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 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
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
is pretended would save many other searches Of Church-Authority I say viz. what perpetual power our departing Lord hath left to the Governours thereof and what assistance promised them for exposition of the sence of the Divine Scriptures where this disputed and for deciding controversies in matters of faith And what obligation he hath laid upon all the Churches Subjects to hearken to them and not to depart from their Directions and Determinations ne circumferantur omni vento doctrinae in nequitiâ hominum a yoke the pride of the will hath no great mind to Yet a search this to be undertaken much rather than all the other Because abstracting from this Guide after never so impartial a view of other intrinsecal arguments belonging to the subject debated an ordinary understanding in points somuch abâ—ve reason may happily mistake the Truth and because matters of Faith and Religion wherein the Intellect now negotiates depend chiefly on Church-Tradition not rational-seeming proofs And because a Judgment left to a free information of it self herein must needs find many perswasive arguments to entertain and prefer the Judgment of this Authority when it is on one side though this naked and seconded with no reasons at all that are known to such person for its Proposals before all those intrinsecal reasons relating to the nature of the subject that appear on the other Such perswasive Reasons I mean drawn from Authority as these That this Authority that delivers the contrary to what all my other arguments or reasons recommend to me is by our Lord instated in an Infallibility in all necessaries and that it not I also is to judge what or how much is necessary Or however that this Authority fallible or infallible is by the Divine Ordination in such points of Faith and Religion appointed my guide and in opposition of such Authorities happening the Superior this Guide of which things enough hath been said in the former Discourses That setting aside these principal considerations the persons constituting this Authority are also of greater parts get studies and I have reason to presume more dispassionate than my self and more in number than I or those others of my perswasion that they have seen and considered all those reasons that as yet swey me and have pronounced contrary that they may have reasons for their Decisions that I have not seen nor they are obliged to shew me since my judgment stands subjected to theirs on another account than the evidence of argument § 278 Now in such a case or supposition that the Intellect left free to consider doth assent to such extrinsecal arguments in behalf of Church-Authority against any Reasons belonging to the subject in debate that perswade me contrary to what it hath defin'd Here after studying both Authority and Reason my final Judgment is that I ought to joyn and side with the first against the second though these reasons be unsolv'd or that none better or none at all be presented to me by the said Authority And so now to go against my Reason is to follow my Judgment or Conscience and on the contrary It is to go against my Judgement or Conscience if I follow these my reasons or my private judgment as grounded on them § 279 It may be some who pretend that Conscience releaseth them from Authority have not well considered this and therefore give me leave to dilate a little more upon it If we look then into Secular Affairs this matter seems decided in our ordinary practice Do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced Friend a learned Physitian or Lawyer concerning our Estate or our Health both believe his Directions good and according to them do and also judge we ought to do many things contrary to our own private Judgments i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have imagined not to do so Is not Abraham said to believe a thing that seemed contrary to his own reason Rom. 4.17 18 And so the man in the Gospel Mark 9.24 .. What is the meaning of that saying ordinarily used also by Protestants These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit my judgment herein to the Church Is it as Dr. Fern comments on it †Consid touching Reformation c. 1. n 16. only I submit my judgment as to the publishing of it But this is only a submission of silence not of our judgment at all to the Church and is a submission which may well be performed in things wherein our judgment is utterly fixed and unalterable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain Again What means that of Dr. Hammond Schism 2. c. § 10 where he saith A meek son of the Church of Christ when the Fundamentals of Faith are not concern'd in the concessions c. will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors Submit and Deposit means it not to renounce and desert it in such matters and to believe and hearken to the judgment of the Church rather than to it Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14.23 Whatever is not of faith is sin be objected to any for so doing Because who thus deposits his judgment doth it out of faith namely that the Churches Judgment is wiser safer preferrable to his own § 280 Nor can this indeed rightly be construed a going against our own conscience or judgment considered in general Because this preferring the Churches before our own judgment is certainly an act also of our judgment Since when there is such a weighty authority on the one side and such reasons of our own but these short of certainty on the other our judgment here sits upon and examins both and at length gives sentence that here it is a safer course for us to submit to the first than rely on the second And here then I only go against conscience if I adhere to the second and forsake the first But indeed if the Church which it never doth should require me to subscribe not that I give more credit to her Authority than to my private Reasons but that I have no private reasons ot scruples no repugnances of any verisimilities to the contrary of her Definitions when indeed I have so nor as yet know how to clear them such subscription or profession I grant would be going against my conscience and must at no hand be done This That a submission of our Judgment or professing our assent to Authority where we see no reasons confirming its assertions and many for the contrary is not necessarily a going against our own Conscience or Judgment CHAP XV. Remedies of the former Deceits of the Will Considerations For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Whether Salvation c. 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
