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
the Consecration In his third Mist. Catechism treating of the Consecrated Oil he says As the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common Bread but the Body of Christ so this holy Ointment is no more bare Ointment nor as some may say common but it is a Gift of Christ and the Presence of the Holy Ghost and becomes energetical of his Divinity And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from St. Cyril's Testimony And thus we have performed like wise what we promised and have given a clear Account of St. Cyril's meaning from himself from whose own words and from these things which he compares with the Sanctification of the Elements in the Eucharist it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts nor the consecrated Oil in neither of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation Having thus acquitted our selves of our Engagement before your Ladyship we shall conclude this Paper with our most earnest and hearty Prayers to the Father of Lights that he may of his great Mercy redeem his whole Christian Church from all Idolatry That he may open the Eyes of those who being carnal look only at carnal things and do not rightly consider the excellent Beauty of this our most holy Faith which is pure simple and spiritual And that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledge of the Truth so that neither the Pleasures of Sin nor the Snares of this World nor the Fear of the Cross tempt them to make shipwrack of the Faith and a good Conscience And that God may pour out Abundance of his Grace on your Ladyship to make you still continue in the Love and Obedience of the Truth is the earnest Prayer of MADAM Your Ladyship 's most Humble Servants Edward Stillingfleet Gilbert Burnet London Apr. 15. 1676. A DISCOURSE To shew How unreasonable it is To ask for Express Words of Scripture in proving all Articles of Faith And that a just and good Consequence from Scripture is sufficient IT will seem a very needless Labour to all considering Persons to go about the exposing and baffling so unreasonable and ill-grounded a Pretence That whatever is not read in Scripture is not to be held an Article of Faith For in making good this Assertion they must either fasten their Proofs on some other Ground or on the words of our Article which are these Holy Scripture containeth all Things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Now it is such an Affront to every Mans Eyes and Understanding to infer from these Words That all our Articles must be read in Scripture that we are confident every Man will cry Shame on any that will pretend to fasten on our Church any such Obligation from them If these unlucky Words Nor may be proved thereby could be but dash'd out it were a won Cause But we desire to know what they think can be meant by these Words or what else can they signify but that there may be Articles of Faith which though they be not read in Scripture yet are proved by it There be some Propositions so equivalent to others that they are but the same thing said in several Words and these though not read in Scripture yet are contained in it since wheresoever the one is read the other must necessarily be understood Other Propositions there are which are a necessary result either from two places of Scripture which joined together yield a third as a necessary Issue according to that eternal Rule of Reason and Natural Logick That where-ever two Things agree in any Third they must also agree among Themselves There be also other Propositions that arise out of one single place of Scripture by a natural Deduction as if Jesus Christ be proved from any place of Scripture the Creator of the World or that He is to be worshipped with the same Adoration that is due to the Great God then it necessarily follows that He is the Great God because He does the Works and receives the Worship of the Great God So it is plain that our Church by these Words Nor may be proved thereby has so declared Her self in this Point that it is either very great want of Consideration or shameless Impudence to draw any such thing from our Articles But we being informed that by this little Art as shuffling and bare so ever as it must appear to a just Discerner many have been disordered and some prevailed on We shall so open and expose it that we hope it shall appear so poor and trifling that every Body must be ashamed of it It hath already shewed it self in France and Germany and the Novelty of it took with many till it came to be canvassed and then it was found so weak that it was universally cried down and hiss'd off the Stage But now that such decried Wares will go off no-where those that deal in them try if they can vent them in this Nation It might be imagined that of all Persons in the World they should be the furthest from pressing us to reject all Articles of Faith that are not read in Scripture since whenever that is received as a Maxim The Infallibility of their Church the Authority of Tradition the Supremacy of Rome the Worship of Saints with a great many more must be cast out It is unreasonable enough for those who have cursed and excommunicated us because we reject these Doctrines which are not so much as pretended to be read in Scripture to impose on us the reading all our Articles in these holy Writings But it is impudent to hear Persons speak thus who have against the express and formal Words of Scripture set up the making and worshipping of Images and these not only of Saints though that be bad enough but of the Blessed Trinity the praying in an unknown Tongue and the taking the Chalice from the People Certainly this Plea in such Mens Mouths is not to be reconciled to the most common rules of Decency and Discretion What shall we then conclude of Men that would impose Rules on us that neither themselves submit to nor are we obliged to receive by any Doctrine or Article of our Church But to give this their Plea its full Strength and Advantage that upon a fair hearing all may justly conclude its Unreasonableness we shall first set down all can be said for it In the Principles of Protestants the Scriptures are the Rule by which all Controversies must be judged Now they having no certain way to direct them in the Exposition of them neither Tradition nor the Definition of the Church Either they must pretend they are Infallible in their Deductions or we have no reason to make
