Exposition of the Scriptures cannot err for God will be with them to the end of the World A Protestant must on the other hand according to his Principles argue that since man has a reasonable soul in him he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making Inferences And when any consequence is apparent to our understandings we ought and must believe it as much as we do that from which the consequenee is drawn Therefore we must not only read but study to understand the true meaning of Scripture And we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the Scriptures if we find the Church of God in the purest times and the Fathers believing as we believe If we should hear two persons that were unknown to us argue either of these two ways we must conclude the one is a Papist the other a Protestant as to this particular Now I desire the Reader may compare what has been cited from the Fathers upon this subject And see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles Whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine that in seeking out the decision of all Controversies the Fathers went by the same Rules we go by to wit the clear sense of Scriptures as it must appear to every considering mans understanding backed with the opinion of the Fathers that went before them And thus far have I followed this Objection and have as I hope to every Reader 's satisfaction made it out that there can be nothing more unreasonable more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church to the nature of the soul of man to the use and end of words and discourse to the practice of Christ and his Apostles to the constant sense of the Primitive Church and that upon full and often renewed Contest with Hereticks upon this very head Then to impose on us an Obligation to read all the Articles of our Church in the express words of Scripture So that I am confident this will appear to every considering person the most trifling and pitiful Objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason And therefore it is hoped that all persons who take any care of their souls will examine things more narrowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them or to be shaken by such Objections And if all the scruple these Gentlemen have why they do not joyn in Communion with the Church of England lies in this we expect they shall find it so entirely satisfied and removed out of the way that they shall think of returning back to that Church where they had their Baptism and Christian Education and which is still ready to receive them with open arms and to restore such as have been over-reached into Error and Heresie with the spirit of meekness To which I pray God of his great mercy dispose both them and all others who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest Church upon Earth and have turned over to a most impure and corrupt Society And let all men say Amen A Discourse to shew that it was not only possible to change the Belief of the Church concerning the Manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament but that it is very reasonable to conclude both that it might be done and that it was truly changed THere is only one Particular of any importance that was mentioned in the Conference to which we forgot to make any Answer at all which was spoken by N. N. to this purpose How was it possible or to be imagined that the Church of God could ever have received such a Doctrine as the belief of Transubstantiation if every age had not received it and been instructed in it by their Fathers and the age that went before it This by a pure forgetfulness was not answered and one of these Gentlemen took notice of it to me meeting with me since that time and desired me to consider what a friend of N. N. has lately printed on this Subject in a Letter concerning Transubstantiation Directed to a Person of Honour In which a great many pretended Impossibilities of any such Innovation of the Doctrine are reckoned up to shew it a thing both inconceivable and unpracticable to get the Faith of the Church changed in a thing of this nature This same Plea has been managed with all the advantages possible both of Wit Eloquence and Learning by Mr. Arnaud of the Sorbon but had been so exposed and baffled by Mr. Claud who as he equals the other in Learning Eloquence and Wit so having much the better of him in the Cause and Truth he vindicates has so foiled the other in this Plea that he seeing no other way to preserve that high reputation which his other Writings and the whole course of his Life had so justly acquired him has gone off from the main Argument on which they begun and betaken himself to a long and unprofitable Enquiry into the belief of the Greek Church since her schism from the Latine Church The Contest has been oft renewed and all the ingenious and learned persons of both sides have looked on with great expectations Every one must confess Mr. Arnaud has said all can be said in such a Cause yet it seems he finds himself often pinched by the bitter I had almost said scurrilous reproaches he casts on Mr. Claud which is very unbecoming the Education and other Noble Qualities of that great man whom for his Book of Frequent Communion I shall ever honour And it is a thing much to be lamented that he was taken off from these more useful Labours wherein he was engaged so much to the bettering this Age both in discovering the horrid corruption of the Jesuits and other Casuists not only in their Speculations about Casuistical Divinity but in their hearing Confessions and giving easie Absolutions upon trifling Penances and granting Absolutions before the Penance was performed and in representing to us the true Spirit of Holiness and Devotion was in the Primitive Church But on the other hand as Mr. Claud leaves nothing unsaid in a method fully answerable to the excellence of that truth he defends so he answers these reproaches in a way worthy of himself or rather of Christ and the Gospel If those excellent Writings were in English I should need to say nothing to a point that has been so canvassed but till some oblige this Nation by translating them I shall say so much on this Head as I hope shall be sufficient to convince every body of the emptiness weakness and folly of this Plea And first of all In a matter of fact concerning a change made in the Belief of the Church the only certain method of enquiry is to consider the Doctrine of the Church in former Ages and to compare that with what is now received
so but that the whole Body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before and yet is not brought thither but produced there 4. That the Accidents of any Substance such as Colour Smell Taste and Figure can remain without any Body or Substance in which they subsist 5. That our Senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident Representations 6. Great Doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received or if it should come to be corrupted or to be snatched by a Mouse or eat by any Vermine All these are the natural and necessary Effects of this Doctrine and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching Understanding but are such as stare every body full in the Face and hence it is that since this was submitted to in the Western Church the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered and new Maxims and Definitions were found out to accustom the Youth while raw and easy to any Impression to receive these as Principles by which their Minds being full of those first Prejudices might find no difficulty to believe this Now it is certain had the Fathers believed this they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith and were so far from being short or defective in it that they rather over-do it and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but about Original Sin the Derivation of our Souls the Operation of the Grace of God in our Hearts and the Resurrection of our Bodies should yet have been so constantly silent in those Mysteries tho they ought rather to have been cleared than the other Because in the other Heads the Difficulties were more speculative and abstracted and so Scruples were only incident to Men of more curious and diligent Enquiries But here it is otherwise where the matter being an Object of the Senses every Man's Senses must have raised in him all or most of those Scruples And yet the Fathers neither in their Philosophical Treatises nor in their Theological Writings ever attempt the unridling those Difficulties But all this is only a Negative and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the Fathers St. Austin in particular if he can perswade himself that when all other Mysteries and the Consequences from them were explained with so great Care and even Curiosity these only were things of so easy a Digestion that about them there should have been no Scruple at all made But it is yet clearer when we find the Fathers not only silent but upon other occasions delivering Maxims and Principles so directly contrary to these Consequences without any reserved Exceptions or Provisions for the strange Mysteries of Transubstantiation They tell us plainly Creatures are limited to one place and so argued against the