fortunes less necessitated to serve private interests are by all these the less liable to error of the two And that the confining of the belief of such persons to the directions of supposed fallible Superiors is of the two evils the much more tolerable than the leaving them in such high an spiritual matters to the roving of their own fancies For thus in stead of some few errors of the Church in matters obscure will be multiplied thousands of such persons in matters most evident and clear § 293 S. Austin speaks much on this subject in his Book de utilitate Credendi of the benefit of believing the Church written to his friend Honoratus led away by many extravagant Manichean dotages advising him submission of judgment to Church-Authority Nihil est facilius saith he †De utilitate Credendi c. 1. quam non solum so dicere sed etiam opinari verum invenisse sed reipsâ difficillimum est And †c. 12. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis under which name he saith he comprehends all except those quibus inest quanta in esse homini potest ipsius hominis Deique firmissime percepta cognitio utilius atque salubrius esse praeceptis obemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere Hoc si in rebus minoribus ut in mercando vel colendo agro c. expedire nemo ambigit multo magis in religione Nam res humanae promptiores ad dignoscendum sunt quam divinae in quibusque praestantioribus sanctioribus quo majus ets obsequium cultumque debemus eo sceleratius periculosiusque peccatur And c. 17. he argues Si unaquae disciplina quanquam vilis facilis ut percipi possit Doctorem aut magistrum requirit quid temerariae superbiae plenius quam divinorum sacramentorum libros ab interpretibus suis nollecognoscere And c. 7. Nullâ imbutus poeticâ disciplinâ Terentionum Magistrum sine Magistro attingere non auderes Tu in eos libros qui quoquomodo se habeant sanctitamen divinarumq rerum pleni prope totius generis humani confessione diffamantur sine duce irruis de his sine praeceptore audes ferre sententiam c. And c. 16. Cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibiratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana Thus he to induce Honoratus in such divine matters to yield the guidance of himself to Church-Authority And then the Church-Authority he would have him submit to he describes thus c. 17. Quae Ecclesia usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circum latrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum Majestate damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Cui nolle primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae Nam si nulla certa ad sapientiam salutemque animis via est nisi cum cos rationi praecolit prepares them fides quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quam tanto labore praeditae praedictae rather authoritati velle resistere Again c. 16. Quae authoritas sepositâ ratione quam sinceram intelligere ut saepe diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis very frequent in his times See De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. partim sequentium multitudine And c. 14. Quae celebritate consensu vetustate roboratur And c. 11. Si jam satis tibi jactatus videris finemque hujusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros maenatura est I have given you St. Austins advice somewhat more largely as hoping his words will have more weight § 294 And because if this obligation of submission of judgment to Authority for the unlearned not able to examin Controversies or the learned after examination in some degree unsatisfied be received for a truth thus the greatest part of Christians are hereby for ever settled in their religion and belief as to all points determined by the Church I will here also set down for the benefit of such Readers as most value their judgment the testimony of several learned Protestants in confirmation of it several of which have been mentioned in the former Discourses The Reader who thinks the allegation of witnesses needless in a matter so evident and would only know when Ecclesiastical Authorities divide and dissent to which of them his submission is due may omitting them pass on to § 296. In confirmation hereof then first consider that noted passage of Dr. Field in the Preface of his Book §. 295. n. 1. recommending to Christians chiefly the discovery of the True Church and when this found submission to it Seeing saith he the Controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment In the same manner Dr. Hammond writes §. 295. n 2. in his Answer to the Catholick Gentleman chap. 2. p. 17. When the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit a bare yielding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve may rationally be yielded to a Church or the Governours of it without deeming them inerrable And in his Treatise of Heresie § 13. n. 2 3. he speaks thus of the Christians security from the Divine Providence in his adherence in matters of Faith to Church-Authority If we consider Gods great and wise and constant Providence and care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit scandals and false teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly servants If I say we consider these and some other such like general promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to
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
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
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
