Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	necessary_a	tradition_n	2,943	5	9.4978	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

as certainly true and necessary and therefore fear not any Retortions of this Nature from our Adversaries Had I designed any thing of that Nature I would more cpiously have insisted on those Arguments from Scripture whence that conclusion can alone be made and which I therefore have so briefly touched upon because I was so happily prevented in that matter by the unanswerable Treatise on this Subject against the Bishop of Meaux with which I was unwilling to interfere but finding that the forementioned Bishop had with great confidence appealed for this matter to the constant practice and to the Principles of the Primitive Church P. 160 161. and told us That the constant Practices of the Primitive Church received with universal approbation from the Origin of Christianity till the time of the Council of Constance do invincibly demonstrate that the Council did but follow the Tradition of All Ages when it defined That the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both with many other things of a like nature in which he is also followed by the late Writers of the same Communion And finding also that the once exploded Blackloists were again admitted to plead the infallibility of the Roman Church from practical Tradition and that this was done upon the strength of these two Propositions 1. J. S. That the Church of Rome hath always held close to Tradition and received still her Doctrine by Tradition from the Father to the Son from the first to the second and so to the present Age. 2. That she could not mistake the sense of Tradition in particular points In contradiction to these confident Assertions I have here shewed by confronting the Doctrines and Sayings of the Fathers to the express Determinations of their Councils 1. That the present Church of Rome hath varied in this matter from Antiquity both in Doctrine and Practice and that Tradition plainly contradicts all their Assertions and Decrees relating to it And therefore that all her late Defenders are much mistaken or which is worse would lead others into a known Error when they undertake to perswade them that the practice of their Church in denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests non-conficient is warranted by Tradition and Primitive Practice and by the Principles on which they builded that pretended Practice 2. That in this particular Point she hath either actually mistaken the Sence of Tradition or actually devidated from Tradition And seeing whether she does not differ from or agree with the Primitive Belief and Practice in this Article is a matter of Fact and so may be determined by the Testimony of good Witnesses of what was practised and believed in their Times and by plain Allegations of matter of Fact without Infallibility In plain reason and from her own avowed Principles it follows that her Authority in saying she does not differ from the Tradition of the Ancients and much more in asserting That she hath always held to it and therefore could not mistake the Sence of it can be of no force against plain evidence of Fact to the contrary If then the difference betwixt the Belief and Practice of the Ancients and of the present Church of Rome in this matter be evident as I think I have made it it must be owned that the present received Tradition of that Church can be no certain Rule of Truth and no sure Argument that such was the Tradition of the Primitive Church since in this Controversie she hath actually varied from the Tradition of the Ancients And thus far 1. and no farther would I be thought to drive the Argument drawn from the Citations of the Ancients The Right or Authority claimed by that Church will be best judged of by other Intrinsick Arguments which ought to have the greater force when it appears that Prescription is against our Adversaries Only I cannot but admire why the Trent Council should found their Power of making such a Change in our Lord 's Institution on those words of the Aposlte 1 Cor. iv 1 (t) Id autem Apostolus non obscure visus est innuisse cum ait sic nos existimet c. Sess 21. c. 2. But let a Man account of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispensatores mysteriorum Dei as Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Since in that very place it is immediately added That of a Steward it is required that he be found Faithful that is saith (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum Chrysostom that he do not usurp Authority over the things of his Lord but administer them as a Steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it belongeth to a Steward to administer or distribute well to the Family the things committed to his hands And St. Basil (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haec ipsis integra custodiat Tom. 2. de vera ac pia fide p. 385. b. saith It is the property of a faithful Minister whatsoever things are committed to him by his Lord to distribute them to his fellow Servants and to preserve them for him without Adulteration or Deceit or purely and entirely saith the Latin. 