was refer'd to the Judgment and Authority of the Pope I confess therefore it hath not a Conciliar Authority stamped upon it but it hath a sort of transfused Infallibility as far as they could convey it and as much as a Council hath when it borrows it from the Popes Confirmation It was near two Tears hammering at Trent viz. from 26. of Feb. 1562. to Decemb. 1563. when the Council rose Afterwards it was preparing at Rome three Years longer and then presented to the Pope to be approved and published by his Authority after it had been carefully review'd by Cardinal Sirlet Borromeo and others and hath since been universally received in the Roman Church so that we can have no more Authentick Exposition of the Sense of the Council of Trent than what is contained in that Catâ—chism III. Where the Council of Trent declares a thing in general to be lawfull and due but doth not express the manner of it that is to be understood from the generally receiv'd and allowed Practices at that time For otherwise the Council must be charged with great unfaithfulness in not setting down and correcting publick and notorious Abuses when it mention'd the things themselves and some Abuses about them As in the 25th Session concerning Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images and Relicks it goes no farther than that the sound Doctrine be taught that Saints are to be Invocated Images and Relicks to be Worship'd but never defines what that sound Doctrine is what bounds are to be set in the Worship of Saints Images and Relicks which it is unlawfull to exceed So that in this Case we have no other way to judge of the Meaning of the Council but by comparing the Publick and Allow'd Practices of the Church with the General Decrees of the Council And we have this farther Reason for it that we are told by the latest Expositors of it that the Sense of the Church in speculative Points is to be taken from Publick Practices For thus one of them expresses himself Moreover even her Speculative Doctrines are so mixed with Practical Ceremonies which represent them to the Vulgar and instruct even the meanest Capacities in the abstrusest Doctrines that it seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her Doctrine without abrogating her Ceremonies or changing her constant Practices IV. Where the Decrees of the Council are not sufficiently clear there we must take in the Canons to make the Sense more plain This Rule I take from the Council it self which in the 6th Session just before the Canons saith that those are added that all may know not only what they are to hold and follow but what they are to shun and avoid As in the famous Instance of Transubstantiation suppose that the Words of the Decree do not determine expresly the Modus yet it is impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the Canon which denounces an Anathema against him not only that denies Transubstantiation but that asserts the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration Therefore he that asserts Transubstantiation according to the Council of Trent must hold it in such a manner as thereby to understand that the Substance of Bread and Wine doth not remain Otherwise he is under an Anathema by the express Canon of the Council Therefore it is so far from being a fatal Oversight as a late Author expresses it to say that the Council of Trent hath determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence that no man who is not resolved to oversee it can be of another Opinion And herein the Divines of the Church of Rome do agree with us viz. that the particular Modus is not only determin'd by the Council but that it is a Matter of Faith to all Persons of the Communion of that Church As not only appears from the 2d Canon but from the very Decree it self Sess. 13. ch 4. The holy Synod declares that by Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood which Conversion is fitly and properly by the holy Catholick Church called Transubstantiation In which Words the Council doth plainly express the Modus of the Real Presence to be not by a Presence of Christ's Body together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans held but by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body c. And since there were different Manners of understanding this Real Presence if the Council did not Espouse one so as to reject the other as Heretical then it is impossible to make the Lutheran Doctrine to be declared to be Heretical i. e unless the Council did determine the Modus of the Real Presence For if it did not then notwithstanding the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent Persons are at liberty to believe either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation which I think no Roman Catholick will allow But. it is said that the meaning of the Decree is that the Real Presence is not to be understood after a Natural but a Sacramental Manner But doth it not plainly tell us how that Sacramental Manner is to be understood viz. by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the whole Substance of the Body c. And if other ways be possible and all others be rejected then this particular Modus must be determin'd I grant that the Council doth not say there is an Annihilation of the Elements and I know no