Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine § 5 3. ' That it was not a Free and Lawful Council 3. 1. λ. Where the accusers or the accused take λ. 1. whether you please namely the Pope and the Bishops persons of the same perswasion and communion with him sate as Judges in their own cause namely in a Question of the Popes Supremacy and of the corruptions of that Church see B. L. § 27 n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's μ. μ. Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council 2. ν. Where was no security in the place of Meeting ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted since the cruel Decrees and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss though armed with a safe Conduct ξ. Whither also ξ. notwithstanding this some of the Protestant party being come yet they were not suffered to propose and dispute their cause And again Ï€. Where after dispute Ï€. had it been granted them yet they if no Bishops could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest but must after the Disputation have been judged and censured by their Adversaries 3. Ï‚. Where all the Members of the Council Ï‚. 3. that had a vote had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy and none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome and were professed enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council B. Lawd § 27. n. 1. 4. σ. σ. 1 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council but only what the Popes Legates proposed the Popes Commission running Proponentibus Legatis σ 2 * where nothing was determined σ 2 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome himself not vouchsafing to be present therein and therefore it was commonly said that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male 5. Ï„. Ï„. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope and many Bishops were introduced who were only titular and ‖ B. Bramb Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishopricks also erected by the Pope during the Council all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes and hence such an unproportionable number there of Italian Bishops § 6 4. v. Suppose the Council in all these Objections cleared v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical and Legal yet have the Reformed this Reserve after all wherefore they cannot justly entertain it * Because some of the Decrees and Definitions are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures or at least not warranted by them φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures as the Nicene and other primitive Councils did but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in matter of Faith Concerning which thus Arch-Bishop Lawd § 28. The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or in necessary sense or the Council is not Lawful For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority to make the Council Authentical and the Decisions of it de fide than any confirmation of the Pope can be Now the Council of Trent we are able to prove had not the first but have departed from the Letter and sense of Scripture and so we have no reason to respect the second See likewise § 27. n. 1. Where he asks How that Council is Legal which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie and make it to be de fide though it hath not the written word of God for warrant either in express Letter or necessary sence and deduction but is quite extra without the Scripture See also Mr Stillingfl p. 477 478. χ χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to or at least not warranted by Primitive and Apostolical Tradition ‖ Soave p. 228. And in the last place Dr. Hammond of Her §. 11. n. 3 7. Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's in these and in many other slight matters if truths upon all those who shall dissent from or at least who shall contradict their Judgment in them this one Council having made near hand as many Canons as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together ‖ Soave p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds * drawn up bp Pius the 4th according to the order of the Council ‖ Sess 24. c. 12. de Refor and * imposed to be believed by all who would enter into the communion of the Church contrary to the 7th Can. of the Third General Council at Ephesus All these Articles Imposed too as Fundamental and to be assented to as absolutely and explicitly for attaining salvation as the Articles of the Creed and so that in disbelieving any of them it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire which Articles are concluded there as the Athanasian Creed with an Haec vera Catholica Fides extra quam nemo Salvus ‖ See Archbishop Lawd p. 51. Bishop Bramh. Vindie of Church of England p. 23â— 231 Reply to Chalâ—ed p. 322. Dr. Hammond Ars to Cath. Gent. p. 138. and to Schism Disarm'd p. 241. Dr. Fern Considerations touching Reformation p. 45. Stillingfl Rat. Acccâ—nt p. 48 c. So that saith Mr. Thorndyke †Fpilog Conclusion p. 413. it was the Acts of this Council that framed the Schisme because when as the Reformation might have been provisional till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace but by yielding to all their Decrees 5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine And next §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation which also are very numerous and 5 one would think the more the better yet these also are not free from their complaints ω. ω. That these Decrees are meer Illusions many of them of small weight taking Motes out of the eye and leaving Beams That the Council in framing them imitated the Physitian who in an Hectical Body laboured to kill the Itch That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved and some Symptomes only cured That in some of more consequence the Exceptions are larger than the Rule And αα αα That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them as he pleaseth Thus Soave frequently That nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council and it ended ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it ‖ Stillingfl Rat. Acc. p. 480
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
to be handled in Council were lawful before the Council why not during it Especially the matters being so various as that the Legats were not capable of such Instructions all at once neither did this encroach on the liberty of the Council unless it can be shewed that the Council was obliged to follow it which it is clear they were not because de facto they many times opposed it Neither was any thing in matter of Doctrine voted in Council whatever instructions came in the male from Rome a considerable part resisting § 262 To Ï„. To Ï„. See what is said § 170 171. The Popes Pensions given to some poorer Bishops during so long a Session of the Council might be an effect of his charity not policy However it is clear that their assistance to him was useless as to Protestant Controversies and stood him in little stead as to those Catholick ones wherein a considerable part of the Council opposed him none of which were passed for him if any perhaps were hindred by his party from being passed against him this was the uttermost of any service done by his Pensioners As for many Titular Bishops sent and new Bishopricks erected during the Council whilst those things are only in general said and no particulars named they carry the suspicion of a groundless report § 263 To ν. To ν. The Councils determining things repugnant to Scripture 1 That no injunction repugnant to the Holy Scriptures is to be obeyed is on all sides agreed on But that some of the Councils decrees are contrary to the Scriptures as it is a thing affirmed by the Protestants the lesser so is it denied by the Council and its adherents much the major part of the Doctors and Church-Governours of the West We are to seek then which of them our duty doth oblige us to obey and follow Next 2 As to the Councils determining things not warranted by Scripture See before § 176. the two Propositions both Divine Revelation whereby the Scriptures warrant the Church in her defining and requiring a belief of such things to be lawful and in her injoyning such things to be practised as the Holy Scriptures have not prohibited or declared against This warrant from the Scriptures for any of their Decrees the Council wants not and affirms no further warrant from them as to such Decrees necessary § 264 To φ. To Φ I answer 1st That the Council of Trent allows no Tradition extra Scripturas or unwritten there to be sufficient ground of defining matter of faith unless it be Tradition Apostolical Traditiones saith It †See Sess 4. Decret de Canon Scrip. quae exipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis Apostolis spiritu sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt And ‖ Salv. Conduct Sess 15. Vult S. Synodus quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones c. in praedicto Concilio tractentur 2ly That any Council should make the word of God delivered by the Apostles either by Tradition written the Holy Scriptures or unwritten i. e. by them equally a ground of Faith where there is a certainty equal or sufficient of the one as of the other that it is Apostolical I see not how it can be liable to any Censure Of this thus Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 210. Your next inquiry is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility As for the necessity of standing Records which he there alledgeth from the speedy decay of an Orall Tradition this is sufficiently remedied if the Apostles