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
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
Glosses for all Passages of Scripture So that when the Council of Nice made all these ineffectual by putting the Word Consubstantial into the Creed then did they in all their Councils and in all Disputes set up this Plea That they would submit to every thing that was in Scripture but not to any Additions to Scripture A large account of this we have from Athanasius who De Synod Arim. Seleuc. gives us many of their Creeds In that proposed at Arimini these Words were added to the Symbol For the Word Substance because it was simply set down by the Fathers and is not understood by the People but breeds Scandal since the Scriptures have it not therefore we have thought fit it be left out and that there be no more mention made of Substance concerning God since the Scriptures no-where speak of the Substance of the Father and the Son He also tells us that at Sirmium they added Words to the same purpose to their Symbol rejecting the Words of Substance or Consubstantial because nothing is written of them in the Scriptures and they transcend the Knowledg and Understanding of Men. Thus we see how exactly the Plea of the Arrians agrees with what is now offered to be imposed on us But let us next see what the Father says to this He first turns it back on the Arrians and shews how far they were from following that Rule which they imposed on others And if we have not as good reason to answer those so who now take up the same Plea let every one judg But then the Father answers It was no matter though one used Forms of Speech that were not in Scripture if he had still a sound or pious Understanding as on the contrary an herâ—tical Person though be uses Forms out of Scripture he will not be the less suspected if his Understanding be corrupted and at full length applies that to the Question of the Consubstantiality To the same Purpose St. Hillary de Synod adv Arrian setting down the Arguments of the Arrians against the Consubstantiality the third Objection is That it was added by the Council of Nice but ought not to be received because it is no-where written But he answers it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a Word when the thing expressed by the Word has no difficulty We find likewise in the Conference St. Austin had with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop Lib. 1. cont Max. Arr. Epist. in the very beginning the Arrian tells him That he must hearken to what he brought out of the Scriptures which were common to them all but for Words that were not in Scripture they were in no case received by them And afterwards he says Lib. 3. c. 3. We receive with a full Veneration every thing that is brought out of the Holy Scriptures for the Scriptures are not in our Dominion that they may be mended by us And a little after adds Truth is not gathered out of Arguments but is proved by sure Testimonies therefore he seeks a Testimony of the Holy Ghost's being God But to that St. Austin makes answer That from the things that we read we must understand the things that we read not And giving an account of another Conference Epist. 72. he had with Count Pascentius that was an Arrian he tells that the Arrian did most earnestly press that the Word Consubstantial might be shewed in Scripture repeating this frequently and canvassing about it invidiously To whom St. Austin answers Nothing could be more contentious than to strive about a Word when the Thing was certain and asks him where the Word Unbegotten which the Arrians used was in Scripture And since it was no-where in Scripture he from thence concludes There might be a very good account given why a Word that was not in Scripture might be well used And by how many Consequences he proves the Consubstantiality we cannot number except that whole Epistle were set down And again in that which is called an Epistle Epist. 78. but is an account of another Conference between that same Person and St. Austin the Arrian desired the Consubstantiality might be accursed Because it was no-where to be found written in the Scriptures and adds That it was a grievous trampling on the Authority of the Scripture to set down that which the Scripture had not said for if any thing be set down without Authority from the Divine Volumes it is proved to be void against which St. Austin argues at great length to prove that it necessarily follows from other places of Scripture In the Conference between Photinus Sabellius Arrius and Athanasius first published by Cassander Oper. Cass. as a work of Vigilius but believed to be the work of Gelasius an African where we have a very full account of the Pleas of these several Parties Arrius challenges the Council of Nice for having corrupted the Faith with the Addition of new Words and complains of the Consubstantial and says the Apostles their Disciples and all their Successors downward that had lived in the Confession of Christ to that time were ignorant of that Word And on this he insists with great vehemency urging it over and over again pressing Athanasius either to read it properly set down in Scripture or to cast it out of his Confession against which Athanasius replies and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other Hereticks which were not written Shew me these Things says he not from Conjectures or Probabilities or things that do neighbour on Reason not from things that provoke us to understand them so nor from the Piety of Faith persuading such a Profession but shew it written in the pure and naked Property of Words that the Father is Unbegotten or Impassible And then he tells Arrius that when he went about to prove this he should not say the Reason of Faith required this Piety teaches it the Consequence from Scripture forces me to this Profession I will not allow you says he to obtrude these things on me because you reject me when I bring you such like things for the Profession of the Consubstantial In the end he says Either permit me to prove the Consubstantial by Consequences or if you will not you must deny all those things which you your self grant And after Athanasius had urged this further Probus that fate Judg in the Debate said Neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in Scripture Therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish Contest but prove either the one or rhe other by a just Consequence from Scripture In the Macedonian Controversy against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost we find this was also their Plea a hint of it was already mentioned in the Conference betwixt Maximinus the Arrian Bishop and St. Austin which we have more fully in St. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 37. who proving the Divinity of the Holy Ghost meets with that objection of the Macedonians that it was in
the Sons of God have eternal Life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the Consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear Consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial People would be of his Mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that Argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their Houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that Anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as near the Jewish Customs as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such Opinion have crept in in any Age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former Age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body he only meant a Commemoration his promise must only relate to his Death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal Presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his Blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every Consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the Institution it is clear that we receive his Body as it was given for us when his Blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first six Ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own Substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on Design and with Deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril of Ierusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism says expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my Body And for a proof instances Christ's changing the Water into Wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on Peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all Persons to use high Expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the Bread and Wine did remain he hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the Words of Cyril M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal Dispute about the Passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us therefore he promised an Answer in Writing to the Testimony of S. Cyril But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly undertook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary the Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and Signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undeniable Evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now