Necessity of using that Term for that which is supposed to be turned into another thing cannot properly be said to be Annihilated which is the reducing it to nothing but the Council doth assert a Total Conversion of one Substance into another and where that is that Substance must wholly cease to be what it was and so there can be no Substance of the Elements remaining after Consecration For as Aquinas observes Quod convertitur in aliquid factâ Conversione non manet If then the Substance of the Elements doth not remain after Consecration by virtue of this total Conversion then the Council of Trent by its Decree hath plainly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence so as to exclude any such Manner as doth suppose the Substance to remain whether it be by Impanation or Consubstantiation or any other way What if Rupertus thought the Bread might become the Real Body of Christ by an Union of the Word to it All that can be infer'd is that the Modus was not then so determin'd as to oblige all Persons to hold it But what is this to the Council of Trent Can any one hold the Substance to remain and not to remain at the same time For he that holds with Rupertus must allow the Substance to remain he that believes a total Conversion must deny it And he
that can believe both these at once may believe what he pleases But the Council only declares the Sacramental Presence to be after an ineffable manner I say it determines it to be by a total Conversion of one Substance into another which may well be said to be ineffable since what cannot be understood can never be expressed Our Dispute is not about the use of the Word Transubstantiation for I think it proper enough to express the Sense of the Council of Trent but as the Word Consubstantial did exclude all other Modes how Christ might be the Son of God and determin'd the Faith of the Church to that Manneâ— so doth the Sense of Transubstantiation as determin'd by the Council of Trent limit the Manner of the Real Presence to such a Conversion of the Substance of the Elements into the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood as doth imply no Substance to remain after Consecration It is to no purpose to tell us the Council uses only the Word Species and not Accidents for whatever they are called the Council denounces its Anathema against those who hold the Substance to remain after Consecration and denies the Total Conversion of the Substance of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ. If the Substance be not there the Modus is to purpose determin'd And whatever remains call it what you will it is not the Substance and that is sufficient to shew that the Council of Trent hath clearly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence V. We must distinguish the School Points left undetermin'd by the Council of Trent from those which are made Articles of Faith. We never pretend that it left no School-Disputes about the Points there determin'd but we say it went too far in making some School-Points to be Points of Faith when it had been more for the Peace of Christendom to have left them to the Schools still Thus in the Point of Transubstantiation the elder School-men tell us there were different Ways of explaining the Real Presence And that those which supposed the substance to remain were more agreeable to Reason and Scripture than the other and some were of Opinion that the Modus was no matter of Faith then But after the Point of the Real Presence came to be warmly contested in the time of Berengarius it rose by degrees higher and higher till at last the particular Modus came to be determin'd with an Anathema by the Council of Trent When Berengarius A. D. 1059. was forced to Recant by Nicolaus 2d with the Assistance of 113. Bishops no more was required of him than to hold that the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament but the true Body and Bloud of Christ and that it is sensibly handled and broke by the Priests hands and eaten by the Communicants Here is no denying the Substance of Bread to remain and Joh. Parisiensis observes that the words cannot be defended but by an Assumption of the Bread for saith he If the Body of Christ be truely and sensibly handled and eaten this cannot be understood of Christ's Glorious Body in Heaven but it must be of the Bread really made the Body of Christ after Consecration The Sense which the Canonists put upon the Words of this Recantation is absurd viz. that they are to be understood of the Species For Berengarius his Opinion related to the Substance of Christ's Body which he denied to be in the Sacrament And what would it have signified for him to have said that Christ was sensibly broken and eaten under the Species of Bread and Wine i. e. that his Body was not sensibly broken and eaten but the Species were It had signified something if he had said there was no Substance of Bread and Wine left but only the Species But all the design of this Recantation was to make him assert the Sacrament to be made the true and real Body of Christ in as strong a manner as the Pope and his Brethren could think of And although the Canonists think if strictly taken it implies greater Heresie than that of Berengarius yet by their favour this Form was only thought fit to be put into the Canon-Law