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
them but Iustinian the Emperour having drawn him to Constantinople he consented with the Fifth Council to the condemning them Upon which at his return many of the Western Bishops did separate from him And as Victor Bishop of Tunes tells us who lived at that time That Pope was Synodically excommunicated by the Bishops of Africk It is true in the eighth Century the Decretal Epistles being forged his Pretentions were much advanced yet his universal jurisdicton was contested in all Ages as might be proved from the known instance of Hincmar Bishop of Rheims and many more Therefore how strong soever the Argument from Prescription may be in Civil things it is of no force here M. C. said Now we are got into a contest of 1700 years story but I know not when we shall get out of it He confessed there was no Prescription against a divine right and acknowledged all Bishops were alike in their Order but not in their Jurisdiction as the Bishop of Oxford was a Bishop as well as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and yet he was inferiour to him in Jurisdiction But desired to know what was in the Popes Authority that was so intolerable D. S. said That he should only debate about the Popes Jurisdiction and to his question for one Particular That from the days of Pope Paschal the II. all Bishops swear Obedience to the Pope was intolerable Bondage M. C. said Then will you acknowledge that before that Oath was imposed the Pope was to be acknowledged adding That let us fix a time wherein we say the Pope began to usurp beyond his just Authority and he would prove by Protestant Writers that he had as great Power before that time M. B. said Whatever his Patriarchal Power was he had none over Britain For it was plain we had not the Christian Faith from the Roman Church as appeared from the very story of Austin the Monk S. P. T. said Did not King Lucius write to the Pope upon his receiving the Christian Faith M. C. said He would wave all that and ask If the Church of England could justifie her forsaking the obedience of the Bishop of Rome when all the rest of the Christian World submitted to it D. S. said He wondered to hear him speak so Were not the Greek the Armenian the Nestorian and the Abissen Churches separated from the Roman M. C. said He wondered as much to hear him reckon the Nestorians among the Churches that were condemned Hereticks D. S. said It would be hard for him to prove them Nestorians M. C. asked why he called them so then D. S. answered Because they were generally best known by that Name M. W. said Did not the Greek Church reconcile it self to the Roman Church at the Council of Florence D. S. said Some of their Bishops were partly trepanned partly threatned into it but their Church disowned them and it both and continues to do so to this day M. W. said Many of the Greek Church were daily reconciled to the Church of Rome and many of the other Eastern Bishops had sent their Obedience to the Pope D. S. said They knew there was enough to be said to these things that these Arts were now pretty well discovered but he insisted to prove the Usurpations of Rome were such as were inconsistent with the supreme civil Authority and shewed the Oath in the Pontificale by which for instance If the Pope command a Bishop to go to Rome and his King forbid it he must obey the Pope and disobey the King M. C. said These things were very consistent that the King should be Supream in Civils and the Pope in Spirituals so that if the Pope commanded a thing that were Civil the King must be obeyed and not he M. B. said By the words of the Oath the Bishops were to receive and help the Pope's Legates both in coming and going Now suppose the King declared it Treason to receive the Legate yet in this case the Bishops are sworn to obey the Pope and this was a Case that fell out often D. S. instanced the Case of Queen Mary M. C. said If he comes with false Mandates he is not a Legate M. B. said Suppose as has fallen out an hundred times he comes with Bulls and well warranted but the King will not suffer him to enter his Dominions here the Bishops must either be Traitors or Perjured M. C. said All these things must be understood to have tacite Conditions in them though they be not expressed and gave a Simile which I have forgot D. S. said It was plain Paschal the Second devised that Oath on purpose to cut off all those Reserves of their Duty to their Princes And therefore the Words are so full and large that no Oath of Allegiance was ever conceived in more express terms M. B. said It was yet more plain from the Words that preceed that Clause about Legates that they shall be an no Counsel to do the Pope any injury and shall reveal none of his secrets By which a Provision was clearly made that if the Pope did engage in any Quarrel or War with any Prince the Bishops were to assist the Popes as their sworn Subjects and to be faithful Spies and Correspondents to give Intelligence As he was saying this L. T. did whisper D. S. who presently told the Company That the Ladies at whose desire we came thither entreated we would speak to things that concerned them more and discourse on the Grounds on which the Reformation proceeded and therefore since he had before named some of the most considerable he desired we might discourse about some of these M. C. said Name any thing in the Roman Church that is expresly contrary to Scriptures but bring not your Expositions of Scripture to prove it by for we will not admit of these M. B. asked If they did not acknowledge that it was only by the Mediation of