Concilio non intererant primò Episcopi â—â—â—vinciarum 94. Imperio Romano subjectarum Ita ex Provinciis Imperii 118. solum Provinciae 24. suos ibi habuere Episcopos Provinciae 94 non habuerunt 2. Nuâ—â—rovinâ—tarum Christianarum extra In perâ—â—â—â—â—â—num posâ—tarum Episcopi hic aderant Vâ—â—nti ex Aethiopia India Persia Scotia Hybernia c. 3. Concilium Ephesinum Aderant solum Episcopi 156. ut constat ex Graeca hujus Concilii Editione per (a) Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 99. Edita Heidelb Anno 1591. Hieronym Commolinum Heidelbergae Anno 1591. Quamvis (b) Caranza in Summa Conciliorum p. 297. Caranza Patres 200. Synodo hâc convenisse asserit Eundem Episcoporum numerum habet Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Romanae p. 101. De hoc Concilio ex Actorum ejus subscriptionum diligenti collatione constat 1. Nullum ex Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis Episcopum ibidem adfuisse 2. Ex Provinciis sub Imperio Ditione Romana comprehensis sunt autem 118. ad minimum ut ex notitia Imperii Patet pauciores Provinciae ad hoc quam ad Nicenum Concilium Episcopos delegarunt 4. Concilium Chalcedonense In hoc convenerunt Episcopi 620. (a) Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. p. 736. Ekingerus in sua Conciliorum editiine p. 150. de quo notandum 1. Episcopi è Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis nulli hic aderant 2. E Provinciis Imperii 118. Episcopi Provinciarum 46. (b) Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Rom. p. 137. solùm hic convenerunt ita ut è Provinciis Imperii 72. Episcopus ne unus quidem huic Synodo interfuit Synodo huic Episcopi nulli aderant Ex 1. Vniversa Italia exceptis Episcopi Romani legatis 2. Hispania 3. Gallia 4. Britannia 5. Hibernia 6. Germania 7. Hungaria 8. Polonia 9. Dania vel Suecia 10. Aethiopia 11. Indiis Vtrisque 12. Parthia 13. Persia 14. Scythia Dub. At inquies Concilium Nicenum Chalcedonense c. ab omnibus dicuntur Oecumenica Ergo c. Resp Dici poterant Oecumenica 1. Respectu Orbis Romani Imperii utpote à Caesare Convocata 2. Sed non respectu Orbis Christiani de quo hic quaeritur utpote nullius Imperio subditi à quo legitimè Convocari poterant Memorand To use all previous care and caution in the stating of the Question after this manner viz. 1. That by Councils we do not understand a Civil Senate or Politick Meeting sed Conventum Cleri 2. That whereas Councils are usually divided by Writers into Provincial National and General he should take notice that it is the last only that the Fathers do call Oecumenical that is a Council wherein the Bishops of the whole World do meet And that tho' it is to be granted that in some Councils most of the Bishops of the Romish Jurisdiction may have met yet that such Councils deserve to be call'd Conciliabula rather than Concilia And as for example in the Council of Trent only those who were call'd by the Bull of Paul the third met who were sworn Abettors of the Romish Doctrine And that certainly at the times of all those pretended General Councils meeting there were always Christians without the bounds of the Roman Empire which might have been and ought to have been call'd to the Councils Isa 46.6 I have appointed thee to be a Light to the Gentiles and a Saviour to the ends of the Earth And Christ gave his Apostles Authority to go over the whole World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Theodoret gives Testimony to this in his Book De Curandis Graecorum affectibus Nostri illi Piscatores ac Publicani sutorque ille noster cunctis Gentibus Legem Evangelicam detulerunt Neque solum Romanos quique sub Romano vivunt imperio sed Scythas quoque ac Sauromatas Indos Aethiopos Persas Hircanos Britannos Cimmerios Germanos utque semel dicatur omne hominum genus Nationesque omnes induxerunt Crucifixi Leges accipere But since you are pleased to desire my thoughts about the sense in which Protestants allow that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and are likewise desirous to know whether Papists do not on occasion sometimes slight and disobey their General Councils You may in the first place take notice that all sober Protestants admit and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is in a sense really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper The Lutherans who hold Consubstantiation do yet believe that and so do the Calvinists too That there is a Substitution of Body and Blood in the place of the Bread and Wine nothing of the Symbols remaining they deny Some foolish Papists bring a place out of the 6th of St. John for Transubstantiation that makes nothing for it where Christ saith Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of God ye can have no life in you c. But this place indeed makes much against the Romanists For as to the eating of the Flesh of Christ being spoken of 't is confess'd by Bellarmine lib. 1. De Eucharistia cap. 1. that those words of St. John do not properly belong to the Sacrament but the Mystery of the Incarnation So Gabriel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper judge likewise For Christ speaking of the necessity of eating his Body and drinking his Blood must needs speak of something which was possible for certainly he laid no necessity on Men to do impossibilities but the Sacramental eating of his