therein obliged to believe the Articles §. 195. n. 1◠or Canons of Trent or of other Councils in any other sense 3. than that which we have but now mentioned †§. 192. For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession Haec vera Catholica fides extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest cannot be understood distributively in such a manner as if every Canon of every lawful Council is necessary explicitly to be known and assented to that any one may attain Salvation which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith See Bellarmin de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14. Multa sunt de fide quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem I add nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur But either * it is to be understood collectively In hac Professione continetur vera Catholica Fides c. that all the fides extra quam nemo salvus is contained in that profession which expression respects chiefly the Apostles or Nicen Creed set in the front of the profession as appears by a like expression Fundamentum firmum unicum applied to that Creed alone in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess For if only some part of that profession of faith which is made in that Bull be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation this phrase is sufficiently justified extra quam i. e. totam i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved non est salus As saying that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God without believing which there is no Salvation argues not that every thing delivered in these Scriptures is necessary to be believed for Salvation but that some things are Or * It is to be understood distributively but this conditionally in such a sence as extra quam nemo salvus esse potest i. e. if such person opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths †See before For in so doing though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith § 192 he becomes therein obstinate and Heretical and disobedient to his spiritual Guide declared by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries and so in this becomes guilty of a mortal sin which unrepented of exlcudes from Salvation Where also since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary hence though all her Definitions are not in such yet his obstinacy in not yielding assent to all matters defined runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull §. 195. n. 2 when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter crediderit salvus esse non poterit which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew That some Points may become necessary for salvation to be believed when once defined by the Church that yet are not absolutely so necessary or fundamental according to the Importance of the matter All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental or necessary ratione Medii to Salvation that none can possibly attain it without an explicit belief of them Here a late Protestant Writer †Stillingf p. 70 71. in answer to this can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss than that we have now given viz. That as to some of the Athanasian Articles Haec est fides Cathol c. neither infers that they are necessary to be believed from the matter nor yet from Church-Definition but necessary only if there be first a clear conviction i. e. not from Church-Authority but from Scripture that they are Divine Revelation Where the authority of the Church in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed as to any obligation of her Subjects to conform to it seems quite laid aside since upon a clear conviction that those Articles are Divine Revelation from whatever Proponent one stands obliged to believe them and without such conviction neither stands he so obliged by the Church Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition from the Quam nisi quisque fideliter c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scripture Since Protestants then take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles it is but reason that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius § 196 4. Lastly If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence as Protestants fetter them with Namely 4. That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles as absolutely necessary to salvation As Bishop Bramhal †Rep. to Chalced. p. 322. Which whether true or false one is to swear to as much as to his Creed As Mr. Thorndike †Epilog Conclus p. 410. That whereas the Church of England only excommunicates such as shall affirm that her Articles are in any part erroneous the saine Church never declaring that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith by the Church of Rome every one of them if that Church hath once determined them is made fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens belief As Bishop Laud ‖ §. 15. p. 51. That supposing the Churches Definition one passed that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation i. e. by this Proposal or Definition as what is necessary from the matter And That an equal explicit faith is required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to salvation of believing both of them As Mr. Stillingf †Rat. Account p. 48. If I say Pius his Haec est Bides Catholica must be taken in such a sence and then it be considered also that by the Bull this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it but to all other Definitions also of all other former allowed Councils the Consequent is that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation and that for want of necessary faith the far greater part not only of Christians but of Roman Catholicks viz. all that do not explicitly believe and therefore that do not actually know every particular Definition of any precedent Council when as who is there among the vulgar that is not ignorant of the most of them who amongst the learned that knows them all Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words and that they only declaim against their own Fancies When as indeed to render
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
l. 3. c. 1. p. 157. In the Dispute concerning the Greeks our business is only about Transubstantiation and not at all about Real presence For it was to this only and Adoration that I formally limited my self in my last Answer But then as if this might do him some prejudice he as it were cautiously addeth Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church But here to make his words true he adds again in that sense as the Roman Church understands it And what sense is that surely by the way of Transubstantiation And so you see he pares his words till they say no more than just what he said before That he acknowledgeth no Real presence viz. by way of Transubstantiation established in the Greek Church And this is to say only that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Transubstantiation 2. Next concerning the Greeks their receiving or opposing Transubstantiation he hath one Hold more Ibid. It is not saith he our business to know whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation Or whether they have made It an Article of Controversy between them and the Latines but only whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith or no Our Dispute is only concerning this matter One would think that he had been chaced very much and driven up to the wall that to preserve himself safe he makes so many out-works and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass But doth he not here for the Greek Church also thus decline and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject viz. The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith as well East as West in the constant Belief of this for all the later times of the Church Catholick which consent found in the later times is the truest proof from which we may collect also the true sense of the former And from this Corporal presence once established whether a Transubstantiation be or be not necessarily follows also the lawfulness of a Soveraign Adoration which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless and decideth it against him since an Adoration of the Mysteries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow but not Soveraign Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one 5. His way thus far made §. 