A relation of a conference held about religion at London by Edw. Stillingfleet ... with some gentlemen of the Church of Rome.

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 under∣stood. 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 ap∣pear 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 uni∣versally 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 recon∣ciled 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 Defini∣tion of the Church: Either they must pretend they are Infallible in their Deductions, or we have no reason to make any account of them, as being Fallible and Uncertain, and so they can never secure us from Error, nor be a just ground to found our Faith of any Proposition so proved upon: Therefore no Proposition thus proved, can be acknowledged an Article of Faith. This is the breadth and length of their Plea, which we shall now examine.

And first; If there be any Strength in this Plea, it will conclude against our submitting to the express Words of Scripture as forcibly: Since all words, how formal soever, are capable of several Expositions. Either they are to be understood literally, or figuratively; either they are to be understood positively, or interrogatively: With a great many other Varieties, of which all Expressions are capable. So that if the former Argument have any force, since every place is capable of several meanings; except we be infallibly sure which is the true meaning, we ought by the same parity of Reason to make no account of the most express and formal Words of Scripture; from which it is apparent, that what noise soever these Men make of express Words of Scripture; yet if they be true to their own Argument, they will as little submit to these, as to Deductions from Scripture: Since they have the same Reason to question the true meaning of a place, that they have to reject an Inference and Deduction from it. And this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a Trick, under which there lies no fair dealing at all.

But to answer the Argument to all Mens Satisfaction, we must consider the Nature of the Soul, which is a reasonable Being; whose chief Faculty is to discern the Connexion of things,

and to draw out such Inferences as flow from that Connexion. Now, though we are liable to great Abuses both in our Judgments and Inferences; yet if we apply thefe Faculties with due care, we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reasonings; otherwise this being God's Image in us, and the Standard by which we are to try things, God has given us a false Standard; which when we have with all possible care managed, yet we are still exposed to Fallacies and Errors. This must needs reflect on the Veracity of that God, that has made us of such a Nature, that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing.

Therefore it must be acknowledged, that when our Reasons are well prepared according to those eternal Rules of Purity and Vertue, by which we are fitted to consider of Divine Matters; and when we carefully weigh things, we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us. And though we be not Infallible, so that it is still possible for us by Precipitation, or undue Preparation, to be abused into Mistakes; yet we may be well assured that such Connexions and Inferences as appear to us certain, are infallibly true.

If this be not acknowledged, then all our Obligation to believe any thing in Religion will vanish. For that there is a God; That he made all things, and is to be acknowledged and obeyed by his Creatures; That our Souls shall out-live their Union with our Bodies, and be capable of Rewards and Punishments in another state; That Inspiration is a thing possible; That such or such Actions were above the Power of Nature, and were really performed. In a word, all the Maxims on which the belief, ei∣ther of Natural Religion, or Revealed, is founded, are such as we can have no certainty about them, and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them; if our Faculty of reasoning in its clear Deductions is not a sufficient Warrant for a sure belief.

But to examin a little more home their beloved Principle, that their Church cannot err: Must they not prove this from the Divine Goodness and Veracity, from some Passages of Scrip∣ture, from Miracles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their Church?

Now in yielding assent to this Doctrine upon these Proofs, the Mind must be led by many Arguments, through a great many Deductions and Inferences. Therefore we are either cer∣tain of these Deductions, or we are not. If we are certain, this must either be founded on the Authority of the Church expounding them, or on the strength of the Arguments. Now we being to examine this Authority, not having yet submitted to it; this cannot determine our Belief till we see good Cause for it. But in the discerning this good Cause of believing the Church Infallible, they must say that an uncontroulable evidence of Reason is ground enough to fix our Faith on, or there can be no certain ground to believe the Church Infalli∣ble. So that it is apparent we must either receive with a firm persuasion what our Souls pre∣sent to us as uncontroulably true; or else we have no reason to believe there is a God, or to be Christians, or to be, as they would have us, Romanists.

And if it be acknowledged there is cause in some Cases for us to be determined by the clear evidence of Reason in its Judgments and Inferences; Then we have this Truth gained, that our Reasons are capable of making true and certain Inferences, and that we have good Cause to be determined in our Belief by these; and therefore Inferences from Scripture ought to di∣rect our Belief. Nor can any thing be pretended against this, but what must at the same time overthrow all Knowledg and Faith, and turn us sceptical to every thing.