2. The Second thing which I desire may be considered is That nothing in the following Citations can be urged against the Church of England as Erroneous in this Matter Art. 6. For since she professeth to admit nothing as necessary to be believed but what is either expressed in or fairly deducible from Scripture and that it is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike Art. 34. How can in reflect upon her that S. Cyprian for Example held it necessary to mix the Wine with Water or that others have held it necessary to use Unleavened Bread c. All that her Sons are in this Case obliged to is only to give fair and satisfactory Reasons why these things are not necessary which they are both able and willing to do whereas if a disagreement between the present Church of Rome and the Primitive Christians be once proved against them in any of their Articles all their fine Pleas for the certainty of their Traditions Mr. M. Quest of Quest p. 395 396 397. the Infallibility of their Councils as proceeding upon Tradition and meeting only to consult about the Tradition of the Church diffused and all the Prejudices they advance against the Protestants from the present Tradition of their Church must be confessedly vain and Sophistical And the attending to this difference of Principles in each Church will shew how much the Testimonies of the Ancients do affect the one and how little they concern the other and so will prevent the Objections of an Vnwary and the Cavils of a captious Reader THE INTRODUCTION Shewing what the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent have determined touching Communion in one kind THOUGH in many other Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome she contradicteth the plainest Evidence of

A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE Church of Rome AND HER COUNCILS HAVE ERRED BY SHEWING That the COUNCILS of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ WITH AN APPENDIX In ANSWER to The XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black-Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Apr. 11. 1688. Guil. Needham THE PREFACE TO THE READER The Contents of the Preface This Discourse plainly overthrows all the Foundations of the Romish Faith shewing 1. That the Romish Councils and the Church of Rome cannot be the sole authentick Interpreters of Scripture or the true Judges of Tradition § 1. 2ly That they were not assisted by the Holy Ghost in making this Decree touching Communion in one King § 2. 3ly That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent were not true General Councils or that such Councils must be subject unto Error § 3. 4ly That there is no Certainty of the Romish Faith by oral Tradition § 4. 5ly That these Councils ridiculously do assert That they made their Decrees touching Communion in one King consulting the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People § 5. 6ly That the Decrees of the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil concerning the Superiority of a Genral Council over the Pope and their Authority to decree matters of Faith without him must be allowed to be valid or we can have no Assurance of the Validity and Infallibility of any of their Councils § 6. BY way of Preface to this Discourse I shall endeavour briefly and plainly to demonstrate 1. That it plainly overthroweth all the Certainty of the Romish Faith and that if they have made these Definitions and Decrees in opposition to the plain Sence of Scripture and the Interpretations of it by the Holy Fathers and to the full Tradition of the Church in former Ages these their received Councils cannot be by Gods Appointment the Judges of our Controversies the authentick Interpreters of Scripture or assisted by the Holy Ghost in making these Decisions nor can they be Assertors of or Adherers to primitive Tradition but rather plain Desertors of it And First Whereas they challenge as their undoubted Right Authority to be the sole authentick Interpreters of the Sence of Scripture and the true Judges of the Tradition of the Church of Christ Hence we may learn what excellent Interpreters they are of Scripture and Tradition For whereas the Trent Council hath in General defined that it belongeth to the Church alone (a) Sess 4. Judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Sanctarum Scripturarum To judge of the true sence and meaning of the Holy Scriptures And particularly That being taught by the Holy Spirit (b) Sess 21. c. 1. Atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta And following the Judgment and Custom of the Church she made the forementioned Decrees touching Communion in one Kind Secondly Whereas the Council of Constance saith That they made their Decrees concerning the same Matter (c) Sess 13. Plurium doctorum tam divini quam humani juris deliberatione praehabitâ After mature Deliberation had with many Doctors skilful both in divine and humane Laws And lastly whereas the Council of Basil hath declared That they determined the same Matter (d) Sess 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem divinarum Scripturarum sacrorumque Canonum doctrinarum à Sanctis patribus Doctoribus traditarum in hac Synodo longis temporibus habitam After a diligent Search made in this Synod for a long time of holy Scriptures of the sacred Canons and of the Doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers I say Whereas they do expresly and confidently pretend these things I think it will be evident from this Discourse That in those Matters they plainly have decreed against the clear and formerly received Sence of Scriptures against