Successors at least do commit to writing things which were by them orally received And thus Mr. Chillingw †We conceive no antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might stand very well together If God had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written So he hath sending us to our spiritual Guides †Heb. 13.7 17. Eph. 4.11 14. who do by Tradition of their Predecessors writings conveâ—â—â—â—â—â— to us that right sence of Scriptures which is dubious in the written letter of them 3 ly None can rationally deny that the Traditive Doctrine of the Church-Guides would have been a sufficient ground of our faith had the Scriptures not been written because it was so before they were written and is so still to some who cannot read them written or know that others read them right Of this also thus Mr. Stillingf †p. 208. It is evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of faith as to that revelation Because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and his Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrine of Christ before it was written and this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of the Scripture 4ly We find the first General Councils universally allowed to have grounded their Decrees upon the Argument of Tradition and the Doctrine or Interpretation of Scriptures descended to them from former ages as well as upon the Text of Scriptures and by both these not one of them singly to have defended their cause against Hereticks Of which thus Athanasius †Synodi Nicen decreta Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse and In eo Concilio illa sunt scripta quae ab initio ipsi qui Testes oculati Ministri verbi fuere tradiderunt Fides enim quae scriptis decretisque Synodi sancita est ea est totius Ecclesiae And ‖ Epistol ad Epictetum Ego arbitrabar omnium quotquot unquam fuere haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam fides quae inibi à Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est satis mihi idonea essicaxque videbatur ad omnem impietatem evertendam pietatem ejus quae in Christo est fidei constituendam 5 ly Protestants in some point of faith ground their belief only or at least sufficiently on Tradition †Stillingf pt 1 c. 7. namely in this That the Scriptures are God's Word and consequently must allow any other Tradition of equal evidence a sufficient ground of any other Article of Faith and so do When you can produce saith Mr. Stillingf ‖ p. 210. aâ— certain evidence
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
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
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
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
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
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE COVNCIL OF TRENT BEING The Fifth Discourse CONCERNING The GVIDE in CONTROVERSIES By R. H. 1 Pet. 3.15 Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos Rationem 2 Cor. 6.8 Per infamiam bonam famam Ut seductores Vcraces Printed in the Year MDCLXXI The Preface IN the former Discourses concerning the Guide in Controversies as also in the Beginning and Conclusion of this present I have endeavoured to perswade a necessicy of Obedience to a lawful Church-Authority from these weighty Considerations whereon seem to be built the Unity and the Peace of Christian Religion 1 First That However the Holy Scriptures are a Rule sufficient yet not in respect of all capacities a Rule so clear but that the true sense of them is by several Parties much disputed and that in points of Faith necessary to be known And therefore as to these need of some other Guide for the direction of Christians in this true Sense 2 That there is contained in these Scriptures a Divine Promise and that not Conditional but Absolute of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries made to the Church-Catholick of all Ages To It not only Diffusive some or other Persons or Churches alwaies not to erre in necessaries but as a Guide or to the Guides thereof 3 Again That the Catholick Church throughout â—he whole World is but One ever contradistinct to all other Communions Heretical or Schismatical And its Governours and Clergy however dispersed through several Nations regulated by the same Laws and straitly linked together in a due subordination whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superiors and a Part to the Whole in such manner as that these Laws observed admit of or consist with no Schisms Divisions or contradicting Parties after any past Declaration of the Church 4 That in this Subordination no inferior Clergy Person Church or Council when standing in any opposition to their Superiors can be this Guide to Christians But only the Superior whether Person or Council and in a Council not wholy unanimous the major Part join'd with the See Apostolick The major part whether those present in the Council and decreeing matters in debate or those absent and accepting their Decrees A regular obedience in any contradiction thus ascending to and acquiescing in the sentence of the most supreme in present actual being That also these subordinations of Church-Governours are so commonly known and by the learned on all sides acknowledged that even a Plebeian following this line though amidst so many Sects calling him hither and thither and all offering to shew him the right way cannot mistake his true Guide 5 That from this present Guide thus discovered All are to learn both as to the true sense of Holy Scriptures and of Antiquity or former Church-Tradition and also the legalness of former Councils c. when any of these are controverted and questioned the Resolution of that which they ought to believe and adhere to so far as its Determinations have prescribed to their Faith And the more important any point is that they are hence the more strictly obliged to the Declarations of this Authority because here more danger in their mistake That here if we grant an Infallibility of this Guide in Necessaries which is amply proved this bindeth its Subjects to an universal acceptance of its Decrees lest perhaps in some Necessary their Faith should miscarry Or this Guide supposed Fallible which presupposeth in such matters some obscurity in the Rule yet neither thus are the bonds of their obedience any way relaxed since their own fallibility is much grearer And if in following such a learned and prudent Conduct they are exposed to some error yet so to much more and more gross by following their own Of the mischief of which Self-conduct the many modern most absurd Sects and especially the Socinians are a dreadful Example Who very inquisitive and laborious and critical as to the Holy Scriptures yet by throwing off the yoke of a legal Church-Authority are by the Divine just judgment delivered up to most Capital and Desperate errors and those running through the whole Body of Divinity 6 That none in the resistance of Authority can be secured by following his Conscience though alwaies obliged to follow it when It culpably misguiding him and in the information whereof he hath not used necessary diligence 7 That where such a weighty Church-Authority I speak of the most supreme to which the Churches Subjects may apply themselves so highly authorized and recommended to us by our Lord sways on the one side and only Arguments and Reasons relating to the matter in Agitation but all these short of certainty on the other here a sober and disinteressed Judgment cannot but pass sentence that it is safer to submit to the first of these than relie on the second And then so often the following our reasons and private opinion and deserting Authority becomes acting against our Judgment and Conscience and the forsaking our private Reason acting according to it 8 That thus at least all those who have a contrary perswasion to Authority but short of certainty i. e. all illiterat and plebeians unable to examine Controversies or also learned that after examining them are left still in some doubt which two sorts will comprehend the most Christians are engaged in Conscience to yield their assent to the Decisions of this Authority 9 That an absolute and Demonstrative Certainty indeed where-ever it is is exempted from all such obedience to Authority as shall require submission of Judgment and Assent But that such a Certainty is very difficultly attained in matters Intellectual and abstracted from sense more difficultly yet in those Spiritual and Divine especially such Divine and Spiritual matters where Church Authority i. e. so numerous a Body of learned and prudent men discern little reason for that we pretend Certainty of and so much against it as that they declare the contrary for certain To which may be added the frequent experience of our own weakness when by more study and better weighting and comparing contrary Reasons we come to doubt of the truth of several things wherein formerly we thought our selves most fully satisfied 10 That supposing such a Certainty attained and so obedience of Assent justly repealed yet if this be of a Truth of no great importance or consequence of which great importance too as well as of the truth it self they are to be certain here still another Obedience viz. that of silence or Non-contradiction tyes us fast and rests still due and payable to Church-Authority And so these Certainists or Demonstrators become at least tongue-tied and constrained to stand single and disinabled to father or beget Sects 11 Or in the last place if this also Certain that it is a Truth of great concernment and the Error of the Church-Guides therein not only manifest but Intolerable and so they here obliged also to break this second obedience silence and to publish such truth