We desire it be in the next place considered, what is the end and use of Speech and Wri∣ting, which is to make known our Thoughts to others; those being artificial signs for convey∣ing them to the understanding of others. Now every Man that speaks pertinently; as he designs to be understood, so he chooses such Expressions and Arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to; and the clearer he speaks, he speaks so much the better: And every one that wraps up his meaning in obscure words, he either does not di∣stinctly apprehend that about which he discourses, or does not design that those to whom he speaks, should understand him, meaning only to amuse them. If likewise he say any thing from which some absurd Inference will easily be apprehended, he gives all that hear him a suf∣ficient ground of Prejudice against what he says. For he must expect that as his Hearers senses receive his Words or Characters, so necessarily some Figure or Notion must be at th••

same time imprinted on their Imagination, or presented to their Reason; this being the end for which he speaks; and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning, the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it. It must also be acknow∣ledged, that all Hearers must necessarily pass Judgments on what they hear, if they do think it of that importance as to examin it. And this they must do by that natural Faculty of making Judgments and Deductions, the certainty whereof we have proved to be the Foundation of all Faith and Knowledg.

Now the chief Rule of making true Judgments, is, to see what Consequences certainly follow on what is laid before us: If these be found absurd or impossible, we must reject that from which they follow as such.

Further; because no Man says every thing that can be thought or said to any Point, but only such things as may be the Seeds of further Enquiry and Knowledg in their Minds to whom he speaks; when any thing of great Importance is spoken, all Men do naturally consider what Inferences arise out of what is said by a necessary Connexion: And if these Deductions be made with due care, they are of the same force, and must be as true as that was from which they are drawn.

These being some of the Laws of Converse, which every Man of common Sense must know to be true; can any Man think, that when God was revealing by inspired Men his Counsels to Mankind, in Matters that concerned their eternal Happiness, he would do it in any other way than any honest Man speaks to another, that is, plainly and dinstinctly.

There were particular Reasons why Prophetical Visions must needs be obscure: but when Christ appeared on Earth, tho many things were not to be fully opened till he had triumphed over Death and the Powers of Darkness; yet his design being to bring Men to God, what he spoke in order to that, we must think he intended that they to whom he spake it might understand it, otherwise why should he have spoken it to them? And if he did intend they should understand him, then he must have used such Expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their Understandings; and yet they were of the meaner sort, and of very ordinary Capacities, to whom he addressed his Discourses. If then such as they were, might have understood him; how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous Mysteriousness in the Words of Christ and his Apostles? (For the same Reason by which it is proved that Christ designed to be understood, and spake sutably to that design, will con∣clude as strongly that the Discourses of the Apostles in Matters that concern our Salvation, are also intelligible.) We have a perfect understanding of the Greek Tongue; and, tho some Phrases are not so plain to us which alter every Age, and some other Passages that re∣late to some Customs, Opinions or Forms, of which we have no perfect Account left us, are hard to be understood: Yet what is of general and universal concern, may be as well understood now as it was then; for Sense is Sense still. So that it must be acknowledged, that Men may still understand all that God will have us believe and do in order to Sal∣vation.

And therefore if we apply and use our Faculties aright, joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for Truth, earnest Prayers, that God by his Grace may so open our Under∣standings, and present Divine Truths to them, that we may believe and follow them: Then both from the nature of our own Souls, and from the design and end of Revelation, we may be well assured that it is not only very possible, but also very easy for us to find out Truth.

We know the pompous Objection against this, is, How comes it then that there are so many Errors and Divisions among Christians? especially those that pretend the greatest Acquaintance with Scriptures? To which the Answer is so obvious and plain, that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an Argument. Does not the Gospel offer Grace to all Men to lead holy Lives, following the Commandments of God? And is not Grace able to build them up, and make them perfect in every good Word and Work? And yet how does Sin and Vice abound in the World? If then the abounding of Error proves the Gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it, then the abounding of Sin will also prove

there are no certain ways in the Gospel to avoid it. Therefore as the Sins Mankind gene∣rally live in, leave no Imputation on the Gospel; so neither do the many Heresies and Schisms conclude that the Gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the Knowledg of all necessary Truth. Holiness is every whit as necessary to see the Face of God as Knowledg is, and of the two is the more necessary; since low degrees of Knowledg, with an high measure of Holiness, are infinitely preferable to high degrees of Knowledg with a low mea∣sure of Holiness. If then every Man have a sufficient help given him to be holy, why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his Belief and Life, which is a less thing? And how should it be an Im∣putation on Religion, that there should not be an infallible way to end all Controversies, when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt Lusts and Passions of Men, since the one is more opposite to the Design and Life of Religion than the other?