321. n. 7. and his cause pretended not to be conterned in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants Nor that they take Hoc est corpus meum as also the Latines in a literal sense and hold a Real presence Nor that they do not reject the Roman Transubstantiation Or make any Controversie with the Latines about it And so all Authorities save those that press Transubstantiation being removed from giving him any trouble Next For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow and frequently occur in their Authors will not be admitted by him as good or to the purpose That by the Consecration the Bread is changed and converted into the very the proper the True or in veritate in reipsa Body of Christ which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin and that suffered on the Cross That the Eucharist is not a Figure or Image only of this Body but the very Body of our Lord united to his Divinity as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was Neither are these now two but one Unum corpus unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpfit in utero Virginis quod dedit Apostolis And Calix quem Sacerdo◠sacrificat non est alius nisi ipse quem Dominus Apostolis tradidit That the Bread that is offered in the Mysteries is the very same Flesh of Jesus Christ that was Sacrificed at the time of his Passion and buryed in the Sepulchre and which St. Thomas handled and which is at the Right Hand of the Father That after the Consecration Though it appears Bread yet in verity it is the Body of Christ Or Licet Panis nobis videatur revera Caro est Or Non manet Panis sed pro Pane factum est Corpus Christi I say such expressions as these very usual in the Greeks are not current with him for proving a Substantial change of the Bread Or That the Substance of it after Consecration doth not still remain so entire as before For as for Ipsum proprium verum c. he can produce places in the Fathers where they are applyed to a Metaphor where the Poor the Faithful the Church are said to be Ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ i. e. saith he not in Substance but in Vertue The Eucharist is not a Figure or Image of this Body i. e. without all Vertue or Efficacy but the very Body it self i. e. in being such an Image or Figure as retains the supernatural Vertue of it But still I say This Supernatural Vertue is not the Body And if the Greek's arguing from our Lords Dixit Hoc est Corpus meum be good viz. That what-ever is not our Lords Body the Eucharist is not It holds as well against Virtus if taken exclusively to Substance for such Substance is Body here or else why not Imago a Body as against Imago or Figura as well against Imago cum Efficacia as sine c. For Non dixit Hoc est Virtus or continens virtutem Corporis mei but Hoc est Corpus meum And this being urged by his Adversary the best answer that I see M. Claude makes to it †l. 4. c. 7. is That the Protestanes are no engagers for the verity of the Greek's Opinions i. e. He imposeth such a sense on the Greeks as makes a Contradiction in their Opinion or arguing and then leaves them to make it good Again Though it appears Bread it is truly Flesh i. e. saith he The Greeks hold it indeed still Bread in Substance and not Flesh at all But they mean here that though it appears or seems yet it is not simple Bread but it is truly Flesh in as much as it now hath the true Vertue of Christs Flesh making them say It is in truth that which yet they hold it is not save only in Vertue or Efficacy And again that it only appears that which yet they hold that in Substance and in truth it is And to render this his Exposition more current in his 2. Answer he saith We must not press too much such manner of expressions as these †part 3. c. 2. licet appareat Panis tamen in veritate Corpus Christi est lest we make the Fathers speak many absurdities And so urgeth a place in S. Chrysostom where the Father saith That we ought not to think of
happened and consequently that all M. Arnaud 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sence and meaning of Antiquity on what side This stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the 11 th to the present age doth defend a Corporal presence and a literal sence of Hoc est corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M Claude would spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd Him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently garded §. 321. n. 11. He proceeds l. 3c 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and the Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joyn'd to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4 l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sence of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sence This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ From preserving this pretended literal sence it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6. l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity to his natural Body by means of which Vnion or Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and made the same Body with it with his natural Body Again for preserving this literal sence That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body of Christ It seems also That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ upon the Bread with some kind of inherence i. e. of the vertue Although I will not saith he ascertain positively that this is the General Belief of their Church though the expressions seem to sway on this side But however it be this is not our opinion We believe that the Grace of the Holy Ghost and vertue of Christs Body accompanies the lawful use of the Sacrament and that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith as much or more really then of we received it in the mouth of our Body But we 〈◊〉 understand this Real impression or inherence i. e. of the Supernatural Vertue of the Body of Christ See p. 338. †l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. viz. that born of the Virgin of the Greeks Whence it is that our Expressions are not so high as theirs And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as Damascen This Opinion of the Modern Greeks faith he seems to be taken from Damascen some of whose expressions I think fit to produce For it is certain that to make a good Judgement of the Opinion of the modern Greeks we must ascend as high as him And M. Arnaud himself hath observed That John Damascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks Thus He. But § 321. n. 12. lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own nor others easily believe they maintain for he confesseth that it hath something in it that appears little reasonable and especially as to the Augmentation of Christs natural Body to be assez bizarre †and lest he should make it lyable to so many and odious absurdities as that a Transubstantiation which he endeavours to avoid may seem much the more plausible and eligible of the two perhaps I say for these considerations he undertakes to qualifie and render a credible and likely sence to it on this manner In saying 1. That they hold indeed an Vnion of the Divinity to the Bread and that in an higher manner than to any other Sacred sign or Ceremony but yet not Hypostatical 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmentative part of Christ's natural Body but it remaining still entire Bread as before and altered only in a Supernatural vertue added to it 3. Hold it to be joyned to Christs Body and augmenting it but so as to be not individually the same but unmerically distinct from it as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body To be joyned to this natural Body of Christ not locally or to it as present in the Eucharist but as in Heaven How this As saith he a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery And to these 4 Qualifications this Author semms necessitated because otherwise Adoration and Transubstantiation in some part tho not a total Existence of the
Authority of the Councils and their Creeds will you say he doth not but on the Scriptures Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian and those urged against him and weighed them in the Ballance If yet they have not ought they If they ought what a task here for young Protestant-students what an Eternal Distraction in this a search what heavenly peace in the other obedience to the judgements of former Councils and Vacancy for better imployments Again If they ought what all Protestants the most of them as of all Christians are illiterate Men not having either leisure or ability to search c. Must these adhere therefore to former Councils and their Creeds in these Points Then in others and in this of Real Presence or Transubstantiation and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiastical Authority or Ministry standing in opposition to a superior But this is Schism in them both and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd for his denying it to another to whom it is due Nor would M Claude be well pleased if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers divided from the rest of their Consistory Class or Synod As for the Tryal §. 321. n. 26. he motions to be made by H. Scriptures This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done first as it ought And the issue of it was That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence the other in another For Example The one understood Hoc est Corpus meum literally the other in a Metaphor and so differently understood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause Here the true sence of Scripture became the Question and their Controversie For the Judge and Decâ—der of this between them when time was they took a Council For since Scripture they could no more take the sence of that being their Question to whom should they repair but the Church and of the Church a Council is the Representative Councils several to a great number in several ages †See Guide in Controver Disc 1. §. 