Heathens believing their Inferiour Deities were in the several Statues consecrated to them From this they prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost that he did work in many places at once and so could not be a Creature which can only be in one place Nay they do positively teach us that Christ can be no more on Earth since his Body is in Heaven and is but in one place They also do tell us That that which hath no Bounds nor Figure and cannot be touched nor seen cannot be a Body and that all Bodies are extended in some place and that Bodies cannot exist after the manner of Spirits They also tell us in all their Reasonings against the Eternity of Matter That nothing could be produced that had a Being before it was produced They also teach us very formally That none of the Qualities of a Body could subsist except the Body it self did also subsist And for the Testimonies of our Senses they appeal to them on all occasions as Infallible and tell us that it tended to reverse the whole state of our Life the order of Nature and to blind the Providence of God to say he has given the Knowledg and Enjoyment of all his Works to Liars and Deceivers if our Senses be false Then we must doubt of our Faith if the Testimony of the Eyes Hands and Ears were of a Nature capable to be deceived And in their Contests with the Marcionites and others about the Truth of Christ's Body they appeal always to the Testimony of the Senses as infallible Nay even treating of the Sacrament they say it was Bread as their Eyes witnessed and truly Wine that Christ did consecrate for the Memory of his Blood telling that in this very particular we ought not to doubt the Testimony of our Senses But to make this whole matter yet plainer It is certain that had the Church in the first Ages believed this Doctrine the Heathens and Jews who charged them with every thing they could possibly invent had not passed over this against which all the Powers of Reason and the Authorities of Sense do rise up They charge them for believing a God that was born a God of Flesh that was crucified and buried They laughed at their Belief of a Iudgment to come of endless Flames of an Heavenly Paradise and the Resurrection of the Flesh. The first Apologists for Christianity Iustin Tertullian Origen Arnobius and Cyril of Alexandria give us a full account of those Blasphemies against our most holy Faith and the last hath given us what Iulian objected in his own words who having apostatized from the Faith in which he was initiated and was a Reader in the Church must have been well acquainted with and instructed in their Doctrine and Sacraments He then who laughed at every thing and in particular at the Ablution and Sanctification in Baptism as conceiving it a thing impossible that Water should cleanse and wash a Soul Yet neither he nor Celsus nor any other ever charged on the Christians any Absurdities from their Belief of Transubstantiation This is it is true a Negative Argument yet when we consider the Malice of those ingenious Enemies of our Faith and their Care to expose all the Doctrines and Customs of Christians and yet find them in no place charge the strange Consequences of this Doctrine on them we must from thence conclude there was no such Doctrine then received for if it had been they at least Iulian must have known it and if they knew it can we think they should not have made great noise about it We know some think their charging the Christians with the eating of Human Flesh and Thyestian Suppers related to the Sacrament but that cannot be for when the Fathers answer that Charge they tell them to their Teeth it was a plain lie and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the Eucharist which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their Doctrine of receiving Christ's Body and Blood in the
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 The Addition which N. N. desired might be subjoined to the Relation of the Conference if it were published but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Conference THe substance of what N. N. desired me to take notice of was That our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life as Almsgiving or any other good Works gives it where the bare external Action if separated from a good Intention and Principle is not acceptable to God So that we must necessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this Addition of Worthily that whoso eats his flesh and drinks his blood in the Sacrament Worthily hath everlasting life for he said he did not deny but the believing the Death of Christ was necessary in communicating but it is not by Faith only we receive his body and blood For as by Faith we are the sons of God yet it is not only by Faith but also by Baptism that we become the sons of God so also Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved yet this doth not exclude Repentance and amendment of Life from being necessary to Salvation therefore the universality of the Expression whoso eats does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it And so did conclude that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures we must prove from some clear Scriptures by Arguments that consist of a Major and Minor that are either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them that Christ was no otherwise present in the Sacrament than spiritually as he is received by Faith And added That it was impertinent to bring Impossibilities either from sense or reason against this if we brought no clear Scriptures against it To this he also added That when D. S. asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament he answered That he might really receive Christ's body at his mouth though none of his senses could perceive him as a Bole or Pill is taken in a Syrup or any other Liquor so that I really swallow it over though my senses do not taste it in like manner Christ is received under the accidents of Bread and Wine so that though our senses do not perceive it yet he is really taken in at our Mouth and goes down into our Stomach ANSWER HAving now set down the strength of N. N. his Plea upon second Thoughts I shall next examine it The stress of all lies in this Whether we must necessarily supply the Words of Christ with the addition of worthily he affirms it I deny it for these Reasons Christ in this Discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was Moses's Law and that Moses gave Manna from Heaven to nourish their Bodies notwithstanding which they died in the Wilderness but Christ was to give them Food to their Souls which if they did eat they should never die for it should give them life where it is apparent the bread and nourishment must be such as the life was which being internal and spiritual the other must be such also and vers 47. he clearly explains how that Food was received He that believeth on me hath everlasting life Now having said before that this bread gives life and here saying that believing gives everlasting life it very reasonably follows that believing was the receiving this Food which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Iews having desired him evermore to give them that bread he answers verse 35. I am the bread of Life be that comes to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst Which no man that is not strangely prepossessed can consider but he must see it is an Answer to their Question and so in it he tells them that their coming to him and believing was the mean of receiving that Bread And here it must be considered that Christ calls himself Bread and says that a Man must eat thereof which must be understood figuratively and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse it is unjust to reject the applying the same Figures to other parts of it In fine Christ tells them this Bread was his Flesh which he was to give for the Life of the World which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the Cross. This did as it was no wonder startle the Jews so they murmured and said How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat To which Christs Answer is so clear that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it He first tells them except they eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man they had no Life in them Where on the way mark that drinking the Blood is as necessary as eating the Flesh and these words being expounded of the Sacrament cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the Blood For suppose the Doctrine of the Blood 's concomitating the Flesh were true yet even in that case they only eat the Blood but cannot be said to drink the Blood But from these words it is apparent Christ must be speaking chiefly if not only of the spiritual Communicating for otherwise no man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament The words are formal and positive and Christ having made this a necessary Condition of Life I see not how we dare promise Life to any that hath never received it And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament appointed it to be given to Infants immediately after they were baptized for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words And yet the Church of Rome will not deny but if any die before he is adult or if a Person converted be in such Circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the