For if the were twice so many Italians as others a major part of the Council could not vote against the Popes inclinations without some of the Italian Bishops concurring But to dispel clearly these doubts §. 151. n. 2. you may understand that the Bishops voted nothing against the Protestants in the chief points at least but what was their own belief and practice before they came to the Council and what had been the practise and belief of many former ages even the reformed being Judges And that the chief question to be decided in the Council was whether such and such practices lawful viz. whether Communion in one kind only Adoration of Christs corporal Presence in the Eucharist offering the sacrifice of the Mass veneration of Images Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead as better able thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgment Indulgences Monastick Vows enjoyning Celibacy enjoyning Sacerdotal Confession in case of mortal sin c. be lawful And seeing the chief question in opposition to the new Lutheran Doctrines was whether these things lawful which were then and in many former generations Protestants not denying it daily practised what need of force of new Mandats from Rome of hiring Suffrages creating more titular Bishops Oaths of strict obedience to the Pope such a multitude of Italians to procure a prevalent vote or to invite the Prelats in the Council to establish those things several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries As the Sacrifice of the Mass Adoration of Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner by compulsion how came both the Catholick Bishops in the German Diets where free from such fears or force in the time of the Council to vote the same things and also after the Council the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches and of France with the rest so freely and voluntarily to accept them and to continue till their death in the constant observance of them But if it be said that though such things were generally believ'd and practised before yet by Art and violence were now the Fathers brought to advance them into matters of Faith I ask concerning many of these Points what Faith required save of those Truths which are necessary to render them lawful beneficial c. All practice lawful being grounded on some speculative Proposition that must be true Or if more be required yet more than this viz. the lawfulness of such practise wherein these Fathers voluntarily concurr'd was no way necessary for overthrowing the Protestants contrary Doctrine § 152 4 ly Obierve that no violence was used upon the Council for other points debated between the Catholicks themselves no violence so far as that any thing favourable or advantageous to the Pope was at any time passed in the Council when any small number thereof opposed it Concerning which Pallavicino in the close of his History l. 24. c. 14. n. 9 hath these words There was not in this Council established one point of faith nor one canon of discipline for the advantage of Popes but amongst the second the canons of discipline very many to their detriment and of such a thing indeed Soave himself brings not so much as one example so much is there wanting to him any sign or shadow thereof But not to rest in the testimony of a partisan The chief points agitated in the Council wherein the Popes pre-eminence and priviledges are said to be much concerned were besides the matters of Reformation these three 1. Whether residency of Bishops at their Bishopricks was jure divino which if established it was conceived that it would take away from the Pope the power of giving Dispensations Administrations and Commendaâ—â—â—s Pluralities c. by which amongst other things the Popes Attendents and the dignity of his Court would be much lessened See Soave p. 647. 2. Whether the Jurisdiction of Bishops was jure divino which if established it was conceived that it would infer that the keys were not given to Peter only that all Bishops were equal to the Pope and the Council above him c. see Soave p. 609. 3. Whether the Pope was superior to Councils In never a one of which was any thing decreed on the Popes side § 153 1. Concerning Residency of Bishops it was not determined according to what was conceived to be the Popes inclination viz. that Residency was not jure divino but 1. that which was determined being Sess 23. de reform cap. 1. seeemed rather to favour jure divino upon a jealousie of which Pall. l. 21.6.12 saith some few excepted against the decree Pope Pius though he desired the question were omitted yet shewed much moderation in it He did not condemn saith Soave p. 503. the opinion of those who said that Residency was de jure divino yea he commended them for speaking according to their conscience and sometimes he added that perhaps that opinion was the better and ordered that the Council might have its free course in it As you may see in Pall. l. 24. c. 14. n. 11. and l. 16. c. 7. n. 19. where he quotes the French Embassadors testimony and partly in Soave p. 504 505. where he saith That the Pope having well discussed the reasons concâ—â—â—ing Residency settled his opinion to approve it and cause iâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 executed upon what law soever it were grounded whether Canonical or evangelical And 2. of his Legats were thought to favour the determining of it jure divino ‖ Pall. l. 24. c. 14. Soave p. 496 623. and when it was put to the vote whether this controversie should be stated by the Council or no a major part were for the affirmative Soave p. 496 which being supposed contrary to the Popes desire shews that amongst the rest some Italians also who made the greater part of the Council took liberty to relinquish his interest Though in fine this point whether Jure divino was left undecided because taking in those who referred to the Pope almost an equal part as Soave but Pallavi ‖ l. 16. c. 4. â—â— 21. correcting him saith a major part drew the contrary â—way and to what else was stated about residence Sess 23. Refer cap. 1. In the Session all agreed save only eleven See Pall. l. 21. c 12. n. 9. and Soave p. 742. And in the General Congregation held before the Session all save 28. saith Soave †p. 737 Pallav. l. 21. c. 11. n. 4. i. e. some of the Spanish Bishops 2. Concerning Episcopacy jure Divino of which the 6. Can. de Sacram. Ordinis Sess 23. speaks thus Si Quis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholic â non esse Hierarchiant divinâ ordinatione institutam quae constat ex Episcopis § 154 Presbyteris Ministris Anathema sit where the Spanish Bishops would have had 2.
