Anceps factus sum, timeo adorare terram, ne damnet me, qui fecit coelum & terram: Rursum timeo non adorare scabellum pedum Domini mei, quia Psalmus mihi dicit, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus. Quaero quid sit scabellum pedum ejus, & dicit mihi Scriptura, Terra scabellum pedum meorum. Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum quaero hic, & invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum ejus: Suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae carnem accepit; & quiain ipsa carne hic ambulavit, & ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit; nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; inventum est quomodo adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini & non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccenius non adorando. We desire the Doctor will be pleased to put this place of the Father into English, that the Company may judge of the Sense of it, especially at the latter end, which is chiefly to our purpose.  Dr. 
I will, it is thus. Wavering I turn myself to Christ, because I seek him here, and I find how the Earth may be Adored without impiety; without impiety his Footstool may be Adored; For of Earth he took Earth, because Flesh is of Earth, and he took Flesh of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary; and because he walked here in that Flesh, and gave that Flesh to us to Eat for our Salvation; but no Man Eats that Flesh, unless he first Adores; we have found out how such a Footstool of our Lord may be Adored, and not only not sin by Adoring, but we sin by not Adoring, This is the English of the words quoted, which makes nothing against us, for we in the Church of England, do always Adore when we do receive.  Cath. 
What do you Adore when you receive? Do you Adore that which you do receive? If you do, then that which you receive is the Flesh of Christ, or you are Idolaters, as lately great pains has been taken to prove. If you do not Adore that which you receive, as the Object of your Adoration, but something else, than you will find that St. Austin is against you, for that he Adored the Footstool, that is, the Flesh i e. that Flesh which is eaten; for it were impossible to think, that the Father could be in that doubt and trouble which he expresses, about the Question, whether Christ were to be Adored or no? He is concerned about the Footstool, which he endeavours to make so plain, that he repeats the same thing over and over again, and tells his fear of Adoring or not Adoring: At length he says, By Footstool, (because Earth is the Footstool) is meant Christ's Flesh, in which Flesh he walked here, which very Flesh he gave to us to Eat, which very Flesh no Man Eats, but he first Adores, what? The Flesh of Christ sure: And if that Flesh he gave to Eat, be the same Flesh he took from our Blessed Lady, and in which he walked, as the Father says here most absolutely, then surely Flesh to be Eaten, is as much the Object of Adoration, as that he took and walked in, which I hope the Doctor will not deny, but was to be Adored. So that now, says the Father (having just before spoken of the Flesh which Christ gave us to Eat, and which no Man Eats without first Adoring) I have found out how such a Footstool ought to be Adored, and that we do not only not sin by Adoring, but we sin by not Adoring such a Footstool, to wit, Flesh, which was given us to Eat. Besides the Adoration the Doctor speaks of, may be given at any time, and before any thing, as well as Bread and Wine in the Sacrament; for if it be only the person of Christ sitting in Heaven, which ought to be Adored, and is Adored when we are put in mind of him by such Instruments; we might as well fall down and Adore the Person of Christ in Heaven, when we see an Image of him, because that puts us in mind of him (which yet the above named Doctor says is Idolatry) or take a piece of common Bread at ones House, remembering by it what Christ once did with Bread, fall down and Adore before that Bread.  Nar. 