Body was not then possible when he spoke this For then there was no such Sacrament in the World Christ having then not instituted his last Supper And all Popish Writers do grant that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of his last Supper or Eucharist till a good while after So saith P. Joh. Martinex de Ripalda in Brevi Exposit Lit. Magistri Sent. L. 4. distinct 8. Assert 2. p. 601. Hoc Sacramentum inquit fuit institutum Nocte Passionis And then again secondly our Saviour in this 6th of St. John speaks of the Eating without which there was no spiritual life But without Sacramental eating there may be spiritual life as many of them who believed had that life wrought in them then And certainly all those holy Men who dy'd before our Saviour's Passion had spiritual life in them Therefore these expressions are not meant of a Sacramental eating but of a figurative a fiducial and spiritual eating by Faith Thirdly If Sacramental eating and drinking be here meant no Lay-Roman Catholick can then possibly be saved for Lay Roman Catholicks are sacrilegiously denied the Blood of Christ being denied the Cup. Lastly 'T will appear further from the Text it self that this eating was not opus Oris but Cordis So verse 35. I am the Bread of Life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that believes on me shall not
thirst Where to come to him and believe on him are manifestly said to be the same things which afterward he calls eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood v. 53 54. Now the generality of the Papists interpret this place of St. John not to be meant literally And therefore the other of Hoc est Corpus meum may not be meant literally These expressions of This is my Body and this is my Blood that is Symbolical and Sacramental Signs Seals and Representations of his Body and Blood and Passion are most agreeable to the Common Dialect and Idiotisms of the Jews to the Genius and Language of their Countrey and the Place where and Persons with whom our Saviour lived as is manifest by several phrases and parallel expressions of the Holy Ghost in Scripture So the seven fat Kine are call'd seven years of Plenty And Ezekiel speaking of dry Bones saith These Bones are the House of Israel So in Daniel Thou O King art that golden head So in the Gospel The Rock was Christ And Hagar and Sara are the two Covenants the seven Heads are seven Hills The Woman is that great City c. And our Saviour saith of himself I am the true Vine Why should we not infer as well from hence that Christ was turned into a Vine as what the Papists infer from other words since he saith only This is my Blood not my true Blood and here saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Christ saith he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Papists Tenet is a thing gratis dictum a bare assertion without proof a begging of what should be proved This Popish Opinion would never have been receiv'd if the Tyranny of some and Ends and Interests of others did not unhappily cause it There is no more connection between the things contained in it than between Tenterton Steeple and Goodwin Sands no shadow of consequence Nor hath the antecedent any more Logical relation to the consequent than Chalk to Cheese And now I shall give you a clear account of what we Protestants at least what I believe in this particular Now that I may do this with as much clearness and sincerity as I can I shall say 1. That the Body and Blood of Christ may be said to be present in the Eucharist first respectu sui by a Corporeal Physical and Local presence as if Christ's Body it self were substantially in the place where the Bread and Wine is Secondly respectu causati effectus producti when Christ's Body tho' comprehended in Heaven that is the gracious effect of his Death and Passion goeth along with the Sacred Symbols and is really present to the Believing Receiver That we call a Local this a Virtual yet real presence Secondly As to the Local presence of our Saviour's Body we may say it is in Heaven only not here in the Eucharist and the Scripture saith so too in express terms It is in Heaven therefore not here it being impossible as involving a manifest contradiction that the same Numerical Body should at the same time be here and there too Thirdly As to the Virtual presence which is real too we say and believe that the gracious Effects of our Saviour's Body and Blood are really present and go along with the Sacred Signs in the Sacrament to those who are true Believers But for wicked Men who are Enemies to Christ and dead in their sins and trespasses Christ's Body and Blood are neither locally nor virtually present to them In that sense we now speak of they neither receive his Body nor Blood nor any benefit by them Fourthly We believe and say that the Cause of this presence is twofold first Moral secondly Physical First Faith being an Evangelical Condition on which all the Evangelical Promises and Blessings of God in Christ depend it is manifest that as the want of it is a Moral Cause why we want those Blessings so the having of it is morally a Cause why we have them For when once our gracious God doth promise us any thing upon condition of Faith and he doth promise Heaven it self on that condition the Condition being performed on our part there lies an Obligation