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218. Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices § 220 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non-Residence § 235. 4. Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very 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 Church-Authority § 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 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
the Catholick Universe met together there never hath been any but in those which are generally by Protestants as well as Catholicks reputed and admitted for such sometimes we find a greater sometimes a smaller number according to the propinquity of the place the peace of the times the numerosity of Sects c. So the four first General Councils all held in the East by reason of the Heresies they opposed chiefly reigning in that Coast consisted mostly of Oriental Bishops The first General Council of Nice had present in it only 2. Presbyters the Bishop of Rome's Legates and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches The 2d General Council of Constantinople had in it no Occidental Bishop at all but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Council assembled in Rome not long after it The 3d. General Council of Ephesus had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Synod The 4th of Chalcedon had only 4. Legates sent thither from the Bishop of Rome after that the Western Bishops assembled in several Provincial Synods had communicated their judgment to them in the Controversie then agitated and besides these 2. Affrican Bishops and one Sicilian Where note That the 3d. also of these Councils transacted most of their business and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch and his Bishops who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius though afterwards he and his consented also to his Condemnation And that the 4th Council acted all things without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch whom also they deposed for his favouring the Heretical Party and for his Contumacy against the See of Rome See Conc. Chalced. Act 4. Yet all these Councils whether the Bishops personally present were fewer or more were accounted equally valid § 34 from the After-acceptation and admittance of their Decrees by the Prelates absent i. e. the acceptation of such persons as if present had had a Vote in them All which Prelates were they personally present in the Council or the much major part of them there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Catholick or of any other Members thereof to confirm its acts nor are they any way capable thereof because the remainder of the Church diffusive I mean of those who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs must be concluded in their Judgment and Sentence by this supposed much-major part thereof that are personally present in the Council But this wanting the other compleatsits defect And upon such Acceptation it is that the 2d. and the 5th of the Councils called General held at Constantinople without the Pope or his Legat's presence therein yet bear the name of General because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus and his Occidental Council convened not long after it and the latter after some time accepted by Vigilius and his Successors with the Western Bishops as on the contrary for want of such Acceptation the 2 d. Ephâ—sin Council though for its meeting as entire and full as most of the other called Oecumenical yet was never esteemed such because its Decrees though passed by a major part of the present Bishops were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council and by Him and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates out of it § 35 And upon this General Acceptation also inferior Councils may become in their Obligation equivalent to Generall since however the Churches Testimony is received whether conjunctly De Concil l. 2. c. 28. or by parts yet Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis So Bellarmine observes ancient Councils less than General very frequently to have determined matters of Faith Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum paucorum Episcoporum Euseb l. 7. c. 24. nec alii multò plures in toto mundo conquesti sunt sed ratum habuerunt Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum in quo nullus fuit Latinorum Latini probaverunt Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia Milevitanum Carthaginense Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum antequà m adessent Latini Latini voluerunt cognoscere rem gestam cognitam approbaverunt All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them Neither did or ought such inferior Councils when necessitated by contentions and disputes define any such thing hastily or rashly but as they well knew before any such Resolution the common Sentiments of the Church Catholick herein Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts. § 36 Next Concerning the just quality measure and proportion of this after-Acceptation several things are to be well observed 1. 1 st That it is not to be extended in a Latitude of Christianity much greater beyond the bounds of the Church Catholick Which Catholick Church is many times of a narrower compass than the Christian Profession all Heretical and Schismatical Churches I mean such as have made a former discession in Doctrine or external Communion from their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors and being but a part have separated from the former whole standing contradistinct to it So after the Nicene Council in Constantines time the Arrians and in S. Austins time the Donatists were esteemed though Christians yet no Catholicks and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity opposite to them Of which thus S. Austin †Contra Episc Fuâ—d c. 4. Tenerme justissimè in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen quod nomen non sine causâ inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit Therefore upon the growth of many Heresies after the Heathen persecutions ceased instead of these words of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints i.e. in it we read in this Creed as explained by Councils I believe One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church 1. One to distinguish it from many varying Sects pretending also to be true Churches of Christ 2. Holy i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith Manners Sacraments Government Discipline delivered by our Lord and his Apostles and in particular Holy as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness but not Holy so as that some external Members thereof may not be by their own default internally unholy and unsanctified and no true Members of Christ 3. Apostolick i. e Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinations and preserving their Traditions for Doctrine Government and Discipline And therefore here the other Clause the Communion of Saints is omitted as sufficiently included in the former Explication which is observed also by Dr. Hammond of Fundamentals p. 69 83. So in the yet more enlarged Athanasian Creed we find the Catholick Faith used in a restrained sence opposed to all those Heresies that are rejected by
Prague for Huss desired none from the Council upon which he also thought fit to venture himself and appear before it The form thereof is this Citamus c. quatenus compareas c. recepturus in omnibus justitiae complementum ad quod a violentia justitiâ semper salvâ omnem salvum conductum nostrum quantum in nobis est fides exigit orthodoxa presentium tenore offerimus Now since Hierom after Huss his having been some time at Constance ventured to appear there upon such a Safe-conduct why may we not reasonably imagine notwithstanding the declarations of some Protestants of the extream folly of such an action that Jo. Huss might have the same confidence or commit the like over-sights as the other as much mistaking at first both the strict justice of the Council and the weakness of his cause The same thing may be probably gathered from his flight after some time out of Constance hidden in a Cart laden with goods which argues the little confidence he had in the Form of his Safe-conduct to protect him from justice as this also doth that neither at his trial nor his Death he is mentioned in his followers relating his story either to have claimed the the priviledge of such a Safe-conduct or accused any of the breach thereof But now suppose it a Safe-conduct securing him not only from violence but also from execution of justice yet is it related to have been so conditioned as that if he should attempt any flight which he did he should forfeit all the benesit of it and thus free Justice Ecclesiastical and Civil proceed against him Now that by one of these waies the Emperour was discharged from his faith given to him may justly be presumed in that after his condemnation for Heresie he made no scruple to put him to death and that before any Conciliar decree was passed by the Council in this matter as it were to relax or dissolve his former engagement Huss his Execution being in July and the aforementioned decree passed in September following § 103 But be these things how they will of which several flourishes and conjectures are made both wayes And let us suppose the Safe-conduct to free him totally from the Secular Justice and some miscarriages also to have been in the proceedings of the Emperour or Council which is not impossible