more necessary and dignified than some others And then as for this expression equalling at least those Books called Apocryphal with some Canonical fore-named and its accepting them all as equally penn'd by the direction of the H. Spirit I ask What new Discerner of Spirits will assume to himself so much skill as clearly to discover the language and character of the Spirit in the one sort of these Books that is not in the other For Example in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes that is not in Ecclesiastions Especially 1. When as the Churches ancient reading them all promiscuously in her publick service for the Instruction of her children shews that she held the doctrine of them all sound 2. And again when as in those Books which all sides allow canonical yet the II. Spirit pens them in so many various and unlike stiles and some of these much more rude and unpolished than others and speaks sometimes in a much higher sometimes in a much lower key as if it condescended to receive a mixture with or tincture from the natural parts and Elocution of its Scribe and only the Truth being entirely preserved admitted also sometimes his Infirmities as to Language Method Perspicuity c. In which Canon also some of the Historical books though preserved from error seem not penned from immedint Divine Revelation so as the Prophetical but by using such humane industry and diligence as other Histories are compiled with For which see St. Lukes Preface to his Gospel 3. And lastly when as there are some seeming Antilogies and incongruities produced in the one sort of these books called Apocryphal so are there others as many as great urged in those receiv'd by all for canonical especially in the Historical § 188 Therefore it seems a great inadvertency if nothing more in Bishop Cosin writing so large a Treatise on this subject Where he saith †c. 7. §. 81. That this Council commanded all the Books recited in their Canon to be equally accepted and taken with the self same veneration as having all a like absolute and divine authority annexed to them without preferring one before another and damned all the Churches of the world besides that will not thus receive that Canon of Scripture upon their own terms Quoting in the same place for justifying this charge these words as the words of the Council Concil Trid. Sess 4. Omnes libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro Canonicis receperit Ibid. Si quis autem non susceperit c. Anathema sit whereas there are no such words in the Council so put together Si quis non susceperit or receperit omnes hos libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro canonicis Anathema sit which words will only serve the design of his Book But only these words there used with relation to Anathema Si quis hos libros integros c. pro sacris canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit And I hope in this Decree as to any words or expressions used therein stiling them only Sacri Canonici the Council proceeds no further in affirming any thing concerning them than the Bishop will concede the Affrican Council †Conc. Carthag 3. c. 47. Innocentius Austin and other Fathers to have done and than himself also in a large sence will acknowledge them to be For he in giving answer to the Fathers § 82. writes thus of them In a large and common sence as they be books appointed to be read in the Church for the more ample direction and instruction of the people c. in which sence that Council viz. of Carthage took them or as they are to be preferr'd before all other Ecclesiastical Books in which sence St. Austin took them and as they are opposed to suppositions Apocryphal and rejected Books in which sence both St. Austin and this Council besides divers others of the Fathers took them all these waies they may be called Canonical Thus he And then for the sence of these words since he also advanceth thus far toward the Councils pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit as to acknowledge these books to have been as read in the Church like as other parts of Scripture so cited and termed by sundry of the Fathers Sacred and Divine and Holy Scriptures and Prophetical writings †Ibid. §. 77. Epithites common to these with other Scriptures Why may not these infer also in a large and common sence a parity If the Bishop will be pleased to mollifie the Councils expressions so as he doth those Fathers By which Tradition and testimony of the Fathers Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta †Conc. Trid. Sess 4. Decret de caâ—eâ— script the Council as it saith was guided in making this Decree A 2d inadvertency of the same Reverend Bishop seems to be § 189 that which he urgeth much †See in him §. 194. of the small and inconsiderable number which that Council had to give a suffrage to this their Synodical Decree and that forty Bishops of Italy assisted peradventure with half a score others should make up a General Council for all Christendom c. Whilst he takes no notice * that by how few soever this Decree was passed at the first yet it was afterward by the great Body of this Council under Pius confirmed and ratified and this Ratification again by the most of Christian Churches accepted of which see before § 72 75 77. And again * That not one Book more was voted sacred and canonical by these Fathers in Trent than had been voted before as high as St. Austins times by the third Council of Carthage to which St. Austin amongst others subscribed and than were in those times also generally received for such in the Western Church and lastly * that as several of these books are declared Canonical by this Council after some doubt formerly had concerning them so are others not only declared Canonical by Protestants but as fully believed as the rest and in every respect equalled with them as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the second of St. Peter the second and third of S. John the Apocalypse which were formerly viz. till fourth age See Chemnie Exam. conc Trid. 4. Sess subject to the like disputes ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo and as St. Jerom ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo saith of one of them Paulatim procedente tempore authoritatem obtinuerunt Paulatim viz. as the conformity of these books with the rest of the Canon and the slightness of the objections made against them and the former Tradition was clearlier discovered after the vanishing of those Sects that chiefly opposed them As therefore several pieces of the new Testament once disputed have since been declared and generally received into the Canon so may those pieces of the old Testament be by the following Christian Church admitted for such though formerly rejected by
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
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
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-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
Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine § 5 3. ' That it was not a Free and Lawful Council 3. 1. λ. Where the accusers or the accused take λ. 1. whether you please namely the Pope and the Bishops persons of the same perswasion and communion with him sate as Judges in their own cause namely in a Question of the Popes Supremacy and of the corruptions of that Church see B. L. § 27 n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's μ. μ. Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council 2. ν. Where was no security in the place of Meeting ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted since the cruel Decrees and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss though armed with a safe Conduct ξ. Whither also ξ. notwithstanding this some of the Protestant party being come yet they were not suffered to propose and dispute their cause And again Ï€. Where after dispute Ï€. had it been granted them yet they if no Bishops could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest but must after the Disputation have been judged and censured by their Adversaries 3. Ï‚. Where all the Members of the Council Ï‚. 3. that had a vote had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy and none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome and were professed enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council B. Lawd § 27. n. 1. 4. σ. σ. 1 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council but only what the Popes Legates proposed the Popes Commission running Proponentibus Legatis σ 2 * where nothing was determined σ 2 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome himself not vouchsafing to be present therein and therefore it was commonly said that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male 5. Ï„. Ï„. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope and many Bishops were introduced who were only titular and ‖ B. Bramb Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishopricks also erected by the Pope during the Council all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes and hence such an unproportionable number there of Italian Bishops § 6 4. v. Suppose the Council in all these Objections cleared v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical and Legal yet have the Reformed this Reserve after all wherefore they cannot justly entertain it * Because some of the Decrees and Definitions are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures or at least not warranted by them φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures as the Nicene and other primitive Councils did but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in matter of Faith Concerning which thus Arch-Bishop Lawd § 28. The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or in necessary sense or the Council is not Lawful For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority to make the Council Authentical and the Decisions of it de fide than any confirmation of the Pope can be Now the Council of Trent we are able to prove had not the first but have departed from the Letter and sense of Scripture and so we have no reason to respect the second See likewise § 27. n. 1. Where he asks How that Council is Legal which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie and make it to be de fide though it hath not the written word of God for warrant either in express Letter or necessary sence and deduction but is quite extra without the Scripture See also Mr Stillingfl p. 477 478. χ χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to or at least not warranted by Primitive and Apostolical Tradition ‖ Soave p. 228. And in the last place Dr. Hammond of Her §. 11. n. 3 7. Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's in these and in many other slight matters if truths upon all those who shall dissent from or at least who shall contradict their Judgment in them this one Council having made near hand as many Canons as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together ‖ Soave p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds * drawn up bp Pius the 4th according to the order of the Council ‖ Sess 24. c. 12. de Refor and * imposed to be believed by all who would enter into the communion of the Church contrary to the 7th Can. of the Third General Council at Ephesus All these Articles Imposed too as Fundamental and to be assented to as absolutely and explicitly for attaining salvation as the Articles of the Creed and so that in disbelieving any of them it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire which Articles are concluded there as the Athanasian Creed with an Haec vera Catholica Fides extra quam nemo Salvus ‖ See Archbishop Lawd p. 51. Bishop Bramh. Vindie of Church of England p. 23â— 231 Reply to Chalâ—ed p. 322. Dr. Hammond Ars to Cath. Gent. p. 138. and to Schism Disarm'd p. 241. Dr. Fern Considerations touching Reformation p. 45. Stillingfl Rat. Acccâ—nt p. 48 c. So that saith Mr. Thorndyke †Fpilog Conclusion p. 413. it was the Acts of this Council that framed the Schisme because when as the Reformation might have been provisional till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace but by yielding to all their Decrees 5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine And next §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation which also are very numerous and 5 one would think the more the better yet these also are not free from their complaints ω. ω. That these Decrees are meer Illusions many of them of small weight taking Motes out of the eye and leaving Beams That the Council in framing them imitated the Physitian who in an Hectical Body laboured to kill the Itch That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved and some Symptomes only cured That in some of more consequence the Exceptions are larger than the Rule And αα αα That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them as he pleaseth Thus Soave frequently That nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council and it ended ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it ‖ Stillingfl Rat. Acc. p. 480
Prague for Huss desired none from the Council upon which he also thought fit to venture himself and appear before it The form thereof is this Citamus c. quatenus compareas c. recepturus in omnibus justitiae complementum ad quod a violentia justitiâ semper salvâ omnem salvum conductum nostrum quantum in nobis est fides exigit orthodoxa presentium tenore offerimus Now since Hierom after Huss his having been some time at Constance ventured to appear there upon such a Safe-conduct why may we not reasonably imagine notwithstanding the declarations of some Protestants of the extream folly of such an action that Jo. Huss might have the same confidence or commit the like over-sights as the other as much mistaking at first both the strict justice of the Council and the weakness of his cause The same thing may be probably gathered from his flight after some time out of Constance hidden in a Cart laden with goods which argues the little confidence he had in the Form of his Safe-conduct to protect him from justice as this also doth that neither at his trial nor his Death he is mentioned in his followers relating his story either to have claimed the the priviledge of such a Safe-conduct or accused any of the breach thereof But now suppose it a Safe-conduct securing him not only from violence but also from execution of justice yet is it related to have been so conditioned as that if he should attempt any flight which he did he should forfeit all the benesit of it and thus free Justice Ecclesiastical and Civil proceed against him Now that by one of these waies the Emperour was discharged from his faith given to him may justly be presumed in that after his condemnation for Heresie he made no scruple to put him to death and that before any Conciliar decree was passed by the Council in this matter as it were to relax or dissolve his former engagement Huss his Execution being in July and the aforementioned decree passed in September following § 103 But be these things how they will of which several flourishes and conjectures are made both wayes And let us suppose the Safe-conduct to free him totally from the Secular Justice and some miscarriages also to have been in the proceedings of the Emperour or Council which is not impossible yet not the least errour can be found in the Decree or Constitution or Doctrine of the Council which is so much blamed as which expresly declares That the Prince once his faith given debet facere quod in ipso est i. e quod est in ipsius legitimâ potestate and then This also is granted See Becan c. 12. quoted before § 94. That it is a thing in the Princes lawful power to suspend the execution of his own laws and upon such suppositions if the Emperour through the importunities of some others did not this I see not how he can be therein