on God who will not nay cannot break his promise to give us those Blessings which he promised on that Condition So that Faith being a conditio praestita ex parte nostri I call it a Moral cause and their own School-men call it so too of Christ's real presence to Believers in the Eucharist For as Faith was Conditio praerequisita a Condition required in those Adulti in the Acts who were to be baptized and the want of it was a Moral Cause why Baptism was not effectual and the presence of it a cause of all those gracious Consequents seal'd to Believers by Baptism So in the Eucharist Faith is a Moral Cause of the spiritual nourishment and growth of Grace seal'd to us in that Sacrament Secondly But there is another power which I call a Physical Cause of that real presence and that is our blessed Saviour himself as Mediator and Head of the Church For to him as such all Power is given of redeeming justifying sanctifying saving his Servants And he is both the Efficient and Meritorious Cause of all spiritual blessings bestowed on us So that the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament is from Faith as a Moral Cause and from another Power that of Jesus Christ as our Mediator as from the Efficient Cause You will find some of our Romish Adversaries so confident as to tell us that the first Christian World believed otherwise than the Protestants do in these and other Points But there they must of necessity if they will speak congruously by the first Christian World mean the first hundred years after Christ or that and some of the next Centuries following And to make this good surely they will bring some Authors of that time to prove it Some of them have cited St. Ignatius who lived in the time of of the first Century But why he is no Competent Witness will anon appear And as for D. Areopagite we know that he is a Bastard and no Father that the Works ascribed to him are adulterate and spurious Brats and confess'd so to us by the Papists and proved to be so many hundred years before Luther was born If Ignatius his Epistle to the Smyrnenses be not altogether forged yet it is so mangled and interpolated by the injury of time and the subtilty and knavery of persons enslaved to Interest that it is impossible to know which is genuine and which not and so the whole is of no competent Authority How strangely Ignatius is mangled and interpolated you may see by the vast difference of all Copies and Editions Greek and Latine as that of Videlius Vsserius J. Vossius You may likewise observe that the Papists do in some things go contrary to Councils For they go contrary to the Concilium Nicenum secundum that Council
utterly denying the picturing of God the Father and yet they of Rome approve and practise it This Doctrine of Anti-transubstantiatioâ— is no new Doctrine crept into the World since Luther's time but the Antient Faith of the English and indeed of all Christendom long before the Conquest in the time of our Saxon Progenitors And so we find it in an Antient Homily writ originally in Latine but among many others translated into Saxon by Aelfricus Abbot of St. Albans in King Edgar's time Vid. Saxon. Homil die Sancto Paschae p. 35. That Homily was no private thing but commanded by Authority to be read in Churches on Easter-day where speaking of the Sacred Symbols in the Eucharist we are told that it is naturally corruptible Bread and Wine and is by might of God's Word truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not so bodily but ghostly And then there are divers differences put between Christ's Body in which he suffered and his Body in the Sacrament As first That was born of the Virgin Mary had flesh and blood But his ghostly or spiritual Body is gathered of many Corns without Bones Blood or Limb and without Soul therefore nothing to be understood therein bodily but all ghostly And a little after This Mystery speaking of the sacred Host is a pledge and figure Christ's Body is Truth it self This was the Antient Faith of the Church of England seven hundred years ago and 't is ours still If at or after the Lateran Council Transubstantiation and another new Doctrine was broach'd by the Tyranny of Rome and the slavish Credulity of some of our Predecessors let Roman Catholicks ingenuously tell us who are the Innovators But suppose a few persons believed so suppose any Fathers quoted for it were uncorrupt yet it doth not follow that because they believed so therefore the Christian World believed so And again suppose that the Major part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church were for such an Opinion I ask if this doth bind Posterity to be of their Faith I shall here shew you that tho' none pretend more to Antiquity than the Papists or make a greater noise with Fathers and Councils yet they slight them as much as any when they speak any thing against the sense of the present Church As for instance what I partly before hinted Cardinal Cajetan a very Learned Man in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis hath this passage Si quando occurrit novus sensus textui consonus quamvis à torrente Doctorum alienus â—quum se praebeat lector Censorem And a little after he adds Nullus detestetur novum Sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Maldonat in cap. 6. Johannis that he might oppose Calvin