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
the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
of Heresie yet the maintainer thereof now first by his pertinacy against the Churches Authority begins to be an Heretick †See Disc 3. §. 18. And though the ignorance of such point of faith before might bring some damage as to our salvation yet now doth it more when a contrary error begins to corrupt our practice I say such Point begins to be necessary in a new Degree of necessity to be believed or assented to or not to be dissented from or denied or not the contrary of it to be believ'd so soon as we have had a sufficient proposal of the Councils defining it And necessary it is then to be believ'd not out of an obligation or duty of belief we owe to such a Credend as that without believing it we cannot attain salvation but out of the duty of obedience we owe to the Church when defining it as that without yielding this obedience to Her we become guilty of such a sin as unrepented of ruins salvation Especially when as this our Holy Mother doth not enjoyn to us the belief of such a Divine Truth but upon some considerable Motive for the repelling and suppressing of some error that is less or more dangerous and for the preservation of some part of necessary truth or good life Concerning which Proposals the Churches pronouncing Anathema to the non-Submitters seems secur'd as by ancient practice so by our Lord's order Matt. 18 17. He that will not hear the Church let him be to us as an Heathen though otherwise the pure nescience of such a Doctrine abstracting from such Proposal harms no man as to exclusion from salvation any more after the Churches Definition than before it See what hath been said of this matter in the third Disc § 18. and § 85. n. 6. § 193 Thus to express if I can yet more clearly though with some repetitions a thing whereat so many of the Reformed and those not of the meanest sort seem to stumble and take offence an Article of Faith as to a more universal Proposal of it and general obligation to believe it so sufficiently proposed may be said new and then in respect of this new Declaration and Obligation a Divine Truth may be an Article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means so ever knows now that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new Article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or condemne but assented to and believed by him 1 When therefore a thing is said to be no Dogma Fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is either that in such express terms it is so now as it was not formerly by some fuller explication or new Deduction Or that it is now rendred necessary to be believed by all persons by whom it was not so formerly for want then of so evident a proposal 2 Again when a Point is said thus to be rendred by the Definition of a Council necessary to be believed which was not so formerly It is meant necessary to be believed not for the matter thereof Either 1st As if the actual knowledge and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to salvation at all or now more then formerly For thus a few points only some think not all those of the Apostles Creed are necessary and nothing is thus necessary at any time that is not so alwaies Or 2ly As if the actual knowledge thereof is beneficial to our salvation now and was not so at all formerly For as it is now perhaps beneficial in more respects so in some respects was it alwaies and therefore if we knew it not before so much imperfection there was then in our faith as to something revealed though not a deficiency thereof in absolutely necessaries But necessary to be believed now more than formerly ex accidenti because 1st we have a sufficient Proposal thereof by the Church-Definition now that it is a divine Truth which Proposal perhaps we had not before in so express terms and so universally discovered by the former Tradition and 2ly Because we have also a sufficient proposal or notice that such a Definition hath been made by the Church And so in not believing it we are now defective in our obedience and acceptance of some divine Truth which is made known to us by the Church as some way profitable to our salvation some way advangious to God's Glory some way conducible to Christian Edification to the peace of the Church and suppression of Heresie or to some other good end By whose Definitions from time to time the Rule of our faith is made still more compleat and conspicuous both as to the registring and solemn inrolling of her former Traditions and as to the express knowledge of several Consequences necessarily issuing from the former Principles of the Christian Belief more compleat I say to the end of the world as to several points in some respect or other beneficial to be known Though from the first the Christian Faith was ever perfect as to any knowledge simply necessary or also as to all that were fundamentally useful And therefore the chief Duty that the Church now requires to many of her Decisions made from time to time as counter-works against Hereticks and extracted alwaies out of the former Materials of Original Traditions is not so much an actual knowing of them for every Christian though this also-she desires as esteeming the knowledge of them some way contributing to Christian perfection but that they be not dissented from or opposed when made known to him and that the Contradictory of them be not believed by Him § 194 As for the profession of the Roman faith required in the Bull of Pius wherein are said to be 12. new Articles added to the Apostolical I wonder why they say not 12. score or a 1200. rather for if it adds any it adds omnia à S. Tridentinâ Synodo ab Oecumenicis Conciliis à sacris Canonibus tradita definita declarata as it runs in the same Bull though it expresseth only some few of them 1st All the order that the Council of Trent gave concerning this Profession of Faith was Sess 24. de Refor cap. 12. Provisi etiam de beneficiis teneantur Orthodoxae suae fidei publicam facere professionem in Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientià se permansuros spondeant So that Haec est Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus is a Declaration of the Pope not of the Council not can it have any more authority than other Papal Decrees 2. And again what ever profession of faith is made in that Bull or if it oblige further therein than the Canons of the Councils do bind yet it concerneth not any persons save those who enter into religious Orders or into some Ecclesiastical Benefice as appears in the Preface 3. These persons are not
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
