possible Advantages out of that vast stock of Learning and Iudgment he is Master of was so taken up with other work cut out for him by some of these Gentlemens Friends of which we shall see an excellent account very speedily that it was not possible for him to spare so much time for writing these so that it fell to the others share to do it and therefore the Reader is not to expect any thing like those high strains of Wit and Reason which fill all that Authors Writings but must give allowance to one that studies to follow him though at a great distance Therefore all can be said from him is that what is here performed was done by his Direction and Approbation which to some degree will again encourage the Reader and so I leave him to the perusal of what follows The RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE D. S. and M. B. went to M. L. T 's as they had been desired by L. T. to confer with some Persons upon the Grounds of the Church of England separating from Rome and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our Church to theirs About half an hour after them came in S. P. T. Mr. W. and three more There were present seven or eight Ladies three other Church-men and one or two more When we were all set D. S. said to S. P. T. that we were come to wait on them for justifying our Church that he was glad to see we had Gentlemen to deal with from whom he expected fair dealing as on the other hand he hoped they should meet with nothing from us but what became our Profession S. P. said they had Protestants to their Wives and there were other Reasons too to make them wish they might turn Protestants therefore he desired to be satisfied in one thing and so took out the Articles of the Church and read these Words of the Sixth Article of the Holy Scriptures 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 Then he turned to the twenty eighth Article of the Lord's Supper and read these Words And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith and added he desired to know whether that was read in Scripture or not and in what place it was to be found D. S. said He must first explain that Article of the Scripture for this method of proceeding was already sufficiently known and exposed he clearly saw the snare they thought to bring him in and the advantages they would draw from it But it was the Cause of the Church he was to defend which he hoped he was ready to seal with his Blood and was not to be given up for a Trick The Meaning of the sixth Article was That nothing must be Received or Imposed as an Article of Faith but what was either expresly contained in Scripture or to be deduced and proved from it by a clear Consequence so that if in any Article of our Church which they rejected he should either shew it in the express Words of Scripture or prove it by a clear Consequence he performed all required in this Article If they would receive this and fix upon it as the meaning of the Article which certainly it was then he would go on to the proof of that other Article he had called in question M. W. said They must see the Article in express Scripture or at least in some places of Scripture which had been so interpreted by the Church the Councils or Fathers or any one Council or Father And he the rather pitched on this Article because he judged it the only Article in which all Protestants except the Lutherans were agreed D. S. said It had been the art of all the Hereticks from the Marcionites days to call for express Words of Scripture It was well known the Arrians set up their rest on this That their Doctrine was not condemned by express words of Scripture but that this was still rejected by the Catholick Church and that Theodoret had written a Book on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this Challenge therefore he desired they would not insist on that which every body must see was not fair dealing and that they would take the Sixth Article entirely and so go to see if the other Article could not be proved from Scripture though it were not contained in express words M. B. Added that all the Fathers writing against the Arrians brought their proofs of the Consubstantiality of the Son from the Scriptures though it was not contained in the express words of any place And the Arrian Council that rejected the words Equisubstantial and Consubstantial gives that for the reason that they were not in the Scripture And that in the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril brought in many propositions against the Nestorians with a vast collection of places of Scripture to prove them by and though the quotations from Scripture contained not those propositions in express words yet the Council was satisfied from them and condemned the Nestorians Therefore it was most unreasonable and against the Practice of the Catholick Church to require express words of Scripture and that the Article was manifestly a disjunctive where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse either one or other S. P. T. said Or was not in the Article M. B. said Nor was a negative in a disjunctive proposition as Or was an affirmative and both came to the same meaning M. W. said That S. Austin charged the Heretick to read what he said in the Scripture M. B. said S. Austin could not make that a constant rule otherwise he must reject the Consubstantiality which he did so zealously assert though he might in disputing urge an Heretick with it on some other account D. S. said The Scripture was to deliver to us the Revelation of God in matters necessary to Salvation but it was an unreasonable thing to demand proofs for a negative in it for if the Roman Church have set up many Doctrines as Articles of Faith without proof from the Scriptures we had cause enough to reject these if there was no clear Proofs of them from Scripture but to require express words of Scripture for a Negative was as unjust as if Mahomet had said the Christians had no reason to reject him because there was no place in Scripture that called him an Impostor Since then the Roman Church had set up the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass without either express Scripture or good Proofs from it their Church had good cause to reject these M. W. said The Article they desired to be satisfied in was if he understood any thing a positive Article and not a negative M. B. said The positive Article was that Christ was received in the Holy Sacrament but because they had