confesseth which no Witness but my own Eyes could make me believe that he chose a new Interpretation on the place against all the Antients But in the next place to prove that Papists have sometimes gone against General Councils since you give me occasion further to dilate on what I before referr'd to by way of hint I shall tell you that the Canon of the great Council of (b) Concil Chalced. Can. 2. in Collect. Can. Graec. Lat. per Eliam Elingerum 29. In Cod. Can. Ecclesiae Vnivers per Christoph Justellum Chalcedon one of the four which Pope Gregory would have receiv'd tanquam quatuor Evangelia made by 630 Bishops confirm'd by the 6th General Council held at Constantinople And by that of (c) Conc. Constant in Tâ—ullo Can. 36. for so it is acknowledged tho' Binius and some o herâ— would fain deny it in the bâ—dy of the Canon Law C. râ—novaâ—â—es Dist 22. in the last and best Editions of it See Greg. 13. his Bull given at Rome July 1. 1580. Gratiano praefixum Constance too Sess 39. fol. 39. Edit Antiquae Mediolani 1511. is yet every where slighted by Popish Authors For Canon the 28th or as in some Editions the 29th Canon of Chalcedon is quite left out in that Edition of the Councils by P. Crab and in that of Dionysius Exiguus in the Vetus Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Romanae in Caranza c. And tho' Franciscus Longus (d) Summa Concillor per Francisc Longum à Coriolano p. 402. apud illum Can. 27. a Coriolano hath that Canon yet in his Annotations he flatly denies it and goes about to prove it false in divers particulars So that the Canonical determinations of 360 Fathers met in a General Council whose Constitutions their own (e) Extra De Renuntiationâ— cap. post Translationem Pope Gregory would have receiv'd as Evangelical Truths when they make against them signifie nothing but are flatly denied And if it be said that this was no Canon of the Council the contrary is manifestly true for it is in all the Original Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript (f) Videsis Cod. Canonum per Christoph Justellum Ecclesiae Vniversae Can. 206. p 25. Zonaram in Canon Concil p. 118. Theodorum Balsamon in Can. 28. Concil Chalcedon Can. Concilior Graec. Lat. Quarto An. 1560. per Andr. Gesnerum p. 48. Vid. Caranzam in Notis ad Marginem c. 36. Concil Constantinop p. 635. where he tells us that Canon is in the Greek Copies sed deest in Latinis exemplaribus and expresly confirm'd by the 36th Canon of the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Registred by Gratian Can. Renovantes Dist 22. tho' with insufferable falshood and corruption of the Canon as will manifestly appear to any who will compare Gratians reading with the Oriâ—inal (g) Vid. Vetus â—â—sc Syâ—â—â—icum in Biâ—l B â—leâ—â— iâ—â—er Mâ—c Gâ—â—â—ca è Mâ—s o Barociano I know they of Rome sliâ—ht this of â—onstantinople as much as that â—f Chaâ—cedon For first Binius tells us it smells more of ambition than truth and (h) Caranza in Aâ—not ad Can. 36. Conc â—ii 6. Gen. p. 635. Caranza â—rroneus a quibusdam existi â—â—ur hic Canon And Indeed iâ— is â—ecessâ—ry for them to deny that Canon for it positively asserts and determines such truths as utterly overthrow their Popes pretended Supremacy which they so much and so irrationally contend â—â—r For First that great General Council gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not sâ—â— lia only as Gratian falsely reads it (a) Gratian Can. Renovantes dist 22. even in the last and best Edition of their Canon-â—aw equal Priviledges to New and Old Rome that is declared and pronounced Constantinople or the Patriarch of that Imperial City to have equal Priviledges with the Pope or Patriarch of old Rome Secondly That the Roman Bishop had not those Priviledges among other Bishops by any Divine right or succession from St. Peter as now they would pretend but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were given by ecclesiastical and positive constitution of the Fathers Thirdly And they to make this manifest tell us that Rome had those antient prerogatives not as its Bishop was St. Peter's Successor or with
1200 years that by vertue of that Decree of the Apostles it was believed unlawful to eat any blood But here it will be objected that the Apostles Decree Act. 15. was not Praeceptum or a Law or bound all the Gentile Christians from eating blood c. but it was only Consilium a Counsel which did not induce a necessary Obligation to obedience so amongst others (a) Dr. Hamond in Acts 15 28 29 and hâ—â— Review pag. 95. Dr. Hamond Solut. But this is gratis dictum without reason given or pretended to be given for it and therefore till it be prov'd eâdem facilitate negatur quâ proponitur but that the Canon of the Apostles is Praeceptum an obliging Law and not barely a Counsel which without any disobedience we may receive or reject may appear by these and other Reasons 1. 