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
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
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
of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and can did interpretation Yet after all this they say no more but that in the Sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the Body and Blood of Christ which we also receive and believe And in many other Treatises when they are in colder blood examining things they use such expressions and expositions of this as no way favour the belief of Transubstantiation of which we have given some account in a former Paper But though that were not so formally done and their Writings were full of passages that needed great allowances it were no more than what the Fathers that wrote against the Arrians confess the Fathers before the Council of Nice were guilty of who writing against Sabellius with too much veliemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Ciril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Entychians did run to such excesses as drew upon them the condemnation of the Fifth General Council The first time we find any Contestor canvassing about the Sacrament was in the Controversie about Images in the eighth Century That the Council of Constantinople in the condenming of Images declared there was no other Image of Christ to be received but the Blessed Sacrament in which the substance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ making a difference between that which is Christs Body by nature and the Sacrament which is his Body by Institution Now it is to be considered that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the Greek Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemning Images yet there having been no Contest at all about the Sacrament we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute if they had not known these two things were the received Doctrine of the Church The one that in the Sacrament the substance of Bread and Wine did remain the other that the Sacrament was the Image or Figure of Christ and from thence they acknowledged all Images were not to be rejected but denied any other Images besides that in the Sacrament Now the second Council of Nice being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible do not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us to wit That the Sacrament was still the substance of Bread and Wine and Damascene the zealous Defender of Images clearly insinuates his believing the substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies Let it be therefore considered that when that Council of Nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the Council of Constantinople they never once blame them for saying The substance of Bread and Wine was in the Sacrament It is true they condemned them for saying the Sacrament was the Image of Christ denying that any of the Fathers had called it so alledging that the Symboles were called Antit pes by the Fathers only before the consecration and not after in which they followed Damascene De Fid. orth lib. 4. cap. 14. who had fallen in the same Errour before them But this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that Council were there no more to be said against it For this was either very gross ignorance or effronted impudence since in above twenty Fathers that were before them the Sacrament is called the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Body and at the same time that Damascene who was then looked on as the great Light of the East did condemn the calling the Sacrament the Figure of Christ's Body The venerable Bede Bed in Psal. 3. Mark 14. that was looked on as the great Light of the West did according to the stile of the Primitive Church and in S. Austin's words call it The Figure of Christ's Body I shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended General Council because I know a full account of them is expected from a better Pen only in this particular I must desire the Reader to take notice that the Council of Constantinople did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine about the Sacrament and did use it as an Argument in the other Controversie concerning Images without any design at all about the Eucharist But on the other hand the second Council of Nice did innovate and reject a form of speech which had been universally received in the Church before their time and being engaged with all possible spight against the Council of Constantinople resolved to contradict every thing they had said as much as could be So that in this we ought to look on the Council of Constantinople as delivering what was truly the Tradition of the Church and on the second Council of Nice as corrupting it About thirty years after that Council Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corbie wrote about the Sacrament and did formally assert the Corporal Presence in the Ninth Century The greatest Patrons of this Doctrine such as Bellarmin and Sirmondus both Jesuites confess he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist And Paschase himself in his Letter to his Friend Frudegard regrates that He was so flow in believing and assenting to his Doctrine and does also acknowledge that by his Book he had moved many to the understanding of that Mystery and it is apparent by that Letter that not only Frudegard but others were scandalized at his Book for he writes I have spoken of these things more fully and more expresly because I understand that some challenge me that in the Book I have published of the Sacraments of Christ I have ascribed either more or some other thing than is consonant to Truth to the words of our Lord. Of all the Writers of that Age or near it only one and his Name we know not the Book being anonymous was of Paschase's opinion But we find all the great men of that Age were of another mind and did clearly assert that in the Sacrament the Substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies as other meats do These were Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz Amalarius Archbishop of Treves or as others say Metz Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Bertram Iohn Scot Erigena Walafridus Strabo Florus and Christian Druthmar And three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase The anonymous Writer that defends him says That Raban did dispute at length against him in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon for saying it was that Body that was born of the Virgin and was crucified and raised again that was daily offered for the life of the World That is also condemned by Raban in his Penitential cap. 33. who refers his Reader to that Epistle to Abbor Egilon And for Bertram he was commanded