yet not the least errour can be found in the Decree or Constitution or Doctrine of the Council which is so much blamed as which expresly declares That the Prince once his faith given debet facere quod in ipso est i. e quod est in ipsius legitimâ potestate and then This also is granted See Becan c. 12. quoted before § 94. That it is a thing in the Princes lawful power to suspend the execution of his own laws and upon such suppositions if the Emperour through the importunities of some others did not this I see not how he can be therein excused But still the Councils Decree hath no hand in such guilt But lastly The Delegats from Bohemia who where Hussites their repairing some sixteen years after to the Council of Basil upon the security of the Council and the same Emperor Sigismund's Safe-conduct shews sufficiently that the Safe-conducts of Huss and Hierom of Prague were too narrow to shield them from justice as well as from injury and not such faith of the Emperour or Council as was promised to them to have been afterward broken For to the same Faith only the form of of the Safe-conduct changed these Commissioners from Bohemiae freely trusted themselves Thus much of the Council of Constance in which for that which is related here out of the Story I must refer you to Molanus de Fide Haeret servand l. 3. Spondanus and the Authors mentioned by him in A. D. 14 â—5 n. 44 and 45. especially Cocleus in his Histor Hussit l. 2. and 3. who takes his matter out of the Stories delivered by some of Huss his followers § 104 But yet to give all content the Council of Trent in their Safe-conduct did expresly huic constitutioni Constantiensi in hac parte pro hac vice derogare The Trent Conduct thus qualified for their satisfaction yet another exception the Protestants had against it That whereas they chiefly desired two things viz. 1. That the Scripture alone might be the judge or rule to try the Controversies by and 2. That the Protestants joyned in an equal number with the Catholicks might have decisive votes or the Controversies be decided by an equal number of Lay-Judges chosen on both sides The form of this Trent-safe conduct for the Protestants did not as to these exactly follow that of Basil for the Bohemians whereby had it been granted saith Soave †the Protestants would have obtained one great point that is ‖ p. 344. that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture and afterward Soave p. 366. It is pretended That such a Safe-conduct would have given them a decisive voice But in answer to these For this last point there appears no such thing in that conduct of Basil For the former point the words of the Safe-conduct in Concil Basil 4. Sess are these In causa quatuor Articulorum per eos attentorum lex divina praxis Christi Apostolica Ecclesiae primitiva una cum Conciliis Doctoribus fundantibus se veraciter in eadem pro verissimo indifferenti Judice in hoc Basiliensi Concilio admittentur Whereas the words of the Safe-conduct in the Council of Trent are these S. Trident. Synodus concedit quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum Sanctorum Patrum authoritates in praedicto Concilio Tridentino tractentur where we see both the Conducts do agree in praxis or Traditio Apostolorum in Concilia and Doctores or Patres only the later omits the clause fundantes se veraciter in Scriptura The reason of which omission see in Pallav. l. 12. c. 15 n 9. And it is clear at first sight because this clause was capable though contrary to the intention of the Council of Basil of such a false Glosse namely if it be thus understood that when any Authority was produced out of Councils or Fathers the Protestants might accept or reject it as they judged it to be founded or not founded in the Scriptures as would void the sense of the words that went before it and make them needlesly added to lex divinae the Protestants when any such authority out of Councils or Fathers is urged answering Ostende quod illa Conciliae c. se veraciter fundarunt in Scriptura which is the same with Proba hoc quod Concilium dicit ex Scripturis For suppose those Councils quote some Scriptures for what they say yet will not Protestants therefore yield that what they shall say is founded there because they may say they quote them in a wrong sense and
at least by the Emperor one not without Designs * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods the charges of continuing there great not a few Bishops and other Divines poor great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council especially in its first beginning the more necessitous without some maintenance of their charges threatening to depart as Soavo himself acknowledgeth p. 124 and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them before they had his leave and saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7. these pensions were so small being but 25 Crowns a month that the Bishops so reliev'd staid not without murmuring that thus they were deprived of a just pretence to go away and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated attendance than thanks for his allowance and often complaining of their want some of them saith he in the consultations gave more molestation than some others both to the Legats and to the Pope But if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service it had been easie for Christian Princes by the like allowances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions to have countermined such policies § 171 To the 5th The admitting Titular Bishops 'T is true that some Titular Bishops were in the Council To 5. but they are justified by their allowed ordination of Priests to be true Bishops and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council and vote therein without asking any ones leave I find not any said to be in the Council who were not made Bishops before it Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope as some others do either of erecting any new Bishopricks or creating Titular Bishops during the sitting of the Council nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope save two and those at the first beginning of the Council nor these meerly Titular laus Magnus and Robert Venants waucap One Archbishop of Vpsali in Sweden the other of Armagh in Ireland both excluded from their Sees by Princes enemies to the Catholick Faith Of whom as you may read what is said in Soave p. 140. to their disparagement so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their commendation The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts so chiefly for their Country one being a Swede the other a Scot that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them Lastly if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope the same may be said of them as hath been †§. 167. of the Italians in general * That the Pope found but little assistance from them where he most needed them nor was any advantagious thing done for Him in the Council by their help * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs and passed several Acts against †Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 4. de Deform Sesss 14. c. 2 them when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council some of them would have spoken there in their own defence especially that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bishop without his licence But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress for the future the creating any such Bishops for the reasons given in Soave p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops or of those who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches or of Prelats imployed in greater affairs § 172 To the last The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations and had in them a vote with the rest but were not admitted to have a definitive vote in the Council for this reason least so whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence these their Substitutes coming abundantly from all parts might overbear the Bishops in the Council these being men of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption as they might of the Bishops themselves and this being a thing which those Prelats who afforded their own personal attendance would be much offended with Yet was it attempted to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent as to some of the German Bishops but that this could not be easily done exclusively to others †See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8. l. 21. c. 1. n. 3. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason alledged by Protestants viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted I cannot judge But those Bishops who sent Proxies themselves afterward accepting the Council did what was equivalent to their own or their Proxies definitive voting in it But to conclude this matter suppose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly and to the prejudice of the Council in some things yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above § 148 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things which were therein actually and unanimously established which is enough to overthrow the Reformation CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3. That all General Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new Divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in some former Councils § 198. 9. That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10. That a Discession from the Church and declaration against its Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. § 173 THus much from § 147.