57 58. decided this matter declared the sence of the Scriptures but so as it liked not one Party These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sentence of the Fathers and Primitive Church i.e. of their writings Again the sence of these writings as before that of Scriptures is understood diversly by the Contesters And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question and Controversie Nor here will Disputes end it Witness so many Replies made on either side Former Councils as they have given their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures so they have of those of the Fathers but their Authority is rejected in both And a new Council were it now convened besides that M. Claud's Party being the fewer and so easily over-voted would never submit to it we may from M. Claud's Confession †l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 p. 337. That both Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist rationally conjecture that Protestants in such Councils would remain the party condemn'd What then would this person have He would have the Controversy begin again and return to the Scriptures Which is in plain Language That the Question should decide the Controversie and till this can do it That so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party all should have their Liberty For when they are the stronger they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences and though not professing themselves infallible yeâ— upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction upon pain of Suspension from their Function to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth and to teach them to the People as such and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary till they shall recant their Errour Of which see before § 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal as they had done from that of Trent but could not be beard As for that which follows in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal challenging a Submission and Conformity of so many Protestants as have no certainty of their new Opinions rather to the Church than to Innovators to me it sounds thus That every plain and simple Protestant 1st thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture in this Point of the Eucharist and so in others any way necessary to be clear and without dispute and the more simple he is the sooner he may think so because he is not able to compare all other Texes nor to examine the contrary sences given by others or the reasonable grounds thereof 2. Next that every one who thinks his Exposition or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point is by this sufficiently assured that he hath a right Faith or from this sence of his knows what he ought to believe and forms a Judgement herein as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another a strange proposition but I see nothing else from which such person collects his faith to be right if any doth produceit 3ly That every such simple person now easily knows whether the Society wherein he lives be a true Church or otherwise viz. as they agree with or dissent from that right Faith of his already supposed or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word i. e. in his clear Sence thereof 4ly Knowing thus from this his clear exposition or sence of Scripture what he ought to believe he needs not trouble himself what the Ancient Church hath believed which is very true nay he knows without reading them or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them that the Fathers if of the number of the Faithful were of his Opinion by M. Claud's arguing forementioned I desire the Reader to review his words or the 5th 6th Chapters of his 1st Book and see if he can make any better construction of them Now if there be any Sence in this he saith How can he hinder but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea Church-authority being laid aside for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions viz. his clear sence of Scripture quite contrary to the Protestants clear sence And in any Controversie amongst Protestants Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants here both sides have the same Plea one against another namely the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them And why doth not this certainty void their
482. Most of these Objections you may find after Soave urged by Archbishop Lawd § 27 c. and reinforced in his Defence by Mr. Stillingfl p. 2. c. 8. By B. Bramh. Vind. c. 9. By Dr. Hammond of Her § 11. and many others whether with more force and advantage than is here set down I must desire you to consult the Authors § 7 These are the principal Exceptions occurring in later Protestant-Writers against the Council of Trent Now I desire your patience to hear on the other side what may be said for it Which Council being by reason of the subjection of the Clergy to so many supreme and independent Princes with so much difficulty conven'd not finally concluded till 18 years after its first sitting interrupted by sickness interrupted by wars managed under several Popes of several inclinations and under often-changed interests of most warlike and rival Princes according to their several advantages or disgusts who now sent now withdrew their Bishops and desired to model its Decrees to the content of their Subjects and secular Peace in their Dominions It must needs encounter great diversity of Accidents and not always retain the same face security frequency splendor and reputation nor the same purity and dis-engagement from secular affairs and national obligations Again * Sitting in the time and for the composing of the greatest and the most powerful considering the engagement of the common people as well as of Princes separation and division that ever was in the Christian Church which departed also from the former unity in so many points of Doctrine and Discipline as never did any before and * driving two main designs at once the reformation of manners in the Church and its Governors and the confutation of errors in the Sectaries It must needs be liable to many Intestine as well as External affronts and hinderances from all sides and in so many decisions seem to some to commit not a few oversights But yet notwithstanding all these Intrigues and all that is produced against it I see not but that both its Authority and Integrity may be rationally and justly vindicated § 8 The Considerations upon it for the more orderly proceeding in them I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Concerning the Generality 1. Liberty and just Authority of this Council or of the persons constituting it to oblige the Churches Subjects 2. or especially those of the West 2. Concerning the Invalidity and also probably the uneffectiveness of such a General Council as the Protestants in stead thereof demanded and as should be limited with all the conditions they proposed 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent 3. especially as to those matters which respect the Protestants 4. 4. The many Definitions and Anathema's of this Council and its pretended-new Articles of Faith 5. 5. Concerning the many Constitutions and Acts of great consequence passed in this Council and confirmed by the Pope for the Reformation of several corrupt practices and disorders observed in the Churches Government or Discipline CHAP. II. Of Councils inferior to General The due Subordinations and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precidents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be Her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. § 9 COncerning the first Head to discern more clearly the true State of this Council assembled at Trent It seems necessary that I first give you a brief account of some things more generally appertaining to these Ecclesiastical Courts Of Councils then assembled as need required for deciding Controversies enacting Laws and preserving the Peace of the Church Catholick which is but one throughout the world there have been always used in the Church these several Kinds or Compositions subordinate in Dignity and Authority one to another 1 Episcopal or Diocesan 2 Provincial 3 National 4 Patriarchal and 5 Oecumenical or General Of which Councils the first Pattern under the Gospel was that held at Jerusalem Act. 15. A. D. 51. Amongst these the lowest Synod or Ecclesiastical Council for governing the Church was Episcopal or Diocesan taking the word in its modern sence consisting of the Bishop of any particular Diocess and his Presbyters the Bishop calling them together and moderating the Assembly the Actions and Decrees of which Synod were appealable from and liable to the Judgment and Censure of an higher Council The next Council was Provincial consisting of all the Bishops of a Province in which were many Diocesses called and moderated and its Decrees executed by the Metropolitan The next Synod to whom also the Actions and Decrees of this Provincial were subject was National consisting of the Metropolitans of several Provinces with their Bishops called and moderated by the chief Primate in such a Nation such were several of the Affrican Councils and particularly that held under S. Cyprian de Baptizandis Haereticis there being of these Provinces or greater Circuits six in Affrick and so many Primates or primae Sedis Episcopi of whom the Chief was the Bishop of Carthage The next a Council Patriarchal consisting of the Metropolitans c. of divers Kingdoms and Countries which were contained under the same Patriarchy this called and moderated by the Patriarch The last and supremest is a Council Oecumenical or General to which I should proceed next to shew you of what persons it is to consist who is to call who is to preside in to regulate and ratifie it c. But this I shall defer till § 34. And because the Regulation and Government that is for the necessary preserving of the Churches firmer Peace and Unity established and observed in these lower Councils is by their being more frequently held much better known and also freely acknowledged by Learned Protestants I will first give you some further Account of this that so you may make