meaning of this by and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every Place Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place we must judge of it by the rules of common Sense and Reason of Religion and Piety and if a meaning be affixed to any Place contrary to these we have good reason to reject it For we knowing all external things only by our Senses by which only the Miracles and Resurrection of Christ could be proved which are the means God has given us to converse with and enjoy his whole Creation and evidence our senses give being such as naturally determines our Perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroys all our Conceptions of things is contrary to the most universally receiv'd Maxims subverts the Notions of matter and accidents and in a word confounds all our clearest Apprehensions we must also reject every such gloss since it contradicts the evidence of that which is God's Image in us If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious Exaltation of the humane Nature of our blessed Saviour we have very just reasons to reject it even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture therefore this Dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's Words he that shews best Reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to Truth does all that is necessary in this case But after all this we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was Bread that Christ took blessed brake and gave his Disciples Now the Scripture calling it formally bread destroys Transubstantiation Christ said This is my Body which are declarative and not imperative words such as Let there be light or Be thou whole Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true as is most clear therefore Christ pronounces what the Bread was become by his former blessing which did sanctifie the Elements and yet after that blessing it was still bread Again the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it so that Christ's words Do this in remembrance of me shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living Commemoration and Communication of his Body and Blood Farther Christ telling us it was his Body that was given for us and his Blood shed for us which we there receive it is apparent he is to be understood present in the Sacrament not as he is now exalted in Glory but as he was on the Cross when his Blood was shed for us And in fine if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews all this will be more easily understood for it was ordinary for them to call the Symbol by the Name of the Original it represented So they called the Cloud between the Cherubims God and Iehovah according to these words O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims and all the symbolical Apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be the Lord appearing to them But that which is more to this purpose is that the Lamb that was the symbol and memorial of their Deliverance out of Egypt was called the Lord's Passover Now though the Passover then was only a Type of our Deliverance by the Death of Christ yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in Egypt as really a Representation of it as the Sacrament is of the Death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood though they were not so corporally but only mystically and sacramentally than that Moses called the Lamb the Lord 's Passover So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbol and Type by the Name of the Substance and Original Therefore our Saviour's Words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful Expression to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech in that Age People and Place in which such Phrases were used This is signally confirmed by the Account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures First he says it stands in its natural signification for receiving bodily Food Then because there are two things done in eating the first is the destruction of that which is eaten so that it loseth its first form the other is the increase and nourishment of the substance of the Person that eats therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the Language of the Scriptures the one is destruction and desolation so the Sword is said to eat or as we render it to devour so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants and so Fire is said to eat or consume The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom Learning and all Intellectual Apprehensions by which the form or soul of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them as the body is preserved by food For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament as Isa. 55. 2. come buy and eat and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom eating and cites some of their Sayings as come and eat flesh in which there is much fat and that whenever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law So also Wisdom is often called Water Isa. 55. 1. and he concludes that because this sense of eating occurs so often and is so manifest and evident as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the Word therefore Hunger and Thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Understanding as Amos. 8. 21. To this he also refers that of thirsting Psal. 42. 3. and Isa. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these Words Ye shall draw water out of the Wells of Salvation renders it Ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the select ones among the Iust which is farther confirmed from the words of our Saviour Iohn 7. 37. And from these Observations of the Learnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins we see that the Iews understood the Phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this spiritual and figurative sense of receiving VVisdom and Instruction So that this being an usual form of Speech among them it is no strange thing to imagine how our Saviour being a Iew according to the Flesh and conversing with Iews did use these Terms and Phrases
in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of Reason and strong and convincing Authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christ's words This is my Body are to be understood spiritually mystically and sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. That Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with Reason and Learning to justifie all he says that no other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an Answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an Object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my Throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or convey it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this Answer to it is but mere trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an Account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOur Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the Third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial Person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions first That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The second was that after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symbols the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the body and blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced Person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the body and blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the body and the blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christ's body and blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the first we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the flesh and the blood of the Incarnate Iesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wine and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and VVine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the Father of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the World and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by Arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the body of his Lord and the Cup of his blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their Saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of Christ for says he that bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our Bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian Lib. 1. adv Marc. c. 14. proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other Proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Hony he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Lib. 3. adv Marc. c. 19. Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says Lib. 8. cont Celsum We eat of the Loaves set before us with Thanks giving and Prayers over what is given to us which by the Prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose St. Cyprian says Epist. 76. Christ calls the Bread that was compounded