as the Standard of the Faith of the Roman Church then and the following Abjuration of Berengarius was only kept in the Register of Gregory the seventh's Epistles For about twenty years after by Order of Gregory VII Berengarius was brought to another Abjuration but by no means after the same Form with the former For by this he was required to declare that the Bread and Wine are substantially Converted into the true and proper Flesh and Bloud of Christ and after Censecration are the true Body of Christ born of the Virgin and Sacrificed upon the Cross and that sits at the right hand of the Father and the true Bloud of Christ which was shed out of his Side not only as a Sacramental Sign but in propriety of Nature and Reality of Substance This was indeed a pretty bold Assertion of the Substantial Presence And so much the bolder if the Commentary on S. Matthew be Hildebrand's For there he saith the manner of the Conversion is uncertain But as far as I can judge by Substantial Conversion he did not then mean as the Council of Trent doth a total Conversion of one substance into another so as that nothing of the former Substance remains but that there was a Change by Consecration not by making the Body of Christ of the Substance of the Bread but by its passing into that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin. For upon comparing the two Forms there we shall find lies the main difference Pope Nicolaus went no farther than to the true Body of Christ which it might be as well by Assumption as Conversion Gregory VII went farther and thought it necessary to add that the Change was into the Substance of that Body which was born of the Virgin c. And so this second Form excludes a true Body merely by Assumption and asserts the Change to be into the Substance of Christ's Body in Heaven but it doth not determine that nothing of the Substance of the Elements doth remain For when he puts that kind of Substantial Conversion which leaves nothing but the Accidents and the Body of Christ to be under them which belonged to the Substance of the Elements he declares this matter to be uncertain Which shews that however a Change was owned into the Substance of Christ's Body yet such a total Conversion as is determined by the Council of Trent was not then made an Article of Faith. But from this supposition made by Hildebrand it appears that the Dectrine of Substance and Accidents was then well known and therefore the introducing Aristotle's Philosophy from the Arabians afterwards could make no Alteration in this Matter For the words of Hildebrand are as plain as to the difference of Substance and Accidents as of
Examination of the Lord Cobham A. D. 1412. by the same Arch-Bishop we find that he owned the Real Presence of Christ's Body as firmly as his Accusers but he was condemned for Heresie Because he held the Substance of Bread to remain For the Arch-Bishop declared this to be the Sense of the Church that after Consecration remaineth no material Bread or Wine which were before they being turned into Christ's very Body and Bloud The Original words of the Arch-Bishop as they are in the Register are these The faith and the determination of holy Church touching the blestfull Sacrament of the auter is this that after the Sacramental Words ben said by a Prest in his Masse the material bred that was before is turned into Christ's veray body And the material Wyn that was before is turned into Christ veray blode and so there leweth in the auter no material brede ne material Wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the Sacramental words And the Bishops afterwards stood up and said It is manifest Heresie to say that it is Bread after the Sacramental Words be spoken because it was against the Determination of holy Church But to make all sure not many years after May 4th A. D. 1415. the Council of Constance Session 8. declared the two Propositions before mentioned to be heretical viz. to hold that the Substance doth remain after Consecration and that the Accidents do not remain without a Subject Let any impartial Reader now judge whether it be any fatal Oversight to assert that the Modus of the Real Presence was determin'd by the Council of Trent when there were so many leading Determinations to it which were generally owned and received in the Church of Rome But there were other Disputes remaining in the Schools relating to this Matter which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the Council of Trent As 1. Whether the Words of Consecration are to be understood in a Speculative or Practical Sense For the Scotists say in the former Sense they do by no means prove Transubstantiation since it may be truly said This is my Body though the Substance of Bread do remain and that they are to be understood in a Practical Sense i. e. for converting the Bread into the Body is not to be deduced ex vi verborum from the mere force of the Words but from the Sense of the Church which hath so understood them Which in plain terms is to say it cannot be proved from Scripture but from the Sense of the Church and so Scotus doth acknowledge but then he adds that we are to judge this to be the Sense of Scripture because the Church hath declared it Which he doth not think was done before the Council of Lateran So that this