the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and by the sacred Canons and against the Judgment and Custom of the Church of God in former Ages So that if it belong unto the Church alone to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scriptures these Councils and those Churches which have embraced their Interpretations of the Scriptures concerned in this Dispute could not be the Church Representative or Catholick but falsly did and do pretend to these Titles If it belong unto the Church to teach us what is Tradition they who assert these things as suitable to the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and to the Judgment of the Church cannot deserve that Title § 2 Again Thirdly Whereas the Trent Council saith That in making these Decrees she was (e) Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto qui est Spiritus sapientiae intellectus Spiritus consilii pietatis edocta Sess 21. c. 1. Ibid. Instructed by the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Wisdom and of Understanding of Counsel and of Pieyt whereas the Council of Constance and of Basil in making their Decrees touching this Article Declare they were a Holy General Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata Met rightly together in the holy Ghost Hence it is evident that 1. They falsly pretended to the Assistance of the Holy Spirit who being the spirit of Truth the Inditer of the Sacred Scripture would not assist them to determine contrary to the Truth delivered there and being also the Spirit promised to assist his Church and guide her true and living Members into all saving Truth could not assist them to Decree against the Practice and the Judgment of the Church of Christ for a Thousand years 2. Hence also it must follow that these Councils tho as to these Definitions they are own'd as truly General by the whole Church of Rome were not true General Councils or that true General Councils confirmed by the Pope and owned by the whole Church of Rome may erre in Matters of Faith in the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in their Judgment of Tradition 3. And whereas our late Roman Disputants have laid the whole Certainty of their Faith upon the Infallibility of oral Tradition §. 4. Mr. G. Mr. M. delivering to them the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour it must be as evident they have no Certainty of Roman Faith as it is evident from this and other late Treatises That they have varied from the Tradition of the Church in the Practice of latin Service the Veneration of Images and the Substraction of the Cup and we desire nothing more of the most wavering Persons than that they would not go over to that Church till they see greater Evidence that they have never varied from what was once taught and delivered in the Church of Christ than these Discourses offer to evince that they have actually done it § 5 4. Moreover hence we

Lateranensi ultimo Bellar. de Concil l. 1. c 7. de Concil partim Reprobatis and of no Authority Why are they stiled Concilia Reprobata Reprobated Councils by the greatest Part of Roman Catholicks in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestick Character Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority and Decrees in many Matters Moreover if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith and therefore cannot be Infallible and then the whole Church Representative and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may erre in matters of Faith or if they did not erre it must be matter of Faith That a General Council is superior to the Pope Secondly That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him yea against him Thirdly That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Hereticks and therefore that Eugenius the 4th Julius the 2d Leo the 10th and the 5th Lateran Council were Heretical If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them and owning them as such could not discern That is how shall they know when Councils are truly General when they truly represent the Church Catholick and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost Was not this one of their Decrees That for the future Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty and to blessed Peter firmy to believe and hold as long as he lived the holy Catholick Faith according to the Traditions of the Apostles the general Councils and in particular of the general Councils of Lateran Lyons Vienna Constance and Basil and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged (a) Consil Const Sess 39. Basil Sess 23.37 Et usque ad animam sanguinem confirmare defensare praedicare And to preach confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood Did not the following Popes till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th make this Profession Yea were not the Inquisitors of Hereticks obliged by the Council of Constance to enquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy (b) Vtrum credaet teneat asserat quod quodlibet Concilium Generale etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item utrum credat quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans approbavit approbat in favorem fidei salutem animarum quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum tenendum Et quòd condemnavit condemnat esse fidei bonis moribus contrarium hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Sess 