in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of Reason and strong and convincing Authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christ's words This is my Body are to be understood spiritually mystically and sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. That Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with Reason and Learning to justifie all he says that no other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an Answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an Object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my Throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or convey it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this Answer to it is but mere trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an Account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOur Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the Third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial Person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions first That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The second was that after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symbols the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the body and blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced Person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the body and blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the body and the blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christ's body and blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the first we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the flesh and the blood of the Incarnate Iesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wine and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and VVine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the Father of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the World and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by Arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the body of his Lord and the Cup of his blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their Saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of Christ for says he that bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our Bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian Lib. 1. adv Marc. c. 14. proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other Proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Hony he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Lib. 3. adv Marc. c. 19. Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says Lib. 8. cont Celsum We eat of the Loaves set before us with Thanks giving and Prayers over what is given to us which by the Prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose St. Cyprian says Epist. 76. Christ calls the Bread that was compounded
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
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
no place of Scripture to which he answers Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not as when God is said to sleep some things truly are but are no-where said as the Fathers being Unbegotten which they themselves believed and concludes that these things are drawn from those things out of which they are gathered though they be not mentioned in Scripture Therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews and that leaving Things they followed Syllables And shews how valid a good consequence is As if a man says he speaks of a living creature that is reasonable but mortal I conclude it must be a man Do I for that seem to rave not at all for these words are not more truly his that says them than his that did make the saying of them necessary So he infers that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures though they either were not at all or not clearly in the Scriptures We find also in a Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Macedonian that is in Athanasius's Works but believed to be written by Maximus after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost In end the Macedonian flies to this known refuge that it was no-where written that he was God and so challenges him for saying that which was not in Scripture But the Orthodox answers that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascribed to the Holy Ghost and since the Name follows the Nature he concludes if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself did sanctifie and was increated he must be God whether the other would or not Then he asks where it was written That the Son was like the Father in his Essence The Heretick answers That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence But the Orthodox replies which we desire may be well considered Were they moved to that from the sense of the Scripture or was it of their own authority or arrogance that they said any thing that was not written The other confesses it was from the sense of the Scripture that they were moved to it from this the Orthodox infers that the sense of the Scripture teaches us that an uncreated Spirit that is of God and quickens and sanctifies is a Divine Spirit and from thence he concludes He is God Thus we see clearly how exactly the Macedonians and these Gentlemen agree and what arguments the Fathers furnish us with against them The Nestorian History followed this tract and we find Nestorius both in his Letters Act. Syn. Eph. to Cyril of Alexandria to Pope Celestin and in these writings of his that were read in the Council of Ephesus Action 1. gives that always for his reason of denying the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God because the Scriptures did no-where mention it but call Her always the Mother of Christ and yet that General Council condemned him for all that and his friend Iohn Patriarch of Antioch earnestly pressed him by his Letters not to reject but to use that word since the sense of it was good and it agreed with the Scriptures and it was generally used by many of the Fathers and had never been rejected by any one This was also Eutyches his last refuge Act. 6. Syn. Constantin in Act. 2. Chalcedon when he was called to appear before the Council at Constantinople he pretended sickness and that he would never stir out of his Monastery but being often cited he said to those that were sent to him In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found To which they replied In what Scripture was the Consubstantial to be found Thus turning his Plea back on himself as the Orthodox had done before on the Arrians Eutyches also when he made his appearance he ended his defence with this That he had not found that to wit of the two Natures plainly in the Scripture and that all the Fathers had not said it But for all that he was condemned by that Council which was afterwards ratified by the Universal Council of Chalcedon Yet after this repeated condemnation the Eutychians laid not down this Plea but continued still to appeal to the express words of Scripture which made Theodoret write two Discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence they are published in Athanasius his Works Tom. 2. op Athan. among these Sermons against Hereticks But most of these are Theodoret's as appears clearly from Photius Bibl. Cod. 46. his account of Theodoret's Works the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this Plea The 12th Discourse which by Photius's account is the 16th has this title To those that say we ought to receive the Expression and not look to the Things signified by them as transcending all men The 19th or according to Photius the 23d is To those who say we ought to believe simply as they say and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient If I should set down all that is pertinent to this purpose I must set down the whole Discourses but I shall gather out of them such things as are most proper He first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable that would receive the words of the Sacred Writings without consideration or good direction not minding the pious scope for which they are written For if as they would have us we do not consider what they mark out to us but simply receive their words then all that the Prophets and Apostles have written will prove of no use to those that hear them for then they will hear with their ears but not understand with their hearts nor consider the consequence of the things that are said according to the Curse in Isaias And after he had applied this to those who misunderstood that place the Word was made Flesh he adds Shall I hear a saying and shall I not enquire into its proper meaning where then is the proper consequence of what is said or the profit of the hearer Would they have men changed into the nature of bruits If they must only receive the sound of words with their ears but no fruit in their soul from the understanding of them Contrariwise did St. Paul tell us They who are perfect have their senses exercised to discern good and evil but how can any discern aright if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said And such he compares to beasts and makes them worse than the clean beasts who chew the cud and as a man is to consider what meats are set before him so he must not snatch words stripp'd of their meaning but must carefully consider what is suitable to God and profitable to us what is the force of Truth what agrees