a better Judgment of the Nature and Condition of General Councils and of that which is requisite in them at last to be applied to that of Trent which General Councils by reason of the Difficulty Charge and many other Inconveniences of so universal an Assembly have been much more rarely convened in the Church In these assemblies then fore-named for the unity and peace of the Church 1st It was ordered That the Inferiors though joyned in a Council could establish nothing in things that were of moment and concern'd the whole Body § 10 as in matters of Faith and Manners Ordination of Clergy c. without the Superiors or Presidents consent nor He without theirs i. e. of the major part of them For example The Presbyters nothing without their Bishop nor the Bishops without their Metropolitan nor Metropolitans without the Primate or Patriarch è contra Of which thus the 35. Can. Apostol Episcopos Gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus this ascends so high as Primats habeatur quem velut Caput existiment nihil ampliùs praeter ejus confcientiam gerant quà m illa sola singuli quae paraeciae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt Sed nec Ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum paraeciis Sic enim Unanimitas erit glorificabitur Deus per Christum in Spiritu Sancto And see the same repeated in Conc. Antioch Can. 9. And this Apostol Can. there referred to In which by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeter sententiam illus qui primus est must be understood not the Councils doing nothing without this Primate first consulted and then if He and they or a major part of them do differ in opinion He obliged to follow this major part as some Protestants would have it ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church p. 511. quoting Conc. Antiochen c. 19. as favouring such a sence but the Council's doing nothing without this Primates consent the Council or major part of it and he the President having both of them a negative voice in respect of one another and so such matters as both do not concur in being to remain undecided till their agreement or till such Cause is by some party devolved to a Superior Court if such difference doth not happen in the Supreme Otherwise if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be meant only Knowledge or Advice the one parties consulting or acquainting the other with such a matter then since that Canon runs also that the Primate shall do nothing praeter Episcoporum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sententiam yet this will not hinder but that he alone may make such Decrees also without the consent of the Council or of the major part of them and on neither side must the word signifie any more than their Counsel and Advice As for that passage of the 19th Antiochtan Canon urged ' Obtineat Sententia plurimorum the like to which see Conc. Nice Can. 6 it means only That the unanimous suffrage of all the Provincial Bishops joined with the Metropolitan will not be necessary for the Ordination of a new Bishop whenas perhaps some propter suum contentionis studium may contradict and not That such major part may pass such Acts without or against the Metropolitan The consent of which Metropolitan for the Ordination or Confirmation of such a Bâ—shop is expresly required by the 4th and 6th Canon of the first General Council of Nice 2ly For preserving the same Peace and Unity it was so ordered § 11 That no Bishop in any Diocess could be Ordained or exercise any Jurisdiction belonging to such place without the consent or confirmation of the Metropolitan nor Metropolitan in any Province without the Confirmation of the Patriarch See Can. Apost 35. Conc Nic. Can. 4 6. Con c. Antioch c. 9.19 Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Carthag c. 12. Conc. Constantinop c. 2. Conc. Ephes c. 8 Where note That not the Confirmation of the Cyprian Metropolitan but the Election and Ordination of him of which the Cyprian Bishops complained that they were deprived is denied in this Canon to the Antiochian Patriarch as Res nova and contrary to former Customs this thing properly belonging to the Provincial Synod Conc. Chalced. 28. And here note that these later Canons maintain the Mos antiquus obtineat of the 6th Nicene Canon and so preserve unviolated the ancient preeminencies of the Chief Patriarches as well as those of inferior Primates or Metropolitans After all which the 8th General Council Can. 17 Reciting the foresaid 6th Canon of Nice thus explains it Quâ pro causâ haec magna sancta Synodus tam in seniori novâ Româ Constantinopoli quam in Sede Antiochiaes Hierosolymorum priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metropolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiunt habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandam eos urgente necessit ate ad Synodalem Conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam dâ—lictis forsitan accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p 5.8 Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council †Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by Imposition of Hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be Ordained And What they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the Right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus B. Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority In Ordaining their Metropolitans or Confirming them c. 3ly Again so ordered That any difference arising between any inferior persons or Councils either of an equal degree as between two Presbyters or two Bishops or their Synods § 12 or an unequal as between a Presbyter and his Bishop between a Bishop and his Metropolitan or their Synods a repair for the decision thereof should be made to the next Person or Council Superior to both Nor might obedience by an Inferior be denied to or a discession made from any Superior upon something thought criminous in him before such judgment of an higher Court were first passed discharging such Inferiors of their duty See Conc. Nic. Can 4 5 6. Conc. Sard. Can. 7. Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 8. General Council c. 10. 26. compared with the 17. expounding the 6th Can. of the Nicene Council Thus then all inferior Conciliar differences of much
trial in this Council as formerly by Church-Tradition Councils and Fathers interpreting Scriptures controverted But now the Learned amongst the Reformed perhaps like the ancient Sectarists but now mentioned ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur think fit to take another way and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed as the Roman overthrown by those same ancient Councils and Fathers Whereby we are now made believe that these their Fore-Fathers mainly declined that Authority which clearly established their opinions and on the otherside the Roman Catholicks together with the Pope vehemently contended for that Authority that manifestly ruined theirs § 129 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions should be preferred 7. i. e. those opinions which were regulated by the word of God 8. 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg A. D. 1555. continue in force Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Protestants were A toleration of all sects that every one might follow what religion pleaseth them best as you may see in Soave p. 378. and 393. § 130 The sum therefore of the fift seventh and eighth condition is this Of the Fifth that Protestants shall vote in the Council definitively together with the Catholicks but this the Protestants must needs see by the Catholicks over-numbring them would signifie little Therefore the seventh condition cautioneth that if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents than for them yet this plurality may not carry the business but that their opinion if the more sound though it have fewer Suffrages shall be preferred But again this they saw was very unlikely either that the others who voted against their opinion should judge it the more sound or themselves only judging it more sound that the others upon this should prefer it Therefore the 8th condition makes sure work that if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions yet they shall not condemn but allow every one that pleaseth still to retain them and on these conditions they will submit to a Council § 131 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made which see in Soave p. 369. That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope 9. and of the Bishops his adherents and it being unjust that either the Plaintiff or the Defendent should be the judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets there might be Judges indifferently chosen by both sides to take knowledge of the controversies § 132 In satisfaction to these their demands To the first see what is said above § 47. and § 80. To the second what is said § 83. c. To the Canon urged See Bellarmins answer de Concil l. 1. c. 21. The Canon intends criminal matters where witnesses are necessary not matters of faith The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem Arianism arising in Alexandria judged at Nice in Bithynia To the third see what is said before § 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it in Soave p. 80. is sufficient That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council to which it belongs according to the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council recited before cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas And that for the manner and Form it was not convenient that they should prescribe it to all Nations nor think their Devines only inspired by God c. To the fourth what is said § 105. c. And that de facto such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom was seen in several controversies that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes and a contrary party about Episcopal Jurisdiction c. To the fifth what is said § 68. n. 2. 