Christ that our Sins were pardoned and eternal Life given to us M. C. answered No question of it at all M. B. said Then have we not good reason to depart from that Church that in an Office of so great and daily use as was the Absolution of Penitents after the words of Absolution enjoyns the following Prayer to be used which he read out of their Ritual The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ the Merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints and whatever good thou hast done or evil thou hast suffered be to thee for the remission of Sins the encrease of Grace and the reward of Eternal Life from whence it plainly follows that their Church ascribes the pardon of all Sins and the eternal Salvation of their Penitents to the Merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints as well as the Passion of our blessed Saviour M. C. said Here was a very severe Charge put in against their Church without any reason for they believed that our sins are pardoned and our souls are saved only by the
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
in the Sacrament is Faith from these words Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life If these words have relation to the Sacrament which the Roman Church declares is the true meaning of them there cannot be a clearer Demonstration in the World And indeed they are necessitated to stand to that Exposition for if they will have the words This is my Body to be understood literally much more must they assert the Phrases of èating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be literal for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words This is my Body they then expounding these words of St. Iohn of the Sacrament there cannot be imagined a closer Contexture than this which follows The eating Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood is the receiving him in the Sacrament therefore every one that receives him in the Sacrament must have eternal Life Now all that is done in the Sacrament is either the external receiving the Elements Symbols or as they phrase it the Accidents of Bread and Wine and under these the Body of Christ or the internal and spiritual communicating by Faith If then Christ received in the Sacrament gives eternal Life it must be in one of these ways either as he is received externally or as he is received internally or both for there is not a fourth Therefore if it be not the one at all it must be the other only Now it is undeniable that it is not the external eating that gives eternal Life For St. Paul tells us of some that eat and drink unworthily that are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and eat and drink Iudgment against themselves Therefore it is only the internal receiving of Christ by Faith that gives eternal Life from which another necessary Inference directs us also to conclude that since all that eat his Flesh and drink his Blood have eternal Life and since it is only by the internal communicating that we have eternal Life therefore these words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood can only be understood of internal communicating therefore they must be spiritually understood But all this while the Reader may be justly weary of so much Time and Pains spent to prove a thing which carries its own Evidence so with it that it seems one of the first Principles and Foundations of all Reasoning for no Proposition can appear to us to be true but we must also assent to every other Deduction that is drawn out of it by a certain Inference If then we can certainly know the true meaning of any place of Scripture we may and ought to draw all such Conclusions as follow it with a clear and just Consequence and if we clearly apprehend the Consequence of any Proposition we can no more doubt the Truth of the Consequence than of the Proposition from which it sprung For if I see the Air full of a clear Day-light I must certainly conclude the Sun is risen and I have the same assurance about the one that I have about the other There is more than enough said already for discovering the vanity and groundlesness of this Method of arguing But to set the thing beyond all dispute let us consider the use which we find our Saviour and the Apostles making of the Old Testament and see how far it favours us and condemns this Appeal to the formal and express words of Scriptures But before we advance further we must remove a Prejudice against any thing may be drawn from such Presidents these being Persons so filled with God and Divine Knowledg as appeared by their Miracles and other wonderful Gifts that gave so full an Authority to all they said and of their being Infallible both in their Expositions and Reasonings that we whose Understandings are darkened and disordered ought not to pretend to argue as they did But for clearing this it is to be observed that when any Person divinely assisted having sufficiently proved his Inspiration declares any thing in the Name of God we are bound to submit to it or if such a Person by the same Authority offers any Exposition of Scripture he is to be believed without farther dispute But when an inspired Person argues with any that does not acknowledg his Inspiration but is enquiring into it not being yet satisfied about it then he speaks no more as an inspired Person In which case the Argument offered is to be examined by the Force that is in it and not by the Authority of him that uses it For his Authority being the thing questioned if he offers an Argument from any thing already agreed to and if the Argument be not good it is so far from