excused But still the Councils Decree hath no hand in such guilt But lastly The Delegats from Bohemia who where Hussites their repairing some sixteen years after to the Council of Basil upon the security of the Council and the same Emperor Sigismund's Safe-conduct shews sufficiently that the Safe-conducts of Huss and Hierom of Prague were too narrow to shield them from justice as well as from injury and not such faith of the Emperour or Council as was promised to them to have been afterward broken For to the same Faith only the form of of the Safe-conduct changed these Commissioners from Bohemiae freely trusted themselves Thus much of the Council of Constance in which for that which is related here out of the Story I must refer you to Molanus de Fide Haeret servand l. 3. Spondanus and the Authors mentioned by him in A. D. 14 â—5 n. 44 and 45. especially Cocleus in his Histor Hussit l. 2. and 3. who takes his matter out of the Stories delivered by some of Huss his followers § 104 But yet to give all content the Council of Trent in their Safe-conduct did expresly huic constitutioni Constantiensi in hac parte pro hac vice derogare The Trent Conduct thus qualified for their satisfaction yet another exception the Protestants had against it That whereas they chiefly desired two things viz. 1. That the Scripture alone might be the judge or rule to try the Controversies by and 2. That the Protestants joyned in an equal number with the Catholicks might have decisive votes or the Controversies be decided by an equal number of Lay-Judges chosen on both sides The form of this Trent-safe conduct for the Protestants did not as to these exactly follow that of Basil for the Bohemians whereby had it been granted saith Soave †the Protestants would have obtained one great point that is ‖ p. 344. that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture and afterward Soave p. 366. It is pretended That such a Safe-conduct would have given them a decisive voice But in answer to these For this last point there appears no such thing in that conduct of Basil For the former point the words of the Safe-conduct in Concil Basil 4. Sess are these In causa quatuor Articulorum per eos attentorum lex divina praxis Christi Apostolica Ecclesiae primitiva una cum Conciliis Doctoribus fundantibus se veraciter in eadem pro verissimo indifferenti Judice in hoc Basiliensi Concilio admittentur Whereas the words of the Safe-conduct in the Council of Trent are these S. Trident. Synodus concedit quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum Sanctorum Patrum authoritates in praedicto Concilio Tridentino tractentur where we see both the Conducts do agree in praxis or Traditio Apostolorum in Concilia and Doctores or Patres only the later omits the clause fundantes se veraciter in Scriptura The reason of which omission see in Pallav. l. 12. c. 15 n 9. And it is clear at first sight because this clause was capable though contrary to the intention of the Council of Basil of such a false Glosse namely if it be thus understood that when any Authority was produced out of Councils or Fathers the Protestants might accept or reject it as they judged it to be founded or not founded in the Scriptures as would void the sense of the words that went before it and make them needlesly added to lex divinae the Protestants when any such authority out of Councils or Fathers is urged answering Ostende quod illa Conciliae c. se veraciter fundarunt in Scriptura which is the same with Proba hoc quod Concilium dicit ex Scripturis For suppose those Councils quote some Scriptures for what they say yet will not Protestants therefore yield that what they shall say is founded there because they may say they quote them in a wrong sense and
now you may see the reason of what Soave said above and the great point the Protestants had gained if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil though that Form names with the Scriptures Concilia Doctores praxin Apostolicam primitivae Ecclesiae for the judge of Controversies But why is the Tridentine Council so averse you will say that Scripture only should be the Judge or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion For this reason because when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture as mostly it is it is fit the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein or else what end can be of such Controversie when those against whom the Councils declare shall so often say the Councils declare against the Scriptures i. e. their sense of them But here it is sufficient that though the Safe-conduct as to the way which the Protestants demanded of the trial of their Doctrines was excepted against of which more by and by yet as to the security of their persons it was unquestioned Thus much from § 82. that no deficiency in the Summons place or Safe-conduct hath rendred this Council illegal or non-obliging CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishops or Popes being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Popes being Judge § 122. § 105 8 ly NEither doth the Oath 8. that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope hinder this Council consisting of those Bishops from being a free legal and obliging Council The sum of which Oath is Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae Domino meo Papae N. ejusque Successoribus Canonice intrantibus Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae Regulas Sanctorum Patrum adjutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnem Hominem Regulas Sanctorum Patrum or Regalia Sancti Petri as it is in later Pontificals which Regalia I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in or near them as also non ero in Consilio ut vitam perdat and several other Passages in the Oath seem to be Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere angere promovere curabo Nec ero in Consilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliquae sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris status potestatis eorum machinentur § 106 1. Where note first That it is the ordinary 1 and customary Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Council and that it is for substance the same oath as hath been usually sworn in former ages precedent to many other Councils without being complained of or conceived any way to abridge their Liberties Nor is it now a grievance save to such as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights § 107 2 ly That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours 2. is required by the Reformed themselves and every Bishop in the Church of England at his Consecration takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop and the Metropolitan Church and their Successors And though in a thing so far as it is granted lawful it matters not how new is the practice yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patriarchy hath been also anciently used See the order in Conce Tolâ—t 11. can 10. Omnes Pontifices Rectoresque Ecclesiarum tempore quo ordinandi sunt sub cautione promittant ut fidem Catholicam custodiant atque obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi dependant where why omnes Pontifices praeeminenti sibi may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch as of the Metropolitan I see nothing to hinder And see apud Baron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man and other Bishops of those times at their Ordination Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps vicarioque tuo B. Gregorio Papae successori ejus me omnem fidem puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibere in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere Again Fidem puritatem meam atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae i e. Petri cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi solvendique data est praedicto vicario tuo atque Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist l. 10. ep 31. Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus sub anathematis Obligatione promitto sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus vicario Beato Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem haec Sancta 4or Evangelia c. where though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it ‖ See Stillinsl p. 490. yet the word promitto sancti Petri Apostolorum Principis vicario me in Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum in this as also me fidem atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturumâ— in the precedent Form include a fidelity and subjection to St. Peter's Chair and that the Bishops in those ancient dayes sware no less to continue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome than in the unity of the Catholick Church Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable and therefore in the same Form it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae and those who desert it are said to depart à radice unitatis Now this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case why may it not be so at another time And if this Council of Trent by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope may not be thought Free to proceed against any disorders in this See neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths since that Toletan Council since Gregories or Winfrids times be thought so § 108 3 ly Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience only to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require Donec Pontifex est dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum sacros Canones jubere potest sed non jurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in Concilio vel
trial in this Council as formerly by Church-Tradition Councils and Fathers interpreting Scriptures controverted But now the Learned amongst the Reformed perhaps like the ancient Sectarists but now mentioned ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur think fit to take another way and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed as the Roman overthrown by those same ancient Councils and Fathers Whereby we are now made believe that these their Fore-Fathers mainly declined that Authority which clearly established their opinions and on the otherside the Roman Catholicks together with the Pope vehemently contended for that Authority that manifestly ruined theirs § 129 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions should be preferred 7. i. e. those opinions which were regulated by the word of God 8. 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg A. D. 1555. continue in force Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Protestants were A toleration of all sects that every one might follow what religion pleaseth them best as you may see in Soave p. 378. and 393. § 130 The sum therefore of the fift seventh and eighth condition is this Of the Fifth that Protestants shall vote in the Council definitively together with the Catholicks but this the Protestants must needs see by the Catholicks over-numbring them would signifie little Therefore the seventh condition cautioneth that if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents than for them yet this plurality may not carry the business but that their opinion if the more sound though it have fewer Suffrages shall be preferred But again this they saw was very unlikely either that the others who voted against their opinion should judge it the more sound or themselves only judging it more sound that the others upon this should prefer it Therefore the 8th condition makes sure work that if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions yet they shall not condemn but allow every one that pleaseth still to retain them and on these conditions they will submit to a Council § 131 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made which see in Soave p. 369. That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope 9. and of the Bishops his adherents and it being unjust that either the Plaintiff or the Defendent should be the judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets there might be Judges indifferently chosen by both sides to take knowledge of the controversies § 132 In satisfaction to these their demands To the first see what is said above § 47. and § 80. To the second what is said § 83. c. To the Canon urged See Bellarmins answer de Concil l. 1. c. 21. The Canon intends criminal matters where witnesses are necessary not matters of faith The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem Arianism arising in Alexandria judged at Nice in Bithynia To the third see what is said before § 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it in Soave p. 80. is sufficient That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council to which it belongs according to the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council recited before cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas And that for the manner and Form it was not convenient that they should prescribe it to all Nations nor think their Devines only inspired by God c. To the fourth what is said § 105. c. And that de facto such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom was seen in several controversies that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes and a contrary party about Episcopal Jurisdiction c. To the fifth what is said § 68. n. 2. 115. c. and 118. where it is also shewed by the suppositions there made that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants it would have nothing promoted their cause unless perhaps they think that the evident arguments which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents would have converted so many of their adversaries as joyned with them would have made a major part in the Council But besides these arguments seen and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council in their books who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned without working any such effect upon them what success their disputations would have had in the Council may be gathered * from that which they had in the German Diets from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant and inflexible in their former perswasions as themselves and * from that effect which they have in Christendome ever since that Council to this day the major part undeniably remaining still Catholick and the other of late much decreasing § 313 To the sixth I have said much elsewhere which you may remember 1. Surely nothing can be more reasonable and just when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of than that the litigants for what is either said in the Scriptures or necessarily deduced from them stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church and he that disclaims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge that these Fathers and Councils are against him and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie When you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture saith King Charles †3d. Paper of blessed memory to his weak Antagonist Mr. Henderson and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer Neither have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented and again †4th Paper When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences Thus against Puritans against Socinians c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things wherein her eyes are shut against Catholicks But set this humane Authority quite aside the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side than on the other because it saith only the same words to or for both and thus as by other
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