as our Church judged brought in the Doctrine of the corporal presence without all reason the Church made that Explanation to cast out the other so that upon the matter it was a negative He added that it was also unreasonable to ask any one place to prove a Doctrine by for the Fathers in their Proceedings with the Arrians brought a great Collection of Places which gave light to one another and all concurred to prove the Article of Faith that was in Controversie so if we brought such a consent of many Places of Scripture as proved our Doctrine all being joyned together we perform all that the Fathers thought themselves bound to do in the like case D. S. then at great length told them The Church of Rome and the Church of England differed in many great and weighty points that we were come thither to see as these Gentlemen professed they desired if we could offer good reason for them to turn Protestants and as the Ladies professed a desire to be further established in the Doctrine of the Church of England In order to which none could think it a proper Method to pick out some words in the obscure corner of an Article and call for express Scriptures for them But the fair and fit way was to examine whether the Church of England had not very good reason to separate from the Communion of the Church of Rome therefore since it was for truth in which our Souls are so deeply concerned that we enquired he desired they would joyn issue to examine either the grounds on which the Church of England did separate from the Church of Rome or the Authority by which she did it for if there was both good reason for it and if those who did it had a sufficient Authority to do it then was the Church of England fully vindicated He did appeal to all that were present if in this offer he dealt not candidly and fairly and if all other ways were not shufling Which he pressed with great earnestness as that only which could satisfie all Peoples Consciences M. W. and S. P. T. said God forbid they should speak one word for the Church of Rome they understood the danger they should run by speaking to that D. S. said He hoped they looked on us as Men of more Conscience and Honesty than to make an ill use of any thing they might say for their Church that for himself he would die rather than be guilty of so base a thing the very thought whereof he abhorred M. B. said That though the Law condemned the endeavouring to reconcile any to the Church of Rome yet their justifying their Church when put to it especially to Divines in order to satisfaction which they professed they desired could by no colour be made a Transgression And that as we engaged our Faith to make no ill use of what should be said so if they doubted any of the other Company it was S. P. his House and he might order it to be more private if he pleased S. P. said he was only to speak to the Articles of the Church of England and desired express words for that Article Upon this followed a long wrangling the same things were said over and over again In the end M. W. said They had not asked where that Article was read that they doubted of it for they knew it was in no place of Scripture in which they were the more confirmed because none was so much as alledged D. S. said Upon the terms in the sixth Article he was ready to undertake the twenty eighth Article to prove it clearly by Scripture M. W. said But there must be no Interpretations admitted of M. B. said It was certain the Scriptures were not given to us as Parrots are taught to speak words we were endued with a faculty of understanding and we must understand somewhat by every place of Scripture Now the true meaning of the words being that which God would teach us in the Scriptures which way soever that were expressed is the Doctrine revealed there and it was to be considered that the Scriptures were at first delivered ro plain and simple men to be made use of by all without distinction therefore we were to look unto them as they did and so S. Paul wrote his Epistles which were the hardest pieces of the New Testament to all in the Churches to whom he directed them M. W. said The Epistles were written upon emergent Occasions and so were for the use of the Churches to whom they were directed D. S. said Though they were written upon emergent Occasions yet they were written by Divine Inspiration and as a Rule of Faith not only for those Churches but for all Christians But as M. W. was a going to speak M. C. came in upon which we all rose up till he was set So being set after some Civilities D. S. resumed a little what they were about and told they were calling for express Scriptures to prove the Articles of our Church by M. C. said If we be about Scriptures where is the Judge that shall pass the Sentence who expounds them aright otherwise the Contest must be endless D. S. said He had proposed a matter that was indeed of weight therefore he would first shew that these of the Church