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
praestituta ac praescripta est à Sanctis Patribus qui in Nicenorum urbe in which Creed the additions also of the Constantinopolitan Council are here supposed to be included cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre volentibus converti ad agnitionem veritatis sive ex Gentilitate sive Judaismo c. to be professed by them at their admission into the Church ut hi si quidem Episcopi sint ab Episcopatu removeantur sin autem Laici sint ut extromâ detestatione execratione percellantur This being the Canon To α I say 1 st That § 179. n. 2. R. To α. this Canon being pressed by the Greeks against the Latines in the Florentine Synod to prove the unlawfulness of the Latines addition to the Creed of Filioque either the Reformed must approve the sense the Latines gave of that Decree namely R. To α. that the Ephesin Council prohibited only that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing or contrary in any thing to the doctrine of the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his wicked Creed was which occasioned this Decree or must confess that the Latines unjustly retain and mention Filioque in their Creeds which was added to the Creeds after the Ephesin and the four first Councils †See Conc. Florent 7. Sess being first mentioned and found in the Creed in the fourth Toletan Council about A D. 680. as the Roman Writers themselves confess 2 ly That supposing the Council prohibits not only the composing or addition of any thing contrary to the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his Nestorian Creed the occasion thereof may perswade it did but the addition thereto or alteration in expression of any thing whatsoever though never so conformable to the Nicen Creed yet this prohibition extends not to Councils but only to private persons and Church-Governours according to that Hi si quidem Episcopi sunt ab Episcopatu removeantur for who shall execute this sentence upon a General Council Or how can one General Council justly limit or prescribe to another of equal authority 3 ly Supposing that they extend this Act to Councils also either they prohibit to them not the making new definitions in matters of Faith but only the adding of such definitions made to the body of the Nicene Creeed but then this act concerns none who afterward make new Definitions so they add them not to the Creed Now no additions at all have been made to that Creed since the fourth General Council save Filioque which the Protestants also allow of and use Or 4 ly If the Ephesin Fathers prohibit to the Councils any such Definitions also as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice they condemn themselves in the first place who though they added not to the Creed yet defined Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the Ephesin Canon be taken in either of these sences thus it will be found not to be observed by the very next General Council that of Chalcedon who made another new definition or Creed against Eutyches in which also they altered some expressions of the Nicene Creed as is noted by the Latines Concil Florent § 6. altered natum ex Patre 1. ex Substantiâ Patris into Consubstantialem Patri secundum Divinitatem nobis autem secundum humanitatem and added many other things as appears in their Confession of faith Sess 5. which Confession they conclude and seal up just after the same manner as the Ephesin Council before them did Decrevit sancta atque universalis haec Synodus aliam fidem nemini licere proferre sive conscribere aut exponere vel sentire Sed eos qui audent vel componere vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se convertere c. si Episcopi sunt alienos esse ab Episcopatu c. si Laici Anathematizari 5 ly That both Leo Bishop of Rome and Flavianus and Eusebius being charged by the Eutychian faction as offending against this Decree of Ephesus in their asserting as a part of their Faith Christum ex duabus in duabus simul naturis esse an Article not contained in the Nicene Creed were cleared by the Council of Chalcedon as not guilty thereof who some of them probably the same who sate in the Ephesin Council that being only twenty years before this understood it in the sence of the Latines and urged the necessity of additions as appears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Emperor †See below § 183. n. 1. 6 ly Taken in such a sence as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed but also the defining any new thing in matter of faith it is as was said before not only null by an equal authority reversing it in this sense but most irrational since the like occasions of making such new definitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council as it did before and also in it § 180 To β. To â— If the Grecians meant imperfection in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith then both the authority of the Latine Church and all the reasons given above may be produced against them but if they mean imperfection in respect of containing all Credends in respect of salvation necessary to be explicitly known it s granted that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice †See Conc. Florent Sess 1. § 181 To γ. To γ. The Latines joyn contrary also to it when they name different and mean only such difference as is also contrary as is clear every where by their words in that Synod Sess 11. Julianus Cardinalis thus Quae quidein verba i. e Concilii Ephesini nos credimus hoc solum significare ut fas sit nulle Nicaenorum Patrum fidei contrarium proferre Is the addition filioque which Protestants justifie nothing diverse then neither shall any other new definitions of Councils be so § 182 To δ. To δ. Celestines words which are spoken of the Apostles Creed either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions or do condemn Nice for it But see this testimony explained by the Latines Sess 10. that he meant only denying any thing delivered in the Apostles Creed or asserting or adding any thing contrary to it To conclude this matter §. 183. n. 1. see the defence which the Fathers of the fourth General Council following the Ephesin made to Marcianus the Emperor in the Conclusion of that Synod †Allocut ad Marcianum concerning the necessity of making from time to time new Definitions and Additions to explicate and corroborate the former Faith as new errors arise to debilitate or pervert it returned in answer to the Eutychians aâ—d others who to obtain liberty to their own opinions accused Leo's Epistle and also the Council of Innovations in matters of Faith
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
any Point after defined necessary explicitly to be believed not only this one condition of the Churches having defined them is required for none is obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal made to us of the Churches having defined them And then indeed so many Articles are necessary to be explicitly believed as to the doing of our duty in order to our salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as to acquiring some knowledge necessary to our salvation without which knowledge it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is See what hath been already said of this whole matter much what to this purpose in Disc 3. § 85. n. 4. c. § 197 There are then as Catholicks to undeceive Protestants do frequently inculcat and cannot be heard Points or Articles of Faith necessary to our Salvation to be believed or extra quae credita nemo salvus in a tripple sence 1. Some necessary ratione Medii Such as are necessary so absolutely as that an invincible ignorance of them is said to fail of Salvation which are a very few of the many Articles of our Christian Faith 2. Others necessary ratione praecepti which are necessary to be believed only conditionally And they are of two sorts 1. Either such which I am not only obliged to believe when known to me to be Divine Truths but the knowledge also of which as Articles of high concernment I am bound according to the different quality of my condition to seek after wherein my ignorance and neglect when by using a due diligence I might have known them being thus in an high degree culpable doth unrepented of destroy my salvation Such are some other chief Principles of Religion and Piety the ten Commandements and some Sacraments c. delivered in the common Creeds and Catechisms such as are not absolutely necessary ratione Medii 3. 