those we deal with may think of them we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally Parallel to these are Origen's words Homil. 7. in Lev. who calls the understanding the Words of our Saviour of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter a Letter that kills The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist a Sign of Christ's Body in his Book against Adimantus Lib. cont Adimant manich c. 12. who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and New Testament was not the same God and among other Arguments he uses this That Blood in the Old Testament is called the Life or Soul contrary to the New Testament To which St. Austin answers That it was so called not that it was truly the Soul or Life but the Sign of it and to shew that the Sign does sometimes bear the Name of that whereof it is a Sign he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the Sign of his Body Where if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body it had been the most impertinent Illustration that ever was and had proved just against him that the Sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it For the Sacrament being called the Type the Antitype the Symbol and Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood The ancient Liturgies and Greek Fathers use these Phrases so frequently that since it is not so much as denied we judg we need not laboriously prove it Therefore we pass over this believing it will be granted for if it be denied we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions but to have been the constant Style of the Church Now that Types Antitypes Symbols and Mysteries are distinct from that which they shadow forth and mystically hold out we believe can be as little disputed In this Sense all the Figures of the Law are called Types of Christ by the Fathers and both the Baptismal Water and the Chrism are called Symbols and Mysteries And tho there was not that occasion for the Fathers to discourse on Baptism so oft which every body received but once and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the Year as they had to speak of the Eucharist which was daily consecrated so that it cannot be imagined there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other yet we fear not to undertake to prove there be many places among the Ancients that do as fully express a change of the Baptismal Water as of the Eucharistical Elements From whence it may appear that their great Zeal to prepare Persons to a due value of these holy Actions and that they might not look on them as a vulgar Ablution or an ordinary Repast carried them to many large and high Expressions which cannot bear a literal meaning And since they with whom we deal are fain to fly to Metaphors and Allegories for clearing of what the Fathers say of Baptism it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such Expositions of what they say about the Eucharist But that we may not leave this without some Proof we shall set down the words of Facundus Desens Conc. Chalced. lib. 9. who says The Sacrament of Adoption that is Baptism may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup is called his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup properly his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood and hence it was that our Lord called the Bread that was blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and Blood Therefore as the Believers in Christ when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to have received his Body and Blood so Christ when he received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Sons may be rightly said to have received the Adoption of Sons And we leave every one to gather from these words if the cited Father could believe Transubstantiation and if he did not think that Baptism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God as the Eucharist was his Body and Blood which these of Rome acknowledg is only to be meant in a moral Sense That the Fathers called this Sacrament the Memorial and Representation of the Death of Christ and of his Body that was broken and his Blood that was shed we suppose will be as little denied for no Man that ever looked into any of their Treatises of the Eucharist can doubt of it St. Austin says Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. That Sacraments must have some Similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments otherwise they could not be Sacraments So he says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood So the Sacrament of Faith that is Baptism is Faith But more expresly speaking of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice of Praise he says Lib. 20. cont Faust. Manich. c. 21. The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the Sacrifices of the Types of it In the Passion of Christ it was done in the Truth it self And after his Ascent is celebrated by the Sacrament of the remembrance of it But he explains this more fully on the 98th Psalm where he having read ver 5. Worship his Footstool and seeking for its true meaning expounds it of Christ's Body who was Flesh of this Earth and gives his Flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation which since none eats except he have first adored it He makes this the Footstool which we worship without any Sin and do sin if we do not worship it So far the Church of Rome triumphs with this place But let us see what follows where we shall find that which will certainly abate their Joy He goes on and tells us not to dwell on the Flesh lest we be not quickened by the Spirit and shews how they that heard our Lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words for they understood them says he foolishly and carnally and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his Body to be given them But they were hard not our Lord 's saying for had they been meek and not hard they should have said within themselves He says not this without a cause but because there is some Sacrament hid there for had they come to him with his Disciples and asked him he had instructed them For he said it is the Spirit that quickens the Flesh profiteth nothing the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life And adds understand spiritually that which I have said for it is not this Body which you see that you are not to eat or to drink this Blood which they are to shed who shall crucify
Sacrament But the truth is those horrid Calumnies were charged on the Christians from the execrable and abominable Practices of the Gnosticks who called themselves Christians and the Enemies of the Faith either believing these were the Practices of all Christians or being desirous to have others think so did accuse the whole Body of Christians as guilty of these Abominations So that it appears those Calumnies were not at all taken up from the Eucharist and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the Eucharist charged on the Christians we may well conclude from hence that this Doctrine was not received then in the Church But another Negative Argument is That we find Heresies rising up in all Ages against all the other Mysteries of our Faith and some downright denying them others explaining them very strangely and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt Mind to reject all Divine Revelation more particularly that which either choaks his common Notions or the Deductions of appearing Reasonings but most of all all Men are apt to be startled when they are told They must believe against the clearest Evidences of Sense for Men were never so meek and tame as easily to yeild to such things How comes it then that for the first seven Ages there were no Heresies nor Hereticks about this We are ready to prove that from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries in which this Doctrine began to appear there has been in every Age great Opposition made to all the Advances for setting it up and yet these were but dark and unlearned Ages in which Implicit Obedience and a blind Subjection to what was generally proposed was much in Credit In those Ages the Civil Powers being ready to serve the Rage of Church-men against any who should oppose it it was not safe for any to appear against it And yet it cannot be denied but from the days of the second Council of Nice which made a great step towards Transubstantiation till the fourth Council of Lateran there was great Opposition made to it by the most Eminent Persons in the Latin Church and how great a part of Christendom has departed from the Obedience of the Church of Rome in every Age since that time and upon that account is well enough known Now is it to be imagined that there should have been such an Opposition to it these nine hundred Years last past and yet that it should have been received the former eight hundred Years with no Opposition and that it should not have cost the Church the trouble of one General Council to decree it or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it and answer those Objections that naturally arise from our Reasons and Senses against it But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural Consequences which had it been sooner taught and received must have been apprehended sooner and those are so many clear Presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine The Elevation Adoration Processions the Doctrine of