of Rome were not provided of a sufficient or fit Judge of Controversies M. C. said That was not the thing they were to speak to for though we destroyed the Church of Rome all to nought yet except we built up our own we did nothing therefore he desired to hear what he had to say for our own Church he was not to meddle with the Church of Rome but to hear and be instructed if he could see reason to be of the Church of England for may be it might be somewhat in his way D. S. said He would not examine if it would be in his way to be of the Church of England or not but did heartily acknowledge with great Civility that he was a very fair dealer in what he had proposed and that now he had indeed set us in the right way and the truth was we were extream glad to get out of the wrangling we had been in before and to come to treat of matters that were of importance So after some Civilities had passed on both sides D. S. said The Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England finding a great many abuses crept into the Church particularly in the worship of God which was chiefly insisted upon in the Reformation such as the Images of the blessed Trinity the Worship whereof was set up and encouraged The turning the Devotions we ought to offer only to Christ to the blessed Virgin the Angels and Saints That the worship of God was in an unknown Tongue That the Chalice was taken from the People against the express words of the Institution That Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass were set up That our Church had good reason
of many grains ioyned together his Body to shew the Union of our People which he bore upon himself and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Berries his Blood he signifies our Flock which is joyned together in the mixture of an united Multitude And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice Epist. 63. he says Since Christ said I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it by which the Blood of Christ is shewed And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose Epiphanius in Anchorat says Christ in the Supper rose and took these things and having given Thanks said This is my c. Now we see it is not equal to it nor like it neither to his Incarnate Likeness nor his invisible Deity nor the Lineaments of his Members for it is round and without feeling as to its Vertue And this he says to shew how Man may be said to be made after the Image of God though he be not like him Gregory Nyssen in Orat. de Bap. Christ. shewing how common things may be sanctified as Water in Baptism the Stones of an Altar and Church dedicated to God he adds So also Bread in the Beginning is common but after the Mystery has consecrated it is said to be and is the Body of Christ so the Mystical Oyl so the Wine before the Blessing are things of little value but after the Sanctification of the Spirit both of them work excellently He also adds That the Priest by his Blessing is separated and sanctified from which it appears he no more believed the Change of the Substance of the Bread and Wine than of the consecrated Oil the Altar or the Priest Ambrose Lib. De Bened. Patriarc cap. 9. speaking of Bread which was Asher's Blessing says This Bread Christ gave his Apostles that they might divide it to the People that believed and gives it to us to day which the Priest consecrates in his Words this Bread is made the Food of the Saints St. Chrysostome Homil. 24. in Epist. ad Cor. on these Words The Bread which we brake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ says What is the Bread The Body of Christ. What are they made who take it The Body of Christ. From whence it appears he thought the Bread was so the Body of Christ as the worthy Receivers are which is not by the Change of their Substance but by the Sanctification of their Natures St. Ierom Epist. ad Hedib says Let us hear the Bread which Christ brake and gave his Disciples to be the Body of our Lord. And he says Comment S. Mat. c. 26. After the Typical Pascha was fulfilled Christ took Bread that comforts the Heart of Man and went to the true Sacrament of the Pascha that as Melchisedeck in the Figure had done offering Bread and Wine so he might also represent the Truth of his Body and Blood Where he very plainly calls the Elements Bread and Wine and a Representation of Christ's Body and Blood St. Austin as he is cited by Fulgentius de Baptismo and divers others in his Exhortation to these that were newly baptized speaking of this Sacrament says That which you see is the Bread and the Cup which your Eyes witness but that which your Faith must be instructed in is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is his Blood And then he proposes the Objection how that could be And answers it thus These things are therefore called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another is understood What you see has a bodily Appearance but what you understand has a Spiritual Fruit and if you will understand the Body of Christ hear what the Apostle says to the Faithful Ye are the Body of Christ and his Members If therefore you be the Body and Members of Christ your Mystery is placed on the Table of the Lord and you receive the Mystery of the Lord. And at large prosecutes this to shew how the Faithful are the Body of Christ as the Bread is made up of many Grains from whence it appears that he believed that the conscrated Elements were still Bread and Wine And speaking of St. Paul's breaking Bread at Troas he says Epist. 