'T is most certain that Voluntas Dei de re faciendâ aut fugiendâ sufficienter revelata is a Divine Precept and a binding Law his Will when sufficiently reveal'd is the adequate Rule of his Worship and our Obedience and when it appears that 't is the Will of God we should do this or avoid that we are bound to obey and do accordingly Now in the Apostles Canon or Decree we have the express Will of God sufficiently reveal'd that we should abstain from things offered to Idols and from blood for so the Apostle who had the infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit tells us it seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and us that you abstain from Idolatry and from Blood c. It was the Will of God and therefore a Divine Law and Precept that we should abstain 2. Consilium is not necessarium but voluntarium we may without any disobedience receive or reject Counsel but the things forbid in the Apostles Canon are said to be necessaria though as to other things they were left at liberty yet there was a nessity to abstain from Idolatry and from Blood 3. A Counsel or things advised to in it are not onus impositum it never does nor can impose any burden upon me seeing I may ad placitum pro Arbitrio receive or reject follow or refuse the Counsel and do or not do what is Counsell'd but the Apostle's Canon is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onus impositum a burden laid upon them by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost to lay this burden upon you c. and therefore not only counsell'd but by a Divine Law bound to obey it 4. Once more This Canon of the Apostles is so far from being only a Consilium or advice of that great and infallible Counsel that in the sacred Text 't is expresly call'd a Decree or Apostolical Constitution (a) Act. 16.4 which the Gentile Christians were to observe and keep so Saint Luke tells us that they that were sent to deliver that Apostolical Canon to the Gentiles passed through the Cities and delivered them the Decrees for to keep which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained or constituted by the Apostles I know the word in the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Decrees sometimes signifies only an Opinion but never in St. Luke who uses it to signifie an Imperial Decree (b) Luk. 2.1 Edict or Institution so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the Opinion or Counsel but the Imperial Edict of Caesar So elsewhere Act. 17.7 c. T. B. Ep. Line A Letter Answering a Question about the Temper of the Prophets when they Prophesied and likewise a Query about the Tridentine Creed Sir FOR your two Queries I say to the First That the Holy Prophets Anciently when they foretold blessings or great judgments to come upon any person or Nation they were of a sedate calm and quiet temper and not troubled with defective sits of anger and overflowing passion For it was not of themselves or their own minds they spoke but they were (a) 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost by the Spirit of (b) 1 Pet. 10.11 Christ which was in them Now that Holy Spirit was a Sanctifying Spirit which could and did regulate all their passions and by his grace and the Divine truths he revealed to them inabled them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to (c) 2 Tim. 3.17 every good Work And if you consider all the Prophets in the Old Testament Moses Elijah Elisha Daniel c. you shall find them without mixing their own Passions calmly denouncing Gods severe anger and judgments against wicked Men or Nations 'T is true your Pagan Prophets and Diviners who at Delphos and such other places where the Devil gave Oracles took upon them to Prophesie and foretel future things were usually when they Prophesied rapt into a fury and kind of Madness And hence it is that amongst sober Pagan Authors Vaticinari is taken for delirare Quia sacerdotes oracula reddituri furore quodam corripi solebant Hence Cicero (d) Cicero pro Sextio eos qui dicerent dignitati serviendum Vaticinari insanire dicebat And elsewhere (e) Cicero lib. 1. de Divinatione Vaticinari furor vera solet For your 2. Query you desire to know when that Professio fidei mention'd in a Book call'd The Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy c. was agreed upon and what Books writ of it In Answer to this Query you must know That the Professio fidei mention'd in that Book was by Pius Papa IV. first Published Anno. 1564. in his Bulls which has this Title Bulla Pii Papae 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis Fidei In this Bull you have that whole Professio fidei or their New Trent Creed as we justly call it and that Bull and the Professio fidei or Trent Creed occurrs usually at the end of their Trent Council and at the end of their Catechismus Romanus and in some Editions of their Trent Council you have it in the (f) In the Edition at Antwerp 1633. Sess 24. De Reformatione cap. 12. pag. 430. you have this Professio fidei body of the Council Now concerning this Professio fidei (g) It was not made or composed by the French Clergy but by the direction of the Trent Fathers and Pulish'd by Pope Pius 4. Anno. 1564. they mention you must know that it consists of two parts 1. The Constantinopolitan Creed which is the very same with that in our Liturgy at the Communion And this we believe as much and as well as they 2. Then they have added to this and make up as one Creed more then twice as much in 14. or 15. Articles every one of which is evidently Erroneous and many of them impiously Superstitious and Idolatrous And this second part of their Professio fidei is that we call their New Trent Creed For 't is most certain that no Church in the Christian World no not Rome her self ever did believe