115. c. and 118. where it is also shewed by the suppositions there made that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants it would have nothing promoted their cause unless perhaps they think that the evident arguments which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents would have converted so many of their adversaries as joyned with them would have made a major part in the Council But besides these arguments seen and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council in their books who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned without working any such effect upon them what success their disputations would have had in the Council may be gathered * from that which they had in the German Diets from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant and inflexible in their former perswasions as themselves and * from that effect which they have in Christendome ever since that Council to this day the major part undeniably remaining still Catholick and the other of late much decreasing § 313 To the sixth I have said much elsewhere which you may remember 1. Surely nothing can be more reasonable and just when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of than that the litigants for what is either said in the Scriptures or necessarily deduced from them stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church and he that disclaims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge that these Fathers and Councils are against him and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie When you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture saith King Charles †3d. Paper of blessed memory to his weak Antagonist Mr. Henderson and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer Neither have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented and again †4th Paper When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences Thus against Puritans against Socinians c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things wherein her eyes are shut against Catholicks But set this humane Authority quite aside the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side than on the other because it saith only the same words to or for both and thus as by other
prohibited the faith required of us upon such Divine Revelation is to believe that it is our necessary Duty to do or to abstain from it 3. But if it be a thing of which we have no Divine Precept a thing neither injoyned nor prohibited by God in all which sort of things Divine Revelation hath declared our liberty the faith required of us according to such Revelation is to believe it lawful I mean as to God's law to be done or to be omitted as we please 4. Lastly Among these lawful things also if it be a thing concerning which we have a Precept of the Church to do it or where the lawfulness is doubted of a Declaration of the Church that it is lawful to be done which Church God in his Word hath commanded in such her judgment to be submitted to and in such her Precepts to be obeyed the Faith required of us from such Divine Revelation is That it is both lawful to be observed and the observation thereof our Duty And consequently he who denies the lawfulness thereof or obedience thereto opposeth a Divine Revelation Though the thing we do is not commanded by any Divine Revelation nor the particular lawfulness of it declared in Gods Word Such a point of Faith is the lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Of which thus the Council of Trent Sess 21. c. 1. Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christo fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere Anathema sit Such the Duty of communicating once a year Sess 13. c. â—9 Si quis negaverit omnes singulos Christi Fideles utriusque sexus cum ad annos discretionis pervenerint teneri singulis annis saltem Paschate ad communicandum juxta praeceptum Sancta matris Ecclesiae Anathema sit And so the seventh and tenth Canon Si quis dixerit non licere c.. And such that Sess 24. c. 4. De matrimon Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam non posse constituere c. Anathema sit and so Can. 9. And such is the Duty in general of observing the Churches Traditions Of which thus the seventh General Council Act. 7. Si quis Traditiones Ecclesiae sive scriptas sive consuetudine valentes non curaverit Anathema sit § 177 3. That all Councils to the worlds end and not only the four or three first 3. before the passing of the Ephesin Canon †Conc. Ephes c. 7. which Canon is said to restrain it may define and determine not only the greater but these smaller matters of Faith and may make new Points to be de fide or creditu necessaria in such a sence as is explained below § 192 which were not formerly when they see occasion thereof and when contrary errors do arise which they apprehend dangerous to Divine Truth or to god life or to the Churches peace And there seems no reason against it but that a Council may be as ample in the protection and asserting of Truth not only in gross and in some general and principal matters but by retail as it were in every part and parcel thereof as Innovations are in invading it that every poison may have its Antidote Especially when little-seeming errors not crushed at their first appearance do insensibly ascend from the overthrow of some conclusion to that of the Premises till they undermine at last some Truths more principal Who blames a Parent for binding his Children to abstain from things hurtful because such things are in a less degree and not exceedingly hurtful or for prohibiting them something which is not down-right poison and immediatly mortal but yet which by little and little may alter and corrupt the healthful constitution of their Body Of which noxious things the Parents not the Children are fittest Judges Neither are the Churches Subjects any way disobliged in her thus from age to age multiplying their Credends but much indebted for this her motherly care of them who before whilst they had more liberty of opinion so also had less light in their progress toward Heaven and more by-paths open to stray in and more liableness to erre or by the Heretical to be seduced in those things in the truth of which they are now by that Judgement which Gods wisdom hath deputed to direct them and by the best which the world can afford established Unless here with the Hereticks we will blame after the Foundation laid of the Apostles Creed the explications of the Nicen or Athanasian Or after this the many Articles passed in later Synods concerning Grace and Freewill and the Anathemas annexed against the Pelagian errors herein Or also complain of the obligation we now have to a great Roll of Credends under the Gospel from which those in the darker times of the Law stood free Add to this that the suppression of any new error must necessarily increase the Faith and in immediat contraries who is to renounce the Negative must belâ—eve and hold the Affirmative Neither is it possible that the Church in such points can make any fence to keep out her enemies but she must also at the same time within it inclose her Friends § 178 It is much urged indeed by Dr. Hammond in answer to the C. Gentleman 8. cap. § 2. and repeated in Heres § 7. p. 100. and by Bishop Bramhal and others see before § 6. α That the Ephesin the third General Council made a Decree That it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any belief besides that which not established by the Fathers at Nice c. β That the Greeks in the Council of Florence pressed this authority to the Latines and said that no man would accuse that faith or Creed of imperfection unless he were mad γ That the Latines in their reply acknowledged that this Decree did forbid all difference os of faith from this Creed as well as contrariety And. δ That Celestines Epistle quoted in that Council affirmeth That the belief delivered by the Apostles i. e. the Apostles Creed requires that there be neither addition nor diminution These things are urged to shew that the Council of Trent had no just authority to make any new Articles of Faith But I imagine that after you have but a little with me considered this Ephesin Canon with the due circumstances you will discern a strange mis-application 1. It is meet that I first set you down the words thereof with what immediatly precedes them Sermocinatio ejusdem Sancti Concili postquam Canones editi a. 318. Sanctis beatisque Patribus qui Niceae convenerant impium Symbolum à Theodoro Mopsuestino Episcopo a ring-leader of the Nestorian Heresie confictum eidem Ephesino Concilio traditum à Clarisio Presbytero Philadelphiensi recitata fuissent His igitur recitatis constituit sanctum Concilium ut nemini liceat aliam fidem vel proferre vel conscribere vel componere quam eam quae