Concomitants with a vast Superfaetation of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up The Age of them is well known and they have risen in the Latin Church out of this Doctrine which had it been sooner received we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter Now for all these things as the Primitive Church knew them not so on the other hand the great simplicity of their Forms as we find them in Iustin Martyr and Cyril of Ierusalem in the Apostolical Constitutions and the pretended Denis the Areopagite are far from that Pomp which the latter Ages that believed this Doctrine brought in the Sacraments being given in both kinds being put in the Hands of the Faithful being given to the Children for many Ages being sent by Boys or common Persons to such as were dying the eating up what remained which in some places were burnt in other places were consumed by Children or by the Clergy their making Cataplasms of it their mixing the consecrated Chalice with Ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks These with a great many more are such Convictions to one that has carefully compared the ancient Forms with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of Rome since this Doctrine was set up that it is as discernable as any thing can be that the present Belief of the Church of Rome is different from the Primitive Doctrine And thus far we have set down the Reasons that perswade us that Transubstantiation was not the Belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church If there be any part of what we have asserted questioned we have very formal and full Proofs ready to shew for them though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular Proofs of any thing but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your Ladyship Now there remains but one thing to be done which we also promised and that was to clear the Words of St. Cyril of Ierusalem We acknowledg they were truly cited but for clearing of them we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the Authority of that Father though we find but a slender Character given of him by Epiphanius and others Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the Authority of these Catechisms though much might be said But it is plain St. Cyril's Design in these Catechisms was only to possess his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symbols But even in his 4th Catechism he tells them not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still though not meer Bread And he gives us elsewhere a very formal Account in what Sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in this 4th Catechism For in his first Mist. Catechism when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Idolatry he tells that on the Solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread which by the Invocation of the Devils were defiled as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the holy Invocation of the blessed Trinity was bare Bread and Wine but the Invocation being made the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner says he those Victuals of the Pomp of Satan which of their own Nature are common or bare Victuals by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane From this Illustration which he borrowed from Iustin Martyr his second Apology it appears that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the Profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged so also according to him must the substance of the other remain Or if this will not satisfy them let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by
Manners bad brought to Divine Faith without nice Curiosity Others did strongly or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter Opinions without a strict trial of them Now in these words we find not a word either of Orthodox or Arrian so of which side either one or other were we are left to conjecture That Jesuit has been sufficiently exposed by the Writers of the Port-Royal for his foul dealing on other occasions and we shall have great cause to mistrust him in all his Accounts if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this and that the Party which he calls the Orthodox were really some holy good Men but simple ignorant and easily abused And that the other Party which he calls the Arrian was the Orthodox and more judicious who readily foreseeing the Inconvenience which the Simplicity of others would have involved them in did vehemently oppose it and pressed the Testimonies of the Fathers might not be blindly followed For proof of this we need but consider that they anathematized these who say that the Son was the Work of the Father as Athanasius De Decret Synod Nicen. tells us which were the very words of Denis of Alexandria of whom the Arrians Athan. Epist. de sententia Dion Alex. boasted much and cited these words from him and both Athanasius De Synod Arim. and Hilary Hil. lib. de Synod acknowledg that those Bishops that condemned Samosatenus did also reiect the Consubstantial and St. Basil Epist. 41. says Denis sometimes denied sometimes acknowledged the Consubstantial Yet I shall not be so easy as Petavius and others of the Roman Church are in this matter who acknowledg that most of the Fathers before the Council of Nice said many things that did not agree with the Rule of the Orthodox Faith but am fully perswaded that before that Council the Church did believe that the Son was truly God and of the same Divine Substance with the Father Yet on the other hand it cannot be denied but there are many Expressions in their Writings which they had not so well considered and thence it is that St. Basil Epist. 14. observes how Denis in his opposition to Sabellius had gone too far on the other hand Therefore there was a necessity to make such a Symbol as might cut off all equivocal and ambiguous Forms of Speech So we have very good reason to conclude it was the Arrian Party that studied under the pretence of not innovating to engage many of the holy but simpler Bishops to be against any new Words or Symbols that so they might still lurk undiscovered Upon what Grounds the Council of Nice made their Decree and Symbol we have no certain account since their Acts are lost But the best Conjecture we can make is from St. Athanasius who as he was a great Assertor of the Faith in that Council so also he gives us a large account of its Creed in a particular Treatise Lib. de Decret Concil Nicen. in which he justifies their Symbol at great length out of the Scriptures and tells us very formally they used the word Consubstantial that the Wickedness and Craft of the Arrians might be discovered and proves by many Consequences from Scripture that the words were well chosen and sets up his rest on his Arguments from the Scriptures tho all his Proofs are but Consequences drawn out of them It is true when he has done that he also adds that the Fathers at Nice did not begin the use of these words but had them from those that went before them and cites some Passages from Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen But no body can imagin this was a full Proof of the Tradition of the Faith These were but a few later Writers nor could he have submitted the Decision of the whole Controversy to two of these Denis of Alexandria and Origen for the other two their Works are lost in whose Writings there were divers Passages that favoured the Arrians and in which they boasted much Therefore Athanasius only cites these Passages to shew the Words of these Symbols were not first coined by the Council of Nice But neither in that Treatise nor in any other of his Works do I ever find that either the Council of Nice or he who was the great Champion for their Faith did study to prove the Consubstantiality to have been the constant Tradition of the Church But in all his Treatises he at full length proves it from Scripture So from the Definition of the Council of Nice and Athanasius his Writings it appears the Church of that Age thought that Consequences clearly proved from Scripture were a sufficient Ground to build an Article of Faith on With this I desire it be also considered that the next great Controversy that was carried on chiefly by S. Cyril against the Nestorians was likewise all managed by Consequences from Scripture as will appear to any that reads S. Cyril's Writings inserted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus chiefly his Treatise to the Queens and when he brought Testimonies from the Fathers against Nestorius which were read in the Council Act. Conc. Eph. Action 1. they are all taken out of Fathers that lived after the Council of Nice except only S. Cyprian and Peter of Alexandria If then we may collect from S. Cyril's Writings the Sense of that Council as we did from S. Athanasius that of the Council of Nice we must conclude that their Decrees were founded on Consequences drawn from Scripture nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued Succession of the Tradition In like manner when the Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavian was read and all assented to it So that upon the matter his Epistle became the Decree of the Council and that whole Epistle from beginning to end is one entire Series of Consequences proved from Scripture and Reason Act. Conc. Chalced. Action 1. And to the end of that Epistle are added in the Acts of that Council Testimonies from the Fathers that had lived after the days of the Council of Nice Theodoret Theod. in Dial. and Gelasius also Gelas. de Diab naturis who wrote against the Eutychians do through their whole Writings pursue them with Consequences drawn from Scripture and Reason and in the end set down Testimonies from Fathers And to instance only one more when S. Austin wrote against the Pelagians how many Consequences he draws from Scripture every one that has read him must needs know In the end let it be also observed that all these Fathers when they argue from Places of Scripture they never attempt to prove that those Scriptures had been expounded in that Sense they urge them in by the Councils or Fathers who had gone before them but argue from the Sense which they prove they ought to be understood in I do not say all their Consequences or Expositions were well-grounded but all that has been hitherto set down will prove that they
