who before their condemnation were of the same Church must not say that she is unchurched and that it is they themselves who now make up the Church under pain of being held not onely Schismaticks but also very extravagant fantastical persons And those who follow them after this and declare for them at what time soever it be become fully as criminal as those who first separated themselves from the Church in so unreasonable and so unjustifiable a manner This Assembly or Representative having examined the proofs and reasons on both sides and consulted with the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of Faith has often declared that the Rea Presence and a substantial Change are to be believed and has condemned as an Heresie that opinion which stands for Real Absence Of all that I have now said I cannot imagin any one Point which can be call'd in question as I have stated the business And I think I have made it appear by the very words and Principles of Monsieur Claude himself that he is bound to agree with me in every particular since by following his own conduct we find our selves exactly and precisely in the state and condition of the Synod of Dort In the mean time those who first stood for a Real Absence against those who proposed a Real Presence when they saw themselves condemned by that Church of which they were and which before their condemnation was to all intents and purposes the real True Church as we are agreed undertake to say that she is not so and that they onely who maintain what she condemns do constitute the True Church Now according to the Principles a greed upon I cannot discover how they can avoid being held Schismaticks And by unavoidable consequence all those who have taken part with them these five hundred years must needs be subject to the same censure It being certain that they joyn with those who separated themselves from the True Church of Christ for no other reason but because they found themselves condemned by her It is true that that Church which is acknowledged to have been at that time the True Church was indeed the Church of Rome or Roman Church But what follows from thence according to the Principles agreed upon but that we must conclude for Her all that has been said in behalf of the True Church even by the consent of our adversaries themselves And that those who were of that Church before they withdrew themselves upon that Judgement she gave against them could not in reason and suffice say that she did now cease to be the True Church and that she misunderstood the meaning of Holy Scripture For she being the True Church as themselves grant before this happened 't was she that was Judge thereof according to the Decree of the Synod of Dort and not they who according to the same Synod were bound to submit to her Judgement and to hold that for the true sence of Scripture which she followed in her decisions All this is so clearly proved without mixture of any proofs by way of Disputation that I think I shall do well to stop here without pretending any further that I may peaceably draw those consequences which this great Principle affords us CHAP. IV. The Consequences which naturally flow from this Principle by a due application thereof 1. IN the second Chapter you may have seen how the True Church when contests do arise has power to decide them according to the Word of God and to propose that unto Christians as matter of Faith which antecedently to such decision they were not obliged to believe because it was not clearly and distinctly known but remained as yet involved in a general and confused knowledge In the third Chapter we did apply that uncontroulable Principle unto the subject of the Holy Eucharist and have clearly shewed that the Church of which the first contestors then were and which being the onely Church before separation made by one of the Parties was also the True Church did decide this matter according to method and Rule in favour of the Real Presence From these two Verities thus established even without Dispute and by-wayes we were all the way agreed upon taking along with us the thoughts of Monsieur Claude and allowing him whatsoever he was pleased to ask it will not be hard in this Chapter to to draw some consequences which offer themselves unto us and which it is impossible not to discover how little soever we desire to reflect upon what we have fairly and candidly acknowledged to be true 2. For first who does not see that it is necessarily inferred from thence that although the Real Presence had not been believed before the tenth Age which notwithstanding is a great mistake yet we are now obliged to believe it Because the True Church of which the first Contesting Parties were members and before their being condemned acknowledged her for such has put an end to the quarrel giving Sentence for and proposing as matter of Faith the said Real Presence Moreover that those first Abettors of a Real Absence by refusing to submit to her Judgement became Schismaticks and that all those who declared afterwards for that Faction are as faulty and in the same crime with them I do absolutely believe with the Authour of The Perpetuity c. that considering some circumstances and certain matters of fact which cannot be denied it was morally impossible that such an insensible change should have been made by passing imperceptibly from a belief which is pretended to have been of a Real Absence to that which we now have of a Real Presence But in case such a change was made not by way of negation but of Addition passing from an obscure confused kind of knowledge to a distinct positive Belief of the Real Presence proposed for the lucidation or clearing this great Mysterie in such manner as Monsieur Claude is pleased subtily enough to imagin yet the obligation of believing it would still subsist and stand in force Because the same Church of which the Parties who were first in Dispute about this matter were lawful subjects having heard and examined their Reasons did judge according to Rule that it was of Faith It is not therefore now lawful to follow those who revolted against their Mother Church for the same cause that Monsieur Claude will without question freely grant that it was not lawful in Conscience to side and take part with the Monothelites who would by no means receive the Decree and decision of the Church they lived in touching two wills and operations in Christ On the contrary I am sure he does reteive and reverence that Doctrine as an apputtenance of faith although here was also a change in the same manner by way of Addition in the belief of the Church and that this distinction of wills and operations was not before clearly and distinctly known Some body perchance may here tell me that for this very reason the Protestants of