concerning the ignorance or negligence of the Fathers in the main points of our salvation Mans servitude under sin Reconciliation to God Justification the effects of Christs Death and Intercessions thus he in his answer to Cassander's offic pii viri ‖ Apud Cassand p. 802. Si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi ceres si absque Traditionis i. e. Patrum subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit Quid jam fiet praecipuis fides nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causâ preferam 1 Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati tyrannide 2 Gratuita Justificatio 3 Christi sacerdotium apud vetusissimos scriptores it a obscure attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Satan callide spinosis quaestionibus pios Doctores intricabat ut negligentiores essent in hac parte Quomam vero errores quibus profligandis tunc circumagebantur magna ex parte sunt obsoleti mediocrem duntaxat fructum percipimus ex eorum libris Interea si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omnis fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur à spiritu Sancto formemur in obsequium Justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continuae pro nobis intercessio c. The knowledge of such things surely the chief principles of our salvation not to be learnt out of the Fathers And that you may not think that herein Calvins censure stands single before this man Melancthon speaking of Luthers new discovery to the world of the Apostolical Doctrine in the very same points in his Preface to the second Tome of Luthers works thus pleaseth himself in the rare invention thereof Eruditis saith he gratum erat quasi ex tenebris â—duci Christum Prophetas Apostolos conspici discrimen Legis Evangelii promissionum legis promissionis Evangelicae Quod certe non extabat in Thoma Scoto similibus This throws off the Schoolmen the Disciples of the Fathers But he stayes not here till he hath hunted up the same error and mistake in these matters in the Fathers too as high as Origens time Origenica aetas saith he effudit hanc persuasionem mediocrem rationis disciplinam mereri remissionem peccatorum c. And Haec aetas paene amisit totum discrimen Legis Evangelii sermonem Apostolicum dedidicit Now who here could have the boldness to imbrace a way of Justification or Salvation though pretended never so rational or scriptural yet which is withal confessed if not also boasted of after so many ages of the Church that it is a new Discovery Descend we to others of the same more free and open times Peter Martyr in his common Places writing De Patrum Authoritate ‖ Class 4 c. 4. alledgeth Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus capisse errores Quum ergo volumus saith he instaurare Ecclesiam nihil consultibus est quam omnia revocare ad prima ecclesiae principia religionis primordia Quamdiu enim eonsistimus in Conciliis Patribus versabimur semper in iisdem erroribus ' Again Quid fecerunt Antiquissimi illi scriptores cum nulli adhuc essent Patres Si tum ecclesia judicabat ex verbo spiritu cur nunc quoque ita non potest judicare which Question is soon answered that the Fathers Fathers were the Apostles and that they judged ex verbo spiritu Traditione Apostolorum for the sence of the same Scriptures where dubious Again Provocare à Scripturis he must mean for what is the true sence of Scripture ad Patres est provocare à certis ad incerta à claris ad obscura à firmis ad infirma Et aliud quod dixi potissimum spectandum est Patres non semper congruere inter se interdum ne unum quidem ipsum convenire secum Would any thus prejudice the witnesses he intends to bring into the Court for his own cause Again Objiciunt nobis Paulum in Ep. ad Tim. appellare ecclesiam Columnam veritatis Fateor Est quidem Columna veritatis Sed non semper Verum quando nititur verbo Dei But thus is the most ignorant person that can be named Columna veritatis So Peter Martyr Bishop Juel our Countryman as the English Divines who have departed less from Antiquity than other forrain Protestant Churches seem also more desirous of being reputed to keep a fair correspondence with it in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's daies in his challenge at Pauls Cross proposed no less than 27. Articles of Religion wherein he offered to be tried by the Fathers of the first six hundred years But then it is very observable that this learned man hath chosen them so warily that of the twentyseven twenty two are concerning the Eucharist and again most of these only about circumstantiels therein and in these concerning the Eucharist he omits the Oblation of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice to God the Father only contends Art 17. no offering up therein of Christ unto his Father omits also the reservation of the Euhcarist after Communion ended Omits also the most if not all the other principal points that are in Controversie As Invocation of Saints Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead Veneration of sacred Relicks Evangelical Councils Monastick Vows Celibacy of the Clergy The Roman Doctrine concerning Justification Freewill and Merits concerning Penances and Satisfactions Concerning Auricular Confession Distinction of venial and mortal sin c. His silence in which arguing the Fathers not for but against Him seems to have done much more prejudice to his cause than his confident challenge for the other hath done it credit This thing Dr. Cole then a Prisoner observed and in a Letter expostulated with him Quod minutiora attigerit graviora praetermiserit †See Dr. Humphrey vita Juelli p. 132. who return'd this answer Quaestiones se primum leviores movisse ut post ad alia dogmata veniretur Alia i. e. the points he omitted esse ejusmodi ad quae probanda Conciliorum Patrum authoritates quaedam obtendi possint Haec quae ab ipso sunt posita nullum colorem probabilitatis habere c. And Dr. Humphrey Vita Juelli p. 212. seems not very well pleased with this challenge of Juels where he saith Tamen utmiam largitus est vobis plus aequo concessit sibi nimium fuit injurius quod rejecto medio i. e. the Scriptures quo causam suam facilius firmius sustentare potuisset seipsum ecclesiam quodammodo spoliavit Satis enim erat Christrano sic dixisse Sic dicit Dominus Satis erat opposuisse Vestra dogmata Scripturis edversantur Siquidem Daemoniacorum quaestio est Quid nobis tibi Jesu fili David At sanctorum
interrogatio est Quid rei nobis cum Patribus cum carne aut sanguine Aut quid ad nos attinet quod Episcoporum pseudo-Synodi constituunt c. In those more confident times also § 306 the Centurists freely set down in the several ages the errors of the Fathers which in the modern Controversies misled the latter Roman and Greek Churches Hospinian in the Preface to his Histor Sacrament to Antiquity urged as opposing the new reformed opinions and practices returns for answer * the command in the Prophet Jeremy In statutis Patrum vestrorum nolite ambulare And * that saying of our Lord Sine causa colunt me mandata doctrinas hominum docentes and * that of St. Cyprian Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est and of S. Austin Antiquitatem praejudicare veritati nec posse nec debere The forementioned Dudithius in his discontented Epistle to Beza †See Beza Epist 1. Si veritas est saith he quam veteres Patres mutuo consensu sunt professi ea à Pontificiis tota stabit § 337 And several later Protestants and other Dissenters from the Church of Rome there are who have been ingenuous in the same confession Grotius in the beginning of his Votum pro pace giving an account of his reading of the Fathers Collegi saith he quae essent illa quae veterum testimonio manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita videbam ea manere in illa ecclesia quae Romanae connectitur Is Causabon cited by Arnauld in his late answer to Claude an Hugenot Minister with many others which you may view in his 1. Book 5. chap. in his Epistle to Witenbogard †§. 