thought Arguments drawn from Scripture when the Consequences are clear were of sufficient Authority and Force to end all Controversies And thus it may appear that it is unreasonable and contrary to the practice both of the ancient Councils and Fathers to reject Proofs drawn from Places of Scripture though they contain not in so many Words that which is intended to be proved by them But all the Answer they can offer to this is That those Fathers and Councils had another Authority to draw Consequences from Scripture because the extraordinary Presence of God was among them and because of the Tradition of the Faith they builded their Decrees on than we can pretend to who do not so much as say we are so immediately directed or thar we found our Faith upon the successive Tradition of the several Ages of the Church To this I answer First It is visible that if there be any strength in this it will conclude as well against our using express Words of Scripture since the most express Words are capable of several Expositions Therefore it is plain they use no fair Dealing in this Appeal to the formal Words of Scripture since the Arguments they press it by do invalidate the most express Testimonies as well as Deductions Let it be further considered that before the Councils had made their Decrees when Heresies were broached the Fathers wrote against them confuting them by Arguments made up of Scripture-Consequences so that before the Church had decreed they thought private Persons might confute Heresies by such Consequences Nor did these Fathers place the strength of their Arguments on Tradition as will appear to any that reads but what St. Cyril wrote against Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus and Pope Leo against Eutyches before the Council of Chalcedon where all their Reasonings are founded on Scripture It is true they add some Testimonies of Fathers to prove they did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine of the Church But it is plain these they brought only as a Confirmation of their Arguments and not as the chief Strength of their Cause for as they do not drive up the Tradition to the Apostles Days setting only down some later Testimonies so they make no Inferences from them but barely set them down By which it is evident all the use they made of these was only to shew that the Faith of the Age that preceded them was conform to the Proofs they brought from Scripture but did not at all found the strength of their Arguments from Scripture upon the sense of the Fathers that went before them And if the Council of Nice had passed the Decree of adding the Consubstantials to the Creed upon evidence brought from Tradition chiefly can it be imagined that St. Athanasius who knew well on what grounds they went having born so great a share in their Consultations and Debates when he in a formal Treatise justifies that Addition should draw his chief Arguments from Scripture and Natural Reason and that only towards the end he should tell us of four Writers from whom he brings Passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing In the end when the Council had passed their Decree does the method of their dispute alter Let any read Athanasius Hilary or St. Austin writing against the Arrians They continue still to ply them with Arguments made up of Consequences from Scripture and their chief Argument was clearly a Consequence from Scripture That since Christ was by the Confession of the Arrians truly God Then he must be of the same Substance otherwise there must be more Substances and so more Gods which was against Scripture Now if this be not a Consequence from Scripture let every Body judg It was on this they chiefly insisted and waved the Authority of the Council of Nice which they mention very seldom or when they do speak of it it is to prove that its Decrees were according to Scripture For proof of this let us hear what St. Austin says Lib. 3. Cont. Max. 19. writing against Maximinus an Arrian Bishop proving the Consubstantiality of the Son This is that Consubstantial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Council of Nice against the Arrians by the Authority of Truth and the Truth of Authority which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow under the Heretical Emperor Constantius because of the newness of the Words which were not so well understood as should have been Since the ancient Faith had brought them forth but many were abused by the Fraud of a few And a little after he adds But now neither should I bring the Couâ—il of Nice nor yet the Council of Arrimini thereby to prejudg in this matter neither am I bound by the Authority of the latter nor you by the Authority of the former Let one Cause and Reason contest and strive with the other from the Authorities of the Scriptures which are Witnesses common to both and not proper to either of us If this be not our Plea as formally as can be let every Reader judg from all which we conclude That our Method of proving Articles of Faith by Consequences drawn from Scripture is the same that the Catholick Church in all the best Ages made use of And therefore it is unreasonable to deny it to us But all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative Evidence if we find that this very pretence of appealing to formal Words of Scriptures was on several occasions taken up by divers Hereticks but was always rejected by the Fathers as absurd and unreasonable The first time we find this Plea in any Bodies Mouth is upon the Question Whether it was lawful for Christians to go to the Theaters or other publick Spectacles which the Fathers set themselves mightily against as that which would corrupt the Minds of the People and lead them to heathenish Idolatry But others that loved those diverting Sights pleaded for them upon this ground as Tertullian Lib. de Spect. c. 3. tells us in these Words The Faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous calls for an Authority from Scripture for the discharge of these Sights and they became uncertain about it because such abstinence is no-where denounced to the Servants of God neither by a clear Signification nor by Name as Thou shalt not kill Nor worship an Idol But he proves it from the first Verse of the Psalms for though that seems to belong to the Iews yet says he the Scripture is always to be divided broad where that Discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us And this agrees with that Maxim he has elsewhere Lib. adv Gnost c. 7. That the Words of Scripture are to be understood not only by their Sound but by their Sense and are not only to be heard with our Ears but with our Minds In the next Place the Arrians designed to shroud themseles under general Expressions and had found
no place of Scripture to which he answers Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not as when God is said to sleep some things truly are but are no-where said as the Fathers being Unbegotten which they themselves believed and concludes that these things are drawn from those things out of which they are gathered though they be not mentioned in Scripture Therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews and that leaving Things they followed Syllables And shews how valid a good consequence is As if a man says he speaks of a living creature that is reasonable but mortal I conclude it must be a man Do I for that seem to rave not at all for these words are not more truly his that says them than his that did make the saying of them necessary So he infers that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures though they either were not at all or not clearly in the Scriptures We find also in a Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Macedonian that is in Athanasius's Works but believed to be written by Maximus after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost In end the Macedonian flies to this known refuge that it was no-where written that he was God and so challenges him for saying that which was not in Scripture But the Orthodox answers that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascribed to the Holy Ghost and since