In sum; there is nothing more sure than that the Scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the Knowledg of what is necessary to Salvation, as of doing the Will of God. But as the depravation of our Natures makes us neglect the Helps towards an holy Life; so this and our other Corruptions, Lusts and Interests, make us either not to discern Divine Truth, or not embrace it. So that Error and Sin are the Twins of the same Parents. But as every Man that improves his natural Powers, and implores and makes use of the Supplies of the Divine Grace, shall be enabled to serve God acceptably; so that tho he fail in many things, yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well-doing, his Sins shall be for∣given, and himself shall be saved: So upon the same grounds we are assured, that every one that applies his rational Faculties to the search of Divine Truth, and also begs the Illumination of the Divine Spirit, shall attain such Knowledg as is necessary for his eternal Salvation: And if he be involved in any Errors, they shall not be laid to his charge.

And from these we hope it will appear, that every Man may attain all necessary Knowledg, if he be not wanting to himself. Now when a Man attains this Knowledg, he acquires it, and must use it as a rational Being, and so must make Judgments upon it, and draw Consequences from it; in which he has the same Reason to be assured, that he has to know the true meaning of Scripture; and therefore as he has very good Reason to reject any meaning of a place of Scripture, from which by a necessary Consequence great Absurdities and Impossibilities must follow: So also he is to gather such Inferences as flow from a Necessary Connexion with the true meaning of any place of Scripture.

To instance this in the Argument we insisted on, to prove the mean by which Christ is received 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 ima∣gined 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 exter∣nal 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 un∣worthily, 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 Princi∣ples 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 a∣bout 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 Pre∣sidents, 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 a∣bout 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 a∣greed to; and if the Argument be not good, it is so far from being the better by the Au∣thority of him that useth it; that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his Au∣thority, 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 acqui∣esced 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 Scrip∣ture 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

* 1.1 Beginnings, in the plural, (from which he concludes there must be but one Beginning and Head of all Pow∣er, to wit, the Pope.) I am so far from being put to silence with this, that I am only astonished how any Man of common Sense, tho he pretended not to In∣fallibility, could fall into such Errors: for an ill Ar∣gument, 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 oc∣casion to argue upon, were, Iesus Christ being the true Messiah, and the freedom of the Gentiles from any Obliga∣tion 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 Cor∣ruption. 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 Conse∣quence. 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 Epi∣stle to the Galatians, where, besides other Arguments, he brings these two from the Old Te∣stament; 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 Rea∣son 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 di∣rected, 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 ac∣quiescing in their Authority, their Reasonings must have been good, otherwise they had ex∣posed themselves and their Cause to the just Scorn of their Enemies.

Having therefore evinced that both our Saviour and his Apostles did prove by Consequen∣ces 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 Con∣sequences 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 esta∣blish, maintained on the contrary, that we must not confine our selves to that which hath been held by An∣tiquity, 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 Con∣sequence 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 Disputa∣tion 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 Sim∣plicity of their Manners bad brought to Divine Faith without nice Curiosity. Others did strongly, or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter Opinions, without a strict trial of them. Now in these words we find not a word either of Orthodox or Arrian; so of which side either one or other were, we are left to conjecture. That Jesuit has been sufficiently exposed by the Writers of the Port-Royal, for his foul dealing on other occasions; and we shall have great cause to mistrust him in all his Accounts, if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this; and that the Party which he calls the Orthodox were really some holy, good Men; but simple, ignorant, and easily abused: And that the other Party which he calls the Arrian, was the Orthodox, and more judicious, who readily foreseeing the Inconvenience which the Simplicity of others would have involved them in, did vehemently oppose it; and pressed the Testi∣monies 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 Hi∣lary (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 ac∣knowledged 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 inno∣vating, 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 cer∣tain account, since their Acts are lost. But the best Conjecture we can make, is from St. Atha∣nasius, 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 justi∣fies 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 Athana∣sius 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 Alexan∣dria. 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 Suc∣cession 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 Epi∣stle 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 Fa∣thers, that had lived after the days of the Council of Nice. Theodoret (Theod. in Dial.) and Ge∣lasius 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 ar∣gue from the Sense which they prove they ought to be understood in. I do not say all their Consequences or Expositions were well-grounded; but all that has been hitherto set down, will prove that they thought Arguments drawn from Scripture, when the Consequences are clear, were of sufficient Authority and Force to end all Controversies. And thus it may ap∣pear 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 ex∣press 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 Te∣stimonies 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 Scrip∣ture; 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 Ad∣dition, 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 al∣ter? 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 Con∣sequence 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 Au∣thority of Truth, and the Truth of Authority, which Heretical Impiety studied to overthrow, under the He∣retical 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 Cou••il of Nice, nor yet the Coun∣cil 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 Autho∣rities 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 Peo∣ple, 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 dis∣charge 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 wor∣ship 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 else∣where, (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 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 A∣thanasius, 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 Sub∣stance 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 impo∣sed 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 her••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 Con∣substantiality, 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 Do∣minion 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 Con∣ference 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 Cas∣sander, (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 Con∣substantial, 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 ve∣hemency, 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 Profes∣sion; but shew it written in the pure and naked Property of Words, that the Father is Unbegotten, or Im∣passible. 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 Profes∣sion. 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 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 Ar∣guments that the attributes of the Divine Nature, such as the Omniscience and Omnipre∣sence 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 con∣demned 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 Theodo∣ret'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 com∣plains 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 di∣rection, 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 misunder∣stood 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 with the Law, or answers to Nature; he must consider the genuineness of Faith, the firmness of Hope, the sincerity of Love, what is liable to no Reproach, what is beyond Envy, and worthy of Favour; all which things concur in Pious Meditations. And concludes thus, The sum of all is, he that receives any words, and does not consider the meaning of them, how can he understand those that seem to contradict others? where shall he find a fit answer? How shall he satisfie those that interrogate him, or defend that which is written?