207. praestantium virorum Epistolae written 1610 a little before his coming into England when he seems to have been in some greater dissettlement speaks thus Deum toto affectu veneror ut mala ecclesiae suae qui potest solus velit Sanare Me ne quid dissimulem haec tanta diversitas in Protestants à fide veteris ecclesiae non parum turbat Ne de aliis dicam in re sacramentorum à majoribus discessit Lutherus c. Then speaking of Peter du Moulin his making as other Protestants usually do those Tracts of the Fathers †§. 297. that are urged to confirm the Roman Doctrine spurious and counterfeit As. S. Ambrose de sacramentis Cyril Herosol Cateches Mystagog Gregory Nyssens Catechetical Oration he thus goes on Jam quod idem Molinaeus omnes veterum libros suae doctrinae contrarios respuit ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cui mediocriter docto fidem faciet Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum illa scripta esse verissima quae ipse pronunciat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Causabon § 308 1. More general yet that confession of Socinus Ep. ad Radecium Legantur saith he Pontificiorum scripta adversus Lutheranos Calvinianos satis intelliget si praeter sacras literas illorum Patrum produced by the Pontificii authoritate sit standum nobis omnino causa cadendum esse And indeed the followers of Socinus despairing as to their chief points concerning God's Attributes and the Trinity to produce any just plea from ancient Church-Authority do also more candidly relinquish this interest as to those other Controversies which they in common with other reformed maintain against Catholicks In defending which points when the Fathers are urged against them their ordinary answer is 1 That Error and Antichrist came into the Church so soon as the Apostles by death went out of it And therefore they make even the Apostles themselves not the Roman Empire for that they say would keep out Antichrist too long to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thess 2. 2 That the Fathers would have the Holy Scriptures to be believed rather than any thing they say 3 That the Fathers are not to be believed in any thing they say contrary to the Scriptures and that if Antiquity be to be followed the Prophets and Apostles are the most ancient these persons impudently calling by the name of Prophets Apostles Scriptures that private sense they impose upon them See for this Volkelius de vera Relig. l. 3. c. 40. and l. 4. c. 22. and frequently elsewhere and see Beza in his first Epistle applying like plaisters to the wound of Dudithius § 309 Chillingw also more candidly than many of his followers in his new Socinian way that all necessaries to all manner of persons using their industry are clear in the Holy Scriptures seems very little solicitious in engaging the Fathers or other Antiquity on his side by reason of the evidence in Holy Scriptures of all necessaries and the needlesness of deciding any non-necessaries I for my part saith he in the latter end of his work after his declaring not the Articles of the Church of England not the harmony of Protestant Confessions but the Bible the Bible to be his Religion after a long and as I verily believe and hope imimpartial search of the true way to eternal happiness do profess plainly that I cannot finde any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only i. e. of the Bible not of the Church for as for this latter he goes on I see plainly and with my own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive Interpretations of Scripture few or none found no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only not any it seems of Antiquity or of the Primitive Church yet out of which the Catholicks alwaies convinced Heresies for any considering man to build upon Thus he down-right § 310 And therefore it is considerable That in his answers to the Motives of his turning Catholick †See the conclusion of his Preface §. 41. c. that you may see the Authority of Antiquity and of Church-Tradition had a great hand in leading him to Popery but none at all in reducing him to Protestantisme he is not sollicitous at all to deny or disprove the truth of these motives but to traverse the consequence he formerly made from them So to the first Motive to the Roman Catholick Religion viz. That a perpetual visible Profession is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so far as concerns the points in contestation He answers not by denying any such visible profession to be wanting to Protestants But that any such visible Profession without any mixture of falshood is not necessary Again to the Fourth That many Points of Protestant Doctrine are the opinions of Hereticks condemned by the Primitive Church He answers not by denying the Protestant Doctrines to be condemned as Heretical by 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
praestituta ac praescripta est à Sanctis Patribus qui in Nicenorum urbe in which Creed the additions also of the Constantinopolitan Council are here supposed to be included cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre volentibus converti ad agnitionem veritatis sive ex Gentilitate sive Judaismo c. to be professed by them at their admission into the Church ut hi si quidem Episcopi sint ab Episcopatu removeantur sin autem Laici sint ut extromâ detestatione execratione percellantur This being the Canon To α I say 1 st That § 179. n. 2. R. To α. this Canon being pressed by the Greeks against the Latines in the Florentine Synod to prove the unlawfulness of the Latines addition to the Creed of Filioque either the Reformed must approve the sense the Latines gave of that Decree namely R. To α. that the Ephesin Council prohibited only that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing or contrary in any thing to the doctrine of the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his wicked Creed was which occasioned this Decree or must confess that the Latines unjustly retain and mention Filioque in their Creeds which was added to the Creeds after the Ephesin and the four first Councils †See Conc. Florent 7. Sess being first mentioned and found in the Creed in the fourth Toletan Council about A D. 680. as the Roman Writers themselves confess 2 ly That supposing the Council prohibits not only the composing or addition of any thing contrary to the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his Nestorian Creed the occasion thereof may perswade it did but the addition thereto or alteration in expression of any thing whatsoever though never so conformable to the Nicen Creed yet this prohibition extends not to Councils but only to private persons and Church-Governours according to that Hi si quidem Episcopi sunt ab Episcopatu removeantur for who shall execute this sentence upon a General Council Or how can one General Council justly limit or prescribe to another of equal authority 3 ly Supposing that they extend this Act to Councils also either they prohibit to them not the making new definitions in matters of Faith but only the adding of such definitions made to the body of the Nicene Creeed but then this act concerns none who afterward make new Definitions so they add them not to the Creed Now no additions at all have been made to that Creed since the fourth General Council save Filioque which the Protestants also allow of and use Or 4 ly If the Ephesin Fathers prohibit to the Councils any such Definitions also as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice they condemn themselves in the first place who though they added not to the Creed yet defined Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the Ephesin Canon be taken in either of these sences thus it will be found not to be observed by the very next General Council that of Chalcedon who made another new definition or Creed against Eutyches in which also they altered some expressions of the Nicene Creed as is noted by the Latines Concil Florent § 6. altered natum ex Patre 1. ex Substantiâ Patris into Consubstantialem Patri secundum Divinitatem nobis autem secundum humanitatem and added many other things as appears in their Confession of faith Sess 5. which Confession they conclude and seal up just after the same manner as the Ephesin Council before them did Decrevit sancta atque universalis haec Synodus aliam fidem nemini licere proferre sive conscribere aut exponere vel sentire Sed eos qui audent vel componere vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se convertere c. si Episcopi sunt alienos esse ab Episcopatu c. si Laici Anathematizari 5 ly That both Leo Bishop of Rome and Flavianus and Eusebius being charged by the Eutychian faction as offending against this Decree of Ephesus in their asserting as a part of their Faith Christum ex duabus in duabus simul naturis esse an Article not contained in the Nicene Creed were cleared by the Council of Chalcedon as not guilty thereof who some of them probably the same who sate in the Ephesin Council that being only twenty years before this understood it in the sence of the Latines and urged the necessity of additions as appears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Emperor †See below § 183. n. 1. 