the Name follows the Nature he concludes if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself did sanctifie and was increated he must be God whether the other would or not Then he asks where it was written That the Son was like the Father in his Essence The Heretick answers That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence But the Orthodox replies which we desire may be well considered Were they moved to that from the sense of the Scripture or was it of their own authority or arrogance that they said any thing that was not written The other confesses it was from the sense of the Scripture that they were moved to it from this the Orthodox infers that the sense of the Scripture teaches us that an uncreated Spirit that is of God and quickens and sanctifies is a Divine Spirit and from thence he concludes He is God Thus we see clearly how exactly the Macedonians and these Gentlemen agree and what arguments the Fathers furnish us with against them The Nestorian History followed this tract and we find Nestorius both in his Letters Act. Syn. Eph. to Cyril of Alexandria to Pope Celestin and in these writings of his that were read in the Council of Ephesus Action 1. gives that always for his reason of denying the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God because the Scriptures did no-where mention it but call Her always the Mother of Christ and yet that General Council condemned him for all that and his friend Iohn Patriarch of Antioch earnestly pressed him by his Letters not to reject but to use that word since the sense of it was good and it agreed with the Scriptures and it was generally used by many of the Fathers and had never been rejected by any one This was also Eutyches his last refuge Act. 6. Syn. Constantin in Act. 2. Chalcedon when he was called to appear before the Council at Constantinople he pretended sickness and that he would never stir out of his Monastery but being often cited he said to those that were sent to him In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found To which they replied In what Scripture was the Consubstantial to be found Thus turning his Plea back on himself as the Orthodox had done before on the Arrians Eutyches also when he made his appearance he ended his defence with this That he had not found that to wit of the two Natures plainly in the Scripture and that all the Fathers had not said it But for all that he was condemned by that Council which was afterwards ratified by the Universal Council of Chalcedon Yet after this repeated condemnation the Eutychians laid not down this Plea but continued still to appeal to the express words of Scripture which made Theodoret write two Discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence they are published in Athanasius his Works Tom. 2. op Athan. among these Sermons against Hereticks But most of these are Theodoret's as appears clearly from Photius Bibl. Cod. 46. his account of Theodoret's Works the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this Plea The 12th Discourse which by Photius's account is the 16th has this title To those that say we ought to receive the Expression and not look to the Things signified by them as transcending all men The 19th or according to Photius the 23d is To those who say we ought to believe simply as they say and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient If I should set down all that is pertinent to this purpose I must set down the whole Discourses but I shall gather out of them such things as are most proper He first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable that would receive the words of the Sacred Writings without consideration or good direction not minding the pious scope for which they are written For if as they would have us we do not consider what they mark out to us but simply receive their words then all that the Prophets and Apostles have written will prove of no use to those that hear them for then they will hear with their ears but not understand with their hearts nor consider the consequence of the things that are said according to the Curse in Isaias And after he had applied this to those who misunderstood that place the Word was made Flesh he adds Shall I hear a saying and shall I not enquire into its proper meaning where then is the proper consequence of what is said or the profit of the hearer Would they have men changed into the nature of bruits If they must only receive the sound of words with their ears but no fruit in their soul from the understanding of them Contrariwise did St. Paul tell us They who are perfect have their senses exercised to discern good and evil but how can any discern aright if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said And such he compares to beasts and makes them worse than the clean beasts who chew the cud and as a man is to consider what meats are set before him so he must not snatch words stripp'd of their meaning but must carefully consider what is suitable to God and profitable to us what is the force of Truth what agrees
with the Law or answers to Nature he must consider the genuineness of Faith the firmness of Hope the sincerity of Love what is liable to no Reproach what is beyond Envy and worthy of Favour all which things concur in Pious Meditations And concludes thus The sum of all is he that receives any words and does not consider the meaning of them how can he understand those that seem to contradict others where shall he find a fit answer How shall he satisfie those that interrogate him or defend that which is written These passages are out of the first Discourse what follows is out of the second In the beginning he says Though the Devil has invented many grievous Doctrines yet he doubts if any former age brought forth any thing like that then broached Former Heresies had their own proper errors but this that was now invented renewed all others and exceeded all others Which says he receives simply what is said but does not enquire what is convenient or inconvenient But shall I believe without judgment and not enquire what is possible convenient decent acceptable to God answerable to Nature agreeable to Truth or is a consequence from the scope or suitable to the mystery or to piety or what outward reward or inward fruit accompanies it or must I reckon on none of these things But the cause of all our adversaries errors is that with their ears they hear words but have no understanding of them in their hearts for all of them and names divers shun a trial that they be not convinced and at length shews what absurdities must follow on such a method Instancing those places about which the Contest was with the Arrians such as these words of Christ The Father is greater than I. And shews what apparent contradictions there are if we do not consider the true sense of places of Scripture that seem contradictory which must be reconciled by finding their true meaning and concludes So we shall either perswade or overcome our adversary so we shall shew that the Holy Scripture is consonant to its self so we shall justly publish the glory of the Mystery and shall treasure up such a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls we shall neither believe without the Word nor speak without Faith Now I challenge every Reader to consider if any thing can be devised that more formally and more nervously overthrows all the pretences brought for his appeal to the express words of Scripture And here I stop for though I could carry it further and shew that other Hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext yet I think all Impartial Readers will be satisfied when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand Heresies condemned by the first four General Councils And from all has been said it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been baffled by Universal Councils and Fathers Yet I cannot leave this with the Reader without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered The first is that which these Gentlemen would impose on us has been the Plea of the greatest Hereticks have been in the Church Those therefore who take up these weapons of Hereticks which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands by the most Universal Councils and the most Learned Fathers of the Catholick Church till at length they were laid aside by all men as unfit for any service till in this age some Jesuits took them up in defence of an often baffled Cause do very unreasonably pretend to the Spirit or Doctrine of Catholicks since they tread a path so oft beaten by all Hereticks and abhorred by all the Orthodox Secondly We find the Fathers always begin their answering this pretence of Hereticks by shewing them how many things they themselves believed that were no-where written in Scripture And this I believe was all the ground M. W. had for telling us in our Conference that St Austin bade the Heretick read what he said I am confident that Gentleman is a man of Candour and Honour and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy as to have cited this for such a purpose if he had not taken it on trust from second hands But he who first made use of it if he have no other Authority of St. Austin's which I much doubt cannot