the Arrians against the Consubstantiality the third objection is That it was added by the Council of Niâ—â— but ought not to be received because it is no-where written But he answers it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a word when the thing eâ—pressed by the word has no difficulty We find likewise in the Conference St. Austin had with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop iâ— the very beginning the Arrian tells him That he must hearken to what he brought out of the Scriptures which were common to them all but for words that were not in Scripture they were in no case received by them And afterwards he says we receive with a full veneration every thing that is brought out of the holy Scriptures for the Scriptures are not in our dominion â—hat they may be mended by us And a little after adds Pâ—aâ—h is not gathered out of Arguments but is proved by sure testimonies therefore he seeks a testimony of the Hâ—ly Ghost's being God But to that St. Austin makes answer that from the things that we read we must understand the things that we read not And giving an account of another Conference he had with Count Pascentius that was an Arrian he tells that the Arrian did most earnestly press that the word Consubstantial might be shewed in Scripture repeating this frequently and canvassing about it invidiously To whom St. Austin answers nothing could be more contenâ—ious than to strive about a Word when the Thing was certain and asks him where the word Unbegotten which the Arrians used was in Scripture And since it was no-where in Scripture he from thence concludes there might be a very good account given why a word that was not in Scripture might be well used And by how many consequences he proves the Consubstantiality we cannot number except that whole Epistle were set down And again in that which is called an Epistle but is an account of another Conference between that same Person and St. Austin the Arriâ—n desired the Consubstantiality might be accursed because it was no-where to be found written in the Scriptures and adds that it was a grievous trampling on the Authority of the Scripture to set down that which the Scripture had not said for if any thing be set down without Authority from the Divine Volumes it is proved to be void against which St. Austin argues at great length to prove that it necessarily follows from other places oâ— Scripture In the Conference between Photinus Sabellus Arrius and Athanasius first published by Cassander as a work of Vigilius but believed to be the work of Gelâ—sius an African where we have a very full account of the Pleas of these several parties Arrius challenges the Council of Nice for having corrupted the Faith with the addition of new words and complains of the Consubstantial and says the Apostles their Disciples and all their successors downward that had lived in the Confession of Christ to that â—ime were ignorant of that word And on this he insists with great vehemency urging it over and over again pressing Athanasius either to read it properly set down in Scripture or to cast it out of his Confession against which Athanasius replies and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other Hereticks which were not written Shew me these things says he not from conjectures or probabilities or things that do neighbour on reason not from things that provoke us to understand them so nor from the piety of Faith perswading such a profession but shew it written in the pure and naked property of words that the Father is Unbegotten or Impassible And then he tells Arrius that when he went about to prove this he should not say the reason of Faith required this piety teaches it the consequence from Scripture forces me to this profession I will not allow you says he to obtrude these things on meâ— because you reject me when I bring you such like things for the profession of the Consubstantial In the end he says either permit me to prove the Consubstantial by consequences or if you will not you must deny all those things which you your self grant And after Athanasius had urged this further Probus that sate Judg in the debate said Neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in Scripture Therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish contest but prove either the one or the other by a just consequence from Scripture In the Macedonian Controversy against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost we find this was also their Plea a hint of it was already mentioned in the Conference betwixt Maximiâ—us the Arrian Bishop and S. Austin which wehave more fully in St. Gregory Nazianzen who proving the Divinity of the Holy Ghost meets with that objection of the Macedonians that it was in 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 these 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
accidents of Bread and Wine For proof of this we shaâ—â— only bring the testimonies of four â—aâ—hâ—rs 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. Chrysostome 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 Asiâ— 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 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 â—nough that we ought to think thâ—t 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 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 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 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 Symbole and the Symbole 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 Symboles 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 Symbole and Type of his Divinity or of his Body and Blood and the other acknowledging they were the Symboles 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 Sacament it being granted that the Gifts before the Priests Prayer were Bread and Wine He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification the Orâ—hodox 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 Symboles 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 be laid for others for the Mystical Symboles 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 Humane 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 â—athers 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 though 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 nor 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 though 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 Humane Nature retains its proper and true substance though after the union with the Divinity Christ be called God even as he was Man by vertue of his union with the Eternal Word And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend that because substance and nature are someâ—imes 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 Sophism Yet we are indeed beholding to those that have taken much pains to shew that substance and nature stand often for accidental qualities for though 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 This 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 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 increases 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 that is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and is made His member We hope it will be observed that as these words are express and formal so the design on which He uses them will admit of none of those distinctions they commonly rely on Tertullian says the flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ. Saint Austin after he had called the Eucharist our daily Bread he exhorts us so to receive it that not only our bellies but our minds might be refreshed by it Isidore of Sevil says The substance of the visible Bread nourishes the outward man or as Bertram cites his words all that we receive externally in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is proper to refresh the body Next let us see what the 16 th Council of Toledo says in Anno. 633. condemning those that did not offer in the Eucharist entire loaves but only round crafts they did appoint one entire loaf carefully prepared to be set on the Altar that it might be sanctified by the Priestly Benediction and order that what remained after Communion should be either put in some bag or if it was needful to eat it up that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with