2 Or such as though I am not obliged to such a diligent search of them as of the former yet a belief of them I am to embrace so often as these two things precede 1 st that they are defined by my spiritual Guides to be Divine Revelation c 2 ly that this Definition is sufficiently evidenced to me Where though not my meer ignorance in such Points yet my denial or dis-belief of them thus proposed is to be judged wilful and obstinate and this unrepented of destroyes my salvation § 198 8. This of the Seventh The Eighth consideration is That the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined 8. or made de Fide in the Council of Trent to repeat here what hath been said formerly in the first Disc § 50. were made so by sormer Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The law fulness of communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Popes Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council Lateran Veneration of Images in second Nicene Council Adoration of Christs Body and Blood as present in the Eucharist in the Council of Frankfort if Capitulate Caroli may be taken to deliver the sence of that Council †See Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. Veneration of the Cross †Ib. l. 4. c. 16. and of Relicks ‖ Ib. l. 3. c. 24. in the same Council only this Council condemned the Adoration of Images in such a sence as they mistook the second Council of Nice to have allowed it †See Capitulare prefat Dr. Hamnâ—ond o Idol § 57. Thornd Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Monnastick vows Celibacy of Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead Sacrifice of the Mass and many other apparent in the publick Liturgies of the Church preceding the Council of Trent and unaltered for many ages Protestants being Judges Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practise And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before made them not de Fide or if the Council of Trent or Pius the 4th were first faulty herein But if Councils before Trent have defined such things then by these first were all hopes of peace except by yielding to their Decrees cut off and not by Trent because these Councils are by the Roman Church accepted and held obligatory as well as that of Trent And here I may repeat those words of Bishop Bramhal recited in Disc 1. § 52. in answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon who urged the separation of Protestants from the Church long before the Grievances of Trent or Pius These very Points saith he †p. 263. which Pius the Fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded on us before by his Predecessors i. e. then when Luther and his Followers forsook the Church as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion This is the only difference that Pius 4. dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and be bound them up into a bundle They fashioned the rods i. e. in the Synods held in the Church before Luthers appearance For these Rods only require submittance as being necessary Articles of her Communion and such are only the Definitions of her Councils § 199 9. Consid That the Protestants who accuse seem as guilty in making new definitions in matters of faith and enjoyning them to be believed or assented and subscribed to 9. by those of their Communion as the Council of Trent or Roman Church that is here taxed for it For as the one is said to make new affirmatives in Religion so the other new Negatives all or most of which as hath been shewed in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †§. 85 n. 2. are implicitly new affirmatives Neither can the Church of Rome be more justly questioned in her not leaving points in universals only § 200 and their former indifferency but anew-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation Invocation c. than the Reformed and particularly those of the English Church for new-stating the contrary to these 1. Who as hath been shewed in the 3d Disc c. 7. †§. 85. n. 3. 1. do not suspend their judgment concerning those new points which they say the Roman Church presumes to determine but do in the main Articles handled in the Council of Trent as peremptorily state the one side as the Roman Church the other and as to several points the reformed also were the first I mean in comparison of the Council of Trent in determining them and condemning the doctrines and practises of the other side So to say nothing here of the Augustan Confession composed many years
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
against Conscience 2. And again That to one liable to error in some things yet some other things may well be so plain and manifest that he may have abundant certainty thereof And 3. That such a Demonstration of his Certainty as proposed to any that understands the terms satisfieth and convinceth him is good But these granted yet a Judgment well purged from Secular Interest will here also consider 1. That it is no such easie matter as it is thought to arrive at certainty in things intellectual where our sences do not assist us and especially those that are Divine and Spiritual * where these things not being collected by Reason but originally delivered to us by Divine Revelation both the matters are many times very mysterious treating of the perfections wisdom and waies of God His Divine Laws and Sacraments things above our natural reach and the words also signifying these to us are many times not free from several acceptions literal and figurative else all persons would agree in the same sence so that apparent contradiction in the words by distinguishing of some term is none in the sence but both the verbal Contradictories very true * Where again these Revelations being many and all most certainly true none may be taken in such a sence as to contradict any other And lastly * where the true essence of things abstracted from all their Accidents which accidents again cannot be known to us to be so but by an actual separation being not perfectly known to us hence also though it be most certain to us that two contradictories cannot be true yet is it most difficult to discern what things truly contradict For it is a Contradiction only when the same thing is denied of or removed from its felf As this a man is not a man Or this A man is white and not white where the formal Contradiction being resolv'd is whiteness is not whiteness Manhood is not Manhood And it is no contradiction but truth when ever a thing is denied of any thing not it self Therefore this what is or is not the thing it self or its essence must exactly be known before a true and reall contradiction be so And this difficulty which is indeed in all nature must still be the greater in these things spiritual and more remote from sence of which we are speaking Cum res tanta sit saith St. Austin †See before §. 293. ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnesne putas idoneos c. And Tu in eos libros qui sancti Divinarumque rerum pleni c sine Duce irruis And Nihil est facilius quam non solum se dicere sed etiam opinari verum invenisse sed hoc reipsâ difficillimum est And therefore in that excellent Treatise †De utilirate Credendi he adviseth them first laying aside such fancies of certainty to believe the Church Quo illuminaturo praeparentur Deo And indeed who is there if he reflect upon the many seeming certainties that he hath had in some opinions afterward forsaken that will not perceive that this conceited certainty is an ordinary fallacy which those who know least and so have least reason to think themselves certain are most subject to Qui ad pauca respicit facile pronunciat § 319 But then further If in those things Divine this particular point wherein we pretend a certainty be such as that the supremest Church-Authority proposeth to us the contrary as certain an Authority not to mention here the supernatural assistance promised them of the same or better abilities than we for their Intellectuals and that hath all the same external means and Grounds of the knowledge of such point as we perhaps more to whom also all the Grounds Motives Arguments of