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124. Whether he believed held and asserted That every general Council and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church and whether he believed that what that Council representing the whole Church approved in favour of Faith and the welfare of Souls was to be approved by all the Faithful and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners was as such to be condemned And after this Profession of these Popes this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General or no Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles if they themselves did not believe them What Hppes can private Persons have that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church and are accepted by it if the Agreement of so many Nations so many Universities so many Cardinals Arch-Bishops Bishops Divines and Doctors the Profession of so many Popes the Practice of so many Inquisitors do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church Again Was there any Scripture or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary if not there can be none now and so no Man can hve just Cause from Scripture or Tradition to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils That they represented the whole Church and were assisted by the Holy Ghost That they were above the Pope and Representatives of the Church Catholick without Dependance on him If either plain Scripture or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations then must these great Assemblies and all the Universities Nations and Churches which owned them as true general Councils be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Vnion the Peace and Reformation of the Church and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture or Tradition without Peril why may we not suppose or at the least suspect That other Councils less numerous have been so Again These Councils of Constance and Basil have declared and decreed That (a) Concil Basil Sess 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess 18. p. 55. general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ which every one of whatsoever State or Dignity though it be Papal is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith the Extirpation of the said Schism and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils Whatsoever Christian saith the (b) Sess 45. Council of Constance refuseth to profess That he believes asserts and holds this he shall be proceeded against as one suspected of Heresy This saith the Council of Basil is (c) Sess 33. p. 95. Veritas fidei Catholicae A Truth belonging to the Catholick Faith and whosoever pertinaciously resists it censendus est Haereticus Is to be deemed an Heretick It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected say they Sine interitu saluts Without the Loss of Salvation They also decreed That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve prorogue or transfer a general Council to another place without the Consent of the said Council And this Decree is also stiled (a) Ibid. Sess 33. p. 59. Sess 38. p. 101. An Article of Faith which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretick They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees 1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance and by Eugenius the Fourth confirming that of Basil and particularly that of the Eighth Session That (b) P. 33. during that Council there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled

elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council he would not erect a Council of the Church Catholick but a Coventicle of Schismaticks Secondly That by Virtue of these Decrees (c) Sess 29. p. 83. p. 101. Martin the Fifth was chosen Pope and John the Twenty third and Benedict the Thirteenth were deposed and that after the Death of Martin the Fifth Eugenius the Fourth was chosen Pope by virtue of the same Decrees So that if they were not valid these neither could be true Popes nor the Cardinals Arch-Bishops or other Clerks promoted by them could have good Titles to these Promotions Thirdly That (d) Sess 30. p. 84. v. p. 138 139 178. if the Pope had the Authority over general Councils which these Decrees denied to belong to him the Pope might without Resistance at his Pleasure corrupt all Christianity and being accused by a Council of Heresy or any other Crime might presently dissolve the Council to escape being judged by them Fourthly That (e) Decret 5. Concl. p. 117. no skilful Person ever doubted of this Article That the Pope was subject to the Judgment of Universal Councils in things which concern the Faith. That (f) P. 153 155 180. the Universal Church and Christian Religion acquiesced in this Article of Faith Firmiter credens non posse fieri dissolutionem Synodi sine consensu ejus Firmly believing that a Dissolution of the Council could not be made without its Consent (g) P. 149. That it was by all confessed Fifthly That (h) P. 136 139. if these Decrees were not to be admitted it must follow that all these Councils had actually erred and that they who were Members of them were schismaticks and that the Church which judged that they could not be dissolved without their own Consent hath also erred Now I say were these truly Articles of Faith or not If they were why are they not received by the Church of Rome Yea why