deceives us in proving what is not controverted For the Question is not whether in the Communion we ought to adore Jesus Christ our Redeemer and his Flesh personally united to the Word represented by the Sacrament We practice it with an ardent and humble Devotion when we approach to the Holy Table And afterward Who doubts but that the Body of Jesus Christ is Soveraignly Adorable 3 ly He cannot but know or else hath been very careless to inform himself that no Soveraign Adoration is pretended either by the Roman or Greek Church to be given to the external Species or Symboles of the Eucharist which they hold Venerable only with an inferiour cult such as is due to all other Holy things but only to the Body and Blood of Christ contained under them as the Council of Trent allowing the Expression of adoring the Sacrament cultu Latriae yet explains it in their Canon thus ‖ Sess 13. c. 6. Si quis dixerit in Sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum Anathema sit And as Bellarmin †De Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. also resolves the state of the Controversie Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status questionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistiâ sit adorandus cultu Latriae 4 ly In the 4 th Observation precedent M. Claude saith he will not contest the Greek's holding a Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist Though he contends it is not by the Roman way of Transubstantiation Now from this Real Presence held by the Greeks even after that way he allows at least if he will but grant the true consequences thereof mentioned before § 321. n. 13. Viz. An Hypostatical or other Union to this Body offered and distributed in the Eucharist such as converts it into the Flesh of our Lord and renders it the Body of the same Person with that born of the Blessed Virgin non aliud ab eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis By which she People seem sufficiently instructed not to distinguish in their Mode of Adoration between these two that they are taught to be personally the same I say from such a Real Presence held by the Greeks a lawfulness of adoring Christs Body as there present must be held by them And then if it can be shewed by M. Claude they do not actually adore it must be reckoned a matter of neglect not of Conscience or denying such thing due 5 ly But now to consider their Practice He denies not the Greeks to adore in their Mode of Adoration which is by inclining the Head and Body seldom kneeling when they receive the Communion their Liturgies have it often repeated and surely he will allow them herein as much Devotion as he doth to the Protestants and also them to give at least an external Relative Devotion to the Mysteries for such they give to the Evangiles and methinks the witnesses he produceth p. 216. should not in general denie simply any Adoration of the Greeks at all The Question then only is granting already an external Adoration given by the Greeks when they approach to the Communion whether this in their intention be a soveraign Adoration exhibited to Christs Sacred Divinity Humanity as there present Now the Greek's holding this Humanity there really present conceded before seems sufficient to determine this without more ado And for one to pretend that this Adoration of the Greeks is given only to God or to Christs Divinity as every where present or to the Humanity united to it but only this as in Heaven and not to it also as present in the Eucharist when the same Greeks confess it to be so and when the Eucharistical presence is the occasion of such their Adoration here I say not to allow the extent of their Adoration so far as they believe the presence of the Person adored and their worship the same latitude as their Faith would be an unjust and groundless abridgement of their Devotions as also this to pretend an interior or relative Adoration given by them only to the Mysteries where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person Present with them To view a little the Form of their Liturgy We read in S. Chrysostom's Masse That the Priest after Consecration and before he takes the Holy bread to communicate himself with it adores and saith Attende Domine Jesu Christe de Sancto habitaculo tuo veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis cum Patre simul resides hic unâ nobiscum invisibiliter versaris dignare potenti manu tuâ nobis impertiri immaculatum Corpus tuum pretiosum sanguinem per nos toti Populo Corpus tuum I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self To whom also the Priest had faid before in the begining of the Service Tu enim es qui offers offerris assumis distribueris Christe Deus noster Then the Priest adores again and saith thrice to himself Deus propitius esto mihi Peccatori An Act of Humiliation used here by him before he takes the Sancta into his hands for the Communion as it was once before at the begining of the Oblation And so saith the Rubrick all the People adore with him Populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat Then he takes the Holy Bread and makes the Elevation of it yet whole and entire saying Sancta Sanctis And the Quire answers with relation to It yet one and entire Vnus Sanctus Vnus Dominus Jesus Christus Then the Priest breaking it into 4. Pieces saith Frangitur Agnus Dei qui frangitur at non comminuitur qui semper comeditur non consumitur which shews what Agnus Dei whether this in Heaven or present here is now spoken of and thus adored Sed eos qui sunt participes sanctificat So taking a piece thereof in his hand and preparing himself to receive it he saith Credo Domine confiteor Quòd Tu es Christus c. Dignare in praesepe animae meae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coinquinatum meum Corpus ingredi dignare me participem effici sanctissimi tui Corporis Sanguinis I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self Also when he calls the Deacon to communicate him with the Holy Bread 't is said Accedens Diaconus Reverentiam exhibet And so also before receiving the Chalice It is said again Diaconus venit adorat semel dicens Ecce venio ad immortalem Regem c. Where it must be remembred that the Greeks also held the Body of our Lord that is received in the Eucharist to be immortal and incorruptible This we find in the Liturgy And suitable to this we read in Cabasilas †c. 39. expounding the Liturgy concerning the People before their communicating Ipsi autein saith he fidem attendentes aedorant benedicunt Jesum qui in eis donis
error may easily be overcome yet it can hardly be silenc'd For as God for the greater tryal of our obedience hath permitced in the world not only Evil but very many allurements also and enticements to it so not only Errors but many verisimilities and appearances of Reason ever ready to support it with those that do not by Humility attain the illuminations of his Grace Evidence sufficient God hath left always to clear and manifest all necessary Truth to those who are of an obedient Spirit and willing to learn it But not sufficient to force like the Mathematicks the Understandings of the self-confident and interested to gain-say it But that they may have some fair colour or other to oppose to it and catch the credulous All which still more infers the great necessity of Church-Authority and a conformity to it and the reasonableness of Monsieur Mainbourg's Method for reducing Protestants to the true Faith †§. 