being the better by the Authority of him that useth it that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his Authority that understands a Consequence so ill as to use a bad Argument to use it by This being premised When our Saviour was to prove against the Sadducees the Truth of the Resurrection from the Scriptures he cites out of the Law that God was the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob since then God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living Therefore Abraham Isaac and Jacob did live unto God From which he proved the Souls having a Being distinct from the Body and living after its Separation from the Body which was the principal Point in Controversy Now if these new Maxims be of any force so that we must only submit to the express words of Scripture without proving any thing by Consequence then certainly our Saviour performed nothing in that Argument For the Sadducees might have told him they appealed to the express words of Scripture But alas they understood not these new-found Arts but submitting to the evident force of that Consequence were put to silence and the Multitudes were astonished at his Doctrine Now it is unreasonable to imagine that the great Authority of our Saviour and his many Miracles made them silent for they coming to try him and to take advantage from every thing he said if it were possible to lessen his Esteem and Authority would never have acquiesced in any Argument because he used it if it had not Strength in it self for an ill Argument is an ill Argument use it whoso will For instance If I see a Man pretending that he sits in an Infallible Chair and proving what he delievers by the most impertinent Allegations of Scripture possible as if he attempt to prove the Pope must be the Head of all Powers Civil and Spiritual from the first words of Genesis where it being said In the Beginning and not in the Beginnings in the plural from which he concludes there must be but one Beginning and Head of all Power to wit the Pope I am so far from being put to silence with this that I am only astonished
how any Man of common Sense tho he pretended not to Infallibility could fall into such Errors for an ill Argument when its Fallacy is so apparent must needs heap Contempt on him that uses it Having found our Saviour's way of arguing to be so contrary to this new Method these Gentlemen would impose on us let us see how the Apostles drew their Proofs for matters in Controversy from Scriptures The two great Points they had most occasion to argue upon were Iesus Christ being the true Messiah and the freedom of the Gentiles from any Obligation to the observance of the Mosaical Law Now let us see how they proceeded in both these For the first In the first Sermon after the effusion of the Holy Ghost S. Peter proves the truth of Christ's Resurrection from these words of David Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption Now he shews that these words could not be meant of David who was dead and buried therefore being a Prophet he spake of the Resurrection of Christ. If here were not Consequences and Deductions let every one judg Now these being spoken to those who did not then believe in Christ there was either sufficient force in that Argument to convince the Jews otherwise these that spake them were very much both to be blamed and despised for offering to prove a Matter of such Importance by a Consequence But this being a degree of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost we must acknowledg there was strength in their Argument and therefore Articles of Faith whereof this was the Fundamental may be proved from Scripture by a Consequence We might add to this all the other Prophecies in the Old Testament from which we find the Apostles arguing to prove this Foundation of their Faith which every one may see do not contain in so many words that which was proved by them But these being so obvious we choose only to name this all the rest being of a like nature with it The next Controversy debated in that time was the Obligation of the Mosaichal Law The Apostles by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost made a formal Decision in this matter yet there being great Opposition made to that St. Paul sets himself to prove it at full length in his Epistle to the Galatians where besides other Arguments he brings these two from the Old Testament one was that Abraham was justified by Faith before the giving the Law for which he cites these words Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness From which by a very just Consequence he infers that as Abraham was blessed so all that believe are blessed with him and that the Law of Moses that was 430 Years after could not disannul it or make the Promise of none effect therefore we might now be justified by Faith without the Law as well as he was Another place he cites is The Iust shall live by Faith and he subsumes the Law was not of Faith from which the Conclusion naturally follows Therefore the Just lives not by the Law He must be very blind that sees not a Succession of many Consequences in that Epistle of St. Paul's all which had been utterly impertinent if this new Method had any ground for its Pretension and they might at one dash have overthrown all that he had said But Men had not then arrived at such Devices as must at once overturn all the Sense and Reason of Mankind We hope what we premised will be remembred to shew that the Apostles being infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost will not at all prove that tho this way of arguing might have passed with