Council must be believed to have had as Infallible a Spirit in giving this Sense of Scripture as there was in the writing of it since it is not drawn from the Words but added to them On the other side the Thomists insist on the force of the Words themselves for if say they from the Words be infer'd that there is a Real Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body then it follows thence that there is no Substance of the Bread remaining for a Substance cannot be where it was not before but it must either change its place or another must be turned into it as Fire in a House must either be brought thither or some other thing must be turned into Fire but say they the Body of Christ cannot be brought from Heaven thither for then it must leave the place it had there and must pass through all the Bodies between and it is impossible for the same Body to be Locally present in several places and therefore the Body of Christ cannot otherwise be really and substantially present but by the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into it 2. In what Manner the Body of Christ is made to be present in the Sacrament The Scotists say it is impossible to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is the Thomists say that is impossible since that Body must be divided from it self by so many other Bodies interposing The former is said to be an adductive Conversion the latter a productive but then here lies another difficulty how there can be a productive Conversion of a thing already in being But my business is not to give an account of these School-Disputes but to shew how different they were from the point of Tranfubslantiation and that both these disputing Parties did agree that the Modus of the Real Presence was defined to be by changing the Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but they still warmly disputed about the Modus of that Modus viz. how a Body already in being could be present in so many places without leaving that Place where it was already And no Man who hath ever look'd into these School Disputes can ever imagine that they disputed about the Truth of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but only about the manner of explaining it Wherein they do effectually overthrow each others Notions without being able to establish their own as the Elector of Cologn truly observed of their Debates about this matter in the Council of Trent VI. Where the Sense of Words hath been changed by the introducing new Doctrine there the words ought to be understood according to the Doctrine at that time received Of this we have two remarkable Instances in the Council of Trent The first is about Indulgences which that Council in its last Session never went about to define but made use of the old Word and so declares both Scripture and Antiquity for the use of them But there had been a mighty change in the Doctrine about them since the Word was used in the Christian Church No doubt there was a Power in the Church to relax Canonical Penances in extraordinary Cases but what could that signifie when the Canonical Discipline was laid aside and a new Method of dealing with Penitents was taken up and another Trade driven with Respect to Purgatory Pains For here was a new thing carried on under an old Name And that hath been the great Artifice of the Roman Church where it hath evidently gone off from the old Doctrines yet to retain the old Names that the unwary might still think the things were the same because the Names were As in the present Case we deny not the use of Indulgences in the Primitive Church as the Word was used for Relaxations of the Canonical Discipline but we utterly deny it as to the Pains of Purgatory And that this was the Sense then receiv'd in the Church of Rome appears from the Papal Constitutions of Bon face the 8th Clemens the 6th and Leo the 10th But of these more hereafter The other Instance is in the Word Species used by the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 2. where an Anathema is denounced
mere Oral Tradition according to him but it may be found in the Writers of the Church but the Canon Law expresly excludes all other Writings let them contain what they will from being admitted to any Competition with Canonical Scripture and therefore according to that no part of the Rule of Faith was contained in any other than Canonical Scriptures Dist. 37. c. Relatum A man is supposed to have an entire and firm Rule of Faith in the Scriptures Caus. 8. q. 1. c. Nec sufficere The Scriptures are said to be the onely Rule both of Faith and Life And the Gloss on the Canon Law there owns the Scripture to be the Rule for matters of Faith but very pleasantly applies it to the Clergy and thinks Images enough for the Laity Caus. 24. q. 1. c. Non afferentes The Scriptures are acknowledged to be the true Balance and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there as to own what we find there already weighed Which must imply the Scripture alone to be that Measure we are to trust to Dist. 8. c. 4 5 6 7 8 9. It is there said that Custome must yield to Truth and Reason when that is discovered and that for this Reason because Christ said I am Truth and not Custome Now if Tradition be an Infallible Rule of Faith Custome ought always to be presumed to have