321. n. 10 viz. That matters once decided by this Authority should be no longer disputed A Rule the Protestants i. e. the more potent Party of them for preserving their own peace would have to be observed in the Differences among themselves shewed in the proceedings of the Synod at Dort of which see before § 254. n. 2. but not in those between them and Roman Catholicks because here they are the weaker To whom M. Claud's answer in the Preface of his last Reply to D. Arnaud is this It is unjust saith he that he will have the Decisions of Councils to be Prescriptions against us the Protestants not remembring that nothing can prescribe against Truth especially when it concerns our Salvation And the Determinations of Councils not being with us of any Consideration but as they do conform to the Holy Scriptures and to the Principles of Christian Religion we cannot have from hence any reasonable or profitable way to end the particular differences that divide us but only this to examine the matter to the bottom to discern whether such conformity i.e. of the Councils to the Scriptures which we suppose necessary is or is not To which he adds there as also frequently elsewhere That the shortest and surest and only right way for settling the Conscience in repose which must rest its Faith immediately on Gods word Divine Revelation is for both Parties to proceed to the Trial of their cause all other Authoritie and Methods laid aside by the Holy Scriptures And when he is pressed by his Adversary That in these Controversies at least all persons doubting i e. what is the true sence of the Scriptures controverted and of Antiquity expounding them and not certain of the contrary of what the Church teacheth concerning them as all unlearned Protestants must be ought herein to conform and adhere rather to the Church than to Separatists he seeks to decline it thus That the simplest person may receive sufficient certainty from the clearness of Scripture in all matters necessary that from these Scriptures learning what he ought to believe he may easily know also whether the society he lives in be a true Church and such as will conduct him to Salvation that hence he needs not trouble himself with Controversie touching what the former Church hath believed Yet that our Lord promising to be with true Believers to the end of the word so as they shall not fall into damnable error Chariâ—y obligeth him without his reading them to believe that the Fathers are of this number and so believed as they ought and so were of his Faith To give you his own words l. 1. c. 4. The word of God saith he contains purely and clearly all that which is necessary 〈◊〉 form our Faith to regulate our Worship and Manners And God assisting us with his Grace it is easie for the most simple to judge whether the Ministery under which we live can conduct us to salvation and consequently whether our society is a true Church For for this he needs only examine It as to these two Characters One if they teach all the things clearly contain'd in God's word and the other if they teach nothing besides that is contrary to those things or doth corrupt the efficacy and force of them And afterward This Examen saith he is short easy and proportion'd to the capacity of all the world and it forms a judgment as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another Again l. 1. c. 5. There are two Questions One touching what we ought to believe on the matter of the Eucharist The other touching what hath been believed by the ancient Church The first of these cleared we need not trouble our selves about the 2d Now as for those of our Communion the first Question is cleared by the word of God And for the 2d he resolves it thus l. 1. c. 6 That the Promises of J. Christ assure us that he will be with true Believers to the end of the world Whence he concludes that there hath always been a number of true Believers whose Faith hath never been corrupted by damnable Errors Then that charity obligeth us to believe that the Fathers were of this number And then lastly We knowing from Scripture what we ought to believe in this Point we also are confirmed without studying them that the Fathers believed the same Now to reflect briefly on what he hath said in the order it lies here A Council saith he cannot prescribe against Truth True But the Council is brought in for a Judg where a dispute Question is what or on what side is the Truth The determinations of Councils are not with us of any consideration but as they do conform to the H Scroptures Right But the Council is call'd in for a Judg where a doubt and dispute is what or on what side is the true sence of such and such Scriptures Where if he meaneth that they refuse to submit to a Council unlesse conforming to Scripture as the sence of Scripture is given by the Council that is it we desire for the Council will still profess its following the sence of Script if as this sence understood by the Protestants what is this but to say they will submâ—t to the Judgment or Decision of a Council so often as it shall agree with their own The only reasonable and profitable way to end differences is this to examine the matter to the bottom i.e. whether the Decisions of the Council conform with H. Scripture But when this is done How will the Difference end Will not the Controversie as the Replies multiply swell rather still bigger as his and D. Arnaud's doth Search to the bottom Suppose a Socinian should say this against the former Church-decisions concerning the Trinity the supreme Deity of the Son and H. Ghost Gods essential Omnipresence his absolute prescience of future Contingents c. will Protestants say he makes a rational motion Then how can any Protestant rest his Faith in these Points upon the
Authority of the Councils and their Creeds will you say he doth not but on the Scriptures Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian and those urged against him and weighed them in the Ballance If yet they have not ought they If they ought what a task here for young Protestant-students what an Eternal Distraction in this a search what heavenly peace in the other obedience to the judgements of former Councils and Vacancy for better imployments Again If they ought what all Protestants the most of them as of all Christians are illiterate Men not having either leisure or ability to search c. Must these adhere therefore to former Councils and their Creeds in these Points Then in others and in this of Real Presence or Transubstantiation and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiastical Authority or Ministry standing in opposition to a superior But this is Schism in them both and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd for his denying it to another to whom it is due Nor would M Claude be well pleased if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers divided from the rest of their Consistory Class or Synod As for the Tryal §. 321. n. 26. he motions to be made by H. Scriptures This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done first as it ought And the issue of it was That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence the other in another For Example The one understood Hoc est Corpus meum literally the other in a Metaphor and so differently understood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause Here the true sence of Scripture became the Question and their Controversie For the Judge and Decâ—der of this between them when time was they took a Council For since Scripture they could no more take the sence of that being their Question to whom should they repair but the Church and of the Church a Council is the Representative Councils several to a great number in several ages †See Guide in Controver Disc 1. §. 