our certainty of it have been communicated persons likewise we ought to presume of as much diligence in searching truth as much integrity and freedom from passion and interest as our selves For these judge for themselves as well as for their Subjects and set down their own as well as prescribe anothers faith this I say will make any such conceited certainty on our side yet much more irrational See more said of this in the 4th Disc § 11. And lastly besides all this our pretended Demonstrations being put to the trial according to the former Protestant Definition of a demonstration will prove constantly false as from which so many rational and learned persons hearing or reading them continue to dissent Neither here will the plea of the perspicuity and clearness of the Scriptures in such point ordinarily the chief pretence we have for our certainty any way relieve us or release our obedience to these Governours but rather promote it Because if these Scriptures to us clear so will they be to them Or if these Scriptures like the Israelites Cloud be light to one and darkness to another our humility ought to believe that the light side of it will be rather toward the Church-Governours than toward us when singular and differing from them who also are appointed to enlighten us ‖ Mat. 5.14 § 320 The four main points that are maintained by the supreme Church-Authority to which Protestants refuse conformity and at which they take most offence and many of them charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Sacriledge 〈◊〉 1. The corporal presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist and consequently Adoration of them as present 2. Worship and Invocation of Saints 3. Veneration of Images 4. Communion in one kind As for a fifth which might be added The language that ought to be used according to several Nations in the Celebration of the publick Service of God I here omit it Supposing this might be easily so accomodated as solely to be no hinderance of an union where all the other real Controversies are accorded between the two Churches For the First then of these four points the corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist § 321 from which follows Adoration Since as hath been shewed in the first Discourse § 62 and more copiously in the Historical Disc of the Eucharist § 35. a possibility thereof is not opposed by many of the Reformed and the true sence of Hoc est Corpus meum and of other Scriptures whether de facto these do declare it so present is that by which this Question between the two Parties must be decided I see not what Demonstrative certainty any Protestant can rationally pretend of the sense he gives to these Scriptures in opposition to that other sence of them which is maintained by Church-Authority and hath been by so many Councils expresly declared long before Protestancy thought on Of which Councils see 1 Disc § 57. c and this after so long and subtile disputes for about three hundred years viz. from the 2d Nicen Council to the daies of Berengarius and after so diligent an Examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius Bertram and others
of Learning in the modern Greek and other Oriental Churches as also that of the Moscovites ‖ l. 5. c. 1. even amongst their Monasticks Priests and Bishops which industrious disparaging of their Science shews he hath no mind to stand to their Judgement He relates their many Superstitious and ridiculous Rites and Ceremonies in Religion their extreme Poverty and so how easily they are to be gained to say or do any thing with the Money or to speak it in better Language with the Charities which the Latines frequently bestow on them Hence these Nations being so ignorant their sentiments in Religion are less to be valued 2. He proceeds ‖ l. 2. c. 2. c. to tell us the many opportunities §. 321. n. 4. the Latines have had of introducing Innovations and propagating the Roman Faith in those Countreys 1. By so many Western Armies that have passed thither for the Conquest of the Holy Land and have settled there to maintain their Victories and so kept the Orientals in Subjection for near 200 years By the inability of the later Grecian Emperours to defend their Dominions and so their often endeavouring to accommodate Religion after the best way for their Secular advantages and that was by a Conformity in it with the West 3. By the continual Missions of Priests and Religious of all Orders each of them striving to have some plantation in the East especially the Missions of Jesuites thither who by their manifold diligence in instructing their children educating their youth distributing many charities to the necessitous playing the Physitians teaching the Mathematicks c. insinuate also into them their Religion having corrupted also several of their Bishops Hence we may imagine these Missions of the Latines having thus overspread the whole face of the East and practising so many Acts to change its Faith it will seem a hard task to prove concerning any particular Testimony procured from thence that the persons subscribing it are no way Latiniz'd no way tainted in their judgement and that they are not already circumvented and won over in some Points though perhaps they may still stand out in some others All this He doth to shew the great industry of these Missions to pervert the Truth there But indeed manifests their indefatigable zeal and courage through infinite hazards to advance it negociating the Conversion of Infidels as well as the instruction of ignorant Christians And Roman Catholicks are much indebted to M. Claude for his great pains in giving so exact an account of their Piety 3. Having premised such a Narration as this §. 321. n. 5. to be made use of as he sees fit for invalidating the Testimonies of the modern Greeks 3ly He declares that he doth not undertake at all to shew that the Greeks concur with Protestants in their Opinion concerning our Lords presence in the Eucharist and much complains of his Adversary for imposing such an attempt upon him L. 3. c. 1. It is not our business here saith he to shew whether the Greeks have the same Faith which we Protestants have on the subject of the Holy Sacraments This is a perpetual Illusion that M. Arnauld puts upon his Readers but whether the Greeks believe of the Sacrament that which the Church of Rome believes And l. 3. c. 13. He saith He would have none imagine that he pretends no difference between the Opinion of the Greeks and Protestants and he thinks that none of the Protestant Doctors have pretended is And Ibid. after his stating of the Greek Opinion To the censure that he makes it peâ—â— raisonnable he saith * p. 336. That to this he hath nothing to answer save that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere That both the Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity p. 337. and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1st as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it †Epist P. Melancthoni à toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christs Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christs natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2. Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again †l. 3. c. 13 p. 326. l. 4 c. 9. p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctifyed Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Fathers words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 321 4. Having said this n. 6. That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christs Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Articles of their Faith His words upon D. Arnaud's resenting it That whereas he contented himself only to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these *
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