These passages are out of the first Discourse, what follows is out of the second. In the beginning he says,

Though the Devil has invented many grievous Doctrines, yet he doubts if any former age brought forth any thing like that then broached. Former Heresies had their own proper errors; but this that was now invented renewed all others, and ex∣ceeded all others. Which, says he, receives simply what is said, but does not enquire what is convenient, or inconvenient: But shall I believe without judgment, and not en∣quire what is possible, convenient, decent, acceptable to God, answerable to Nature, agree∣able to Truth, or is a consequence from the scope, or suitable to the mystery, or to piety; or what outward reward, or inward fruit accompanies it; or must I reckon on none of these things. But the cause of all our adversaries errors, is, that with their ears they hear words, but have no understanding of them in their hearts; for all of them (and names divers) shun a trial, that they be not convinced, and at length shews what absurdities must follow on such a method.

Instancing those places about which the Contest was with the Arrians, such as these words of Christ, The Father is greater than I. And shews what apparent contradictions there are, if we do not consider the true sense of places of Scripture that seem contradictory, which must be reconciled by finding their true meaning; and con∣cludes,

So we shall either perswade, or overcome our adversary; so we shall shew that the Holy Scripture is consonant to its self; so we shall justly publish the glory of the Mystery, and shall treasure up such a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls; we shall neither believe without the Word, nor speak without Faith.

Now I challenge every Reader, to consider if any thing can be devised, that more formally, and more nervously overthrows all the pretences brought for his appeal to the express words of Scripture.

And here I stop; for though I could carry it further, and shew that other Hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext, yet I think all Impartial Readers will be sa∣tisfied, when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand Heresies, condemned by the

first four General Councils, And from all has been said, it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been baffled by Universal Councils and Fathers. Yet I cannot leave this with the Reader, without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered.

The first is, that which these Gentlemen would impose on us has been the Plea of the greatest Hereticks have been in the Church. Those therefore who take up these weapons of Hereticks, which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands, by the most Uni∣versal Councils, and the most Learned Fathers of the Catholick Church; till at length they were laid aside by all men, as unfit for any service, till in this age some Jesuits took them up in defence of an often baffled Cause, do very unreasonably pretend to the Spirit or Doctrine of Catholicks, since they tread a path so oft beaten by all Hereticks, and abhorred by all the Orthodox.

Secondly, We find the Fathers always begin their answering this pretence of Hereticks, by shewing them how many things they themselves believed, that were no-where written in Scripture. And this I believe was all the ground M. W. had for telling us in our Conference that St Austin bade the Heretick read what he said.