86. being to break Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. He also says Serm. 9. De Divers The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that not only our Belly but our Mind be refreshed by it Besides in a great many places St. Austin calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And speaking of things made use of to signify somewhat else he adds for one Lib. 3. De Trinit c. 10. The Bread that is made for this is consumed in our receiving the Sacrament He also says Lib. 17. De Civ Dei To eat Bread is in the New Testament the Sacrifice of Christians He likewise says Lib. Cont. Donat. c. 6. Both Iudas and Peter received a part of the same Bread out of the same hand of our Lord. And thus from twelve Witnesses that are beyond all Exception it does appear That the Fathers believed the Elements to be still Bread and Wine after the Consecration We have not brought any Proofs from the Fathers that are less known or read for then we must have swelled up this Paper beyond what we intend it One thing is so considerable that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of and that is That we see those great Fathers and Doctors of the Church call the consecrated Elements without any mincing of the matter Bread Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Christ they often use some mollifying and less hardy Expression So St. Austin says Serm. 53. De Verb. Dom. Almost all call the Sacrament his Body And again says Lib. 3. De Trinit c. 4. We call that only the Body and Blood of Christ which being taken of the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by the Mystical Prayer we rightly receive for our Spiritual Health in the Commemoration of the Passion of our Lord for us And he says Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. After some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ. And also says Serm. 2. in Psal. 33. He carried himself in his own Hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostom says Epist. ad Caesar. The Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord. And on these Words The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit among the improper acceptions of Flesh says Comm. in Epist. ad Galat. c. 5. The Scriptures use to call the Mysteries by the name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church saying She is the Body of Christ.
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
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
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
Manners bad brought to Divine Faith without nice Curiosity Others did strongly or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter Opinions without a strict trial of them Now in these words we find not a word either of Orthodox or Arrian so of which side either one or other were we are left to conjecture That Jesuit has been sufficiently exposed by the Writers of the Port-Royal for his foul dealing on other occasions and we shall have great cause to mistrust him in all his Accounts if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this and that the Party which he calls the Orthodox were really some holy good Men but simple ignorant and easily abused And that the other Party which he calls the Arrian was the Orthodox and more judicious who readily foreseeing the Inconvenience which the Simplicity of others would have involved them in did vehemently oppose it and pressed the Testimonies of the Fathers might not be blindly followed For proof of this we need but consider that they anathematized these who say that the Son was the Work of the Father as Athanasius De Decret Synod Nicen. tells us which were the very words of Denis of Alexandria of whom the Arrians Athan. Epist. de sententia Dion Alex. boasted much and cited these words from him and both Athanasius De Synod Arim. and Hilary Hil. lib. de Synod acknowledg that those Bishops that condemned Samosatenus did also reiect the Consubstantial and St. Basil Epist. 41. says Denis sometimes denied sometimes acknowledged the Consubstantial Yet I shall not be so easy as Petavius and others of the Roman Church are in this matter who acknowledg that most of the Fathers before the Council of Nice said many things that did not agree with the Rule of the Orthodox Faith but am fully perswaded that before that Council the Church did believe that the Son was truly God and of the same Divine Substance with the Father Yet on the other hand it cannot be denied but there are many Expressions in their Writings which they had not so well considered and thence it is that St. Basil Epist. 14. observes how Denis in his opposition to Sabellius had gone too far on the other hand Therefore there was a necessity to make such a Symbol as might cut off all equivocal and ambiguous Forms of Speech So we have very good reason to conclude it was the Arrian Party that studied under the pretence of not innovating to engage many of the holy but simpler Bishops to be against any new Words or Symbols that so they might still lurk undiscovered Upon what Grounds the Council of Nice made their Decree and Symbol we have no certain account since their Acts are lost But the best Conjecture we can make is from St. Athanasius who as he was a great Assertor of the Faith in that Council so also he gives us a large account of its Creed in a particular Treatise Lib. de Decret Concil Nicen. in which he justifies their Symbol at great length out of the Scriptures and tells us very formally they used the word Consubstantial that the Wickedness and Craft of the Arrians might be discovered and proves by many Consequences from Scripture that the words were well chosen and sets up his rest on his Arguments from the Scriptures tho all his Proofs are but Consequences drawn out of them It is true when he has done that he also adds that the Fathers at Nice did not begin the use of