6 ly Taken in such a sence as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed but also the defining any new thing in matter of faith it is as was said before not only null by an equal authority reversing it in this sense but most irrational since the like occasions of making such new definitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council as it did before and also in it § 180 To β. To â— If the Grecians meant imperfection in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith then both the authority of the Latine Church and all the reasons given above may be produced against them but if they mean imperfection in respect of containing all Credends in respect of salvation necessary to be explicitly known it s granted that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice †See Conc. Florent Sess 1. § 181 To γ. To γ. The Latines joyn contrary also to it when they name different and mean only such difference as is also contrary as is clear every where by their words in that Synod Sess 11. Julianus Cardinalis thus Quae quidein verba i. e Concilii Ephesini nos credimus hoc solum significare ut fas sit nulle Nicaenorum Patrum fidei contrarium proferre Is the addition filioque which Protestants justifie nothing diverse then neither shall any other new definitions of Councils be so § 182 To δ. To δ. Celestines words which are spoken of the Apostles Creed either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions or do condemn Nice for it But see this testimony explained by the Latines Sess 10. that he meant only denying any thing delivered in the Apostles Creed or asserting or adding any thing contrary to it To conclude this matter §. 183. n. 1. see the defence which the Fathers of the fourth General Council following the Ephesin made to Marcianus the Emperor in the Conclusion of that Synod †Allocut ad Marcianum concerning the necessity of making from time to time new Definitions and Additions to explicate and corroborate the former Faith as new errors arise to debilitate or pervert it returned in answer to the Eutychians aâ—d others who to obtain liberty to their own opinions accused Leo's Epistle and also the Council of Innovations in matters of Faith
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
Eight hundred years ago and fince that by Lanfrank Guitmund c. at the appearance of Berengarius Which Primitive Tradition and judgement of Antiquity that it was if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils the same concerning these Scriptures with that of the present Church Authority I think any one that is well affected to the peace of the Church and not pre-ingaged in Disputes will receive sufficient satisfaction herein who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by cited parcels the short Discourses on this subject of * St. Ambrose De Myster initiand chap. 9. * The Author of the Books De Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father l. 4 the 4 and 5. Chapters * Cyrill Hierosol Catechis Mystagog 4. and 5. * Chrysostom in Matt. Homil. 83. In. Act. Apost Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 36 37 * Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatens De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hilarius Pictao De Trinitate the former part of the eighth book * Cyril Alexand. In Evangel Johan l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces for the last Protestâ—ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon †§. 307. speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum Molinaeum Not that I affirm here that every one that reads these pieces shall be so perswaded and convinced For as hath been shewed the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising and miscolouring things to the understanding As when perhaps the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father and when one hath first stated the Question to himself ordered his Arguments deduced his Conclusions solved Objections c. and then upon such provocation of an Antagonist is brought to examine their writings here we may presume such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before and to lay down his Arms and that it will go hard if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause Either 1. for the Terms used by the Father he will contend that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times and not in a proper or modern sense Oâ— That their Rhetorick and Eloquence fitted not to state the Question or inform the Judgement but to move Affections and gain the Will doth often make use of such expressions as rigourously taken transcend the Truth Or 2. For the sense given when apparently against him he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities that follow from it or some other Tenents of the Father that will not consist with it and the Translation alsor or the Copy shall many times be blamed Or 3. Touching the Discourse 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father 's other works or some words used in it some Rites or Customs mentioned that are of a later date or age or such work not found in such Editions or not mentioned by later writers or that it is in part corrupted and interpolated and not all of a piece 2 Or at least He will find some Clauses in the same or in some other discourse of the Father whereby he may seem to confess in one place what he denies in another or which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point and so serviceable to no Party I name these defences not so but that some times they may be true but that they are much oftner made use of than there is any just cause and are apt to blind the unwary and preoccupated and such as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth before they are well read in Antiquity So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist §. 321. n. 2. Vigier after the two former Combatants Arnauld and Claude one by taking the Fathers in a plain and literal the other in a Metaphorical sense had each of them challenged Antiquity as clearly on his own side seeks to dispatch the Controversie much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings †3 Reg. 3.27 whose the childe was not Nec mihi nec Tibi sit Saying ‖ Eng. Translat p. 80. That the true belief of the ancient Church about this point of the Eucharist is very hard to be known That there are innumerable perplexities in it and that if the Fathers have believed the Reality as he seeth no reason to doubt but they did they believed it in such a manner which neither Roman Catholicks nor Protestants nor any other Christian Society would approve of And so p. 66 c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstantialists he is content they should be Stercoranists i. e. holding I know not what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord much more gross and incredible than that of Transubstantiation For whether the Greeks fall short of or ago beyond the Latine Church herein he thinks all to his purpose so they be not just the same But then over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies manifesting the unanimous accord herein of the present Oriental with the Western Churches here he will have them to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers but by no means to have derived it from their Forefathers There may have happened saith he ‖ p. 94. a change since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks or by the Voyages of the Portugais and other Nations into the Oriental Churches mean while the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman it may well be considered what would become of the Protestant cause if the Controversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld §. 