make use of a Negative Argument which is sometimes very weak sometimes very strong and convincing according to the circumstances which must be left to the prudent to consider whereas the Greek Doctors had they declared the Body of our Lord that is distributed in the Eucharist to be really diverse from that on the Cross and when Consecrated in several places diverse one from another a necessary consequent as M. Claude saith of their Tenent might have rendred thâ—s Mystery much more easie and intelligible Yet they have never mentioned any such diversity but still as it were to prevent and strangle any such fancy cautiously added that it is one and the same with that which was born and dyed for us And for this numerical Identity urge our Lords own words †Matt. 26.28 Luke 22.19 Hoc est illud quod tradetur that Flesh of his that was to be Crucifyed and so for his Blood qui effundetur that was to be shed on the Cross As if our Lord would make this for ever a firm Article of our Faith and prevent all such Equivocation as eadem caro quoad suppositum or personam And upon this supposition of the same numerical Body here present the Greeks mistaking the sence of it censure the expression of the Latines in their Canon Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in supercaeleste Altare tuum c. as incongruous if pronounced after the Consecration once ended For so saith Cabasilas †Quomodo fuerit Liturg expos c. 30. si nondum est supercaeleste ipsum Corpus Christi quod est supercaeleste Quomodo sursum ferretur in manu Angeli quod supra omnem Principatum c. that is above already But this Quomodo might soon have been answered by himself if he held this Consecrated here a new body really distinct from that above This of the 1 st proof of a Total Transubstantiation the Greek's holding the Eucharist the same numerical body with that Crucifyed which according to M. Claude necessarily infers a total Transubstantiation of the Bread as well for its matter as Form 2 ly they hold the Body that is thus present by Consecration §. 321. n. 17.2 to be incorruptible and this Incorruption of it to depend on its Resurrection and so to relate only to that numerical Body that was Crucifyed and Raised from Death Quod nec laeditur nec corrumpiour nec in secessum abit Hoc avertat Deus saith Damascen and therefore the Greeks who are said generally to follow his Opinion must in Justice be freed from Stercoranism Now the Bread remaining entire for its whole Substance or for its Matter and qualities at least as before Consecration cannot be held such a Body of our Lord as suffers no digestion or corruption For something there is in the Sacrament that suffers this And we cannot imagine that the Greeks whilst holding the Substance of Bread to remain will lay these changes only upon the Species or Accidents of it and not the Substance at all so that though they eat the Bread they taste and are fed only by the Accidents and so without a Transubstantiation will espouse the difficulties of it Their holding then the Body that is present and participated in the Eucharist to be incorruptible excludes the Substance or matter of Bread from this Body And Panis quidem videtur or apparet sed revera Caro est as Theophylact. †In Matt. 26 Corpus Christi non particulatim diducitur c. Partitio est accidentium sub sensum cadentium as Samonas ‖ Dialog cum Saraceno Non Panis sed Corpus Domini sacrificatur and Si Panis manens sacrificatus fuisset Panis esset Sacrificium non Agni Dei and Cabasilas ‖ Liturg. Expositio c. 32. must all be understood of an entire change of the Bread as well its Matter as Form 3 ly They hold this Body that is present and distributed in the Eucharist to remain quoties frangitur totum integrum in unoquoque frusto And Omnibus distributum minimè diminutum Frangitur Agnus Dei non comminuitur semper comeditur non consumitur saith their Liturgy ‖ Missa Chrysostom Not a several piece or part of 〈◊〉 Lord's Body received in the several Particles but all Nor those receiving more of this Body that receive more of the Symbole In infinite places offered only the same Sacrifice viz. that one which was offered on the Cross To several Communicants distributed the self same Body and It to each entire A Tenent flowing from the former Its incorruptibility and by all the same persons maintained For what is so is no more capable of being parted or divided c. Now these things cannot suit to our Lords Body if the matter of Bread be said still to remain and to make up an augmentative part of our Lords natural Body but this numerically and really distinct from it For so in several places will be offered Sacrifices but these really different from one another as also from that of the Cross Nor will the Communicants receive our Lords Body entire but each a part and this part numerically differing from that Corpus quod traditum est which Communion of a parcel was a thing objected to the Stercoranists and those who held our Lords Body corruptible See M. Claud's Concessions concerning this 2 d. Answ part 3. c. 2. and so his retreat to a Virtual presence to verifie these expressions of the Greeks of this Body every where the same and received by every one entire As for some speeches used by the Greeks in making application of their Similitudes none of which can exactly fit so high a Mystery that seem not to accord so well with a Total Transubstantiation The Bread said by them to be assumed by or united to the Divinity of our Lord The Bread and his Body by the Divinity to be made One An Augmentation of Christs Body to be made by the Bread consecrated as here on Earth by his Nourishment c. I see no Reason why this Person should not be contented with the former Explications given of them Such as 1 both free these Authors from contradicting themselves and 2 do render the sence of the Fathers unanimous and the Christian Doctrine to run all in one common Stream viz. the Real Presence and Exhibition in the Eucharist of that numerical Body that suffered for us on the Cross 3. and whereby also may be avoided those many gross absurdities concerning new Contracts and Unions and new Bodies of our Lord which being so unworthy these high Mysterious and very injurious to our Lords Incarnation are all avoided by a total Transubstantiation See if you please these absurdities mentioned by Bellarmine De Euchar l. 3. c. 13. 〈◊〉 and by Suarez De Sacrament Disp 49. § 3. The Divinity of our Lord then may be said to assume or unite it self unto the Bread or to make the Bread one with his
Body not by a meer joyning it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by his first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there Thus Greeks and Latines ormer and latter times §. 321. n. 20. will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Tranubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Vnion Hypostatical * Christ s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lords or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivisicating virtue of Christs natural body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only not to the Symbols * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lords Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same Body this with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say But this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated But only in the former sence i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it the same If such be their sence the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sence this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8 th Observation M. Claud's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it 9 ly After this §. 321. n. 21 He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neithâ—r Believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presâ—â—ce is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to Him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latines nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines p. 375. because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latines never to have accused the Greeks as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Teneâ—t which they never formerly contested and of an errour in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latines and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very begining of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons 10 ly Hitherto §. 321. n 22. from § 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1 st He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claud's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2 ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8 p 416. The Author
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