no place of Scripture to which he answers Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not as when God is said to sleep some things truly are but are no-where said as the Fathers being Unbegotten which they themselves believed and concludes that these things are drawn from those things out of which they are gathered though they be not mentioned in Scripture Therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews and that leaving Things they followed Syllables And shews how valid a good consequence is As if a man says he speaks of a living creature that is reasonable but mortal I conclude it must be a man Do I for that seem to rave not at all for these words are not more truly his that says them than his that did make the saying of them necessary So he infers that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures though they either were not at all or not clearly in the Scriptures We find also in a Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Macedonian that is in Athanasius's Works but believed to be written by Maximus after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost In end the Macedonian flies to this known refuge that it was no-where written that he was God and so challenges him for saying that which was not in Scripture But the Orthodox answers that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascribed to the Holy Ghost and since the Name follows the Nature he concludes if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself did sanctifie and was increated he must be God whether the other would or not Then he asks where it was written That the Son was like the Father in his Essence The Heretick answers That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence But the Orthodox replies which we desire may be well considered Were they moved to that from the sense of the Scripture or was it of their own authority or arrogance that they said any thing that was not written The other confesses it was from the sense of the Scripture that they were moved to it from this the Orthodox infers that the sense of the Scripture teaches us that an uncreated Spirit that is of God and quickens and sanctifies is a Divine Spirit and from thence he concludes He is God Thus we see clearly how exactly the Macedonians and these Gentlemen agree and what arguments the Fathers furnish us with against them The Nestorian History followed this tract and we find Nestorius both in his Letters Act. Syn. Eph. to Cyril of Alexandria to Pope Celestin and in these writings of his that were read in the Council of Ephesus Action 1. gives that always for his reason of denying the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God because the Scriptures did no-where mention it but call Her always the Mother of Christ and yet that General Council condemned him for all that and his friend Iohn Patriarch of Antioch earnestly pressed him by his Letters not to reject but to use that word since the sense of it was good and it agreed with the Scriptures and it was generally used by many of the Fathers and had never been rejected by any one This was also Eutyches his last refuge Act. 6. Syn. Constantin in Act. 2. Chalcedon when he was called to appear before the Council at Constantinople he pretended sickness and that he would never stir out of his Monastery but being often cited he said to those that were sent to him In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found To which they replied In what Scripture was the Consubstantial to be found Thus turning his Plea back on himself as the Orthodox had done before on the Arrians Eutyches also when he made his appearance he ended his defence with this That he had not found that to wit of the two Natures plainly in the Scripture and that all the Fathers had not said it But for all that he was condemned by that Council which was afterwards ratified by the Universal Council of Chalcedon Yet after this repeated condemnation the Eutychians laid not down this Plea but continued still to appeal to the express words of Scripture which made Theodoret write two Discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence they are published in Athanasius his Works Tom. 2. op Athan. among these Sermons against Hereticks But most of these are Theodoret's as appears clearly from Photius Bibl. Cod. 46. his account of Theodoret's Works the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this Plea The 12th Discourse which by Photius's account is the 16th has this title To those that say we ought to receive the Expression and not look to the Things signified by them as transcending all men The 19th or according to Photius the 23d is To those who say we ought to believe simply as they say and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient If I should set down all that is pertinent to this purpose I must set down the whole Discourses but I shall gather out of them such things as are most proper He first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable that would receive the words of the Sacred Writings without consideration or good direction not minding the pious scope for which they are written For if as they would have us we do not consider what they mark out to us but simply receive their words then all that the Prophets and Apostles have written will prove of no use to those that hear them for then they will hear with their ears but not understand with their hearts nor consider the consequence of the things that are said according to the Curse in Isaias And after he had applied this to those who misunderstood that place the Word was made Flesh he adds Shall I hear a saying and shall I not enquire into its proper meaning where then is the proper consequence of what is said or the profit of the hearer Would they have men changed into the nature of bruits If they must only receive the sound of words with their ears but no fruit in their soul from the understanding of them Contrariwise did St. Paul tell us They who are perfect have their senses exercised to discern good and evil but how can any discern aright if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said And such he compares to beasts and makes them worse than the clean beasts who chew the cud and as a man is to consider what meats are set before him so he must not snatch words stripp'd of their meaning but must carefully consider what is suitable to God and profitable to us what is the force of Truth what agrees