these dayes ought to stick to the decisions of their Church in matters contested between them and us because they own her for the True Church But I think it is not at all hard to discover a great difference For making up to the head or source of the decision we shall find those who first raised the doubt and brought these Points into debate were of the same Church which was accordingly the True because the onely Church and owned for such by both Parties before she declared her self upon the matter in dispute which without trouble we are agreed upon with Monsieur Claude The case is not here so Because we who are at Dispute with Protestants are not of the same Church with them and so are not within the limits of thy maxime which has with mutual corsent been established and received Again they having taken part with those who at that time revolted from the True Church because they would not obey her Decrees made by Canonical Judgement it is manifest that their Community is but a false and Schismatical Church according to the Principles received from them in the Synod of Dort 3. Secondly the Church before she gives Sentence upon any Point proposed examining it by Scripture and real Tradition and for the better understanding them searching into the Sentences of the Ancient Holy Fathers endeavouring thus to reascend unto the Apostles themselves we are from hence to conclude that she being inspir'd by the Holy Ghost who has promised to teach her all Truths as occasions require what she defines is alwayes conformable both to Scripture and Tradition Thus it is that we are to learn by her definitions what is the true meaning or sence of Scripture when there is place for doubting thereof Before the Council of Nice there were most desperate Disputes concerning certain passages of Scripture which the followers of Arius alledged for the upholding their upstart doctrine As for example about that in the fifth of St. Iohn where our Blessed Saviour says that his Father is greater than he Quia Pater major me est Joh. 5. from whence they inferred that he was not of the same Substance The others on the contrary maintained that this passage was to be understood of the Son of God considered according to Humane nature which places him infinitely below the Father and makes him submit even to the death of the Cross but not according to his Divine nature which renders him equal and makes them both to be of one and the same Substance These two sence were hotly maintained by the two Parries each of them challenging the true sence or meaning of Scripture on their side But when the Council having throughly examined this important question had defined the Consubstantiality of The Word making use of a terme which is not found in Holy Writ for the clearer expressing that Truth which she discovered there then was there no more time nor place to doubt what was the lawful sence thereof and there arose an obligation through this definition of believing that that was the true one which was given by the Divines vvho opposed the faction of the Arians The same is certainly to be said upon this occasion especially our present cause being upon much better termy and more strongly provided for by the evidence of the Texts alledged for it When at first the poposition vvas made concerning the Real Presence in the time of Pascasius as Mr. Claude pretends and presently opposition was made as he is pleased to say for at present we will assume nothing but of his free gift there happened a great Contest which grew yet much greater after some time concerning the true sence of those words This is my Body One side maintaining that they did express a Real Presence and the other pretending that they onely signified that that which our Blessed Saviour gave unto his Apostles represented his Body Both parties as we have often taken notice were of the same Church which they acknowledged and owned to be the True Church This Church having throughly examined the business in her General Councils defines a Real Presence and substantial change even to the making use of the word Transubstantiation which is not literally found in the Gospel for the expressing more clearly that verity which she discovered therein and for the efficacious obstructing any other sence which might be given to those words This is my Body From that time forward it was no longer lawful to doubt of the sence of them And by this definition men stood obliged to believe that they were to be understood plainly and literally not metaphorically When there is really place of doubt it is not for particular persons who are at strife to determine the sence of the Text in Dispute but this belongs properly to the Church which is Judge in the case For else there could never be any end of Disputes and God should not have furnished us with any certain means for the finding out Truth when doubts do arise concerning Holy Scripture nor consequently for the clearing those debates which may arise in matters of Religion Which certainly would be the same as to say that he had not provided for the Government quiet and peace of his Church Non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat sed quia verba divina pro suo quique arbitratu interpretantes varias opiniones errorèsque concipiant Atque ideo necesse fit ut ad unam Ecclesiastici sensus regulam scriptueae caelestis intelligentiae dirigatur Common 2. c. antep Cap. Penul It is not as Vincentius Lirientius sayes that the Word of God does not contain all the Verities which we believe but because many presuming to interpret the Holy Text according to their fancy mishape their errors accordingly Thus it becomes necessary upon such occurences to regulate the sence we are to give to Holy Scripture by that meaning which the holy Church gives it And from hence it was that he took occasion some three years after the Council of Ephesus to enveigh so sharply against that desperate presumption of wicked Nestorius who had the impudence to maintain that he alone had the gift of Understanding those Texts of Scripture which he alledged for the authorising his impious blasphemies and that the whole Church represented in that Council had erred grosly for want of understanding them Thus when Disputes arise we ought not to judge of the Doctrine of the Church by that sence which our selves give of Holy Scripture but we must iudge of the true sence of Holy Scripture by the Doctrine of the Church The same in proportion is to be said of the passages of Holy Fathers For it being the custome and order of the Church to advise with them concerning the Judgement she is to give regularly speaking we ought to understand them according to her Doctrine whenever these arises a controversy concerning the meaning of their words which do not alwayes