St. Ambrose, who was somewhat Elder than St. Austin, and his Master, has the Plainest Quotations to prove this Point that can possibly be, in his Book, De iis qui Mysteriis initiantur. Cap. 9 in his fourth Book, de Sacramentis, Cap. 4. & Cap. 5. which Books we desired; but the Doctor being in his own House (tho' he confessed he had the Books) he might choose whether he would let us have them or no. And indeed for one reason or other we had them not, nor St. Chrysostom of the same Age, out of whom we would have shown only his 83 d. Homily, upon the 26th. of St. Matthew, and his Sermon of the Eucharist in Encoeniis, to prove our Doctrine; we would have shown very many places from that Father; but having not these Books, nor others we asked for, we were forced to quote some places without Book, as one out of St. Gregory Nyss. Orat. Catechet. Cap. 37. Verbo Dei Sanctificatum panem in Dei Verbi Corpus credo transmutari, etc. hoc autem fit virtute Benedictionis in illud transelement at â eorum quae apparent naturâ. I do believe the Bread Sanctified by the Word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word, etc. but this is done by the Power of Consecration (or blessing) the nature of those things which appear being Transelementated into it. St. Cyril of Jerusalem we had, out of whom we desired the Doctor to read these following words in English. Cum igitur Christus ipse sic affirmet at que dicat de pane, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM; Quis deinceps audeat dubitare? Ac eodem quoque confirmante ac dicente, HIC EST SANGUIS MEUS, quis inquam, dubitet & dicat non esse illius sanguinem? Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum, quod est Sanguini propinquum in Cana Galileae sola voluntate, & non erit dignus cui credamus, quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutasset? Si enim ad nuptias Corporeas invitatus stupendum miraculum operatus est, & non multo magis Corpus & Sanguinem suum Filiis sponsae dedisse illum confitebimur? Quare, cum omni certitudine Corpus & Sanguinem Christi sumamus: Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus, & sub specie Vini datur Sanguis, ut sumpto Corpore & Sanguine Christi efficiaris ei comparticeps Corporis & Sanguinis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christopheri erimus, hoc est, Christum ferentes, cum ejus Corpus & Sanguinem in membra nostra receperimus, atque ita, ut beatus Petrus dicit, Divinae Naturae consortes efficiemur, etc. Hoc sciens, & pro certissimo habens Panem hunc, qui videtur à nobis non esse Panem, etiamsi gustus Panem esse sentiat, sed esse Corpus Christi, & Vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus Vinum esse videatur, non tamen Vinum, sed Sanguinem esse Christi. Sir, if you please, I will spare you the trouble, and render them myself; and pray tell the Company when I wrong the Text: The English then of these words, is thus:  
When therefore Christ himself affirms and says of Bread, THIS IS MY BODY; Who afterwards will dare to doubt? And the same also confirming and saying, THIS IS MY BLOOD; Who, I say, may doubt and say, That it is not his Blood? He once changed Water into Wine, which is next to Blood, in Cana of Galilee, by his only Will; and shall he not be worthy that we believe him that he changed Wine into his Blood? For if being invited to a corporal Wedding, he wrought so wonderful a Miracle, shall we not much more confess, that he gave his Body and Blood to the Sons of his own Spouse? Wherefore let us take the Body and Blood of Christ with all assurance; for under the Species (or Appearance) of Bread, the Body is given thee; and under the Species of Wine, the Blood is given: so that the Body and Blood of Christ being taken, thou art made to him a Fellow-partaker of his Body and Blood. We are made Christophori, i. e. Bearers of Christ, when we take his Body and Blood into our Members. So as blessed St. Peter says, We are made Partakers of the Divine Nature, etc. Knowing this, and holding it for most certain, that the Bread which we see is not Bread, though our Taste judges it to be Bread, but the Body of Christ: And the Wine which we see, though it may appear Wine to our Sense of Tasting; yet is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ. Doctor, Is this plain English, and is the Father faithfully Translated?  Drs. 
We do not deny, but the Fathers now cited, have the Words quoted in their Writings; nor do we deny but that they are well enough Englished: but we do confess all they say; for we of the Church of England do own and acknowledge a very great Change and Alteration in the Sacrament, and do not deny, but that the Fathers do frequently make mention of some wonderful Change; but we do not undertake to determine Magisterially, and say what manner of Change this is, nor does our Church impose such a Determination, as a neccessary Condition of Communion with us, as the Church of Rome does; and such a one as the Fathers contradict, as we have shown out of Theodoret and Gelasius. And this very Father quoted here, viz. St. Cyril, calls it Bread and Wine, at the same time that he calls it the Body and Blood of Christ: For the first Words of his Quotation are, When Christ affirms of Bread, etc. You must show that the Substance of Bread ceases.  Cath. 