Tertullian says Lib. 4. cont Marc. c. 40. Christ calls the Bread his Body and a little after he names the Bread his Body Isidore Hispal says Orig. lib. 6. c. 9. We call this after his Command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament Theodoret says Dialog 1. In the giving of the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood And says Dialog 1. He who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread and also calls himself a Vine likewise honoured these visible Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood But we now go to bring our Proofs for the next Branch of our first Proposition in which we assert That the Fathers believed that the very Substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Consecration By which all the Proofs brought in the former Branch will receive a further Evidence since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the Substance of the Elements remained and thence we may well conclude that wherever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration they mean of the Substance and not of the Accidents of Bread and Wine For proof of this we shall only bring the Testimonies of four Fathers that lived almost within one Age and were the greatest Men of the Age. Their Authority is as generally received as their Testimonies are formal and decisive And these are Pope Gelasius St. Chrysostom Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Theodoret whom we shall find delivering to us the Doctrine of the Church in their Age with great Consideration upon a very weighty Occasion So that it shall appear that this was for that Age the Doctrine generally received both in the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Antioch and Asia the less We shall begin with Gelasius who though he lived later than some of the others yet because of the Eminence of his See and the Authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him ought to be set first He says in lib. de duab nat Christ. The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine thing for which reason we become by them Partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be and the Image and Likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the Mysteries therefore it appears evidently enough that we ought to think that of Christ our Lord which we profess and celebrate and receive in his Image that as they to wit the Elements pass into that Divine Substance the Holy Ghost working it their Nature remaining still in its own Property So that principal Mystery whose Efficiency and Virtue these to wit the Sacraments represent to us remains one entire and true Christ those things of which he is compounded to wit his two Natures remaining in their Properties These words seem so express and decisive that one would think the bare reading them without any further Reflections should be of force enough But before we offer any Considerations upon them we shall set down other Passages of the other Fathers and upon them altogether make such Remarks as we hope may satisfy any that will hear Reason St. Chrysostom treating of the two Natures of Christ against the Apollinarists Epist. ad Caesar. monach who did so confound them as to consubstantiate them he makes use of the Doctrine of the Sacrament to illustrate that Mystery by in these Words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the mean of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the Nature of Bread remains in it and yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being joyned to the Body both these make one Son and one Person Next this Patriarch of Constantinople let us hear Ephrem the Patriarch of Antioch give his Testimony as it is preserved by Photius Cod. 229. who says thus In like manner having before treated of the two Natures united in Christ the Body of Christ which is received by the Faithful does not depart from its sensible Substance and yet remains inseparated from the Intellectual Grace So Baptism becoming wholly Spiritual and one it preserves its own sensible Substance and does not lose that which it was before To these we shall add what Theodoret Dialog 1. on the same occasion says against those who from that place the Word was made Flesh believed that in the Incarnation the Divinity of the Word was changed into the Humanity of the Flesh. He brings in his Heretick arguing about some Mystical Expressions of the Old Testament that related to Christ At length he comes to shew how Christ called himself Bread and Corn so also in the delivering the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood and our Saviour changed the Names calling his Body by the name of the Symbol and the Symbol by the name of his Body And when the Heretick asks the reason why the Names were so changed the Orthodox answers That it was manifest to such as were initiated in Divine things for he would have those who partake of the Mysteries not look to the Nature of those things that were seen but by the Change of the names to believe that Change that was made through Grace for he who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread does likewise honour the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature but adding Grace to Nature And so goes on to ask his Heretick whether he thought the holy Bread was the Symbol and Type of his Divinity or of his Body and Blood And the other acknowledging they were the Symbols of his Body and Blood He concludes that Christ had a true Body The second Dialogue is against the Eutychians who believed that after Christ's Assumption his Body was swallowed up by his Divinity And there the Eutychian brings an Argument to prove that Change from the Sacrament it being granted that the Gifts before the Priest's Prayer were Bread and Wine He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification the Orthodox answers the Body and Blood of Christ and that he believed he received the Body and Blood of Christ. From thence the Heretick as having got a great advantage argues That as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord were one thing before the Priestly Invocation and after that were changed and are different from what they were So the Body of our Lord after the Assumption was changed into the Divine Substance But the Orthodox replies that he was catched in the Net he laid for others for the Mystical Symbols after the Sanctification do not depart from their own Nature for they continue in
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