321. n. 3. For the shewing of which a little more at large because I am speaking here of the Eucharist and what I shall say may serve for a pre-advertisement to some less experienced in this Controversie that may light on his Book and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it prejudicial to the Catholick Faith I beg leave of the Reader to make a step though somewhat out of my way yet not much beside my purpose Remitting those who think this Forreign Author less concerns them to the prosecution of the former Discourse resum'd below § 321. n. 27. 1st This Author busyes himself ‖ l. 2. c. 1. to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance and decay
our selves that are upon the Earth because we see the Earth under our feet for we are translated into Heaven and placed among the Angels Where saith he the Father denies not absolutely that we are upon Earth and so he thinks himself as safely guarded here against the Panis apparet by this as before against the Eucharist being pretended to be Ipsum Corpus Christi in a litteral or a proper sense by his shewing that the poor were said to be ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi too Such Evidences therefore rejected by M. Claude he requires for the verifying of Transubstantiation that we produce a Testimony such as this That the Bread is Transubstantiated or the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body So that according to him The Bread but not a Substance is said by them to be changed into Christs Body but not inâ—o a Substance And by the same reason we may say That our Lords Nourishment when he lived here on Earth being changed into our Lords Body proves not that it was changed into the Substance of his Body But suppose then the Expression running as he would have it That the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body And that though it seems the Substance of Bread Yet in truth it is the Substâ—nce of Christs Body or Flesh are we ever a whit now the abler to silence him Or will not his answers still fit as well as befoâ—e viz. That though it seems yet it is not the simple or naked Substance of Bread That it is in truth also the Substance of Christs Body i. e. containing in it the whole Vertue or if I may so say the Substance of this Substance For so it may be shewed sometimes that Substance is used for Vertue He Grants †l. 3. c. 10. p. 263. the Greeks cannot think Christs Flesh or Body to be the Subject of those accidents which are perceived by our Sences to remain in the Eucharist and then the Greeks also to say Videtur Panis Vinum in veritate Corpus Christi Sanguis est and yet will not yield that they hold the Existence of these Appearances or Accidents in the Eucharist without a Subject He grants the Greeks to hold our Lords Body that is distributed in the Eucharist to be indivisible impartible impassible and then affirms them though it is not so to say that no other Substance is this Body than the Bread and yet not to hold the accidents only of the Bread to be passible partible c. The Greeks say that the Body of our Lord which is consecrated and offered in many places at once and at many times successively yet in all these is but one and the same Body and that though it is in all these places broken divided and eaten by many Communicants yet is received by each of them not in a piece of it but whole and entire and after this remains still perfect unconsum'd alive immortal And yet he saith †l. 3. c. 13. the Greeks do not hold or affirm Idem Corpus in pluribus locis do not maintain a concomitancy of our Lords Flesh and Blood not the existence of his Body in the Eucharist after a non-natural manner And that the same Greeks do hold the Substance of that which is offered and distributed in one place as to one person to be really and numerically diverse from that offered or distributed in another But that their meaning only is that the Vertue of this Body is in all places one and the same and to all persons whole and entire and must he not say also that this Vertue is incorrupted and alive 2 Resp p. 514. I yield saith he †in answer to D. Arnaud's Objections touching Remigids that if the Bread were made the Body of Christ in its Substance it would follow that our Lord would have so many Bodies as he is united i. e. in his Divinity to different Breads this he grants notwithstanding Remigius his arguing all these Breads but one and the same Body from the same Divinity replenishing them of which more below But the Bread not being made Christs Body save only in Vertue and in efficacy this consequence is null because this Vertue through the whole world is one and the same For this Vertue is indivisible and is all of it entire wherever it is Thus he And that such are his answers and explications of these expressions of the Greeks as I have here represented You may see in his 2d. Answer part 3. c. 2. 4. His last Answer l. 3. c. 9 c. 10. l. 4. c. 7. l 5 c. 7. l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere § 321 Where chiefly you may observe n. 8. that how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the preâ—ence of Christs very Body yet he expounds them only of the Vertue exclusive to the Substance of Christs Body And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold †l. 4. c 7. That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ opposed to figure by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body so as our Nourishment is made our Body And yet elsewhere †l. 6. c. 10. more fully †That upon the Consecration they held and Vnion of the Bread with the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity an Vnion to his natural Body and that they understood that by the means of this Vnion or of this Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and is made the same Body with it I add as our nourishment by its union to the same Soul is made the same Body with our's Now then when we say that our nourishment upon such an operation passing upon it is or is changed into or is made our Body or Flesh did he candidly here interpret our meaning who should say that we affirm only that this nourishment is our Body or Flesh in Vertue or changed into the Vertue of it exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it So doth this person deal candidly for instance when Euthymius a Greek Author that held this opinion expresseth himself thus †Comment Quemadmodum Jesus Christus supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit m Matt. c. 64 Etiam Hac the Bread and Wine ineffabiliter transmutat i. e. by his united Deity in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suunt in gratiam ipsorum which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthening us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating and encouraging us as Wine †See Psalm 103.15 I say doth he deal ingenuously to expound the here by a C ' est a dire or id est Transmutat ineffabiliter in ipsum Corpus in ipsum Sanguinem id est in gratiam ipsorum Making the Body a Synonyman with its vertue Such a Synonyman saith he as that of S. Paul in 1. Tim. 4.3 They who believe and