them yet it must not be allowed us For their being infallibly directed proves their Arguments and way of proceeding was rational and convincing otherwise they had not pitched on it And the Persons to whom these Arguments were offered not acquiescing in their Authority their Reasonings must have been good otherwise they had exposed themselves and their Cause to the just Scorn of their Enemies Having therefore evinced that both our Saviour and his Apostles did prove by Consequences drawn from Scripture the greatest and most important Articles of Faith we judg that we may with very great assurance follow their Example But this whole matter will receive a further Confirmation If we find it was the Method of the Church of God in all Ages to found her Decisions of the most important Controversies on Consequences from Scriptures There were very few Hereticks that had Face and Brow enough to set up against express Words of Scripture for such as did so rejected these Books that were so directly opposite to their Errors as the Manichees did the Gospel of St. Matthew But if we examine the Method either of Councils in condemning Hereticks or of the Fathers writing against them we shall always find them proceeding upon Deductions and Consequences from Scripture as a sufficient Ground to go upon Let the Epistle both of the Council of Antioch to Samosatenus and Denis of Alexandria's Letter to him be considered and it shall be found how they drew their Definitions out of Deductions from Scripture So also Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria in his Epistle in which he condemned Aerius proceeds upon Deductions from Scripture and when the Council of Nice came to judg of the whole matter if we give Credit to Gelasius they canvassed many places of Scripture that they might come to a decision and that whole Dispute as he represents it was all about Inferences and Deductions from Scripture It is true F. Maimbourg in his Romantick History of Arrianism Hist. de L. Arrian L. 1. would perswade us that in that Council the Orthodox and chiefly the great Saints of the Council were for adhering closely to what they had received by Tradition without attempting to give new Expositions of Scripture to interpret it any other way than as they had learned from these Fathers that had been taught them by the Apostles But the Arrians who could not find among these that which they intended to establish maintained on the contrary that we must not confine our selves to that which hath been held by Antiquity since none could be sure about that Therefore they thought that one must search the Truth of the Doctrine only in the Scriptures which they could turn to their own meaning by their false Subtilties And to make this formal Account pass easily with his Reader he vouches on the Margin Sozom. cap. 16. When I first read this it amazed me to find a thing of so great Consequence not so much as observed by the Writers of Controversies but turning to Sozomen I found in him these words speaking of the Dispute about Arrius his Opinions The Disputation being as is usual carried out into different Enquiries some were of Opinion that nothing should be innovated beyond the Faith that was originally delivered and these were chiefly those whom the Simplicity of their
Manners bad brought to Divine Faith without nice Curiosity Others did strongly or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter Opinions without a strict trial of them Now in these words we find not a word either of Orthodox or Arrian so of which side either one or other were we are left to conjecture That Jesuit has been sufficiently exposed by the Writers of the Port-Royal for his foul dealing on other occasions and we shall have great cause to mistrust him in all his Accounts if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this and that the Party which he calls the Orthodox were really some holy good Men but simple ignorant and easily abused And that the other Party which he calls the Arrian was the Orthodox and more judicious who readily foreseeing the Inconvenience which the Simplicity of others would have involved them in did vehemently oppose it and pressed the Testimonies of the Fathers might not be blindly followed For proof of this we need but consider that they anathematized these who say that the Son was the Work of the Father as Athanasius De Decret Synod Nicen. tells us which were the very words of Denis of Alexandria of whom the Arrians Athan. Epist. de sententia Dion Alex. boasted much and cited these words from him and both Athanasius De Synod Arim. and Hilary Hil. lib. de Synod acknowledg that those Bishops that condemned Samosatenus did also reiect the Consubstantial and St. Basil Epist. 41. says Denis sometimes denied sometimes acknowledged the Consubstantial Yet I shall not be so easy as Petavius and others of the Roman Church are in this matter who acknowledg that most of the Fathers before the Council of Nice said many things that did not agree with the Rule of the Orthodox Faith but am fully perswaded that before that Council the Church did believe that the Son was truly God and of the same Divine Substance with the Father Yet on the other hand it cannot be denied but there are many Expressions in their Writings which they had not so well considered and thence it is that St. Basil Epist. 