we doubt not but we have brought proofs which in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition which we leave and go on to the third which was That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For this our first Proof is taken from Origen who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten and passing to the belly adds These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh and the true food whom whosoever eats he shall live for ever whom no wicked person can eat for if it were possible that any who continues wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh since He is the Word and the Living Bread it had never been written whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacrament and the incarnate Word of which no wicked person can partake And he also says They that are good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven and the wicked eat Dead Bread which is Death Zeno Bishop of Verona that as is believed lived near Origen's time says as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona There is cause to fear that be in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood though he seems to communicate with the faithful since our Lord hath said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Jerom on the 66 th of Isa. says They that are not holy in body and spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Jesus nor drink his Blood of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life And on the 8 th chap. of Hos. he says They eat not his flesh whose flesh is the food of them that believe To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22 th of Jeremy and on the 10 th of Zech. St. Austin says He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood though he may visibly and carnally break in his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his judgment And speaking of those who by their uncleanness become the members of an Harlot he says Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his members And besides he adds He that says whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood To this we shall add that so oft cited passage Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord the other he means Judas the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. By which he clearly insinuates he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread And that this hath been the consâ—ant belief of the Greek-Church to this day shall be proved if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove But if we had enlarged on every particular we must have said a great deal more to shew from many undeniable evidences that the Fathers were strangers to this new Mystery It is clear from their writings that they thought Christ was only spiritually present that we did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood only by Faith and not by our bodily senses and that the words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were to be understood spiritually It is no less clear that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross and not as he is now in the glory of the Father And from hence it was that they came to order their Eucharistical forms so as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption Besides they always speak of Christ as absent from us according to his Flesh and Human Nature and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit which they could not have said if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature for then he were more on Earth than he is in Heaven since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a million of places upon earth so that it were very strange to say he were absent if they believed him thus present But to give yet further evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine let us but reflect a little on the consequences that necessarily follow it which be 1. That a Body may be by the Divine power in more places at once 2. That a Body may be in a place without extension or quantity so a Body of such dimensions as our blessed Lord's Body can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer and not only so but that the whole Body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before and yet is not brought thither but produced there 4. That the accidents of any substance such as colour smell taste and figure can remain without any Body or substance in which they subsist 5. That our senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident representations 6. Great doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received or if it should come to be corrupted or to be snatched by a Mouse or eat by any vermine All these are the natural and necessary effects of this Doctrine and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching understanding but are such as stare every body full in the face And hence it is that since this was submitted to in the Western Church the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered and new Maxims and Definitions were found out to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression to receive these as principles by which their minds being full of those first prejudices might find no difficulty to believe this Now it is certain had the Fathers believed this they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith and were so far from being short or defective in it that they rather over-do it and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but about Original sin the derivation of our Souls the operation of the Grace of God in our hearts and the Resurrection of our bodies should yet have been so
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 this 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 bafled 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 bafled 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 Tranâ—uâ—â—slantiation 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 out 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 then when such an objection was made which those of the Church of Rome judg 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 Exposition of the Scriptures cannot err for God will be with them to the end of the World A Protestant must on the other hand according to his Principles argue that since man has a reasonable soul in him he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making Inferences And when any consequence is apparent to our understandings we ought and must believe it as much as we do that from which the consequence is drawn Therefore we must not only read but study to understand the true meaning of Scripture And we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the Scriptures if we find the Church of God in the purest times and the Fathers believing as we believe If we should hear two persons that were unknown to us argue either of these two ways we must conclude the one is a Papist the other a Protestant as to this particular Now I desire the Reader may compare what has been cited from the Fathers upon this subject And see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles Whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine that in seeking out the decision of all Controversies the Fathers went by the same Rules we go by to wit the clear sense of Scriptures as it must appear to every considering mans understanding backed with the opinion of the Fathers that went before them And thus far have I followed this Objection and have as I hope to every Readers satisfaction made it out that there can be nothing more unreasonable more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church to the nature of the soul of man to the use and â—nd of words and discourse to the practice of Christ and his Apostles to the constant sense of the Primitive Church and that upon full and often renewed Contest with Hereticks upon this very head Then to impose on us an Obligation to read all the Articles of our Church in the express words of Scripture So that I am confident this will appear to every considering