I am confident that Gentleman is a man of Candour and Honour, and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy, as to have cited this for such a purpose, if he had not taken it on trust from second hands. But he who first made use of it, if he have no other Authority of St. Austin's, which I much doubt, cannot be an honest man; who, be∣cause St. Austin, to shew the Arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they be∣lieved, urges them with this, that they could not read all that they believed themselves, would from that conclude, St. Austin thought every Article of Faith must be read in so many words in Scripture. This is such a piece of Ingenuity as the Jesuits used in the Contest about St. Austin's Doctrine, concerning the efficacy of Grace: When they cited as formal passages out of St. Austin, some of the Objections of the Semipelagians, which he sets down, and afterwards answers, which they brought without his answers, as his words, to shew he was of their side. But to return to our purpose; from this method of the Fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words, back on those who make use of it against us; and to ask them where do they read their Purgatory, Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantia∣tion, the Pope's Supremacy, with a great many more things in the express words of Scripture.

Thirdly, We see the peremptory answer the Fathers agree in, is, that we must understand the Scriptures, and draw just consequences from them, and not stand on words or phrases; but consider things: And from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us. It is in those great Saints, Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Austin, and Theodoret, that they will find our answer as fully and formally as need be; and to them we refer our selves.

But, Fourthly, To improve this beyond the particular occasion that engaged us to all this enquiry, we desire it be considered that when such an objection was made, which those of the Church of Rome judge is strong to prove, we must rely on somewhat else than Scrip∣ture, either on the Authority of the Church, or on the certainty of Tradition. The first Councils and Fathers had no such apprehension.

All considering men, chiefly when they are arguing a nice Point, speak upon some hypo∣thesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed, and must certainly discourse consequent∣ly to it. To instance it in this particular; If an Objection be made against the drawing conse∣quences from Scripture, since all men may be mistaken; and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings. A Papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say, it is true, any man may err, but the whole Church, either when assembled in a Council with the Holy Ghost in the midst of them, or when they convey down from the Apostles, through age to age, the Tradition of the Exposition of the Scriptures cannot err, for God will be with them to the end of the World.

A Protestant must on the other hand, according to his Principles, argue, that since man has a reasonable soul in him, he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making Inferences: And when any consequence is apparent to our understandings, we ought and must believe it as much

as we do that from which the consequenee is drawn. Therefore we must not only read, but study to understand the true meaning of Scripture: And we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the Scriptures, if we find the Church of God in the purest times, and the Fathers believing as we believe. If we should hear two persons that were un∣known to us, argue either of these two ways, we must conclude, the one is a Papist, the other a Protestant, as to this particular.

Now I desire the Reader may compare what has been cited from the Fathers upon this subject: And see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles. Whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine; that in seeking out the decision of all Controversies, the Fathers went by the same Rules we go by, to wit, the clear sense of Scriptures, as it must appear to every considering mans understanding, backed with the opinion of the Fa∣thers that went before them.

And thus far have I followed this Objection; and have, as I hope, to every Reader's sa∣tisfaction made it out, that there can be nothing more unreasonable, more contrary to the Articles and Doctrine of our Church, to the nature of the soul of man, to the use and end of words and discourse, to the practice of Christ and his Apostles, to the constant sense of the Primitive Church, and that upon full and often renewed Contest with Hereticks upon this very head: Then to impose on us an Obligation to read all the Articles of our Church in the express words of Scripture.

So that I am confident this will appear to every considering person, the most trifling and pitiful Objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason. And therefore it is hoped, that all persons who take any care of their souls, will examine things more nar∣rowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them, or to be shaken by such Objections. And if all the scruple these Gentlemen have, why they do not joyn in Communion with the Church of England, lies in this; we expect they shall find it so entirely satisfied, and re∣moved out of the way, that they shall think of returning back to that Church where they had their Baptism and Christian Education, and which is still ready to receive them with open arms, and to restore such as have been over-reached into Error and Heresie, with the spirit of meekness. To which I pray God of his great mercy dispose both them and all others, who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest Church upon Earth; and have turned over to a most impure and corrupt Society. And let all men say,

Amen.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Boniface the 8th, Extrav. lib. 1. c. 1. de Majoritate & Obedientia. After he had studied to prove that the temporal and ma∣terial Sword, as well as the spiritual, was in the Power of St. Peter, from these words, Behold two Swords, and our Saviour's Answer, It is enough. In the end he concludes Whosoever therefore resists this Power thus ordained of God, resists the Ordinance of God: except with Manichee he make two Begin∣nings, which we define to be false and hereti∣cal: For Moses testifies, that not in the Be∣ginnings, but in the Beginning God cre∣ated the Heaven and the Earth. There∣fore we declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is of necessity to Salvation to every human Creature, to be subject to the Pope of Rome: And it is plain this Subjection must be, that he had been pleading thorough that whole Decretal, which is the Subjection of the Temporal Sword to the Spiritual.