have a Rule and a Law which he is to follow in giving Judgement that his Sentence may be just and secure This Rule is the Word of God which rightly applyed renders Judgement highly equitable Now the Synod of Dort acknowledges that an Assembly of lawful Pastors representing the Body of the true Church is this Judge to whom it appertains to judge of the true sence of the Word of God and afterwards to resolve according to this Rule any cause depending 12. I do now earnestly beseech our Brethren of the Reformed Churches to reflect seriously upon these two Propositions I am now about to make The first is That as the Word of God is infallible in it self so certainly the Judgement of him who truely judges according to this Rule is also Infallible and consequently they are obliged to believe that the Church when she Judges according to this Rule or the Word of God does not onely not err but that she also cannot err The second is that they are bound as well as we to believe that the Church of God deciding controversies of Faith does judge according to the true sence of the Word of God because upon the matter it is concerning this very sence that she gives Judgement between the Parties who give it a different sence and who are obligâ— in Conscience to submit to her Judgement under pain of being Schismaticks and Hereticks as their Synod of Dort has positively declared From hence follows by necessary consequence according to their own Principles that they are bound to believe with us that the True Church of Jesus Christ is infallible in the Judgement she judicially pronounces touching matters of Faith 13. I think there can now be no 〈◊〉 but they are obliged according to their own grounds to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church of Christ But I am contented for the present not to press them so far nor to make use of that right which I might justly challange It is sufficient that the Synod which in these Gentlemens opinion represents the True Church is lawful judge in this case as the Synod is self declares obliging them in Confidence to adhere to and obey the Decisions made therein It is not then lawful for them who are of that Church and are at Difference amongst themselves to condeman the Synod of Error then judgement â—s given in order to the clearing Points of Faith confessed among them They have no power to frame a different Judgement from that of the Synod and adhering to it to seporâ—are themselves from communion with the rest They are bound to acknowledge the Authority of the Synod which is lawfull Judge and submit unto it believing that what is there desined 〈◊〉 Truth it self stand this without any necessity of entring upon the question of its Infallibility I demand nothing more for the preseâ—s I will content my 〈◊〉 with what themselves do grant That Church of which the Partins Contesting are members be she fallible or infallible has full Power to Debide differentes and 〈…〉 oblige under the penâ—ry of being Schismaticks And now having as I make my self believe give Monsient Claude all the satisfaction he can in 〈◊〉 require concerning this Point I 〈◊〉 on my course perceably and quietly and make bold to give him notice that 14. Here is that the Prescription that 〈◊〉 Point anâ—â—oisputable Pâ—â—ciple to which a receisary adhfione required when there arise Disputes between Parties for the discovering whether an Opinion be or be not contrary to the true Rule of Faith which is the Word of God and whether we stand bound to believe it as a Point of Faith Were it antecedently distinctly believed as such or no. Disputation will only serve to render the Debate eternal Both Parties will go on challenging the true sence of Scripture and Tradiuon on their sides Books shall be written without number for the asserting of it and that without any hopes or appearance of any end of these learned indeed but redious Contests which prove many times so intricate and confused that every one standing his ground and being strongly and willfully resolved not to yield reproaches his Adversary with affected Obstinacy against known Truth We must then make up to that unquestionable Point in which both Parties meet and which Tertullian so boldly establishes as the principal Rule or Prescription for the ending all differences which may arise about the agreeing or conformity with the Word of God which every one is so ready to challenge to himself This Learned Father having said in his twentieth Chapter A quibus traducem fidei semina doctrinae caeterae deinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt quotidie mutuontur ut Ecclesiae fiant Ataque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua ommes Quid autem praedicavevint id est quid eis Christus revelaverit hÃc praescriham non alite pâ—obari debere nisi per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt ipsi eis praedicando tam vivâ quâ—d â—iunt voce quà m per epistolas postea de Praes c. 21. that the Apostles who were sent by our Blessed Saviour Founded many Churches in several places and that many others came from these by communication of the same Doctrine and that they all of them together make but one true Catholick and Apostolick Church he adde in the next Chapter that true Prescription is that nothing be received but what he revealed unto his Apostles whom he sent to Preach his Doctrine unto the world But in case there does arise any Contest concerning any particular Point and that we be in some trouble or doubt whether they Preacâ—â—ed it or no and by consequence whether they learned it of their Master or no behold here his solid Rule or Prescription in this great maxime that this is not to be made out or cleared by any other means but by those Churches which they founded either by Preaching or by Writing and which as we lately touched all of them make but one only Church To this Church then it does belong to determine what our Blessed Saviour did reveale in his Holy Word whensoever there is any cause of doubt in such Contests as do arise and what she defines what she declares in the case whatever former times did believe it now to be held as matter of Faith 15. As Protestants do acknowledge this Verity as I have made it appear so do we also most willingly submit unto it and intirely profess that the holy Church is lawful Judge of Controversies and that as Tertullian sayes addresses are to be made to her upon difference of Opinions that we may learn what the Son of God revealed unto his Apostles that is what is the true meaning of Holy Scripture and what Consequences are to be drawn from those Principles We have a very pregnant example of this in that famous Contest which has been for some Ages past between Catholicks concerning the Immaculate Conception