The Evidence you pretend to from Theodoret and Gelasius, we think we have spoke to sufficiently already. If the Fathers do mention some wonderful Change in the Sacrament, and the Protestants do agree with them in allowing that there is such a Change, but cannot say what a one it is, what cause have they to separate from a great Communion, even the whole visible Catholic Church upon Earth; when, for aught they know, this Change which they grant, may be Transubstantiation, which they deny, and make the Cause of their Separation, as being false? For they acknowledge they know not how it is changed, and in such Cases as this, I cannot imagine how they can attain a Negative Knowledge without a Positive, i. e. how they can be certain it is not Transubstantiation, when the whole Catholic Church said it was; and not to be able to know Certainly what it is; especially when to believe right of this Point, is an Article of Faith, conditional of Man's Salvation; and therefore necessary to be believed in its true Sense; especially when the Consequence of believing wrong will be Blasphemy or Idolatry in the Practice. For if Transelementation in St. Gregory, and Transmutation in St. Cyril, both which terms the Doctor owns and allows, should mean as much as Transubstantiation; then are the Protestants guilty of Heresy, in believing the wrong side of a Proposition, which contains in it an Article of Faith; and of Blasphemy in practice, in robbing God of his Honour, and using him like a Creature. Now what should make them think (for know, I am sure they cannot) that Transelementation signifies less than Transubstantiation? For sure by Elements are meant Substances. Moreover, in all Changes, there must a Term from which, and a Term to which. In this Change I desire to know the Term from which, and to what it is changed: From Bread to Christ's Body, were an Answer intelligible, and agreeable to the Terms by which the Change is expressed: But to say from Common Bread to Sanctified Bread, is to talk very unintelligibly, and very unanswerably to the expression you use to this Change; for this would not be at all wonderful. We see Churches and Churchyards thus changed every day, from Common to Consecrated or Sanctified Places, and yet we think it no Wonder, or account it no Miracle; yet we should wonder to hear one say, after consecrating a Church or a Churchyard, it were Transelementated or changed wonderfully by the Word of God, as St. Gregory says; or By the power of the holy Spirit, as Gelasius has it; or By the Omnipotency of God, as St. Cyprian says, and many other Fathers in such like Expressions. You say, you do not determine the Change, etc. the more to blame you. For if it be necessary to Salvation, to believe right in this Point, i. e. to believe that the Object present to you after Consecration, is the Body of Christ, if it be so; and to believe it it is not, if it be not so; then ought you at least to determine whether it be so or no, and make a firm Assent to that your Determination a necessary Condition of Communion with you (a firm and actual Belief of one of these two Propositions, It is really the Body of Christ, or it is not, being a necessary Condition of Man's Salvation.) For sure you will hold, that that which is a necessary Condition of Salvation, aught to be made a necessary Condition of Communion; therefore if you do not determine at least so far, as to say, It is, or it is not the Body of Christ, and require that this your Determination be believed as a Condition of Communion with you, you do by the first, i. e. not determining, leave all People in your Communion in a very great uncertainty, as to the Condition of their Salvation: For how can private persons have any kind of certainty in a disputed Point, without some judicial Determination of that dispute? After which indeed, they may have Certainty, or Probability answerable to the Authority of the Determination, which will be infallible, if the Authority be infallible; or only a Probability; and that greater or less, according to the Degrees of Credit, which the Authority may challenge, if that Authority be but able to give a probable Determination. By the second, viz. not requiring the belief of your Determination, as a Condition of Communion, in case you do determine, you do confess that Heretics and Blasphemers, or Heretics and Idolaters, may be of your Communion, tho' professedly such, i. e. you do allow your Communion to them who observe not the Condition of their Salvation. For if determining it not to be the Body of Christ, you do not make the belief of this Determination, a Condition of Communion, you do allow those that believe contradictorily, (i. e. that it is the Body Christ, and in consequence of that belief make it the formal Object of Adoration,) to be of your Communion; and yet if your Determination be true, these last, who believe and adore, as a aforesaid, are Idolaters, and do break thereby the Condition of their Salvation. Now I leave to the judgement of the Company, whether this undetermined Doctrine of yours be a lawful cause for you to separate from the Church you were once Members of, and was acknowledged the true Church, to believe you know not what yourselves; for I am sure you cannot determine what change it is.  
As to the Term Bread used by the Father, it can create no difficulty; for when we said, as we did at first, that all Scripture was to be expounded Literally, if the literal Sense did not imply a Contradiction; we did suppose that in case it did imply a Contradiction, it ought to be expounded otherwise. Instance was given in this, I am a Vine: What we supposed of the Scripture, must hold of all Speeches, if the literal Sense implies a Contradiction, they must be expounded otherwise. Now mark the Father, he says, Christ affirming of Bread, this is my Body, etc. This Bread is my Body is a Contradiction, therefore Bread or Body must not be taken Literally. At the latter end of this Quotation, the Father says, the Bread which we see is not Bread, but the Body of Christ; there cannot be a plainer Contradiction than is, and is not; therefore Bread the Subject in this Proposition, of which so palpable a Contradiction is predicated, must needs be under some other Signification besides its Literal one, because this Predicate so peremptorily Negative, is not Bread, and so determined positively, but Christ's Body, are so evident and plain, that they are not capable of being misconstrued, especially being Predicates, which always limit and determine the Subject. So that Bread is so called, because it once was Bread (as Moses his Rod, tho' changed into a Serpent, was notwithstanding called a Rod, because it had been so) and still appears to the Senses to be Bread, as the Father here tells us, with this Reduplication for fear of mistake, yet it is not Bread. I cannot use plainer words to explicate the Father, than his own. He that can make Protestantism out of these Texts, may expound Bellarmin and the Council of Trent, when they please, and make them Protestants too.  