Sacrament But the truth is those horrid Calumnies were charged on the Christians from the execrable and abominable Practices of the Gnosticks who called themselves Christians and the Enemies of the Faith either believing these were the Practices of all Christians or being desirous to have others think so did accuse the whole Body of Christians as guilty of these Abominations So that it appears those Calumnies were not at all taken up from the Eucharist and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the Eucharist charged on the Christians we may well conclude from hence that this Doctrine was not received then in the Church But another Negative Argument is That we find Heresies rising up in all Ages against all the other Mysteries of our Faith and some downright denying them others explaining them very strangely and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt Mind to reject all Divine Revelation more particularly that which either choaks his common Notions or the Deductions of appearing Reasonings but most of all all Men are apt to be startled when they are told They must believe against the clearest Evidences of Sense for Men were never so meek and tame as easily to yeild to such things How comes it then that for the first seven Ages there were no Heresies nor Hereticks about this We are ready to prove that from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries in which this Doctrine began to appear there has been in every Age great Opposition made to all the Advances for setting it up and yet these were but dark and unlearned Ages in which Implicit Obedience and a blind Subjection to what was generally proposed was much in Credit In those Ages the Civil Powers being ready to serve the Rage of Church-men against any who should oppose it it was not safe for any to appear against it And yet it cannot be denied but from the days of the second Council of Nice which made a great step towards Transubstantiation till the fourth Council of Lateran there was great Opposition made to it by the most Eminent Persons in the Latin Church and how great a part of Christendom has departed from the Obedience of the Church of Rome in every Age since that time and upon that account is well enough known Now is it to be imagined that there should have been such an Opposition to it these nine hundred Years last past and yet that it should have been received the former eight hundred Years with no Opposition and that it should not have cost the Church the trouble of one General Council to decree it or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it and answer those Objections that naturally arise from our Reasons and Senses against it But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural Consequences which had it been sooner taught and received must have been apprehended sooner and those are so many clear Presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine The Elevation Adoration Processions the Doctrine of Concomitants with a vast Superfaetation of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up The Age of them is well known and they have risen in the Latin Church out of this Doctrine which had it been sooner received we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter Now for all these things as the Primitive Church knew them not so on the other hand the great simplicity of their Forms as we find them in Iustin Martyr and Cyril of Ierusalem in the Apostolical Constitutions and the pretended Denis the Areopagite are far from that Pomp which the latter Ages that believed this Doctrine brought in the Sacraments being given in both kinds being put in the Hands of the Faithful being given to the Children for many Ages being sent by Boys or common Persons to such as were dying the eating up what remained which in some places were burnt in other places were consumed by Children or by the Clergy their making Cataplasms of it their mixing the consecrated Chalice with Ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks These with a great many more are such Convictions to one that has carefully compared the ancient Forms with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of Rome since this Doctrine was set up that it is as discernable as any thing can be that the present Belief of the Church of Rome is different from the Primitive Doctrine And thus far we have set down the Reasons that perswade us that Transubstantiation was not the Belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church If there be any part of what we have asserted questioned we have very formal and full Proofs ready to shew for them though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular Proofs of any thing but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your Ladyship Now there remains but one thing to be done which we also promised and that was to clear the Words of St. Cyril of Ierusalem We acknowledg they were truly cited but for clearing of them we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the Authority of that Father though we find but a slender Character given of him by Epiphanius and others Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the Authority of these Catechisms though much might be said But it is plain St. Cyril's Design in these Catechisms was only to possess his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symbols But even in his 4th Catechism he tells them not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still though not meer Bread And he gives us elsewhere a very formal Account in what Sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in this 4th Catechism For in his first Mist. Catechism when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Idolatry he tells that on the Solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread which by the Invocation of the Devils were defiled as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the holy Invocation of the blessed Trinity was bare Bread and Wine but the Invocation being made the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner says he those Victuals of the Pomp of Satan which of their own Nature are common or bare Victuals by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane From this Illustration which he borrowed from Iustin Martyr his second Apology it appears that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the Profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged so also according to him must the substance of the other remain Or if this will not satisfy them let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by
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
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