life brings over the greatest minds when there is no hope of getting from under it is to take them off from study and learning and indeed to subdue their Spirits as well as their Bodies And so it proved for after that an ignorance and dulness did to that degree overspread all Europe that it is scarce to be expressed I do not deny but there might be some few Instances of considerable Men giving an allowance for the time they lived in For the Laity they were bred up to think of nothing but to handle their Arms very few could so much as read and the Clergy were not much better read they could but in many that was all a corrupt Latin they understood which continued to be the vulgar Tongue in Italy a great while after They had heard of Greek and Hebrew but understood them as little as we do the Mexican or Peruvian Tongue They had scarce any knowledge of the Greek Fathers a few very ill Translations of some of them was all they had The Latin Fathers were read by some of the more learned but for any distinct understanding of Scriptures or the natures of things God knows they had it not I design a short Discourse and therefore shall not stay to make this out which every Body that has but looked a little on the Writings of these Ages knows to be true Another Effect of their Ignorance was that they were easily imposed on by supposititious Writings that went under the Names of the Fathers but were none of theirs Gelasius threw out a great many that were breaking out in his time but the Trade was prosperous and went on to that height that it cost the Criticks of these two last Ages much pains to distinguish true from forged and the genuine from what was interpolated And indeed the Popes were much beholden to the forgery of the Decretal Epistles in which Work a great many Epistles were published by Isidore in the eighth Century as the Epistles of the Popes of the first four Centuries after Christ By which they were represented as giving orders and making definitions over the whole Church in a full form and with the stile of an absolute Authority These were rejected by many but mightily supported by all the Flatterers of the Court of Rome So that they were in the end after some contest generally received and held Presidents to the succeeding Popes who wrote very skilfully after that Copy Many other Forgeries were also much cherished which I shall instance only in one other particular that relates to what is now in my eye A Sermon of Arnold of Bonneval which is now proved clearly to be his was published in St. Cyprian's Works as his Sermon of the Supper of our Lord though this Arnold lived about nine hundred years after him Now such a Sermon being generally read as St. Cyprian's no wonder it gave that Doctrine of Transubstantiation great credit These Writings are now discovered to be such forgeries that all considering Men of their own Church are ashamed of them and disown them So do Baronius and Bellarmin the Decretals and Sirmondus Launnoy and many more reject other forgeries Yet here is a high pitch of Impudence that most of all their Writers of Controversie are guilty of to cite these very Writings which are now universally agreed to be spurious still under those great Names which forgery gave them As the Author of that Letter about Transubstantiation cites a passage from St. Cyprian's Sermon De Coena Domini though it is agreed to by Sixtus Senensis Possevin Bellarmin Raynaud and Labbe to be none of his and the Publishers of the Office of the Sacrament in the Table at the end of it acknowledge it was written by Arnold of Bonneval a Friend of St. Bernard's After these Authorities it is indeed strange that such sophisticated stuff should be over and over again offered to us And it was no wonder such forgeries were generally received when that Church gave them such Authority as to take many Lessons out of the most spurious Legends and put them in their Breviary Of all these dark Ages the tenth was certainly the midnight of the Church We have scarce any Writer for that whole Age so that it is generally called the Iron Age an Age of Darkness and Wickedness and therefore a very fit time for Superstition and Errour to work in And thence we may well infer that in Ages that were so exceeding ignorant and in which Men scarce thought of Religion it was no hard thing to get any Errour received and established But this is not all These were also Ages of great licentiousness and disorder for though the barbarous Nations were afterwards converted to the orthodox Faith though by the way it were easie to shew these Conversions had nothing like the first Conversion of the World to Christianity in them yet their Barbarity remained with them and the Churchmen became so corrupt and vicious that they could not have a face to reprove them for those Vices of which themselves were scandalously guilty From the Sixth Century downward what a race of Men have the Popes been chiefly in the Ninth and Tenth Century And indeed any Religion that remained in the World had so retired into Cloysters and Monasteries that very little of it remained These Houses were Seminaries of some Devotion while they were poor and busied at work according to their first foundation but when they were well endowed and became rich they grew a scandal to all Christendom All the primitive Discipline was laid down Children were put into the highest Preferments of the Church and Simony over-run the Church These are matters of fact that cannot be so much as questioned nor should I if put to prove them seek Authorities for them any where else than in Baronius who for all his design to serve the Interest of that Church yet could not prevaricate so far as to conceal things that are so openly and uncontestedly true Now from the Darkness and Corruption of these Ages I presume to offer some things to the Readers consideration First Ignorance alwayes inclines people to be very easie to trust those in whom they have confidence for being either unwilling to trouble themselves with painful and sollicitous enquiries or unable to make them they take things on trust without any care to search into them But this general Maxim must needs be much more certain when subjection to the Church and the belief of every thing established was made a very substantial part of Religion or rather that alone which might compense all other defects Secondly Ignorance naturally inclines people to Superstition to be soon wrought on and easily amused to be full of fears and easie to submit to any thing that may any way overcome these fears A right sense of God and Divine Matters makes one have such a taste of Religion that he is not at all subject to this distemper or rather Monster begotten by the unnatural