As to your Demand, that we should show that the Substance of Bread ceases; I think you never need have it shown plainer than in the words before you, which say, that that which seems Bread is not Bread; I suppose by Substance of Bread, you mean the Being of Bread; therefore the Being ceasing, the Substance must cease; but the Being ceases according to this Text; for that which was Bread is not Bread, therefore the Substance ceases, and there is a change, which you grant wonderful; and what can this change be, but this Substance ceasing to be is changed into another Substance, which we call Transubstantiation? And yet  
Because St. Cyprian lies here before us, I will show 
St. Cyp. de C●en. Domini.  you a Quotation out of him, where he says, that Bread is changed, not only in Effigy, or Similitude, but in Nature, being by the Omnipotent Power of God made Flesh.  Dr. 
I wonder you should quote that place out of St. Cyprian, which is notoriously known to be none of his, for the Manuscript of that Work is now in Oxford Library, and bears the Name of another Author, some Hundred Years younger than St. Cyprian.  Cath. 
But do you acknowledge that the words quoted out of this Work (be it whose it will) do signify Transubstantiation?  Drs. 
We do not deny, but that many Authors of latter Ages have writ very oddly of that Point, and we do think this, among the rest, one of them.  Cath. 
This is the first time, that ever we heard of any such Manuscript of this work in Oxford; and yet I have met with many Protestants that have made it their business to prove it none of St. Cyprians; and 'tis much that none of them should ever hear of this Manuscript and urge it, if it were so evidently known to be another Man's, and whose, and of what Age. But this I am sure, that Cocus, the famous Man for excepting against places brought by Catholics for their Doctrines, does impugn this Book chiefly from Bellarmin's Confessions, who indeed does say, that it may seem to be none of St. Cyprians; but adds immediately after, that it was the work of some Learned Man of the same Age, as our Adversaries acknowledge, to which Cocus says nothing, and therefore may well be thought to allow it. Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, upon 1 Cor. cap. 7. fol. 282. says, the Author de Coena Domini, which is the Work now mentioned, was not in time much Inferior to Cyprian: And Erasmus (a great Man with the Protestants) in his Annotations annexed to St. Cyprians Works, Printed at Basil, 1558. fol. 287. affirmeth it to be the Work of some Learned Man of that Age; so that taking Cocus his silence to what Bellarmin says, and Mr. Fulk and Erasmus their plain affirmations of the Age of this Work, to be worth any thing; and taking this Doctor's Confession, that the words in this Work are odd, as savouring of Transubstantiation, you have an Argument of Transubstantiation in St. Cyprians Age, or at least of a time not much inferior.  Gentlem. to the Doctor. 
Sir, I have observed the Discourse as well as I could, and I find the great Point in Dispute, is, what the Fathers held a great while ago. As to the Doctrine in debate, you have brought places of both sides, which we must consider more at leisure; but at present will you be pleased to Answer me a Question or two, which occur to me to ask?  Dr. 
With all my Heart.  Gent. 
How long is it since Transubstantiation (the word I mean) has been Established?  Dr. 
Ever since the Lateran Council, about 450 Years ago.  Gent. 
Did the Church understand the word Transubstantiation, then to signify any new Doctrine, or only to express the very self same Doctrine which they believed before?  Dr. 
We do believe that the word was not taken to signify any thing but what was believed before.  Gent. 
When did the Church begin to believe that Doctrine, which it seems it did believe at and before the Lateran Council, and thought then well expressed by the word Transubstantiation?  Dr. 
We confess we cannot tell, for great Errors arrive often from little beginnings and do grow up insensibly.  Gent. 
How long was it after the Lateran Council before this Doctrine was complained of?  Dr. 
About three hundred years.  Gent. 
How came we to discern this to be an Error three hundred years after, which our Forefathers held for a Truth three hundred years together in express Terms, and no body knows how much longer they held the same thing in other Terms? Is it not much, an Error could be so general, and so long maintained without any Opposition or Notice taken of its Birth or Origin?  Dr. 
It was not so General, but that some opposed it, as the Waldenses; but it is not strange that an Error should be general and long maintained; for the Church of Rome says, that the Greek Church erred generally and long, in teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Son.  Cath. 