be an honest man who because St. Austin to shew the Arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they believed urges them with this that they could not read all that they believed themselves would from that conclude St. Austin thought every Article of Faith must be read in so many words in Scripture This is such a piece of Ingenuity as the Jesuits used in the Contest about St. Austin's Doctrine concerning the efficacy of Grace When they cited as formal passages out of St. Austin some of the Objections of the Semipelagians which he sets down and afterwards answers which they brought without his answers as his words to shew he was of their side But to return to our purpose from this method of the Fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words back on those who make use of it against us and to ask them where do they read their Purgatory Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation the Pope's Supremacy with a great many more things in the express words of Scripture Thirdly We see the peremptory answer the Fathers agree in is that we must understand the Scriptures and draw just consequences from them and not stand on words or phrases but consider things And from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us It is in those great Saints Athanasius Hilary Gregory Nazianzen Austin and Theodoret that they will find our answer as fully and formally as need be and to them we refer our selves But Fourthly To improve this beyond the particular occasion that engaged us to all this enquiry we desire it be considered that when such an objection was made which those of the Church of Rome judge is strong to prove we must rely on somewhat else than Scripture either on the Authority of the Church or on the certainty of Tradition The first Councils and Fathers had no such apprehension All considering men chiefly when they are arguing a nice Point speak upon some hypothesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed and must certainly discourse consequently to it To instance it in this particular If an Objection be made against the drawing consequences from Scripture since all men may be mistaken and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings A Papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say it is true any man may err but the whole Church either when assembled in a Council with the Holy Ghost in the midst of them or when they convey down from the Apostles through age to age the Tradition of the
Glosses for all Passages of Scripture So that when the Council of Nice made all these ineffectual by putting the Word Consubstantial into the Creed then did they in all their Councils and in all Disputes set up this Plea That they would submit to every thing that was in Scripture but not to any Additions to Scripture A large account of this we have from Athanasius who De Synod Arim. Seleuc. gives us many of their Creeds In that proposed at Arimini these Words were added to the Symbol For the Word Substance because it was simply set down by the Fathers and is not understood by the People but breeds Scandal since the Scriptures have it not therefore we have thought fit it be left out and that there be no more mention made of Substance concerning God since the Scriptures no-where speak of the Substance of the Father and the Son He also tells us that at Sirmium they added Words to the same purpose to their Symbol rejecting the Words of Substance or Consubstantial because nothing is written of them in the Scriptures and they transcend the Knowledg and Understanding of Men. Thus we see how exactly the Plea of the Arrians agrees with what is now offered to be imposed on us But let us next see what the Father says to this He first turns it back on the Arrians and shews how far they were from following that Rule which they imposed on others And if we have not as good reason to answer those so who now take up the same Plea let every one judg But then the Father answers It was no matter though one used Forms of Speech that were not in Scripture if he had still a sound or pious Understanding as on the contrary an herâ—tical Person though be uses Forms out of Scripture he will not be the less suspected if his Understanding be corrupted and at full length applies that to the Question of the Consubstantiality To the same Purpose St. Hillary de Synod adv Arrian setting down the Arguments of the Arrians against the Consubstantiality the third Objection is That it was added by the Council of Nice but ought not to be received because it is no-where written But he answers it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a Word when the thing expressed by the Word has no difficulty We find likewise in the Conference St. Austin had with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop Lib. 1. cont Max. Arr. Epist. in the very beginning the Arrian tells him That he must hearken to what he brought out of the Scriptures which were common to them all but for Words that were not in Scripture they were in no case received by them And afterwards he says Lib. 3. c. 3. We receive with a full Veneration every thing that is brought out of the Holy Scriptures for the Scriptures are not in our Dominion that they may be mended by us And a little after adds Truth is not gathered out of Arguments but is proved by sure Testimonies therefore he seeks a Testimony of the Holy Ghost's being God But to that St. Austin makes answer That from the things that we read we must understand the things that we read not And giving an account of another Conference Epist. 72. he had with Count Pascentius that was an Arrian he tells that the Arrian did most earnestly press that the Word Consubstantial might be shewed in Scripture repeating this frequently and canvassing about it invidiously To whom St. Austin answers Nothing could be more contentious than to strive about a Word when the Thing was certain and asks him where the Word Unbegotten which the Arrians used was in Scripture And since it was no-where in Scripture he from thence concludes There might be a very good account given why a Word that was not in Scripture might be well used And by how many Consequences he proves the Consubstantiality we cannot number except that whole Epistle were set down And again in that which is called an Epistle Epist. 78. but is an account of another Conference between that same Person and St. Austin the Arrian desired the Consubstantiality might be accursed Because it was no-where to be found written in the Scriptures and adds That it was a grievous trampling on the Authority of the Scripture to set down that which the Scripture had not said for if any thing be set down without Authority from the Divine Volumes it is proved to be void against which St. Austin argues at great length to prove that it necessarily follows from other places of Scripture In the Conference between Photinus Sabellius Arrius and Athanasius first published by Cassander Oper. Cass. as a work of Vigilius but believed to be the work of Gelasius an African where we have a very full account of the Pleas of these several Parties Arrius challenges the Council of Nice for having corrupted the Faith with the Addition of new Words and complains of the Consubstantial and says the Apostles their Disciples and all their Successors downward that had lived in the Confession of Christ to that time were ignorant of that Word And on this he insists with great vehemency urging it over and over again pressing Athanasius either to read it properly set down in Scripture or to cast it out of his Confession against which Athanasius replies and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other Hereticks which were not written Shew me these Things says he not from Conjectures or Probabilities or things that do neighbour on Reason not from things that provoke us to understand them so nor from the Piety of Faith persuading such a Profession but shew it written in the pure and naked Property of Words that the Father is Unbegotten or Impassible And then he tells Arrius that when he went about to prove this he should not say the Reason of Faith required this Piety teaches it the Consequence from Scripture forces me to this Profession I will not allow you says he to obtrude these things on me because you reject me when I bring you such like things for the Profession of the Consubstantial In the end he says Either permit me to prove the Consubstantial by Consequences or if you will not you must deny all those things which you your self grant And after Athanasius had urged this further Probus that fate Judg in the Debate said Neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in Scripture Therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish Contest but prove either the one or rhe other by a just Consequence from Scripture In the Macedonian Controversy against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost we find this was also their Plea a hint of it was already mentioned in the Conference betwixt Maximinus the Arrian Bishop and St. Austin which we have more fully in St. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 37. who proving the Divinity of the Holy Ghost meets with that objection of the Macedonians that it was in