are they rejected by the greatest part of (o) Concilii Basiliensis nihil est ratum probatum nisi quaedam dispositiones Bell. de Concil l. 1. c. 7. Romish Doctors Why were they practically condemned by the Council of Florence assembling in opposition to one of these Articles And why is not that Council held by the Church of Rome Schismatical as it must have been if the fore-mentioned Decrees be true Why were they dogmatically Condemned in the Fifth Council of Lateran If they were not Articles of Faith why were they owned as such by so many Councils so many Nations so many Universities Why doth the General Council of Basil so frequently insist upon this plea in defence of them P. 89. that they were determinations Vniversae Ecclesiae of the Universal Church that they had been declared in many Councils P. 153. atque per Vniversalem Ecclesiam approhatae and approved by the Universal Church That tota Ecclesia P. 155. populus Christianus the whole Church and all Christian People had acquiesced in them That they were Declarations of the Catholick Faith P. 180. quas universa tenuit Ecclesia which the Universal Church held May we not here turn allt he Arguments of the Romanists upon them by which they do endeavour to shew that 't is in us unreasonable absurd and insolent to condemn the Decrees of their supposed General Councils and of these two in particular decreeing for the Substraction of the Cup May we not complain of them in the words of the Council of Basil that refusing to follow P. 117. as an infallible Rule the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in things respecting Faith judicium proprium in adversum obduratis animis sequi volunt they chuse on the contrary with obdurate minds to follow their Private Judgment May we not ask them in the words of the same Council Whether they dare condemn all the Cardinals Patriarchs Bishops the Emperor the Kings the Princes and others who by themselves or others were present in this Council denique Ecclesiam per orbem dispersam hoc Concilium approbantem P. 149. and lastly the Church dispersed throughout the World approving this Council May we not argue thus with them If those Declarations of Faith and Divine Right which have so oft and solemnly been made by the Universal Church and by General Councils declared consistorially to be lawful by the Popes themselves P. 179. even at the very time that they made them Si post haec omnia If I say after all these things these Declarations may be rejected and trampled upon as being erroneous must not the whole Church be accused of Error and the Declarations of General Councils touching matters of Faith be henceforth disbelieved Yea lastly may we not conclude with R. H. in a like case (p) Rat. account Disc 1. ch 6. §. 59. p. 58. That if the Decrees of so many Synods viz. at Pisa Constance Sens Basil Bourges so often weighing the Adversaries Reasons and Evidneces was not sufficient for setling such a point at least as to the obedience of future silence and non-contradiction and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her Peace what can hereafter be sufficient or can we ever hope that any Controversie shall be finally determined or ended by a future Council if this of the Superiority of a General Council above a Pope c. is not by these forepast Can there be any Ground here to question the integrity or lawful proceedings of so many Councils all concurring in the same Judgment in this matter or could there be any new Light in this Point attainable by private Doctors or by following Councils of the Church of Rome of which those Councils were not capable or had no notice of whatsoever R. H. elsewhere speaks of (q) Disc 1. c. 3. §. 37 38. p. 26. A moral certainty that so many and such persons as meet in their supposed General Councils could not conspire to falsifie the Truth That (r) Disc 3. §. 44. p. 28. none can be supposed fit to judge of them That (s) P. 143 179. Men vainly pretend to be certain of what such Councils and a major part of the Church having the same means of certainty judge false or that their private Judgments can have clear Scripture or Tradition which they could not discern I say All these things in this instance do so visibly recoil upon them that it is needless to insist upon it Lastly Two things I desire may be considered and attended to in perusing this Discourse The First is That though the Ancients alledged here directly oppose the Doctrines and Determinations of these Councils and the Practice of the Church of Rome established by them yet do I not for that Reason only conclude her guilty of Sin and Error in denying the Cup to the Laity for I am far from holding every thing taught or practised by the Ancients