57 58. decided this matter declared the sence of the Scriptures but so as it liked not one Party These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sentence of the Fathers and Primitive Church i.e. of their writings Again the sence of these writings as before that of Scriptures is understood diversly by the Contesters And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question and Controversie Nor here will Disputes end it Witness so many Replies made on either side Former Councils as they have given their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures so they have of those of the Fathers but their Authority is rejected in both And a new Council were it now convened besides that M. Claud's Party being the fewer and so easily over-voted would never submit to it we may from M. Claud's Confession †l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 p. 337. That both Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist rationally conjecture that Protestants in such Councils would remain the party condemn'd What then would this person have He would have the Controversy begin again and return to the Scriptures Which is in plain Language That the Question should decide the Controversie and till this can do it That so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party all should have their Liberty For when they are the stronger they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences and though not professing themselves infallible yeâ— upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction upon pain of Suspension from their Function to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth and to teach them to the People as such and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary till they shall recant their Errour Of which see before § 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal as they had done from that of Trent but could not be beard As for that which follows in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal challenging a Submission and Conformity of so many Protestants as have no certainty of their new Opinions rather to the Church than to Innovators to me it sounds thus That every plain and simple Protestant 1st thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture in this Point of the Eucharist and so in others any way necessary to be clear and without dispute and the more simple he is the sooner he may think so because he is not able to compare all other Texes nor to examine the contrary sences given by others or the reasonable grounds thereof 2. Next that every one who thinks his Exposition or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point is by this sufficiently assured that he hath a right Faith or from this sence of his knows what he ought to believe and forms a Judgement herein as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another a strange proposition but I see nothing else from which such person collects his faith to be right if any doth produceit 3ly That every such simple person now easily knows whether the Society wherein he lives be a true Church or otherwise viz. as they agree with or dissent from that right Faith of his already supposed or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word i. e. in his clear Sence thereof 4ly Knowing thus from this his clear exposition or sence of Scripture what he ought to believe he needs not trouble himself what the Ancient Church hath believed which is very true nay he knows without reading them or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them that the Fathers if of the number of the Faithful were of his Opinion by M. Claud's arguing forementioned I desire the Reader to review his words or the 5th 6th Chapters of his 1st Book and see if he can make any better construction of them Now if there be any Sence in this he saith How can he hinder but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea Church-authority being laid aside for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions viz. his clear sence of Scripture quite contrary to the Protestants clear sence And in any Controversie amongst Protestants Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants here both sides have the same Plea one against another namely the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them And why doth not this certainty void their
touching the third Head the legal proceedings of this Council Now we come to the Fourth Touching the many Decrees and Canons Definitions and Anathema's of this Council much exceeding those of former and some of them said to be in very slight matters by which this Council is charged to have multiplied and imposed on all Christians so many new Articles of Faith and Pius his Bull that followed it to have added twelve new ones to the Creed Thus when as the Reformation as Mr. Thorndike complains in Conclusion to his Epilog might have been only Provisional till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this Council cutâ—â—â—â— off all hopes of Peace except by yielding to all their Decrees In this matter therefore for the Councils Defence I shall propose to you these ten Considerations following The 1st That all Anathemas in Councils are not passed 1. for holding something against matter of Faith but for other misdemeanours and Trespasses against Obedience and good manners Amongst which this may be reckoned one If any one raiseth Factions and Sects and disturbeth the Churches peace in contradicting her common Doctrines of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be or spreadeth abroad propositions schismatical and scandalous and apt to corrupt good manners or be made ill use of by the simple though the matter of them be not properly Heretical or opposing an Article that is De fide Again Anathemas that are inflicted by the Church for holding something contrary to the Faith are not alwaies or most usually denounced for those more fundamental and necessary points of Faith an error in which ruines Salvation but also and more commonly because these are more for some lesser matters of faith viz any whereby some damage smaller or greater comes as to the Author from holding them so to others from his maintaining and divulging them abroad The Church being very vigilant contrary to Sects to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith which are observed by the Apostle to be of the nature of a Cancer 1 Tim. 2.17 still eating further into the bowels of Truth she not knowing how far they may enlarge themselves and by little and little invade higher Points and lay the Foundation for more pernicious errors Nor doth the punishment of Anathema in these eye so much the greatness and malignity of the error as the pertinacy and obstinacy of its Abettor refusing submittance to the Churches authority the violating of which Authority may be a great fault and of very ill consequence though in a small matter If he will not hear the Church saith our Lord let him be to thee Mat. 18 17. as an Heathen †an excommunicated â—rn anathematized person where the censure lies upon his not hearing the Church be the matter in which small or great § 174 And the great guilt of the obstinacy against the Definitions of Superiors though in the maintaining only of some small errors in the Faith some Protestants seem to acknowledge and confess it well to merit so high a Censure Of which thus Dr. Fearn †Considerations on the Church of Engl. Preface We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus this Doctor Only he would have the Church to distinguish between pertinacious and modest gain-saying which is to know Hearts and this latter he would have to pass free from this censure and such he would have that of the Reformers to be Was that of Luther then so modest Or doth not the weight and venerableness of the Churches Authority render all known contradiction whatever truly guilty of Pertinacy and Pride Again Thus Bishop Brambal †Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27. When inferior