more necessary and dignified than some others And then as for this expression equalling at least those Books called Apocryphal with some Canonical fore-named and its accepting them all as equally penn'd by the direction of the H. Spirit I ask What new Discerner of Spirits will assume to himself so much skill as clearly to discover the language and character of the Spirit in the one sort of these Books that is not in the other For Example in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes that is not in Ecclesiastions Especially 1. When as the Churches ancient reading them all promiscuously in her publick service for the Instruction of her children shews that she held the doctrine of them all sound 2. And again when as in those Books which all sides allow canonical yet the II. Spirit pens them in so many various and unlike stiles and some of these much more rude and unpolished than others and speaks sometimes in a much higher sometimes in a much lower key as if it condescended to receive a mixture with or tincture from the natural parts and Elocution of its Scribe and only the Truth being entirely preserved admitted also sometimes his Infirmities as to Language Method Perspicuity c. In which Canon also some of the Historical books though preserved from error seem not penned from immedint Divine Revelation so as the Prophetical but by using such humane industry and diligence as other Histories are compiled with For which see St. Lukes Preface to his Gospel 3. And lastly when as there are some seeming Antilogies and incongruities produced in the one sort of these books called Apocryphal so are there others as many as great urged in those receiv'd by all for canonical especially in the Historical § 188 Therefore it seems a great inadvertency if nothing more in Bishop Cosin writing so large a Treatise on this subject Where he saith †c. 7. §. 81. That this Council commanded all the Books recited in their Canon to be equally accepted and taken with the self same veneration as having all a like absolute and divine authority annexed to them without preferring one before another and damned all the Churches of the world besides that will not thus receive that Canon of Scripture upon their own terms Quoting in the same place for justifying this charge these words as the words of the Council Concil Trid. Sess 4. Omnes libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro Canonicis receperit Ibid. Si quis autem non susceperit c. Anathema sit whereas there are no such words in the Council so put together Si quis non susceperit or receperit omnes hos libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro canonicis Anathema sit which words will only serve the design of his Book But only these words there used with relation to Anathema Si quis hos libros integros c. pro sacris canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit And I hope in this Decree as to any words or expressions used therein stiling them only Sacri Canonici the Council proceeds no further in affirming any thing concerning them than the Bishop will concede the Affrican Council †Conc. Carthag 3. c. 47. Innocentius Austin and other Fathers to have done and than himself also in a large sence will acknowledge them to be For he in giving answer to the Fathers § 82. writes thus of them In a large and common sence as they be books appointed to be read in the Church for the more ample direction and instruction of the people c. in which sence that Council viz. of Carthage took them or as they are to be preferr'd before all other Ecclesiastical Books in which sence St. Austin took them and as they are opposed to suppositions Apocryphal and rejected Books in which sence both St. Austin and this Council besides divers others of the Fathers took them all these waies they may be called Canonical Thus he And then for the sence of these words since he also advanceth thus far toward the Councils pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit as to acknowledge these books to have been as read in the Church like as other parts of Scripture so cited and termed by sundry of the Fathers Sacred and Divine and Holy Scriptures and Prophetical writings †Ibid. §. 77. Epithites common to these with other Scriptures Why may not these infer also in a large and common sence a parity If the Bishop will be pleased to mollifie the Councils expressions so as he doth those Fathers By which Tradition and testimony of the Fathers Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta †Conc. Trid. Sess 4. Decret de caâ—eâ— script the Council as it saith was guided in making this Decree A 2d inadvertency of the same Reverend Bishop seems to be § 189 that which he urgeth much †See in him §. 194. of the small and inconsiderable number which that Council had to give a suffrage to this their Synodical Decree and that forty Bishops of Italy assisted peradventure with half a score others should make up a General Council for all Christendom c. Whilst he takes no notice * that by how few soever this Decree was passed at the first yet it was afterward by the great Body of this Council under Pius confirmed and ratified and this Ratification again by the most of Christian Churches accepted of which see before § 72 75 77. And again * That not one Book more was voted sacred and canonical by these Fathers in Trent than had been voted before as high as St. Austins times by the third Council of Carthage to which St. Austin amongst others subscribed and than were in those times also generally received for such in the Western Church and lastly * that as several of these books are declared Canonical by this Council after some doubt formerly had concerning them so are others not only declared Canonical by Protestants but as fully believed as the rest and in every respect equalled with them as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the second of St. Peter the second and third of S. John the Apocalypse which were formerly viz. till fourth age See Chemnie Exam. conc Trid. 4. Sess subject to the like disputes ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo and as St. Jerom ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo saith of one of them Paulatim procedente tempore authoritatem obtinuerunt Paulatim viz. as the conformity of these books with the rest of the Canon and the slightness of the objections made against them and the former Tradition was clearlier discovered after the vanishing of those Sects that chiefly opposed them As therefore several pieces of the new Testament once disputed have since been declared and generally received into the Canon so may those pieces of the old Testament be by the following Christian Church admitted for such though formerly rejected by
the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to present Church-Authority § 292. That learned Protestants have so determined this Point § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311. § 281 NOw a Judgment once set free from the three former great Arts of the Will to misguide it as any ones Secular Interest shall require will begin to consider 1. In opposition to the first of them mentioned before § 274 keeping the judgment in ignorance as to Divine matters and imploying it wholy about other studies That since a right perswasion in Religion is of so great consequence to salvation All those who are not settled in their Belief upon the Basis of Church Authority and so under it remain in a sufficient security of their Faith as to all those points wherein the sense of the Holy Scriptures is disputed and controverted by several parties as for example in these Whether Justification is by Faith alone Whether there be Evangelical Councils as well as Precepts Whether Christ our Lord be Co-Essential with God the Father Whether exhibiting his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Whether there be a Purgatory after this life for some imperfect souls though departing in God's Grace or the like All such I say since they have taken the guidance of themselves in Spirituals into their own hands have great reason themselves to fall most attentively to the study thereof For it were to serve God too carelesly and at hap hazard to cast off Church-Authority for the Exposition and Sence of God's Word in these disputed and difficult matters and not himself to use any other indeavour at all for the right understanding of them And in such indeavour he ought not only to take a perfunctory view of some places that may seem at the first sight to represent to him what he would have but to seek out all those Texts that both sides build upon and then diligently to examine and compare them For though some Texts may seem never so plain as to the Literal and Grammatical sence as what more clear than Accipite comedite Hoc est Corpusmeum Matt 26. yet scarce is there any sentence where the terms are not capable of several acceptions Figurative and Non-literal Or if they be not all sides must necessarily agree in their sence and so about such Texts be no dispute And again there being a necessary consonancy and agreement in every title of Scripture no place how plain soever for the expression it seems to be may be so inter preted as to contradict another that seems as clearly to say the contrary He ought also to weigh not only the immediat sence of Scripture but the necessary consequences and since whatever things are not opposit to Scripture are truly lawful and practicable to discern the true and not only pretended repugnances thereto He ought also to examin Translations peruse the Comments and Expositions of others Modern Ancient For all these things that Authority most exquisitly doth whose judgment and conduct he declines Lastly he must be a Divine who will not be guided by Divines for of the true way of Salvation none can securely be ignorant And what Prelatical Protestant allows this in an Independent or Fanatick when he will neither guide his ignorance by following the learned nor remove it by study § 282 As for Salvation to be had in any Christian Profession though it may be true in a Church where all fundamentals are truly believ'd and Baptism rightly administred for so many as are invincibly ignorant of any better or perhaps other communion for Children and Rusticks those of an immature age or of very low imployments void of literature and publick converse and by their mean condition and inexperience destitute of any improvement of their knowledge yet for all the rest who have better means of understanding Divine matters and of searching the grounds of their Faith and state of their Communion and on whose direction and example every where depend the other meaner and younger sort of people and by their default miscarry ‖ 1 Cor. 8 1â— For these I say their case seems very dangerous who happen to be in any separated Society out of the external Catholick Communion Since the One