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
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
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
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
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
the Sons of God have eternal Life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the Consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear Consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial People would be of his Mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that Argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their Houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that Anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as near the Jewish Customs as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such Opinion have crept in in any Age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former Age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body he only meant a Commemoration his promise must only relate to his Death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal Presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his Blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every Consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the Institution it is clear that we receive his Body as it was given for us when his Blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first six Ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own Substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on Design and with Deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril of Ierusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism says expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my Body And for a proof instances Christ's changing the Water into Wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on Peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all Persons to use high Expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the Bread and Wine did remain he hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the Words of Cyril M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal Dispute about the Passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us therefore he promised an Answer in Writing to the Testimony of S. Cyril But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly undertook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary the Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and Signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undeniable Evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now
their former Substance Figure and Form and are both visible and palpable as they were before but they are understood to be that which they are made and are believed and venerated as being those things which they are believed to be And from thence he bids the Heretick compare the Image with the Original for the Type must be like the Truth and shews that Christ's Body retains its former Form and Figure and the Substance of his Body though it be now made Immortal and Incorruptible Thus he And having now set down very faithfully the Words of these Fathers we desire it may be considered that all these Words are used to the same Effect to prove the Reality of Christ's Body and the Distinction of the two Natures the Divine and the Human in him For though St. Chrysostom lived before Eutyches his days yet in this Point the Eutychians and the Apollinarists against whom he writes held Opinions so like others that we may well say all these Words of the Fathers we have set down are to the same purpose Now first it is evident that if Transubstantiation had been then believed there needed no other Argument to prove against the Eutychians that Christ had still a real Body but to have declared that his Body was corporally present in the Eucharist which they must have done had they believed it and not spoken so as they did since that alone well proved had put an end to the whole Controversy Further they could never have argued from the Visions and Apparitions of Christ to prove he had still a real Body for if it was possible the Body of Christ could appear under the accidents of Bread and Wine it was as possible the Divinity should appear under the accidents of an Humane Body Thirdly They could never have argued against the Eutychians as they did from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the Humane Nature of Christ into his Divinity if they had believed this substantial conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body which is liable unto far greater Absurdities And we can as little doubt but the Eutychians had turned back their Arguments on themselves with these Answers if that Doctrine had been then received It is true it would seem from the last Passage of Theodoret that the Eutychians did believe some such change but that could not be for they denied the Being of the Body of Christ and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not Therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions which the Father explains In fine The design of those Fathers being to prove that the two Natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the Person of Christ it had been inexcusable Folly in them to have argued from the sacramental Mysteries being united to the Body and Blood of Christ if they had not believed they retained their former Substance for had they believed Transubstantiation what a goodly Argument had it been to have said Because after the Consecration the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain therefore the Substance of the Humanity remained still tho united to the Divine Nature in Christ Did ever Man in his Wits argue in this fashion Certainly these four Bishops whereof three were Patriarchs and one of these a Pope deserved to have been hissed out of the World as Persons that understood not what it was to draw a Consequence if they had argued so as they did and believed Transubstantiation But if you allow them to believe as certainly they did that in the Sacrament the real Substances of Bread and Wine remained tho after the Sanctification by the Operation of the Holy Ghost they were the Body and Blood of Christ and were to be called so then this is a most excellent illustration of the Mystery of the Incarnation in which the Human Nature retains its proper and true Substance tho after the Union with the Divinity Christ be called God even as he was Man by virtue of his Union with the Eternal Word And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend that because Substance and Nature are sometimes used even for accidental Qualities they should be therefore understood so in the cited places for if you take them in that sense you destroy the force of the Argument which from being a very strong one will by this means become a most ridiculous Sophisin Yet we are indeed beholden to those that have taken pains to shew that Substance and Nature stand often for accidental Qualities