But the Church of Rome never taught, that the whole Catholic Church erred in teaching that Doctrine; for though that part which is now called the Greek Church, be condemned for that Error, yet we know how and when it began, and who opposed it; we know that very many of the Greeks never consented to it, but did then, and have always since continued in Communion with the Church of Rome; so that that Error was so far from being general, that it was always opposed by the Latin Church, and great part of the Greeks too; whereas no Body opposed Transubstantiation, but known Heretics, who began before the Lateran Council we speak of, and were condemned by it; and were such as the Waldenses, (a People, as I suppose, you would be loath to own for your Predecessors.) And that all the World should, consent so quietly all at one time to adore that for God, which the day before was universally believed to be but a piece of Bread, and was used accordingly; and no Man living in the World take notice when this was done, nor upon what occasion, or give it the least Opposition, is a Miracle ten times greater (if there be any Degrees in Miracles) than this, which you cannot believe for its difficulty, viz. Transubstantiation; especially when we can show in every Age, when any Opposition was made to this Doctrine, who they were that did it, and what became of them. Berengarius was above a hundred years before the Lateran Council; yet we can show that he was opposed by Bishops and Fathers of almost all Countries, as by Lanfranck of Canterbury, Durandus Troaernensis, Guitmundus, four Bishops of Rome, and by the Pastors of all Countries, how he recanted three times, and how he died. Joannes Scotus Erigena, who lived about two hundred years before, and had laid some Grounds for Berengarius his Error, was treated as an Innovator by Hincmarus and others, himself forced to retire out of France, and his Book not heard of again till two hundred years after; and no Man living can tell us, when this absurd Doctrine (as the Doctor calls it) which has had such Success in the World, as to obtain Belief universally, for several hundred years, ever had any Beginning, or any considerable Opposition. For though the Word Transubstantiation was not commonly used before the Council of Lateran, it matters not, nor makes any new Belief, since it has always been the constant practice of the Church in the General Councils, when it did condemn Heretical Opinions, or decide any Point in debate, to expound the true Sense of Scripture, upon that very Point, by some very significant Word, to leave no occasion of Cavilling or Disputing upon its Decisions, declaring by an explicit Act and positive Definition, what was the true Sense of Soripture, and what implicitly all the whole Catholic Church did believe before, as it appears in several other Councils, as in that of Nice against the Arians, where the Word Consubstantial was found out to condemn their Heresy, they pretending that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of like Substance to the Father, when the Council defined him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. of the same Substance or Consubstantial. The same you may observe in the Council of Chalcedon, where Nestorius was condemned by the new distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gent. 
Supposing, Sir, that the Roman Doctrine in this Point be false, and their practice Idolatry, and yet both were Universal for several Ages together, which way can the Church of England pretend to good and lawful Ordination? for they pretend to none, but what they received from Idolaters, i. e. the Church of Rome.  Dr. 
Very well, for though they were Idolaters, they might give good and lawful Ordinations, for the very Church of Rome holds, that mortal sin does not hinder a Bishop or Priest from executing his Function.  Cath. 
All Mortal Sins may not hinder a Bishop from executing his Function, or giving good and lawful Ordination, yet some may: For if a Bishop should become a Jew, (and the same thing may be said if he becomes an Idolater) you surely will not allow him to give good and lawful Christian Ordination: For that which destroys the Essence of a Church or a Christian, must needs disable those it falls upon, from giving legal Commissions at least, to others to govern the Church, or to administer the Sacraments of Christ.  Drs. 
There are two sorts of Idolatry, one of the Heathens, and another (if you will have it) of the Church of Rome.  Cath. 
We will have any thing that you will make evident; but when you tell us of two sorts of Idolatries, I hope you do not mean Material and Formal Idolatry, the first of which, if purely such, is no Crime. We speak all along of Formal Idolatry, which you must accuse the Church of Rome of, or else, 〈◊〉 nothing 〈◊〉 if you do, I pray show how the nature of formal 〈◊〉 becomes changed by its relation to Heathens, from what it is when it relates to a Papist. I doubt you mean by your two sorts of Idolatry, Idolatry which is Idolatry, and Idolatry which is not Idolatry, like the honest Preacher 〈◊〉 talked of three sorts of Seekers, one that sought and found, another who sought and did not find, and a third which neither sought nor found; the first Idolatry 〈◊〉 belong to the Heathens; and the second, the no Idolatry, to the Papists.  
And now we shall leave it to the Judgement of this worthy Company to consider, how clear and evident you have made it, that you had such just Cause to separate from the whole Church, as to excuse you from formal or Criminal Schism.  
FINIS.