questions not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church for such a point non-fundamental deserve to be punish't as Hereticks i. e. Anathematized And Cardinal Bellarmin saith †De Concil l. 2. c. 10. of Provincial Councils That Judicium non-infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And Debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes vel Concilium Universale these two it seems only do set at liberty our tongues from the obligations of Inferiour Councills si secus egerint merito excommunicantur Notwithstanding though an Anathema in such cases in well deserved from the wilful adherence of such persons to their own fancies against their Superiors yet it is never inflicted meerly for this but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent if spread abroad to others the remedy of which danger of infecting others seems chiefly to be intended in the Churches using ordinarily in such Canons Si quis dixerit rather than senserit § 175 2. Concerning the Extent of matter of Faith You must know That all Divine Revelations whatever 2. and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith could they proceed in infinitum are also when known the matter or objects or Articles of our faith as well as the more chief necessary points thereof unless we may dis-believe something that we grant to be God's Word And are all Traditional from the Apostles times either in their own express terms or in their necessary Principles since new Divine Revelations none pretend And consequently the contrary error to any of these Deductions when ever it seems very hurtful may be Anathematized § 176 And amongst these Divine Revelations and matter of our Faith are to be reckoned these two Propositions of no little consequence viz. the Doctrine of Christian liberty namely That all things are lawful unto us which God's Word hath not prohibited And again this That the Church hath authority committed to Her by our Lord in such lawful things to make Constitutions and Decrees obliging all her subjects to obedience So that one that affirms something to be prohibited in God's Word or unlawful that is not so prohibited or one that denies obedience to the Precepts of the Church made in things not contrary to God's Word offends against the Faith and on this account is liable to an Anathema And in these things our Belief according to the several objects thereof is required of us in a several manner 1. In pure speculatives If it be a thing made known to us to be revealed by God the Faith that is required of us upon such Revelation is to believe it a certain Truth 2. In practicals if it be a thing by God commanded or
fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should erre in matter of Faith I adde to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without Idolatry practice and therein find approbation and reception amongst all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the general approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation Thus he But if here the Doctor be asked why upon these considerations he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents For example all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation held before Luther I suppose his answer is ready because these were not General nor universally accepted But since these were the most General that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction and had also the most universal acceptation that those times could afford unless he would have also the Berengatians the persons condemned in them to accept them an acceptation most unreasonably demanded why do not here also Gods Providence and Promises stand ingaged in compassion to the meek and pious Subjects of the Church that these Councils erre not nor the Christians of those times fall into such a temptation as it must needs be if these the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence as is the committing of Idolatry ever since See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to this it is saith he that Christ is said Eph. 4.12 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i. e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting the Saints into a Church for the building up of the body of Christ confirming and continuing them in all truth that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages 't is every where apparent by Ignatius his Epistles that the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that form of wholsome words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted c. And in his Treatise of Schisme chap. 2. § 10. he speaks in this manner A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due For the Church where his lot is fallen may by Heresie or Schisme stand divided from the Church-Catholick Here he allows depositing of our judgment in deference to our Superiors where the Fundamentals of Faith c. are not concerned But would not one think rather that in these points especially a person to be safe should adhere to the Churches judgment rather than his own Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality Doctor Jackson on the Creed §. 295. n 3. l. 2 § 1 c. 6. p. 175. in stating the Question ‖ p. 170. Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any opinion or action goes on thus Superiors saith he are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine or not of capacity to discern or not of power or place to determine whether they be lawful or no. Again p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion he argues thus Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill that may ensue a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice either for doing or omitting it The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent for here is an indifferency of perswasions But suppose we have not such indifferency yet p. 172 Whilst men of skill and judgment saith he appointed by God to advise in such matters are otherwise perswaded than we in private are the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action wherein heretofore we thought was not And the performance of obedience it self is a good and acceptable action in the sight of God Now what he saith here concering the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion Again Ibid p. 174. True spiritual obedience were it rightly planted in our hearts would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake than to disobey authority for the private dislike of them Both our disobedience i. e. dissent or non-submission of judgment to the one and dislike of the other are unwarrantable unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors and express law of the most High And. c. 4. p. 165. Sundry saith he in profession Protestants in eagerness of opposition to the Papists affirm that the Church or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed then only be obeyed when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart and consciences of such as must believe and obey them And this in one word is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors and to deprive them of all obedience unto whom doubtless God by his word hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars unto which he demands belief or obedience what obedience do men perform unto him more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever he be that can shew us the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all But