for tho that cannot be applied to the former places yet it helps us with an excellent Answer to many of those Passages with which they triumph not a little Having so far considered these Four Fathers we shall only add to them the Definition of the Seventh General Council at Constantinople Ann. 754. Christ appointed us to offer the Image of his Body to wit the substance of the Bread The Council is indeed of no Authority with these we deal with But we do not bring it as a Decree of a Council but as a Testimony that so great a number of Bishops did in the Eighth Century believe That the substance of the Bread did remain in the Eucharist and that it was only the Image of Christ's Body and if in this Definition they spake not more consonantly to the Doctrine of the former Ages than their Enemies at Nice did let what has been set down and shall be yet adduced declare And now we advance to the third Branch of our first Assertion that the Fathers believed that the Consecrated Elements did nourish our Bodies and the Proofs of this will also give a further Evidence to our former Position that the substance of the Elements does remain And it is a Demonstration that these Fathers who thought the Sacrament nourished our Bodies could not believe a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For the proof of this Branch we desire the following Testimonies be considered First Iustin Martyr as was already cited not only calls the Eucharist our Nourishment but formally calls it that Food by which our Flesh and Blood through its transmutation into them are nourished Secondly Irenaeus Lib. 5. adv Heret c. 2. proving the Resurrection of the Body by this Argument That our Bodies are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ and that therefore they shall rise again he hath these Words He confirmed that Cup which is a Creature to be His Blood by which He encreases our Blood and the Bread which is a Creature to be His Body by which He encreases our Body And when the mixed Cup and the Bread receive the Word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ by which the substance of our Flesh is encreased and subsists How then do they deny the Flesh to be capable of the gift of God which is Eternal Life
me but I have recommended a Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and tho it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly From which it is as plain as can be that St. Austin believed that in the Eucharist we do not eat the natural Flesh and drink the natural Blood of Christ but that we do it only in a Sacrament and spiritually and invisibly But the force of all this will appear yet clearer if we consider that they speak of the Sacrament as a Memorial that exhibited Christ to us in his absence For tho it naturally follows that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent yet this will be yet more evident if we find the Fathers made such Reflections on it So Gaudentius says Tract in Exod. This is the hereditary Gift of his New Testament which that Night he was betrayed to be crucified he left as the Pledg of his Presence this is the Provision for our Iourney with which we are fed in this way of our Life and nourished till we go to him out of this World for he would have his Benefits remain with us He would have our Souls to be always sanctified by his precious Blood and by the Image of his own Passion Primasius Comm. in 1 Epist. ad Cor. compares the Sacrament to a Pledg which one when he is dying leaves to any whom he loved Many other places may be brought to shew how the Fathers speak of Memorials and Representations as opposite to the Truth and Presence of that which is represented And thus we doubt not but we have brought Proofs which in the Judgment of all that are unprejudiced must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition which we leave and go on to the third which was That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For this our first Proof is taken from Origen Com. in Mat. c. 15. who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten and passing to the Belly adds These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh and the true Food whom whosoever eats he shall live for ever whom no wicked Person can eat for if it were possible that any who continues wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh since he is the Word and the Living Bread it had never been written Whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacrament and the incarnate Word of which no wicked Person can partake And he also says Hom. 3. in Mat. They that are Good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven and the Wicked eat Dead Bread which is Death Zeno Bishop of Verona that as is believed lived near Origen's time Tom. 2. Spir. Dach says as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona There is cause to fear that he in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the Flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood tho he seems to communicate with the Faithful since our Lord hath said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Ierom on the 66th of Isaiah says They that are not holy in Body and Spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Iesus nor drink his Blood of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath Eternal Life And on the 8th Chapter of Hosea he says They eat not his Flesh whose Flesh is the Food of them that believe To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22d of Ieremy and on the 10th of Zechariah St. Austin says Tract 26. in Ioan. He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood tho he may visibly and carnally break in his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his Iudgment And speaking of those who by their Uncleanness become the Members of an Harlot he says Lib. 21. de Civ Dei c. 25. Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his Members And besides he adds He that says whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood To this we shall add that so oft cited Passage Tract 54. in Ioan. Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord the other he means Iudas the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. By which he clearly insinuates he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread And that this hath been the constant Belief of the Greek Church to this day shall be proved if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove But if we had enlarged on every Particular we must have said a great deal more to shew from many undeniable Evidences that the Fathers were Strangers to this new Mystery It is clear from their Writings that they thought Christ was only spiritually present that we did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood only by Faith and not by our bodily Senses and that the words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were to be understood spiritually It is no less clear that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross and not as he is now in the Glory of the Father And from hence it was that they came to order their Eucharistical Forms so as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption Besides they always speak of Christ as absent from us according to his Flesh and Human Nature and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit which they could not have said if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature for then he were more on Earth than he is in Heaven since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a Million of places upon Earth so that it were very strange to say he were absent if they believed him thus present But to give yet further Evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine let us but reflect a little on the Consequences that necessarily follow it which be 1. That a Body may be by the Divine Power in more places at once 2. That a Body may be in a place without Extension or Quantity so a Body of such Dimensions as our blessed Lord's Body can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer and not only
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
any account of them as being Fallible and Uncertain and so they can never secure us from Error nor be a just ground to found our Faith of any Proposition so proved upon Therefore no Proposition thus proved can be acknowledged an Article of Faith This is the breadth and length of their Plea which we shall now examine And first If there be any Strength in this Plea it will conclude against our submitting to the express Words of Scripture as forcibly Since all words how formal soever are capable of several Expositions Either they are to be understood literally or figuratively either they are to be understood positively or interrogatively With a great many other Varieties of which all Expressions are capable So that if the former Argument have any force since every place is capable of several meanings except we be infallibly sure which is the true meaning we ought by the same parity of Reason to make no account of the most express and formal Words of Scripture from which it is apparent that what noise soever these Men make of express Words of Scripture yet if they be true to their own Argument they will as little submit to these as to Deductions from Scripture Since they have the same Reason to question the true meaning of a place that they have to reject an Inference and Deduction from it And this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a Trick under which there lies no fair dealing at all But to answer the Argument to all Mens Satisfaction we must consider the Nature of the Soul which is a reasonable Being whose chief Faculty is to discern the Connexion of things and to draw out such Inferences as flow from that Connexion Now though we are liable to great Abuses both in our Judgments and Inferences yet if we apply thefe Faculties with due care we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reasonings otherwise this being God's Image in us and the Standard by which we are to try things God has given us a false Standard which when we have with all possible care managed yet we are still exposed to Fallacies and Errors This must needs reflect on the Veracity of that God that has made us of such a Nature that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing Therefore it must be acknowledged that when our Reasons are well prepared according to those eternal Rules of Purity and Vertue by which we are fitted to consider of Divine Matters and when we carefully weigh things we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us And though we be not Infallible so that it is still possible for us by Precipitation or undue Preparation to be abused into Mistakes yet we may be well assured that such Connexions and Inferences as appear to us certain are infallibly true If this be not acknowledged then all our Obligation to believe any thing in Religion will vanish For that there is a God That he made all things and is to be acknowledged and obeyed by his Creatures That our Souls shall out-live their Union with our Bodies and be capable of Rewards and Punishments in another state That Inspiration is a thing possible That such or such Actions were above the Power of Nature and were really performed In a word all the Maxims on which the belief either of Natural Religion or Revealed is founded are such as we can have no certainty about them and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them if our Faculty of reasoning in its clear Deductions is not a sufficient Warrant for a sure belief But to examin a little more home their beloved Principle that their Church cannot err Must they not prove this from the Divine Goodness and Veracity from some Passages of Scripture from Miracles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their Church Now in yielding assent to this Doctrine upon these Proofs the Mind must be led by many Arguments through a great many Deductions and Inferences Therefore we are either certain of these Deductions or we are not If we are certain this must either be founded on the Authority of the Church expounding them or on the strength of the Arguments Now we being to examine this Authority not having yet submitted to it this cannot determine our Belief till we see good Cause for it But in the discerning this good Cause of believing the Church Infallible they must say that an uncontroulable evidence of Reason is ground enough to fix our Faith on or there can be no certain ground to believe the Church Infallible So that it is apparent we must either receive with a firm persuasion what our Souls present to us as uncontroulably true or else we have no reason to believe there is a God or to be Christians or to be as they would have us Romanists And if it be acknowledged there is cause in some Cases for us to be determined by the clear evidence of Reason in its Judgments and Inferences Then we have this Truth gained that our Reasons are capable of making true and certain Inferences and that we have good Cause to be determined in our Belief by these and therefore Inferences from Scripture ought to direct our Belief Nor can any thing be pretended against this but what must at the same time overthrow all Knowledg and Faith and turn us sceptical to every thing We desire it be in the next place considered what is the end and use of Speech and Writing which is to make known our Thoughts to others those being artificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others Now every Man that speaks pertinently as he designs to be understood so he chooses such Expressions and Arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to and the clearer he speaks he speaks so much the better And every one that wraps up his meaning in obscure words he either does not distinctly apprehend that about which he discourses or does not design that those to whom he speaks should understand him meaning only to amuse them If likewise he say any thing from which some absurd Inference will easily be apprehended he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of Prejudice against what he says For he must expect that as his Hearers senses receive his Words or Characters so necessarily some Figure or Notion must be at thâ— same time imprinted on their Imagination or presented to their Reason this being the end for which he speaks and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it It must also be acknowledged that all Hearers must necessarily pass Judgments on what they hear if they do think it of that importance as to examin it And this they must do by that natural Faculty of making Judgments and Deductions the certainty whereof we have proved to be the Foundation of