14. observes how Denis in his opposition to Sabellius had gone too far on the other hand Therefore there was a necessity to make such a Symbol as might cut off all equivocal and ambiguous Forms of Speech So we have very good reason to conclude it was the Arrian Party that studied under the pretence of not innovating to engage many of the holy but simpler Bishops to be against any new Words or Symbols that so they might still lurk undiscovered Upon what Grounds the Council of Nice made their Decree and Symbol we have no certain account since their Acts are lost But the best Conjecture we can make is from St. Athanasius who as he was a great Assertor of the Faith in that Council so also he gives us a large account of its Creed in a particular Treatise Lib. de Decret Concil Nicen. in which he justifies their Symbol at great length out of the Scriptures and tells us very formally they used the word Consubstantial that the Wickedness and Craft of the Arrians might be discovered and proves by many Consequences from Scripture that the words were well chosen and sets up his rest on his Arguments from the Scriptures tho all his Proofs are but Consequences drawn out of them It is true when he has done that he also adds that the Fathers at Nice did not begin the use of these words but had them from those that went before them and cites some Passages from Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen But no body can imagin this was a full Proof of the Tradition of the Faith These were but a few later Writers nor could he have submitted the Decision of the whole Controversy to two of these Denis of Alexandria and Origen for the other two their Works are lost in whose Writings there were divers Passages that favoured the Arrians and in which they boasted much Therefore Athanasius only cites these Passages to shew the Words of these Symbols were not first coined by the Council of Nice But neither in that Treatise nor in any other of his Works do I ever find that either the Council of Nice or he who was the great Champion for their Faith did study to prove the Consubstantiality to have been the constant Tradition of the Church But in all his Treatises he at full length proves it from Scripture So from the Definition of the Council of Nice and Athanasius his Writings it appears the Church of that Age thought that Consequences clearly proved from Scripture were a sufficient Ground to build an Article of Faith on With this I desire it be also considered that the next great Controversy that was carried on chiefly by S. Cyril against the Nestorians was likewise all managed by Consequences from Scripture as will appear to any that reads S. Cyril's Writings inserted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus chiefly his Treatise to the Queens and when he brought Testimonies from the Fathers against Nestorius which were read in the Council Act. Conc. Eph. Action 1. they are all taken out of Fathers that lived after the Council of Nice except only S. Cyprian and Peter of Alexandria If then we may collect from S. Cyril's Writings the Sense of that Council as we did from S. Athanasius that of the Council of Nice we must conclude that their Decrees were founded on Consequences drawn from Scripture nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued Succession of the Tradition In like manner when the Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavian was read and all assented to it So that upon the matter his Epistle became the Decree of the Council and that whole Epistle from beginning to end is one entire Series of Consequences proved from Scripture and Reason Act. Conc. Chalced. Action 1. And to the end of that Epistle are added in the Acts of that Council Testimonies from the Fathers that had lived after the days of the Council of Nice Theodoret Theod. in Dial. and Gelasius also Gelas. de Diab naturis who wrote against the Eutychians do through their whole Writings pursue them with Consequences drawn from Scripture and Reason and in the end set down Testimonies from Fathers And to instance only one more when S. Austin wrote against the Pelagians how many Consequences he draws from Scripture every one that has read him must needs know In the end let it be also observed that all these Fathers when they argue from Places of Scripture they never attempt to prove that those Scriptures had been expounded in that Sense they urge them in by the Councils or Fathers who had gone before them but argue from the Sense which they prove they ought to be understood in I do not say all their Consequences or Expositions were well-grounded but all that has been hitherto set down will prove that they
thought Arguments drawn from Scripture when the Consequences are clear were of sufficient Authority and Force to end all Controversies And thus it may appear that it is unreasonable and contrary to the practice both of the ancient Councils and Fathers to reject Proofs drawn from Places of Scripture though they contain not in so many Words that which is intended to be proved by them But all the Answer they can offer to this is That those Fathers and Councils had another Authority to draw Consequences from Scripture because the extraordinary Presence of God was among them and because of the Tradition of the Faith they builded their Decrees on than we can pretend to who do not so much as say we are so immediately directed or thar we found our Faith upon the successive Tradition of the several Ages of the Church To this I answer First It is visible that if there be any strength in this it will conclude as well against our using express Words of Scripture since the most express Words are capable of several Expositions Therefore it is plain they use no fair Dealing in this Appeal to the formal Words of Scripture since the Arguments they press it by do invalidate the most express Testimonies