Scripture and Tradition as in the bowing down to Images the Celebration of the Mass in Latin where it is a Tongue unknown to the Generality of them that hear it yet in none of them hath she so openly affronted and defied both the Institutions of the H. Scripture and the continual Practice and declaration of the Church of Christ as in her practice of the Substraction of the Cup from Lay Communicants and in the Propositions Assertions and Decrees she hath established to excuse that practice In that of Honorary Worship of the Images of Saints her second Nicene Council doth very frequently though say the Fathers met at Frankford * Praefat. p. 10. very impudently pretend to Apostolical Tradition The Trent Council usher in their Decree concerning the Honour and Veneration to be imparted to them with an insinuation that it is made juxta Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum † Sess 25. According to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church received from the first Ages of Christianity But when they come to settle as a Law this Defalcation of the Cup they do it without any of these colours or pretences yea with confessed deviation both from our Saviour's Institution and Tradition and from the constant practice of the first and purest Ages of his Church Declaring and defining as the Trent Council doth That (a) Sess 21. c. 1 2. although our Redeemer and our Lord in his Last Supper did institute this venerable Sacrament and deliver it to the Apostles in both species yet (b) Ibid. Can. 2. if any person say the Holy Catholick Church was not by just causes and reasons moved to give it to the Laity and Priests not consecrating in one species only let him be accursed And as the Council of Constance doth That * Quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo viz. communicandi Laicos tantummodo sub specie panis habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Concil Constant Sess 13. although in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received by the Faithful under both species yet is the Custom of receiving it by Lay-Men and by Priests not consecrating to be received as a Law. That these Decrees are evidently repugnant to the institution of our Lord and Saviour and to the practice of the whole Church of Christ for above a Thousand Years hath been proved beyond all possibility of contradiction in a late excellent Treatise in Answer to a Discourse of Mr. Condom on this Subject That the same Decrees and almost every proposition declaration and assertion which have been advanced and invented by the General Councils of Constance Basil and of Trent in favour of them are manifestly opposite and repugnant to the received Traditions of the Church of Christ and to the Sence and the Expressions of the Fathers of the Christian Church I undertake by God's Assistance in the ensuing Pages to demonstrate by shewing First What these Councils have determined in this matter And Secondly What hath in contradiction to them been asserted and declared by the Fathers which flourished in the Church of God. Now the Church of Rome hath by the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent declared and defined as followeth 1. First (c) Sancta Synodus declarat docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Syn. Trid. Sess 21. c. 1. That the Laicks and Priests who do not consecrate are not obliged by divine Precept to receive the Sacrament in both kinds That (d) Et cap. 3. though Christ in his Last Supper instituted this veverable Sacrament under the species of Bread and Wine yeet do not that institution and delivery bind all the Faithful by the Law of Christ to receive both species and that they who assert the contrary speak rashly and presumptuously 2. That (e) Neque nullo pacto dubitari posse salva fide quin illis alterius speciei communio ad salutem sufficiat Ibid. Et Sess 13. Can. 3. it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation Whosoever doth affirm the contrary to either of these Declarations saith the Trent Council let him be Anathema 3. That (f) Sancta mater Ecclesia gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendum decrevit quam reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licet Concil Trid. Sess 21. c. 2. the Church of Christ for just and weighty reasons hath approved the Communion of Laicks and Priests not consecrating under one kind only and hath defined it for a Law That (g) Concilium S. Generale Constantiense in Spirite Sancto legitime congregatum declarat decernit definit quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub untraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum similiter quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula c scandalaest rationabiliter introducta quod a conficientibus sub utraque specie a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis Patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libitu mutare Concil Constant Sess 13. although Christ himself did minister this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds the species of Bread and Wine and though it was so received by the Faithful in the Primitive Church yet the contrary Custom that the Priests who do consecrate should receive in both kinds and the Laity should receive only the species of Bread was rationally introduced and is to be received as a Law which none must change or reject at his pleasure without the Authority of the Church 4. That to say that it is (h) Quapropter dicere hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare sit sacrilegum aut illicitum censeri debet erroneum pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemissorum tanquam Haeretici arcendi sunt graviter puniendi Ibid. Sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this Law or Custo is to be deemed Erroneous and they who pertinaciously do so assert are to be punished and driven from the Church as Hereticks they acting damnably who endeavour to reprove this custom as Sacrilegious That (i) Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini Item ipsa Sancta Synodus decernit declarat super ista