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
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
Sacrament and so dies without it he may have everlasting Life therefore they must conclude that Christs Flesh may be eaten by Faith even without the Sacrament Again in the next verse he says Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse they being indeed the reverse of it Therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the fence of the former Verse neither is it necessary in this But it must be concluded Christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have Life and by which all have Life therefore when ever Christs Flesh is eaten and his Blood is drunk which is most signally done in the Sacrament there eternal Life must accompany it and so these words must be understood even in relation to the Sacrament only of the spiritual Communicating by Faith As when it is said a man is a reasonable Creature though this is said of the whole man Body and Soul yet when we see that upon the Dissolution of Soul and Body no Reason or Life remains in the Body we from thence positively conclude the Reason is seated only in the Soul though the Body has Organs that are necessary for its Operations So when it is said we eat Christs Flesh and drink his Blood in the Sacrament which gives eternal Life there being two things in it the bodily eating and the spiritual communicating though the eating of Christs Flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving which consists of these two yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such Effects we must conclude that the eating of Christs Flesh is only done by the inward Communicating though the other that is the bodily part be a divine Organ and conveyance of it And as Reason is seated only in the Soul so the eating of Christs Flesh must be only inward and spiritual and so the mean by which we receive Christ in the Supper is Faith All this is made much clearer by the words that follow my Flesh is Meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Now Christs Flesh is so eaten as it is meat which I suppose none will question it being a prosecution of the same discourse Now it is not meat as taken by the Body for they cannot be so gross as to say Christs Flesh is the Meat of our Body therefore since his Flesh is only the Meat of the Soul and spiritual Nourishment it is only eaten by the Soul and so received by Faith Christ also says He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him This is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of so that such as is the dwelling in him such also must be the eating of him the one therefore being spiritual inward and by faith the other must be such also And thus it is as plain as can be from the words of Christ that he spake not of a carnal or corporal but of a spiritual eating of his Flesh by Faith All this is more confirmed by the Key our Saviour gives of his whole Discourse when the Iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings It is the Spirit that quickneth or giveth the Life he had been speaking of the flesh profiteth nothing the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are Life From which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual Life and in a spiritual manner But now I shall examine N. N. his Reasons to the contrary His chief Argument is that when eternal Life is promised upon the giving of Alms or other good Works we must necessarily understand it with this Proviso that they were given with a good intention and from a good Principle therefore we must understand these words of our Saviour to have some such Proviso in them All this concludes nothing It is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external Action such a reserve must be understood And so St. Paul tells us if he bestowed all his goods to feed the Poor and had no Charity it profited him nothing And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action I should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood but that is the thing in question and I hope I have made it appear Our Saviour is speaking of an internal action and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed For he is speaking of that eating of his Flesh which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done and so that objection is of no force He must therefore prove that the eating his Flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the Sacrament and not only by a denomination from a Relation to it as the whole man is called reasonable though the reason is seated in the Soul only What he says to shew that by Faith only we are not the Sons of God since by Baptism also we are the Sons of God is not to the purpose for the design of the Argument was to prove that by Faith only we are the Sons of God so as to be the Heirs of eternal Life Now the Baptism of the adult for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding makes them only externally and Sacramentally the Sons of God for the inward and vital Sonship follows only upon Faith And this Faith must be understood of such a lively and operative Faith as includes both repentance and amendment of Life So that when our Saviour says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that believing is a complex of all evangelical Graces from which it appears that none of his Reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of Christ ought to be so limited and restricted For what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of that we ought to prove that Christs Body and Blood was present in the Sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express Scriptures or by Arguments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them it has no force at all in it I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the Plea concerning the express words of Scripture and therefore shall say nothing upon that head referring the Reader to what he will meet with on that Subject afterwards But here I only desire the Reader may consider our Contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words This is my body in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of Scripture to prove that meaning by For if that be setled on as a necessary method of proof then when other Scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the