as well as Deductions Let it be further considered that before the Councils had made their Decrees when Heresies were broached the Fathers wrote against them confuting them by Arguments made up of Scripture-Consequences so that before the Church had decreed they thought private Persons might confute Heresies by such Consequences Nor did these Fathers place the strength of their Arguments on Tradition as will appear to any that reads but what St. Cyril wrote against Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus and Pope Leo against Eutyches before the Council of Chalcedon where all their Reasonings are founded on Scripture It is true they add some Testimonies of Fathers to prove they did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine of the Church But it is plain these they brought only as a Confirmation of their Arguments and not as the chief Strength of their Cause for as they do not drive up the Tradition to the Apostles Days setting only down some later Testimonies so they make no Inferences from them but barely set them down By which it is evident all the use they made of these was only to shew that the Faith of the Age that preceded them was conform to the Proofs they brought from Scripture but did not at all found the strength of their Arguments from Scripture upon the sense of the Fathers that went before them And if the Council of Nice had passed the Decree of adding the Consubstantials to the Creed upon evidence brought from Tradition chiefly can it be imagined that St. Athanasius who knew well on what grounds they went having born so great a share in their Consultations and Debates when he in a formal Treatise justifies that Addition should draw his chief Arguments from Scripture and Natural Reason and that only towards the end he should tell us of four Writers from whom he brings Passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing In the end when the Council had passed their Decree does the method of their dispute alter Let any read Athanasius Hilary or St. Austin writing against the Arrians They continue still to ply them with Arguments made up of Consequences from Scripture and their chief Argument was clearly a Consequence from Scripture That since Christ was by the Confession of the Arrians truly God Then he must be of the same Substance otherwise there must be more Substances and so more Gods which was against Scripture Now if this be not a Consequence from Scripture let every Body judg It was on this they chiefly insisted and waved the Authority of the Council of Nice which they mention very seldom or when they do speak of it it is to prove that its Decrees were according to Scripture For proof of this let us hear what St. Austin says Lib. 3. Cont. Max. 19. writing against Maximinus an Arrian Bishop proving the Consubstantiality of the Son This is that Consubstantial which was established by the Catholick Fathers in the Council of Nice against the Arrians by the Authority of Truth and the Truth of Authority which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow under the Heretical Emperor Constantius because of the newness of the Words which were not so well understood as should have been Since the ancient Faith had brought them forth but many were abused by the Fraud of a few And a little after he adds But now neither should I bring the Couâ—il of Nice nor yet the Council of Arrimini thereby to prejudg in this matter neither am I bound by the Authority of the latter nor you by the Authority of the former Let one Cause and Reason contest and strive with the other from the Authorities of the Scriptures which are Witnesses common to both and not proper to either of us If this be not our Plea as formally as can be let every Reader judg from all which we conclude That our Method of proving Articles of Faith by Consequences drawn from Scripture is the same that the Catholick Church in all the best Ages made use of And therefore it is unreasonable to deny it to us But all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative Evidence if we find that this very pretence of appealing to formal Words of Scriptures was on several occasions taken up by divers Hereticks but was always rejected by the Fathers as absurd and unreasonable The first time we find this Plea in any Bodies Mouth is upon the Question Whether it was lawful for Christians to go to the Theaters or other publick Spectacles which the Fathers set themselves mightily against as that which would corrupt the Minds of the People and lead them to heathenish Idolatry But others that loved those diverting Sights pleaded for them upon this ground as Tertullian Lib. de Spect. c. 3. tells us in these Words The Faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous calls for an Authority from Scripture for the discharge of these Sights and they became uncertain about it because such abstinence is no-where denounced to the Servants of God neither by a clear Signification nor by Name as Thou shalt not kill Nor worship an Idol But he proves it from the first Verse of the Psalms for though that seems to belong to the Iews yet says he the Scripture is always to be divided broad where that Discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us And this agrees with that Maxim he has elsewhere Lib. adv Gnost c. 7. That the Words of Scripture are to be understood not only by their Sound but by their Sense and are not only to be heard with our Ears but with our Minds In the next Place the Arrians designed to shroud themseles under general Expressions and had found
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