these words but had them from those that went before them and cites some Passages from Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen But no body can imagin this was a full Proof of the Tradition of the Faith These were but a few later Writers nor could he have submitted the Decision of the whole Controversy to two of these Denis of Alexandria and Origen for the other two their Works are lost in whose Writings there were divers Passages that favoured the Arrians and in which they boasted much Therefore Athanasius only cites these Passages to shew the Words of these Symbols were not first coined by the Council of Nice But neither in that Treatise nor in any other of his Works do I ever find that either the Council of Nice or he who was the great Champion for their Faith did study to prove the Consubstantiality to have been the constant Tradition of the Church But in all his Treatises he at full length proves it from Scripture So from the Definition of the Council of Nice and Athanasius his Writings it appears the Church of that Age thought that Consequences clearly proved from Scripture were a sufficient Ground to build an Article of Faith on With this I desire it be also considered that the next great Controversy that was carried on chiefly by S. Cyril against the Nestorians was likewise all managed by Consequences from Scripture as will appear to any that reads S. Cyril's Writings inserted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus chiefly his Treatise to the Queens and when he brought Testimonies from the Fathers against Nestorius which were read in the Council Act. Conc. Eph. Action 1. they are all taken out of Fathers that lived after the Council of Nice except only S. Cyprian and Peter of Alexandria If then we may collect from S. Cyril's Writings the Sense of that Council as we did from S. Athanasius that of the Council of Nice we must conclude that their Decrees were founded on Consequences drawn from Scripture nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued Succession of the Tradition In like manner when the Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavian was read and all assented to it So that upon the matter his Epistle became the Decree of the Council and that whole Epistle from beginning to end is one entire Series of Consequences proved from Scripture and Reason Act. Conc. Chalced. Action 1. And to the end of that Epistle are added in the Acts of that Council Testimonies from the Fathers that had lived after the days of the Council of Nice Theodoret Theod. in Dial. and Gelasius also Gelas. de Diab naturis who wrote against the Eutychians do through their whole Writings pursue them with Consequences drawn from Scripture and Reason and in the end set down Testimonies from Fathers And to instance only one more when S. Austin wrote against the Pelagians how many Consequences he draws from Scripture every one that has read him must needs know In the end let it be also observed that all these Fathers when they argue from Places of Scripture they never attempt to prove that those Scriptures had been expounded in that Sense they urge them in by the Councils or Fathers who had gone before them but argue from the Sense which they prove they ought to be understood in I do not say all their Consequences or Expositions were well-grounded but all that has been hitherto set down will prove that they
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
all persons mightily to the study of the Scriptures But it is not to be denied great corruptions did quickly break in when the Persecutions were over and the Church abounded in peace and plenty not but that the Doctrine was preserved pure long after that There were also many shining Lights and great Fathers in that and in the following Age yet from the Fathers of these two Ages and from the great disorders were in some of their Councils as in the case of Athanasius and the second Ephesin Council we may clearly see how much they were degenerating from the primitive purity Many Contests were about the precedency of their Sees great Ambition and Contention appeared in their Synods which made Nazianzen hate and shun them expecting no good from them These and such like things brought very heavy Judgments and Plagues on the Church and the whole Roman Empire in the fifth Century For vast swarms of Armies out of Germany and the Northern Nations brake in upon the Western Empire and by a long succession of new Invaders all was sackt and ruined The Goths were followed by the Vandals the Alains the Gepides the Franks the Sweves the Huns and in the end the Lombards Those Nations were for the greatest part Arrians but all were barbarous and rude and their hatred of the Faith joyned to the barbarity of their tempers set them with a strange fury on destroying the most Sacred things And to that we owe the loss of most of the Primitive Writings and of all the Authentical Records of the first Persecutions scarce any thing remaining but what Eusebius had before gathered together out of a former destruction was made of such things under Dioclesian Nor did the Glory of the Eastern Empire long survive the Western that fell before these Invaders But in Europe by the Impression of the Bulgars and in Asia by the Conquests made first by the Saracens then by the Turks their Greatness was soon broken though it lasted longer under that oppressed condition than the other had done Thus was both the Greek and the Latin Church brought under sad oppression and much misery And every body knows that the natural effect that state of 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 suppostitious 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