God will be worshipped as S. Austin †Epist 48. answered those Latitudinarian Donatists not only in verity but unity and again hath left marks and Testimonies sufficiently evident for the discerning and distinguishing that Catholick Communion wherein he will be worshipped from all other Heretical or Schismatical Societies All those therefore who either through their own fault do not know this Communion because they will not search or knowing it yet voluntarily still remain in any other divided from it must needs be in a very perillous Condition The first because their ignorance in a thing so manifest and withal so important must needs be very gross and unexcusable The second because any long stay in any such separated Society to one convinced seems both by the Scriptures and by the Church frequently prohibited And were it not so at least brings so much detriment and damage to the spiritual Condition of such a person as is no way to be recompenced by any other fancied advantages injoyed therein Which things it will not be amiss to discourse a little more fully if perhaps some Laodicean complexion may receive some benefit thereby § 283 1st Then The remaining in any such Communion is prohibited by the Scriptures in many places Eph. 5.7 8. The children of light are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness nor to be partakers with them but to reprove them 2 Cor. 6.14 Light and darkness Justice and iniquity Believers and Infidâ—ls the Temples of God which all good Christians are and of Idols are to have no fellowship or communion together But Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord. And 1 Cor. 3.16 Si quis Templum Domini violarerit disperdet illum Deus Nor may such separation be understood from Infidels Heathens or non-Christians only For 1 Cor. 5.9.11 If a Brother i. e. one that professeth Christianity with us be a Fornicator an Adulterer an Idolater a Drunkard with such a one we are charged not to eat But to with-draw our ordinary converse from him i. e. where no duty of
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
Eight hundred years ago and fince that by Lanfrank Guitmund c. at the appearance of Berengarius Which Primitive Tradition and judgement of Antiquity that it was if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils the same concerning these Scriptures with that of the present Church Authority I think any one that is well affected to the peace of the Church and not pre-ingaged in Disputes will receive sufficient satisfaction herein who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by cited parcels the short Discourses on this subject of * St. Ambrose De Myster initiand chap. 9. * The Author of the Books De Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father l. 4 the 4 and 5. Chapters * Cyrill Hierosol Catechis Mystagog 4. and 5. * Chrysostom in Matt. Homil. 83. In. Act. Apost Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 36 37 * Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatens De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hilarius Pictao De Trinitate the former part of the eighth book * Cyril Alexand. In Evangel Johan l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces for the last Protestâ—ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon †§. 307. speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum Molinaeum Not that I affirm here that every one that reads these pieces shall be so perswaded and convinced For as hath been shewed the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising and miscolouring things to the understanding As when perhaps the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father and when one hath first stated the Question to himself ordered his Arguments deduced his Conclusions solved Objections c. and then upon such provocation of an Antagonist is brought to examine their writings here we may presume such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before and to lay down his Arms and that it will go hard if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause Either 1. for the Terms used by the Father he will contend that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times and not in a proper or modern sense Oâ— That their Rhetorick and Eloquence fitted not to state the Question or inform the Judgement but to move Affections and gain the Will doth often make use of such expressions as rigourously taken transcend the Truth Or 2. For the sense given when apparently against him he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities that follow from it or some other Tenents of the Father that will not consist with it and the Translation alsor or the Copy shall many times be blamed Or 3. Touching the Discourse 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father 's other works or some words used in it some Rites or Customs mentioned that are of a later date or age or such work not found in such Editions or not mentioned by later writers or that it is in part corrupted and interpolated and not all of a piece 2 Or at least He will find some Clauses in the same or in some other discourse of the Father whereby he may seem to confess in one place what he denies in another or which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point and so serviceable to no Party I name these defences not so but that some times they may be true but that they are much oftner made use of than there is any just cause and are apt to blind the unwary and preoccupated and such as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth before they are well read in Antiquity So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist §. 321. n. 2. Vigier after the two former Combatants Arnauld and Claude one by taking the Fathers in a plain and literal the other in a Metaphorical sense had each of them challenged Antiquity as clearly on his own side seeks to dispatch the Controversie much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings †3 Reg. 3.27 whose the childe was not Nec mihi nec Tibi sit Saying ‖ Eng. Translat p. 80. That the true belief of the ancient Church about this point of the Eucharist is very hard to be known That there are innumerable perplexities in it and that if the Fathers have believed the Reality as he seeth no reason to doubt but they did they believed it in such a manner which neither Roman Catholicks nor Protestants nor any other Christian Society would approve of And so p. 66 c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstantialists he is content they should be Stercoranists i. e. holding I know not what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord much more gross and incredible than that of Transubstantiation For whether the Greeks fall short of or ago beyond the Latine Church herein he thinks all to his purpose so they be not just the same But then over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies manifesting the unanimous accord herein of the present Oriental with the Western Churches here he will have them to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers but by no means to have derived it from their Forefathers There may have happened saith he ‖ p. 94. a change since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks or by the Voyages of the Portugais and other Nations into the Oriental Churches mean while the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman it may well be considered what would become of the Protestant cause if the Controversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld §. 321. n. 3. For the shewing of which a little more at large because I am speaking here of the Eucharist and what I shall say may serve for a pre-advertisement to some less experienced in this Controversie that may light on his Book and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it prejudicial to the Catholick Faith I beg leave of the Reader to make a step though somewhat out of my way yet not much beside my purpose Remitting those who think this Forreign Author less concerns them to the prosecution of the former Discourse resum'd below § 321. n. 27. 1st This Author busyes himself ‖ l. 2. c. 1. to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance and decay
Synods For M. Claude saith The word of God contains nettement clairement all that which is necessary to form our Faith and that the most simple are capable to judge of it c. Unless the Protestant Controversies be never about any thing necessary This is the way M. Claude thought on to leave no Doubters though never so unlearned among Protestants as to the Eucharist or other Points of their Faith But mean while if after such Speculations of his any such Doubters there be I do not find but that he leaves so many wholly to D. Arnaud's disposal viz. that they return to and remain in the bosom of the former Church so long till they become certain of its errors and not follow strangers that have not entered by the dore into Christ's Fold and I hope they will consider it As for the settling of our Conscience this person speaks of by resting our Faith immediately on Gods Word I see not where the sence of the Scriptures is supposed the thing controverted how any one rests his Faith more immediately on God's word by following his own Exposition or Sence thereof or the Exposition of a Minister c. for some person's exposition he must follow than he that follows that of the Church If we are then for a total application to the Scriptures and for searching things to the bottom Let us search there first this main Point that decides all other concerning our Lord's establishing a just Church-Authority for ending contentions Where we shall find also that he is not a God of dissention or Confusion 1 