Truth and Reason of its side For if we can once suppose a Custome to prevail in the Church against Truth and Reason it is impossible that Tradition should be Infallible for what is that but Ancient Custome Caus. 11. Q. 3. c. 101. Si is qui proeest If any one commands what God hath forbidden or forbids what God hath commanded he is to be accursed of all that love God. And if he requires any thing besides the Will of God or what God hath evidently required in Scripture he is to be looked on as a false Witness of God and a Sacrilegious Person How can this be if there be another infallible way of conveying the Will of God besides the Scriptures Caus. 24. q. 3. c. 30. c. Quid autem In matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the Written word for satisfaction and that it is folly not to doe it It is true Mens own Fancies are opposed to Scripture but against Mens Fancies no other Rule is mentioned but that of the Written Word Joh. 22. Extravag c. Quia quorundam Tit. 14. makes his Appeal to Scripture in the Controversie then on foot about Use and Property Dicunt nobis ubi legunt c. and he shews that if it were a matter of Faith it must be contained in Scripture either expresly or by reduction otherwise the Scripture would be no certain Rule and by consequence the Articles of Faith which are proved by Scripture would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain The Glosser there saith Whence comes this consequence and refers to another place where he makes it out thus that Faith can onely be proved by the Scripture and therefore if the Authority of that be destroy'd Faith would be taken away The Roman Editors for an Antidote refer to Cardinal Turrecremata who doth indeed speak of Catholick Truths which are not to be found in the Canon of Scripture and he quotes a passage in the Canon Law for it under the name of Alex. 3. c. cum Marthoe Extrav de Celebr Missae but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Decretal l. 3. Tit. 41. and yet this will not prove what he aims at for the Question was about the Authour of the Words added in the Eucharist to those of Christ's Institution and he pleads that many of Christ's words and actions are omitted by the Evangelists which the Apostles afterwards set down and he instances in Saint Paul as to those words of Christ It is more blessed to give than to receive and elsewhere But what is all this to Catholick Truths not being contained in Scripture either in words or by consequence The Cardinal was here very much to seek when he had nothing but such a Testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a Doctrine The best Argument he produces is a horrible blunder of Gratian's where S. Augustin seems to reckon the Decretal Epistles equal with the Scriptures Dist. 19. c. in Canonicis which the Roman Correctors were ashamed of and consess that S. Augustin speaks onely of Canonical Epistles in Scripture So hard must they strain who among Christians would set up any other Rule equal with the Written Word 4. I proceed to prove this from the ancient Offices of the Roman Church In the Office produced by Morinus out of the Vatican MS. which he saith was very ancient the Bishop before his Consecration was asked If he would accommodate all his prudence to the best of his skill to the Sense of Holy Scripture Resp. Yes I will with all my heart consent and obey it in all things Inter. Wilt thou teach the People by Word and Example the things which thou learnest out of holy Scriptures Resp. I will. And then immediately follows the Examen about Manners In another old Office of S. Victor's there are the same Questions in the same manner And so in another of the Church of Rouen lately produced by Mabillon which he saith was about William the Conquerour's time there is not a word about Traditions which crept into the Ordo Romanus and from thence hath been continued in the Roman Pontificals But it is observable that the Ordo Romanus owns that the Examen was originally taken out of the Gallican Offices although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at Rome by Thâ—masius and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional Questions about Traditions were the Roman Interpolations after it came to be used in that Pontifical And the first Office in Morinus was the true ancient Gallican Office. But if Tradition had been then owned as a Rule of Faith it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient Offices than in the modern And the ancient Writers about Ecclesiastical Offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient Offices about this matter Amalarius saith the Gospel is the Fountain of Wisedom and that the Preachers ought to prove the Evangelical Truth out of the sacred Books Isidore that we ought to think nothing as to matters of Faith but what is contained in the two Testaments Rabanus Maurus that the knowledge of the Scriptures is the foundation and perfection of Prudence That Truth and Wisedom are to be tried by them and the perfect instruction of Life is contained in them Our Venerable Bede agrees with them when he saith that the true Teachers take out of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament that which they preach and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them 5. I now come