Cor. 14.33 Eph. 4.11 14 1 Cor. 12.28 in his House the Church but of Peace And That he hath given his Clergy in a certain Subordination that we should not be carryed about with every wind of Doctrine as we must be when ever these disagree in expounding Scripture to us if we have no Rule which of them to follow The truth of this once found out by our search will save many other searches of which without it I see no end In vain do we endeavour with whatever pains so discern Gods Truth without the illumination of his Holy Spirit and Grace and since revelat parvalis in vain expect this without great Humility and self-dâ—s-esteem and a reverent preference of and pious Credulity toward our just and lawful Spiritual Superiours Credendo first i. e. Ecclesiae saith S. Austin in his Tract De utilitate Credendi †c. 1. praemunimâ—r illuminaturo praeparamur Deo To resume then here the matter we were speaking of before § 321. n 27. § 321. n. 1. from which we have so long digressed For such Persons as are self-confident despisers of Superiors much pre-engaged whatever evident Testimony Truth may have on its side I can affirm nothing For Pride and thinking they see utterly puts out their eyes But I think so many as are no way thus intangled and are humble and well affected to Authority will by reading the pieces aforesaid be reduced either to a full perswasion on the Churches side in this great Point or to a Dubitancy and uncertainty of that which is maintained against it And then this later only as hath been shewed †§. 291. c. is a sufficient Ground and Inductive of their conformity to it I mean to the authority of the present Church In this point then the main Trial seems to be 1. Whether Antiquity indeed so understood and Councils declared the sense of these Scriptures as is pretended Since as Mr. Thorndike hath it in his Rule of Reformation †Forbea and Penalties c. 8. this is to be taken for granted That nothing can be the true sence of Scripture which the consent of the whole Church contradicteth 2. If this found so whether this Authority ought not to prescribe to any particular judgment especially when he perceives the new pretended Demonstrations to the contrary no way to perswade this present Church-Authority as any true Demonstration in the Protestants Definition of it necessarily must For the Second Point Invocation of Saints 1. It is granted by Protestants §. 322. n. 1. that if the Saints deceased hear or otherwise know our requests made to them it is lawful to invocate them or desire their prayers for us as we do those of Saints here and the invocation of them in any other manner Catholicks disclaim 2. It sufficiently appears from the knowledge of things done ‖ or said †2 King 6.8 9 12 31.32 in absence that several Prophets †King 5 25. Act. 5.3 Col. 2.5 and other Saints of God by Revelation or Vision have had here in this life that it is possible that the Saints glorified without imagining any their omni-presence or omni-science may know by the like Revelation Representation or Vision or by some other way as God pleaseth for the particular manner thereof is no way stated by the Church may thus know I say either all or so many of those prayers that are made to them though at the same time by several persons in the most distant places as it may concern their Petitioners touching any benefit to be received by their Intercessions that they should know them Lastly possible that the Saints Glorified may know these or some other instrument of God's mercy viz. Angels know these for them or in their stead for this clause also is put in by St. Austin proceeding most cautiously in this matter These things I say are possible And if any of these be put it is abundantly sufficient to render Invocation of Saints glorified not vain For to frustrate the benefit here of the Saints must neither know nor others for them who only upon their general Intercessions offered may be as God pleaseth made his instruments in relieving the necessities of such Supplicants They must neither know all nor any of our affairs or prayers For if they or others for them only know and relieve some it will be lawful at any time in any thing to implore their help who we know not but in that time and thing they may assist us Again suppose neither the Saints nor others for them save God only to know at all our particular prayers or wants but the Saints only in grosse to intercede for all those that implore their help or yet more generally only for all their fellow-members here that are in distress whether imploring or not imploring their help yet if God at least apply the benefit of any Saints general Intercessions more particularly to those who more particularly honour and with their addresses sollicite such a Saint Such Invocation and Honour still remains profitable and advantageous to the Supplicant Where note §. 322. n. 2. that neither those who make nor yet God who reveales their prayers to the Saints do it at all for this end that so the Saints may make known such their prayers to God a thing in which Protestants please themselves to find absurdities and
that place suffered himself and so those under his charge to be wrought upon by the ordinary commerce they had with the Latines Urge the Oriental Liturgies which though not denyed to be different in several Regions or perhaps several also used in the same as both S. Basil's and S. Chrysostom's are by the Greeks yet have a great congruity and harmony both amongst themselves and with the Greek and Roman as to the Service and Ceremonies of the Eucharist His answer is †His last Answer l. 5. c. 5.606 608. That we have not any certainty that these Pieces are sincere or faithfully translated or some of them not corrected by the Missions As for the Liturges and other witnesses produced for the Faith of the Jacobites of Syria the Armenians Cophtites or Egyptians Ethiopians or Abyssines agreeing in this Point with the Roman he thinks them all sufficiently confuted from Eutychianism being held by these Eastern and Southern Churches For saith he †l. 5. c. 6. p. 604. What can one find more directly opposite than to maintain on one side that Jesus Christ hath no true Body that there is nothing in him save only the Divine Nature that all that which hath appeared of his Conversation in the World of his Birth Death Resurrection were nothing but simple appearances without Reality and on the other side to believe that the substance of the Bread is really changed into the proper substance of his Body the same he took of the Virgin Thus He for his advantage applying the extremities of that Heresie to all these Nations contrary to the Evidence of their publick Liturgies But Entychianism taken in the lower sence as Entyches upon the mistake of some expressions of former Fathers Athanasius and Cyrill Patriarchs of Alexandria which perhaps also induced the engagement of Dioscorus their Successor on his side maintained and the Ephesin Council i. e. above 90 Bishops under Dioscorus allowed it affirms no more than that the two Natures of our Lord the one Divine the other Humane Consubstantial with us and received of the Bl. Virgin after their conjunction become one yet this without any confusion or mixture or conversion of the two Natures into one another Now that these Nations adhere to Eutychianism only in this latter sence not well distinguishing between Nature and Personality I refer him that desires further satisfaction to the Relations of Thomas à Jesu l 7. c. 13 14 17. and Brerewoods Enquiries c. 21 22 23. and Dr. Field on the Church l. 3. c. 1. p. 64. c. and of the several Authors cited by them and to the testimony of Tecla Mariae a Learned Abyssin Priest cited by M Claud. †l. 5. c. 6. who saith They hold after the Union only Vnam Naturam sine tamen mixtione sine confusione i.e. of those two Natures of which the One afterward is compounded Which Testimony may serve either to expound or to confront one or two of the other he brings that seem to say otherwise Urge to him the Confession of Protestants Grotius Bishop Forbes and others though themselves of a contrary perswâ—sion that the Modern Greek Church believes Transubstantiation for which they cite their late Writers the Reading of whom convinced them in this though it cannot M. Claude Of these two Grotius and Forbes he replies †l. 4 c. 4. That they are persons who permitted themselves to be pre-possessed with Chimerical fancies and designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuò tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgement ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Greacos Armenios seu â—ujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur habere cited by Dr. Arnaud He answers †p. 361. That Pre occupation renders his Testimonie nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their oÌ„wn opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and partâ—cularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He †l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Dicourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceived or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony lees credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decryed where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and so for Example in the Narration of another Countreys Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Readers Judgement § 321 But n. 10. 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the 11 th or the 8 th to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and al the testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith †l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Churches former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually