would have served much for his ad-advantage when but a few seem'd discontented therewith § 156 But in the next place let us now suppose that the Council un-oppressed the contrary party there had carried all these points against the Pope there could have followed that I discern no such great advantage to Protestantisme thereby as some boast of You may see the consequences endamaging the Pope set down by Soave p. 609 645. some of which are of no great moment and others not truly consequent Certainly the Bishops who contended for their Jurisdiction jure divino intended no such thing as to equal every one himself with the Pope in the Government of the Church or to overthrow thereby * the former Church-discipline * the pre-eminent authority of Primats and Patriarchs conceded by former Councils and * all the jus Ecclesiasticum This may be seen in their argumentations wherein some pleaded a Jurisdiction belonging to all Bishops jure divino and received immediatly from Christ but this not equal with the Popes others their Jurisdiction received jure divino but the use application and matter thereof received from the Pope Soave p. 597 607. 618. 637. Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 3. The French allowing from Christ the Popes superiority as was shewed but now †§. 155. only confining his authority within the Canons Soave p. 640. and the Spaniards who most stickled for Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino yet willingly conceding to the Pope all the power that was acknowledged by the Council of Florence and desiring that both these might be established together as hath been shewed above insomuch as Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 6. saith It seemed to some that the contention was reduced to meer words whilst the one would have the Jurisdiction of Bishops to be immediatly from the Pope the others from Christ yet so that the use and matter of such Jurisdiction depended on the Pope And therefore I see no weight in those words of B. Bramh. schis guarded 10. Sect. p. 474. who to S. Ws. asking whether if the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces had been present in the Council to counterpoise the Italians he would pretend that they would have voted against their Fellow-Catholicks in behalf of Luther and Calvin answereth thus I see clearly that if the Bishops of other Countreys had been proportioned to those of Italy they had carried the debate about Residence yet is not Residence even amongst Protestants voted jure divino the divine Right of Episcopacy and that had done the business of the Western Church and undone the Court of Rome Done the business of the Western Church what meaneth he So as the Pope would have ceased to have had any Supremacy over them why those also allow and submit to it who still hold Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino as none in the Roman Church are obliged to hold the contrary But suppose the Pope disarmed of Supremacy are thus all the other main differences in points of faith between Protestants and these Western Bishops stated on the Protestant side Or will the Reformed now declare them controversies of small moment as Bishop Bramh. in a vehement assaulting of the Court of Rome seems to relax other quarrels with that Church and yield them to their Adversaries But had any the art first to accord these speculative points of difference which the Protestants have with the Western Churches he need not fear that the Popes supremacy could put any bar between the two Religions Which supremacy those Catholick Bishops or Churches that do most abridge and have their free liberty to maintain what in the Council they would have voted concerning this matter do yet continue in the other points as violent and stâ—ff against the reformed as any § 157 5. Thus much of the Popes and Councils proceedings in those three great points of contention Next concerning the Popes carriage toward the Council for other matters of Reformation 5. wherein he is so much accused to have made unjust obstructions Pallavicino in vindication of Pius the 4th in whose times these Reformations were most agitated and proceeded in hath these words l. 24. c. 12 n. 13. Pius the 4th frequently enjoyned his Legats that a Reformation should be made of his Court and of his Tribunals and especially of the Cardinals which reformation he attempting first at Rome in vain remitted it the more earnestly to the Council as may be seen in C. Borrom letters Pall. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 6 7. without any acquainting him first with it frequently grieved and complained that it was not done commended whatever was determined in the Sessions concerning it though unlooked for contrary to his expectation and most damageful to his treasury and to his Court Which words of his are verified both by the frequent Letters to this purpose written to the Council by Carlo Borrhomeo according to the Popes order †Apud Pallav l. 20. c. 5. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 1 2 6 7. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5 12 13. which you may read at your leasure and by the testimony of Lorraine and others in the Council And indeed how could this be otherwise since Carlo Borromeo that holy man was his chief Adviser and chief Minister to the Council in this and all other affairs who was himself one of the severest Reformers yet not besides the Canons that ever the Church of Christ hath known as the history of his life written by Giussano sheweth § 158 And that actually by this Council a great and severe reformation was decreed the Court of Rome much rectified the Popes Revenue much diminished the Jurisdiction of Bishops whether held immediatly or mediatly from Christ here it matters not much enlarged Residency of Bishops whether it be jure divino or Ecclesiastico strictly enjoyned former dispensations and appeals much restrained I refer you to what the Articles themselves especially in the five last Sessions under Pius make appear and to what is said below in the five Head †concerning them §. 207. c. and * to the testimony of the French Bishops set down above § 77. with whom it was a chief motive to request of the King the accepting this Council because the French Church stood in so much need of the reformations established therein than which say they they could find none more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the body Ecclesiastical and * to the testimony of Soave himself recited above § 124. and below § 204. touching the heavy complaint of the Roman Court concerning this reformation and their endeavours with the Pope to hinder for this cause the confirmation of the Council If its laws are not since every where so well observed I desire that the Council or the then Pope may not be indicted for this fault Neither are we for trying the benefit of that Council so much to
See below § 16. n. 6 8. This in the third place from § 12. of the Churches subjecting both Ecclesiastical Persons and Councils One to Another the less to the greater in point of Judicature and Authority for preventing of Schismes 4ly When the two Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers that are subordinate §. 15. n. 2. do dissent the obedience of the Subjects of both in such case being once apparent was to be rendred to the Superior So if a Diocesan or Provincial Council ought to yield to a National the Subjects of such Province or Diocess when these two Councils clash ought to conform in their Obedience to the National not to a Diocesan or Provincial Council against it Now §. 16. n. 1. for such a subordination of the several Church-Officers and Synods forenamed and for Obedience when these dissent due to the Superior the two points last mentioned I will to save the labour of further proof give you the Concessions of Learned Protestants though this be done with some limitations accomodated to the better legitimating of their Reformation of which limitations see below § 16. n. 4. n. 7. and again § 28. desiring you also to peruse those set down already to the same purpose in the second Discourse § 24. n. 1. c. Of this matter then thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case between the Church of England and Rome p. 48. The Church of Christ is a society or company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13.17 And he that will not hear the Church is to be as a Heathen and a Publican Mat. 16. And applying this to the Presbyterians and other Sects dividing from the English Bishops and Synods ‖ p. 46. They have incurred saith he by leaving us and I wish they would sadly consider it no less than the guilt of Schisme which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or Sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and Sacriledge unto it And thus Dr. Hammond §. 16. n. 2. somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism c. 8. p. 157. The way saith he provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Vnity of the Faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence 1st Their resolving c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans of the Metropolitans in every Region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a primacy of Order or Dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and greeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses And when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial Patriarchal General Again Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these beginning at the lowest and so ascending to the highest Those Brethren or People saith he ‖ 7. which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained or appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks †8. In like manner if we ascend to the next higher Link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Brethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt Next For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates §. 16. n. 3. § 20. he goes on thus It is manifest That as the several Bishops had prefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans he having shewed in § 11.12 the first Institution thereof Apostolical in Titus and Timothy nay we must yet ascend saith he one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs Concerning whose authority having produced several Canons of Councils § 25. he concludes thus All these Canons or Councils deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops from the Apostles and first Planters of the Churches wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the authority which these have by Canon and Primitive Custom over them And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors he affirms also due on the same account to their several Synods †Answ to Catholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29. It is evident saith he That the power which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council where these Bishops are assembled and the despising of that Council is an offence under the first sort of Schism and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors whereof it is compounded Thus Dr. Hammond ascending in these subordinations as high as Primates But Dr. Field Bishop Bramhal and others §. 16. n. 4. rise one step higher to the Proto-primates or Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called and their Councils And strange it is if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest that Dr. Hammond could pass by these in his speaking of the remedies of Schism with so much silence not mentioning Patriarchs but only as taken for Primates or their Councils See * Answ to Cathol Gent. c. 3. n. 9 10 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial National Oecumenical Councils but passeth by Patriarchal and * Schism p. 158 where he names Provincial Patriarchal General but useth Patriarchal there for National or the Council presided-in by the Primate to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch Strange I say considering not only the clear evidence of ancient Constitutions and
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
se non deposituros eum si haereticum esse couvincant as Bellarmin †answered long since to this scruple only they swear to defend and promote all De Concil l. 1. c. 21. not to be in any action or plot against any of his legal and Canonical for this is alwaies understood in oaths Rights Authority Priviledges c Now what offence here what restraint of any lawful liberty For an Oath taken in general to all the Canonical rights of the Pope and not specifying any in particular leaves the Bishops and the Council in perfect liberty to dispute examine and determine what are his Canonical and rightful priviledges what not leaves them liberty to question his Supremacy so far as he seems to them to claim any such in causes or over persons Ecclesiastical not appearing by divine right or Church-Constitution due unto him and generally in liberty to question as Bellarmin observes his commanding or practising things they think unlawful And indeed the Bishops in Trent sworn to maintain all his lawful yet did dispute some of his pretended Rights and Priviledges and after much debate left them unstated Nor did the Pope or his Legats though willing enough to have prevented such agitations yet plead any obligation in the Episcopal Oath against them This Oath therefore obliging only to the observation of the former Divine and Church-Laws concerning the Papal Dignities can be no more prejudicial to the liberty of Councils than the former Laws and Canons are prejudicial thereto § 109 4 ly Bishops not sworn yet still remain obliged to the observance of all such Canons so that such Oath is not the addition of a new but the confirmation of a former obligation which 4. when our Superiors for their greater security call for we cannot justly deny 5 ly Yet neither do such obligation nor such Oath laid on Bishops taken singly restrain their liberty § 110 when met in a Council but that they with the present Popes consent 5. may then altor and change those Canons and so their obligation to them No more than a Princes or his Subjects swearing to the observance of the civil laws of a Nation hinders these when met in Parliament to abrogate any law or enact the contrary all oaths to laws have this tacit limitation viz. till those who have the authority shall think fit to repeal them And in the consecration of the Reformed Bishops in England the Oath imposed upon them of obedience to the Archbishop is conceived to be unprejudicial to the liberty of their Synods § 111 6 ly If in this Oath any thing was sworn that was unlawful the Bishops 6. so soon as this unlawfulness appeared to them from that moment without any dispensation were discharged from the observance thereof as Luther and Bucer so soon as it seemed to them unlawful thought themselves quitted from the same or the like Oath formerly taken when they first entred into a religious Order but if nothing was sworn in it but what was lawful why complain the Reformed of this Oath § 112 7 ly Did this Oath of the Bishops lay some restraint upon their liberty it would be only in one point of the Protestant Controversies 7. that concerning the Popes Supremacy but would leave it free as to all or most of the rest Neither see I what influence their swearing to maintain the Popes just Priviledges could have upon their votes in the points of Justification Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and the like For if this be named one of his privileges that their decrees in these points are invalid unless by him confirmed yet there is no reason that this should incline them at all to vote in these contrary to their own judgment 1 st Because omitting here the obligation they have to promote Truth upon whatever resistance they have no cause to presume his Judgment in such points especially after their Consultations would be different from theirs Or 2 ly Because if they knew it would differ yet they understood also that without the Concurrence of their Judgments his likewise is rendred invalid and not able to establish any thing wherein they dissent As in some affairs of this Council it so happened This for the Oath to pass on to others § 113 9 ly Whereas it is pretended that the Bishop of Rome who presided and those Bishops who sat in the Council were a party and Judges in their own cause 9. As for instance the controversies that were to be decided being between these two parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that those of the Council were all Roman Catholicks and the Protestants not permitted to have with the rest any decisive vote Again the Protestants accusing the Roman and other Western Churches of many corruptions both in their doctrine and in their discipline yet that this Council was made up of the Bishops of those Churches which were thus accused Again one controversie being against the superiority of the Order of Bishops to the Presbytery that therefore in this the Bishops were clearly a party Another controversie being against the Popes Supremacy and particularly against his authority of calling and presiding in Councils that therefore in this the Pope was a party Besides that his stiling the Protestants hereticks before the Council renders him in it no impartial nor unprejudiced Judge in their cause I say neither do these pretences hinder this Council supposing it composed of so many Bishops of the Catholick Church as are necessary to the constitution of a General Council or of so many Bishops of the Western Churches as are necessary to the constitution of a Patriarchal from being a lawful Judge in these controversies and the acts therof obligatory to all nor hinder not the Pope from presiding there Where 1 st To consider the legality of the Synod as it consists of such Bishops § 114 And 1 st Here we find that all Heresies and Schismes have had the same plea against the former Councils 1. as the Reformed against this of Trent namely that the contrary party the accuser or the accused was their Judge All the Christian Clergy was once divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians or Nestorians and Anti-Nestorians as in the times of the Council of Trent it was into the Protestants and Roman-Catholicks and the Arrians then accused the Catholick Bishops of their corruption of the doctrine of the Trinity as the Protestants did now the Roman Catholicks of several corruptions in doctrine and discipline Yet so it was that the Arrians were condemned by the Anti-Arrian Bishops as being the major part neither were they allowed any other Judge save these and this a Judgment approved by the Protestants Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople on the one side and Celestine Bishop of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria on the other side counter-accuse one another of Herâ—sie yet was Nestorius sentenced and condemned in the 3d. G. Council by Celestine presiding there by Cyril his Substitute Dioscorus Bishop
of Alexandria and the Eutychian party had great contest with the rest of Christian Bishops Anti-Eutychians proceeding so far that Dioscorus with his party presumed to excommunicate Leo yet was he and his party judged and condemned by the Anti-Eutychian party being a major part in the 4th G. Council the same Leo presiding there by his Legats and Dioscorus though the 2d Patriarch being not permitted to sit or vote in the Council And these Judgments approved by the Protestants Arius an Alexandrian Presbyter and Alexander the Bishop there had much controversie between them and accused one another before the Council of Nice yet Alexander in that Council sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest and gave his definitive vote against him And doubtless had Arius been a Bishop and the major part of that Council Arian Arius should have judged Alexander in the same manner Allowed examples in this kind might be alledged infinite 2 ly Now to shew §. 125. n. 1. that such judgments are lawful and obligatory notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party 2. formerly accusing and accused by the other of corruptions errours usurpations c. I beg these three things to be granted me having elsewhere sufficiently secured them 1 That the Church is delegated by Christ as the supream Judge on earth for all â—heological and Spiritual matters secure for ever not to erre in necessaries and that as a Guide 2 ly That the judgment of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church as being at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution and common practice of former Councils as appears by the subscriptions to them established the Representative thereof is to be taken for that of the Church or else the judgement of all former Councils even of the four first may be questioned 3 ly That the vote of the major part where all consent not in the same judgment must conclude the whole both for those Bishops sitting in the Council and those Bishops absent that accept it Which Judge §. 115. n. 2. that hath been of all former ages by whom Christians have been settled in truth against all former Heresies Arianism Nestorianism Pelagianism c. if any because he finds it not to suit with the late Reformation will now reject let him tell us what other Judge he can put in their place For if this ancient and former Judge must be supposed contrary to our Lords Promise deficient in necessaries and incident into Heresie Blasphemy Idolatry and then if a few of these ecclesiastical Governours surmising this against many a few Interiors against many their Superiors only after they have first made their complaints to them and propounded their reasons and been rejected may then apply themselves to procure the assistance and power of the temporal Magistrate one who may be seduced also and assist in a wrong cause and so may first sit down in the Chair and judge of the wilfulness and obstinacy of these others in defence of their supposed errors and crimes and then may proceed to a reforming of the Church or some part thereof against them things which a late opposer of this Council †Mr. Stillings p. 478.479 is necessitated to maintain will not thus the revolution of judging and governing in ecclesiastical affairs proceed in infinitum and necessarily bring in a confusion of Religion's as some Countreys have had late experience For This second Judge and Reformer and this Secular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries And then how is there any remedy of these crimes and errours unless there may be also a third Judge allowed to reform against them and then may not the Superiors and major part again take their turn to reform these Reformers And where will be an end of this Controversie who shall last decide Controversies Every Judge that we can set up being also a party and so to leave his Chair after that there appears another to question his judgment But if we are to stay in some judgment to avoid such confusion where more reasonably can we rest than in the three former Proposals § 116 And from them it will follow 1. That those who are no Bishops must be content not to be Judges or to have definitive votes in Councils and if any such have a controversie with or against Bishops must be content after their best informations preferr'd to the Order to be judged by the same Bishops who 't is probable upon some new evidence may alter their former sentences But yet suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes I see not what the Protestants can advantage themselves thereby as long as if any inferior Clergy all must have so and the greater number give law to the fewer For the inferior Catholick-Clergy in the time of the Council of Trent far out-numbred the Reformed § 117 2. Again from them it follows That if the Bishops are appointed the sole Judges of such matters and causes they do not cease to be so upon any either interest or siding which they may be shewed to have in the cause And indeed if we consider * their former common Tenents and practises in those things which upon some opposition they meet afterward to judge * to what side of a controversie the major part of them hath formerly inclined or also declared for it something of what they judge tending to their Honour another to their Profit another to their Peace in some sence they may almost alwaies be said to judge in their own cause or on their own side So when ever they are divided into two opinions or parties who ever of them judgeth here and none may judge beside them judgeth in his own cause And so it is when any one opposeth the Church in any of her Traditions or Doctrines formerly owned by her For instance when one opposeth the Order of Bishops the just obligation of the Churches Decrees questioneth * whether the Church-Governours succeeding the Apostles hold such or such their authority immediatly from Christ independent on secular Princes * Whether the receiving of Holy Orders be necessary for administring the Sacraments * Whether Tithes be due jure divino In all these we must say that the Church is appointed by God Judge in her own cause Or if in some of these things not the Clergy but the Laity be the right Judge yet so we still make him who judgeth to judge in his own cause and in a matter wherein he is interessed whilst he so much againeth in those things as the other loseth Of this matter thus Mr. Chellingw †p. 60. In controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Controversie whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party § 118 But now suppose judging in their own cause must by no means be allowed to any and so the Church about any difference being divided
Divinâ Ordinatione changed into per institutionem Christ The great dispute in the Council was not whether the Order or Bishops as superior to Priests and as including the power of ordination and confirmation but whether the Jurisdiction of all Bishops especially as to some points thereof was jure divino viz. as to the just extent and subject matter of such Jurisdiction and the exterior and forensick exercise thereof wherein some Bishops enjoy a much larger power and compass which extent of power seems to depend on superiors as doth also the exercise of Absolution in Priests and is liable to be suspended taken away transferr'd diminished and this necessary for avoiding confusion †See Soave p. 623 734. And here as nothing was determined against the Pope in this matter so nothing for him And that no more in it should be decided than was decided all the Council consented in the Session and in the Congregation held before it all save the Spanish Bishops and therefore more consented to this than only the Italians and the Popes party see what Soave saith p. 737 738 725 735. where he relates That the Cardinal of Lorraine and the other French Prelats did not hold the â—â—â—itution and Superiority of Bishops de sure divino to be necessary to 〈…〉 mined in Council but rather that it ought to be omitted Now 〈…〉 the Pope if he had a major part of the Council on his 〈…〉 hinder the rest for carrying any thing against him by their votes yet could he not over-aw the rest thus to vote for him who having much more dependence for their Estates on their Temporal than their Spiritual Supream and backed by their Princes and their Embassadours in the Council these also generally much more favouring the Bishops than the Popes rights were secure enough against his power even the Italian Prelats also except that much smaller part of them whose preferments lay in the Popes Dominions § 155 3. Concerning the Popes Supremacy in the Church or Superiority to Councils though the Spaniards 3. and all the rest of the Council consented in as full terms as the Council of Florence had expressed it to decree and insert it in this Council also and though only the French Bishops who were not above the tenth part of the Council resisted yet the Pope for peace sake because there was not a full accord ceased to prosecute the determination thereof and the Article drawn was laid aside See these things more fully related in Pallavic History l. 19. and l. 24. c. 14. n. 12 and see there †l. 19. c. 15. n. 3. the contents of Carlo Borrhomeo's Letters to this purpose But the same thing of the Spanish consenting with the Italians for declaring the Popes authority according to the form of the Council ef Florence appears in Soave p. 737 738. though he much more compendious than Pallavicin in this part of the History perhaps for want of intelligence of which he complains in the beginning of his seventh book p. 583 And the same Author saith elsewhere p. 732. That an order came from the Emperour to his Embassadors to use all means that the authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council because he saw the major part was inclin'd to enlarge it Yet we see the Pope did not prosecute such advantage Neither doth that phrase accidentally used in Sess 25. Reform 1. cap. Sed ad S. Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales pertinere decernit quorum consilio apud Sanctum Romanum Pontificem cum universalis Ecclesiae administratio nitatur c. which the French Embassador Ferrieres so highly aggravated that it yielded to the Pope superiority over Councils †Sorve p. 818. truly prove any such thing neither passed it from the Council as any Decree neither in the reading in the Congregation of this 1 cap. of Reform wherein were some things corrected did the French Bishops except at this †Soave p. 803. which certainly they would have done had they apprehended such danger in it For also the French were not such opposites to the Popes pre-eminency of authority but that their Leader the Cardinal of Lorraine proposed in the Council this Article for it Pallav. l. 19. c. 6. condemning any that should say That Peter by the institution of Christ was not the Prime amongst the Apostles and his supreme Vicar Or that it was not necessary that there should be in the Church a chief Bishop Peters Successor and equal to him in the authority of Government and that his lawful Successors in the See of Rome have not the right of Primacy in the Church And the French Bishops though they disallowed this form Datam esse à Concilio Pontifici Romano potestatem pascendi regendi universalem because Ecclesia universalis here if taken collectively would prejudice the French Churches opinion of the Councils superiority to the Pope †Pall. l. 19. c. 13. n. 6. c. 12. n. 11. l. 21. c. 14. n. 12. Soave p. 657. yet they yielded to this form potestatem regendi omnes fideles omnes Ecclesias or pascendi omnes Christi oves if omnes be not taken conjunctionl And for that Supremacy of the Pope over the Church that is denied by Protestants Soave giving reasons why Henry the 8th prudently declined a Council thus secures this Supremacy Papal from any censure of the Bishops saying †§. 〈◊〉 70. That it was impossible that a Council composed of Ecclesiastical Persons should not maintain this his power which is the main pillar of their Order Because this Order saith he by the Papacy is above all Kings and the Emperour but without it is subject to them there being no Ecclesiastical Person that hath superiority but the Pope Thus he usually exstracting the Original of all mens actions not out of Conscience but Policy Yet in these points we see the Popes supposed major party in the Council carried nothing for his advantage But how much the former bounds of the Episcopal Authority were enlarged by several Decrees of this Council that were confirmed and ratified by the Pope wherein at least they are substituted his perpetual and standing Delegats for transacting many things of great consequence formerly dispatched by Himself and his Officers See below 205 211. c. Mean while whether or how much the Pope or his party when stronger there might be faulty in hindering any points to be determined which the rest of the Fathers in the Council desired should be so I cannot say because I cannot judge whether such things are necessary to be determined as some of the Council said they were a few or better not as others the most But if the Pope be culpable for having abstracting here from Protestant-Controversies as hath been shewed †hindred by his Italian adherents something § 150 that otherwise would have passed He seems to make an amends for it in the not passing in Council several other matters which
touching the third Head the legal proceedings of this Council Now we come to the Fourth Touching the many Decrees and Canons Definitions and Anathema's of this Council much exceeding those of former and some of them said to be in very slight matters by which this Council is charged to have multiplied and imposed on all Christians so many new Articles of Faith and Pius his Bull that followed it to have added twelve new ones to the Creed Thus when as the Reformation as Mr. Thorndike complains in Conclusion to his Epilog might have been only Provisional till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this Council cutâ—â—â—â— off all hopes of Peace except by yielding to all their Decrees In this matter therefore for the Councils Defence I shall propose to you these ten Considerations following The 1st That all Anathemas in Councils are not passed 1. for holding something against matter of Faith but for other misdemeanours and Trespasses against Obedience and good manners Amongst which this may be reckoned one If any one raiseth Factions and Sects and disturbeth the Churches peace in contradicting her common Doctrines of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be or spreadeth abroad propositions schismatical and scandalous and apt to corrupt good manners or be made ill use of by the simple though the matter of them be not properly Heretical or opposing an Article that is De fide Again Anathemas that are inflicted by the Church for holding something contrary to the Faith are not alwaies or most usually denounced for those more fundamental and necessary points of Faith an error in which ruines Salvation but also and more commonly because these are more for some lesser matters of faith viz any whereby some damage smaller or greater comes as to the Author from holding them so to others from his maintaining and divulging them abroad The Church being very vigilant contrary to Sects to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith which are observed by the Apostle to be of the nature of a Cancer 1 Tim. 2.17 still eating further into the bowels of Truth she not knowing how far they may enlarge themselves and by little and little invade higher Points and lay the Foundation for more pernicious errors Nor doth the punishment of Anathema in these eye so much the greatness and malignity of the error as the pertinacy and obstinacy of its Abettor refusing submittance to the Churches authority the violating of which Authority may be a great fault and of very ill consequence though in a small matter If he will not hear the Church saith our Lord let him be to thee Mat. 18 17. as an Heathen †an excommunicated â—rn anathematized person where the censure lies upon his not hearing the Church be the matter in which small or great § 174 And the great guilt of the obstinacy against the Definitions of Superiors though in the maintaining only of some small errors in the Faith some Protestants seem to acknowledge and confess it well to merit so high a Censure Of which thus Dr. Fearn †Considerations on the Church of Engl. Preface We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus this Doctor Only he would have the Church to distinguish between pertinacious and modest gain-saying which is to know Hearts and this latter he would have to pass free from this censure and such he would have that of the Reformers to be Was that of Luther then so modest Or doth not the weight and venerableness of the Churches Authority render all known contradiction whatever truly guilty of Pertinacy and Pride Again Thus Bishop Brambal †Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27. When inferior questions not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church for such a point non-fundamental deserve to be punish't as Hereticks i. e. Anathematized And Cardinal Bellarmin saith †De Concil l. 2. c. 10. of Provincial Councils That Judicium non-infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And Debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes vel Concilium Universale these two it seems only do set at liberty our tongues from the obligations of Inferiour Councills si secus egerint merito excommunicantur Notwithstanding though an Anathema in such cases in well deserved from the wilful adherence of such persons to their own fancies against their Superiors yet it is never inflicted meerly for this but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent if spread abroad to others the remedy of which danger of infecting others seems chiefly to be intended in the Churches using ordinarily in such Canons Si quis dixerit rather than senserit § 175 2. Concerning the Extent of matter of Faith You must know That all Divine Revelations whatever 2. and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith could they proceed in infinitum are also when known the matter or objects or Articles of our faith as well as the more chief necessary points thereof unless we may dis-believe something that we grant to be God's Word And are all Traditional from the Apostles times either in their own express terms or in their necessary Principles since new Divine Revelations none pretend And consequently the contrary error to any of these Deductions when ever it seems very hurtful may be Anathematized § 176 And amongst these Divine Revelations and matter of our Faith are to be reckoned these two Propositions of no little consequence viz. the Doctrine of Christian liberty namely That all things are lawful unto us which God's Word hath not prohibited And again this That the Church hath authority committed to Her by our Lord in such lawful things to make Constitutions and Decrees obliging all her subjects to obedience So that one that affirms something to be prohibited in God's Word or unlawful that is not so prohibited or one that denies obedience to the Precepts of the Church made in things not contrary to God's Word offends against the Faith and on this account is liable to an Anathema And in these things our Belief according to the several objects thereof is required of us in a several manner 1. In pure speculatives If it be a thing made known to us to be revealed by God the Faith that is required of us upon such Revelation is to believe it a certain Truth 2. In practicals if it be a thing by God commanded or
the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
Ita enim omnem everti judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem efficique ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant Again p. 88. Eos qui in doctrinâ aut moribus scandalorum authores sunt semper Censores suos Consistoria Classes Synodos seu partem adversam rejicere Ad eum modum Arrianis aliisque olim haereticis adversus Orthodoxos Pastores semper licuisset excipere And Quo pacto say they iis Pastores se neutros ut loquuntur praebebunt Quando praesertim tam multi anni intercedunt priusquam legitimum publicum Ecclesiae judicium obtineri potest quum Deus illis praecipiat ut serio Doctrinae sinceritati attendant The English Divines there deliver their judgment also in the same case very solidly Non valet say they ad Synodi hujus but suppose they had said Tridentinae authoritatem enervandam quod causentur Remonstrantes maximam Synodi partem constare ex adversariis suis Neque naturale jus permittere ut qui adversarius est in causâ suâ judex sedeat 1. Nam huic sententiae refragatur primo perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum Nam in Synodis Oecumenicis Nicaeno c. ii qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt ab illis qui eandem sibi traditam admiserunt approbarunt examinati judicati damnati sunt 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit Theologi enim in negocio Religionis neque esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae neque esse debent Si igitur soli neutrales possunt esse Judices extra Ecclesiam in quâ lites enataesunt quaerendi essent 3. Ipsa aequitas hocsuadere videtur Nam quae ratio reddi potest ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi Pastores qui ex officio receptam Ecclesiae doctrinam propugnantes secus docentibus adversati sunt Si hoc obtinuerit nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisleret ne ipso facto jus omne postmodum de illis controversiis judicandi amitteret Enough of this 2. Again §. 254. n. 4 For the just and obliging authority of this Council and the Credibility at least of it s not erring they urge †See Sess 26. Syn. Delf Christum Dominum qui Apostolis promisit spiritum veritatis Ecclesiae quoque suae pollicitum esse se cum eâ usque ad finem saeculi mansurum Matt. 28.20 And Vbi duo aut tres in ipsius nomine congregati fuerint se in eorum medio futurum Matt. 18.20 They urge the precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.29 31. Vt judicetur de iis quae Prophetae loquuntur And Prophetarum Spiritus prophetis subjecti sint And the Geneva Divines Sess 29. urge also Dic Ecclesiae and Si Ecclesiam non audiverit c. 3 ly In defence of the Protestants refusing submission to the Judgment of the Council of Trent §. 254. n. 5. because it was a party without their allowing the same priviledge to the Remonstrants for that of Dort they answer ‖ Sess 25. p. 82. Valde disparem esse hanc comparationem Illos enim the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants eidem subesse Magistratui And Remonstrantes membra esse Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Reformatarum See the same said again Sess 26. p. 85. But according to this answer the reason why the Protestants denied their submission to the Council of Trent must not be because it consisted of an adverse party but because all its members were not Subjects of the same Prince a thing never alledged before But here I ask Is there then no preservation of the Churches unity by Synods no subordination of Clergy no rule of one party the Superior and Major judging another the Inferior and Minor any further than only in such little parcels of the Church as happen to live under the same Secular Governours Are our Lords Promises and Dic Ecclesiae all confin'd to these What will become of the Authority of Oecumenical and Patriarchal Councils Why not in these also one Ecclesiastical major Party judge another as well as in that of Dort Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam How this Church One if united in no one common Government and Subjection But if it be here also one party must judge another and so the Protestants alledging the Council of Trent an adverse Party availes them nothing as to the annulling of its Judgment But as the Remonstrants yet further replied †See Synod Delf Sess 26 If at least of the Clergy living under the same Secular Government one adverse Party may judge the other then may a Synod of the Catholick Clergy in France oblige the Protestant Clergy there to stand to their sentence To this therefore the Synod shapes another answer as me seems no better than the former That all Protestants are freed from being tryed or judged by the Popish party in Synods Conc. Delf in Acta Dordrecht Sess 6. For that †Primi Ecclesiae Reformatores pro Doctoribus Ecclesiae Pontificiae haberi noluerunt sed contra ab iis secessionem fecerunt Again Ibid Isti nunquam Ecclesiae Pontificiae Doctores censeri voluerunt sicuti Hi i. e. the Remonstrants pro Ecclesiae Reformatae Doctoribus habert cupiunt So also the Geneva Divines Sess 29. deliver their judgment Licuit say they nostris protestari adversus Concilium Constantiense Tridentinum quia non profitemur unionem cum illis Imo ill am aspernamur aversamur But I say doth our renouncing and professing to have no communion with a lawful Superior Ecclesiastical Authority presently in justice free us from it For example the Presbyter Arius his renouncing communion with the Bishop of Alexandria or the Presbyter Luther with his Ecclesiastical Superiors in Saxony Is there not a due subordination both of persons and Synods from the lowest to the highest as well in several as in the same secular Governments to preserve the unity of the Church not only Belgick or Brittannick but Catholick Which gradual Authority all those are obliged to obey and conform to and are liable to its censures not who voluntarily profess obedience but who truly according to the Churches Canons do owe it as the Protestants did to that of Trent and owe it not a whit the less for their declaring against it Else so many as will venture to be schismaticks and divide will put themselves out of the reach of the Churches Spiritual Courts And had the Remonstrants to their supposed innovation in doctrine added a separation in communion from the rest of the Belgick Clergy the Contra-Remonstrants they had by this second fault freed themselves from having been either justly tryed or censured by the Synod and their declaring once Non profitemur unionem cum vobis immo illam aspernamur aversamur would have voided all the counter-actings of the Synod of Dort as these Dort-Divines say the Reformed's like Protestation did those of Trent § 255 To μ. See what is said § 125. Leo. the Tenth did no wrong in declaring the
utilitate Cred. c. 1. that he was enticed by the Sect of the Manichees on this account because they promised Se terribili authoritate separatâ merâ simplici rations or as afterward magna quadam praesumptione pollicitatione rationum cos qui se audire vellent introducturos ad Deum erroreomni liberaturos And Se nullum premere ad fidem nisi prius discussâ enodatâ veritate And again †Ibid c. 9. Eos Catholicam Ecclesiam eo maxime criminari quod illis qui ad eam veniunt praecipitur ut credâ—nt se autem non jugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriari And therefore he saith in his Retract l. 1. c. 14. That upon this he writ against this presumption of their's his Book De utilitate Credendi Or Of the benefit of ones believing Church-Authority This from § 318. of the weak Grounds Protestants have of pretending Certainty against Church Authority § 330 2 But next Suppose a person may be infallibly certain of and can truly demonstrate something the contrary of which Church-Authority delivers as certain yet if this certainty be only of such a Truth from the knowledge of which ariseth no great benefit to Christians or to the Church or at least not so much benefit as weighed in the ballance will preponderat this other benefit of conserving the Churches peace Here again these Demonstrators Protestants also being Judges are to yield to Church-Authority the obedience of silence and non-contradiction and are to keep such Truth to themselves and not to disturb the publick peace after any thing defined to the contrary by divulging it to others § 331 In vindication of such obedience thus Dr. Potter ‑ It is true when the Church hath declared her self in any matter of opinions or of rites her Declaration obligeth all her children to peace and external obedience nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Where he saith also That by his factiously opposing this his own judgment to the publick he may become an Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false After him Bishop Brambal thus †Schism guarded p. 2. That Church and much more that person which shal not outwardly acquiesce after a legal Determination and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And Vindic. of Church of England p. 27. When inferior Questions saith he not fundamental are â—nce defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience and they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Doctor Fern Division of Churches p. 81. requiring conformity of Sectaries to the Church of England argues thus If Sectaries shall say to us You allow us to use our reason and judgement in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction not to abuse it against the Church But we do not abuse it say they but have consulted our Guides and used all means we can for satisfaction We tell them You must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church and next having modestly propounded it attend the judgment thereof But what if after all this go against them To which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yield an external peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it Thus he states the point Now such an external peaceable subjection and obedience as hath been often said if it were well observed stops all Reformations as to these points that are found of less consequence the Demonstrators Truth must die with him Nor thus will any Disciples be drawn from the Church or their Pastors to follow Strangers § 232 Next To know whether the truth they are so certain of be also of so great weight as that the Churches peace and external unity is to be broken rather than such a Truth strangled or lost what less thing also can secure them for this that it is a Truth of much importance than that which secures them of their certainty that it is a Truth namely a Demonstration hereof Now the Evidences Protestants have brought either of the one or the other either that such Church-Doctrines are errors or if so errors of great consequence have been heard and considered by Church-Authority And these by it neither thought errors intollerable nor errors at all But if Church-Authority may not interpose here and every one may rely on his own particular Judgment when truths or errors are of moment when not who is there when his thoughts are wholy taken up with a thing and he totus in illo and perhaps besides troubled with an itch that that knowledge of his which he esteems extraordinary should be communicated and that se scire hoc sciat alter will not thus induce himself to think the smallest matters great Lastly concerning truths of much importance let this also be considered Whether that which is so much pretended by the Reformed that the Holy Scriptures are clear in all Divine Truths necessary doth not strongly argue against them that none of those things wherein they gain-say the Church are matters much important or necessary Because all these Scriptures clear in necessaries will surely be so to the Church as well as to them As they grant these Scriptures to be generally as to all persons perspicuous in all those common points of faith that are not at all controverted § 333 3. But let this also be allowed That the error of Church-Authority is not only manifest but that it both is and is certainly known to be in a point most important and necessary and that neither the obedience of assent nor yet of silence or non-contradiction ought to be yielded to Church-Authority therein yet all this granted will not justifie or secure any in their not yielding a third obedience meerly passive viz. a quiet submission to the Churches censures however deemed in such a particular case unjust Whereby if this censure happen to be Excommunication he is patiently to remain so as who in such case injoyes still the internal communion of the Church though he want the external till God provide for the vindication of Truth and his Innocency But by no means to proceed further to set up or joyn himself to an external communion apart and separated from that of his Superiors and such a communion as either refuseth any conjunction with them or at least is prohibited and excluded by them which must alwaies be schismatical as being that of a Part differing from the Whole or of Inferiors divided from their Canonical Superiors by which now that Party begins to lose that internal Communion of the Church also which when unjustly excommunicated and acquiescing therein he still
Yet remain they still fettered with the Bonds of a third Obedience I mean Passive in a meek submittance to the Church's Censures And if they shall happen to be excommunicated by the Church and externally disjoyned from its Society yet is it by no means lawful for them after their publishing new Doctrines to proceed also to erect a new Altar or Anti-Communion against it But patiently undergoing its sentence and longing for their peaceable restorement to the former Catholick Communion which is alwaies but One and may not be divided they are to expect from God the vindication of his Truth and their Innocence Which so long as any suffers for he remains still internally a member of this former Society from which externally he is excluded Now by this third Obedience if the Churches Faith in some manner suffers yet its Unity at least will remain unviolated and not divided or torn by Schismes These things I have endeavoured to represent and perswade to the pious Reader in the former Discourses as also in the beginning and conclusion of this present Work have further pressed them Now from such a submission to a legal Church-Authority once gained the same is rightly demanded to that of Trent if this Council proved Legal And then by this Council once received and submitted to is an end put to the most and chiefest of the modern Theological Controversies and present Church-distractions This then is the Task of the following Discourse Of which I implore the Divine Majesty for a prosperous success only so far as it maintains a right and just Cause and so commit the Reader to the gracious Illuminations of his Holy Spirit THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council OBjected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its Proceedings § 5. 4. That Several of its Decisions are without or contrary to Scripture to Primitive Tradition and Tyrannically Imposed § 6. 5. That the Decrees of this Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. n. 2. CHAP. II. Some General Considerations pre-posed 1. Of Inferior Councils The due Subordination and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precedents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. CHAP. III. 2. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the Acceptation of them Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 45. 3. And Calling of them § 47. CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from the subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant-Clergy § 67. CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nation § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by reason of 1. The pretended Non-generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place § 83. 3. Or the want of Safe-Conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. 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 Bishop's or Pope's being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several waies of judging Ecclesiastical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Pope's being Judge § 122. CHAP. VIII II Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonablness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies CHAP. IX III Head Of the Legalness of the proceeding of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 128. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon this Council for the condemning of the Protestant Opinions in condemning which the Fathers of this Council unanimously agreed § 150. 4 That no violence was used upon the Council for defining of Points debated between the Catholicks themselves § 152. Where Of the Councils proceedings touching the chief points in debate Touching 1. Episcopal Residency Jure Divino § 153. 2. Episcopal Jurisdiction Jure Divino § 154. 3. The Popes Superiority to Councils § 155. That these three Points of Controversie however stated are of no great advantage to the Reformed § 156. 5. That no violence was used upon the Council for hindring any just Reformations § 157. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing
482. Most of these Objections you may find after Soave urged by Archbishop Lawd § 27 c. and reinforced in his Defence by Mr. Stillingfl p. 2. c. 8. By B. Bramh. Vind. c. 9. By Dr. Hammond of Her § 11. and many others whether with more force and advantage than is here set down I must desire you to consult the Authors § 7 These are the principal Exceptions occurring in later Protestant-Writers against the Council of Trent Now I desire your patience to hear on the other side what may be said for it Which Council being by reason of the subjection of the Clergy to so many supreme and independent Princes with so much difficulty conven'd not finally concluded till 18 years after its first sitting interrupted by sickness interrupted by wars managed under several Popes of several inclinations and under often-changed interests of most warlike and rival Princes according to their several advantages or disgusts who now sent now withdrew their Bishops and desired to model its Decrees to the content of their Subjects and secular Peace in their Dominions It must needs encounter great diversity of Accidents and not always retain the same face security frequency splendor and reputation nor the same purity and dis-engagement from secular affairs and national obligations Again * Sitting in the time and for the composing of the greatest and the most powerful considering the engagement of the common people as well as of Princes separation and division that ever was in the Christian Church which departed also from the former unity in so many points of Doctrine and Discipline as never did any before and * driving two main designs at once the reformation of manners in the Church and its Governors and the confutation of errors in the Sectaries It must needs be liable to many Intestine as well as External affronts and hinderances from all sides and in so many decisions seem to some to commit not a few oversights But yet notwithstanding all these Intrigues and all that is produced against it I see not but that both its Authority and Integrity may be rationally and justly vindicated § 8 The Considerations upon it for the more orderly proceeding in them I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Concerning the Generality 1. Liberty and just Authority of this Council or of the persons constituting it to oblige the Churches Subjects 2. or especially those of the West 2. Concerning the Invalidity and also probably the uneffectiveness of such a General Council as the Protestants in stead thereof demanded and as should be limited with all the conditions they proposed 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent 3. especially as to those matters which respect the Protestants 4. 4. The many Definitions and Anathema's of this Council and its pretended-new Articles of Faith 5. 5. Concerning the many Constitutions and Acts of great consequence passed in this Council and confirmed by the Pope for the Reformation of several corrupt practices and disorders observed in the Churches Government or Discipline CHAP. II. Of Councils inferior to General The due Subordinations and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precidents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be Her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. § 9 COncerning the first Head to discern more clearly the true State of this Council assembled at Trent It seems necessary that I first give you a brief account of some things more generally appertaining to these Ecclesiastical Courts Of Councils then assembled as need required for deciding Controversies enacting Laws and preserving the Peace of the Church Catholick which is but one throughout the world there have been always used in the Church these several Kinds or Compositions subordinate in Dignity and Authority one to another 1 Episcopal or Diocesan 2 Provincial 3 National 4 Patriarchal and 5 Oecumenical or General Of which Councils the first Pattern under the Gospel was that held at Jerusalem Act. 15. A. D. 51. Amongst these the lowest Synod or Ecclesiastical Council for governing the Church was Episcopal or Diocesan taking the word in its modern sence consisting of the Bishop of any particular Diocess and his Presbyters the Bishop calling them together and moderating the Assembly the Actions and Decrees of which Synod were appealable from and liable to the Judgment and Censure of an higher Council The next Council was Provincial consisting of all the Bishops of a Province in which were many Diocesses called and moderated and its Decrees executed by the Metropolitan The next Synod to whom also the Actions and Decrees of this Provincial were subject was National consisting of the Metropolitans of several Provinces with their Bishops called and moderated by the chief Primate in such a Nation such were several of the Affrican Councils and particularly that held under S. Cyprian de Baptizandis Haereticis there being of these Provinces or greater Circuits six in Affrick and so many Primates or primae Sedis Episcopi of whom the Chief was the Bishop of Carthage The next a Council Patriarchal consisting of the Metropolitans c. of divers Kingdoms and Countries which were contained under the same Patriarchy this called and moderated by the Patriarch The last and supremest is a Council Oecumenical or General to which I should proceed next to shew you of what persons it is to consist who is to call who is to preside in to regulate and ratifie it c. But this I shall defer till § 34. And because the Regulation and Government that is for the necessary preserving of the Churches firmer Peace and Unity established and observed in these lower Councils is by their being more frequently held much better known and also freely acknowledged by Learned Protestants I will first give you some further Account of this that so you may make
a better Judgment of the Nature and Condition of General Councils and of that which is requisite in them at last to be applied to that of Trent which General Councils by reason of the Difficulty Charge and many other Inconveniences of so universal an Assembly have been much more rarely convened in the Church In these assemblies then fore-named for the unity and peace of the Church 1st It was ordered That the Inferiors though joyned in a Council could establish nothing in things that were of moment and concern'd the whole Body § 10 as in matters of Faith and Manners Ordination of Clergy c. without the Superiors or Presidents consent nor He without theirs i. e. of the major part of them For example The Presbyters nothing without their Bishop nor the Bishops without their Metropolitan nor Metropolitans without the Primate or Patriarch è contra Of which thus the 35. Can. Apostol Episcopos Gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus this ascends so high as Primats habeatur quem velut Caput existiment nihil ampliùs praeter ejus confcientiam gerant quà m illa sola singuli quae paraeciae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt Sed nec Ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum paraeciis Sic enim Unanimitas erit glorificabitur Deus per Christum in Spiritu Sancto And see the same repeated in Conc. Antioch Can. 9. And this Apostol Can. there referred to In which by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeter sententiam illus qui primus est must be understood not the Councils doing nothing without this Primate first consulted and then if He and they or a major part of them do differ in opinion He obliged to follow this major part as some Protestants would have it ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church p. 511. quoting Conc. Antiochen c. 19. as favouring such a sence but the Council's doing nothing without this Primates consent the Council or major part of it and he the President having both of them a negative voice in respect of one another and so such matters as both do not concur in being to remain undecided till their agreement or till such Cause is by some party devolved to a Superior Court if such difference doth not happen in the Supreme Otherwise if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be meant only Knowledge or Advice the one parties consulting or acquainting the other with such a matter then since that Canon runs also that the Primate shall do nothing praeter Episcoporum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sententiam yet this will not hinder but that he alone may make such Decrees also without the consent of the Council or of the major part of them and on neither side must the word signifie any more than their Counsel and Advice As for that passage of the 19th Antiochtan Canon urged ' Obtineat Sententia plurimorum the like to which see Conc. Nice Can. 6 it means only That the unanimous suffrage of all the Provincial Bishops joined with the Metropolitan will not be necessary for the Ordination of a new Bishop whenas perhaps some propter suum contentionis studium may contradict and not That such major part may pass such Acts without or against the Metropolitan The consent of which Metropolitan for the Ordination or Confirmation of such a Bâ—shop is expresly required by the 4th and 6th Canon of the first General Council of Nice 2ly For preserving the same Peace and Unity it was so ordered § 11 That no Bishop in any Diocess could be Ordained or exercise any Jurisdiction belonging to such place without the consent or confirmation of the Metropolitan nor Metropolitan in any Province without the Confirmation of the Patriarch See Can. Apost 35. Conc Nic. Can. 4 6. Con c. Antioch c. 9.19 Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Carthag c. 12. Conc. Constantinop c. 2. Conc. Ephes c. 8 Where note That not the Confirmation of the Cyprian Metropolitan but the Election and Ordination of him of which the Cyprian Bishops complained that they were deprived is denied in this Canon to the Antiochian Patriarch as Res nova and contrary to former Customs this thing properly belonging to the Provincial Synod Conc. Chalced. 28. And here note that these later Canons maintain the Mos antiquus obtineat of the 6th Nicene Canon and so preserve unviolated the ancient preeminencies of the Chief Patriarches as well as those of inferior Primates or Metropolitans After all which the 8th General Council Can. 17 Reciting the foresaid 6th Canon of Nice thus explains it Quâ pro causâ haec magna sancta Synodus tam in seniori novâ Româ Constantinopoli quam in Sede Antiochiaes Hierosolymorum priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metropolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiunt habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandam eos urgente necessit ate ad Synodalem Conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam dâ—lictis forsitan accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p 5.8 Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council †Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by Imposition of Hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be Ordained And What they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the Right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus B. Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority In Ordaining their Metropolitans or Confirming them c. 3ly Again so ordered That any difference arising between any inferior persons or Councils either of an equal degree as between two Presbyters or two Bishops or their Synods § 12 or an unequal as between a Presbyter and his Bishop between a Bishop and his Metropolitan or their Synods a repair for the decision thereof should be made to the next Person or Council Superior to both Nor might obedience by an Inferior be denied to or a discession made from any Superior upon something thought criminous in him before such judgment of an higher Court were first passed discharging such Inferiors of their duty See Conc. Nic. Can 4 5 6. Conc. Sard. Can. 7. Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 8. General Council c. 10. 26. compared with the 17. expounding the 6th Can. of the Nicene Council Thus then all inferior Conciliar differences of much
consequence were terminated if not sooner ultimately in a General Council when it could be had personal appeals in the Interval of Councils which whether Episcopal Provincial or Patriarchal cannot be upon every cause without great trouble charge convened were as for greater causes and persons as those of the other Patriarchs or eminent Bishops ended by the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of Rome who made use of such Bishops for his Assessors and Council as could with convenience upon such appeals be brought together See the Council of Sardica can 4 5. Concerning the just Authority of which Council I refer the Protestant-Reader to Mr. Thorndikes Defence thereof Epil l. 3. c. 21. p. 181. and just weights p. 40. But see this practice of Appeals to the First See much more ancient not only as to the West §. 13. n. 1. in the Provinces subject to this Patriarch where we meet with the appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops desiring by him to be restored to their Bishopricks of which they pretended they were unjustly deprived ‖ Cyprian Ep 38. in which matter S. Cyprian †Ep. 68. indeed blames the Pope for receiving them rashly into his Communion when he bad not well examined their Cause nor the justice of the former Sentence passed in Spain on them but not at all for his admitting as Patriarch their appeal and find * the Request of the said S. Cyprian ‖ Ep. 67. made to the Pope for his Letter to the Bishops of France to depose Marcianus a French Bishop for siding with the Novatians again * the appeal of Caeci lianus Primate of Carthage who was wronged by a Council held in Affrick to the Pope and his Council related and justified against the Donatists by S. Austin Ep. 162. But as to the East also where we find the appeal of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople wronged by the Arrian Eastern Synods And long before these the appeal of Dionysius Alexandrinus accused to the Pope by some of Pentapolis †Athanas de Sententia Dionys Alexandrin and so making his Defence to Him and cleared by him and his Council All these before the Decree of Sardica as for the times after it I suppose it needless to mention the appeals of S Chrysostom ‖ Ep. ad Innocent Theodoret †Ep. ad Leonem Flavianus and other Eastern Bishops As for the famous Contest that was had about these Appeals §. 13. n. 2. between Sozimus and Bonifacius Popes and the Affrican Bishops after A. D. 400 and after so many eminent former allowed Examples of such Appeals 1st The Constitution of those Affrican Prelates in a Council held about the same time whether it were the Milevitan or rather another at Carthage as some think it much matters not prohibits such Appeals beyond Sea only to the inferior Clergy in these words ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c. non provocent nifi ad Affricana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum But it enjoyns nothing concerning Bishops 2ly In their dispute with Boniface they handled the matter so gently that as Baronius observes †A. D. 412. they seem'd to debate rather de modo than de Re bespeaking him on this manner ‖ Ep. ad Bonâ—ifac Impendio deprecamur ut ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus †l. 4. c. 8. n. 32. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facilè audiantur i. e. à Rom. Pontifice nisi viz. notoria manisesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maximâ eorum parte For he grants there Vbi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Episcopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim verò ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Cacilian's case And Concilium Nicenum voluit observari ne in suâ Provinciâ Communione suspensi à suâ sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui For the common practice of such Appeals in former times by Athanasius and others shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons of Nice to admit into his Communion any such Bishop as was excommunicated by his Province if the Roman Bishop found him wrongfully suspended And therefore 't is true also that the 6th Nicene Canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisit which the Affricans urged but not this in every case unappealable to Superiors as appears by their former Qualification Ne festinato ne praeproperè c. And particularly for this Province of Affrick S. Austin undertakes against the Donatists a Justification of the Appeal made formerly to a Transmarine Judgment the Donatists much opposing it by Cacilianus Bishop of Carthage when injur'd by an Affrican Council of 70 Bishops The Father giving there his reason also for the Equity of such Appeal because such Ecclesia transmarina was à privatis inimicitiis ab utrâque parte dissensionis aliena Where also he justifies Melchiades Bishop of Rome his admission of this Appeal An fortè non debuit saith he Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primus Numidae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurparit Rogatus Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tot â ill â causâ quid justum videretur statuerent And a little after the foresaid Contest in an Appeal made to Rome by one Antonius constituted formerly Bishop of Fussala by S. Austin This Father writing an Epistle to Pope Celestin about it there no way declines his Sentence but only supplicates his favour in it Collabora nobiscum obsecro Jube tibi quae directa sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsâ Apostolica sede judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam c. And the same Father relating to the forecited Affrican Canon ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. argues thus against the Donatists the lawfulness of Cecilian's Transmarine Appeal †Ep. 162. Neque enim saith he de Presbyteris aut Diaconis aut inferioris Ordinis clericis sed de collegis Episcopis agebatur Qui possunt aliorum Collegarum praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum judicio causam suam integram reservare Upon which passage joined with some other Reasons some ‖ See Ant. Capellus de Appel lationibus c. 4. have contended that the Acts and Epistles of the 6th Council of Carthage to the Pope quarrelling about Appeals are forged and counterfeit These Acts arguing just contrary to S. Austin thus If an Appeal not permitted to inferior
Clergy much less to Bishops †Epist. Celest Etsi say they de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi in the Nicene Canon praecaveri quantò magis de Episcopis voluit observari c. And Dr. Field touching this matter hath these words ‖ Of the Church p. 563. The Affricans though within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeal of their Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a General Synod of Affrick wherein the Primate sate as President For otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the Canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus he For otherwise here meaneth he not when such Councils do not sit For surely he would not have a Provincial Council purposely new called upon every personal contention But this overthrows the arguments of the Affrican Bishops who also are said to have denied such Appeals not when Affrican Councils sit only but altogether Again S. Austin clearly justifies Appeals from Affrican Councils also This of the Affrican Controversie about Appeals of as little advantage to non-Appealants as it is of great noise if the matter be on both sides equally weighed Again §. 13. n. 3. Touching another ancient Contest that happened and is also urged by Protestants between the Cyprian Bishops and the Patriarch of Antioch decided in the 3d. General Council Can. 8. you may observe That whatever priviledge or exemption any Church or Province may have had from any Patriarch or his Council as to Elections or Ordinations yet no Church or Person hath been freed from a submittance thereto in point of Appeals or of Decision of Controverfies in matter of Faith Neither here can the Cyprian Bishops by vertue of any such Canon of Ephesus plead their particular exemption from the 7th Canon of Sardica or 9th of Chalcedon which Canon is also seconded by the Imperial Law in Cod. Tit. 4. c. 29. or from the 17th or 26th Canon of the 8th General Council which Canons command such submittance and allow such Appeals in which Appeals also the Inferior Patriarchs were subject to the Superior See before § 12 13 and below the Concession of Dr. Field § 16 n 5 And of the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarch over Cypras as to these matters still remaining after the Canon of Ephesus see S. Jerom ‖ Epist ad Pamachium in his controversie with John Bishop of Jerusalem Ni fallor hoc ibi i. e. in Concilio Niceno ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit totius Orientis Antiochia Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras cui spretâ communione tuâ communicare nos noveras aut si procul expetendum judicium erat Antiochiam potiùs literae dirigendae Totius Orientis and so Cypri Mean while in this necessary Subordination of the lower Clergy or their Synods to the higher § 14 1st Care was taken That Co-ordinate Churches 1. or Provinces or their Synods i. e. such whereof the one could claim no Jurisdiction over the other neither by ancient Custom nor Conciliar Constitution should usurp no authority over one another For which see Can Apostol 36. Conc Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Ephes c. 8. Conc. Constantinop c. 2 3 5. Compared with Conc. Chalced. Act 16. Which Canons and particularly the second and third of the Second General Council at Constantinop do not prove what some would infer That all Provinces are for all power absolute supreme and independent from whom might be no further appeal nor any other Person or Council as Superior take account of their Acts for the contrary known practice in antiquity shews this to be otherwise †See §. 12 13. and thus Provincial Councils would have no subjection to General but only signifie these two things 1st That neither Patriarch nor Primate or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province co-ordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i.e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such superiority See the limitation Conc. Ephes c. 8. Quae non priùs atque ab initio c. And Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause that is still retained in these Canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal As for example Not the Bishops of Alexandria therefore to meddle with the affairs of Antioch Solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae Servatis i. e. without encroaching upon them Nor the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch to meddle with the Ordination of the Bishops in the several Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection 2ly That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the Supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgment of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only co-ordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii For observe that some of those Diocesses that are urged in the former Canon ‖ Conc. Ephes c. 8. to be independent viz. the Diocess of Thrace Pontus and Asia are in the 16th Act of the Council Chalced. where this very Canon was recited mentioned to be subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople subjected i. e. as to confirmation of their Metropolitans and as to Appeals see Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 16. Though still their priviledge stood firm Vt Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae namely unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Diocesium ordinet sua Regionis Episcopos sicut Divinia Canonibus i. e. the Canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum And as these Diocesses were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople so were others to those of Alexandria and Antioch The second necessary provision made by the Church §. 15. n. 1. was That in the Intervals of Synods the respective Presidents thereof should be authorized 2. as standing Church-Officers always extant and accessible to end controversies interpret and execute their Canons since these greater Bodies could not be so frequently as occasions might require without much trouble assembled †See below §. 16. n. 6 8. As also lesser causes were ordered to be finally terminated in some inferior Court without liberty of appeal in all Causes by whatever persons which was the chief matter stood upon by the Affricans against Pope Bonifacius in the case of a Presbyter from one superior Court to a further or also from the standing Ecclesiastical Officers to a future Council that so Contentions might not be unnecessarily prolonged nor the supreme Courts overcharged with business nor Justice deferred See Conc. Milevit c. 22. And Card. Bellarmin De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 24 Quastio de Appellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c.
practice relating to these Patriarchs and their Synods but the great necessity thereof as to the Vnity of the Churches Faith and Conservation of her Peace and that much more since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms by reason of which secular contrary Interests the several parts and members of the Catholick Church dispersed amongst them are more subject to be disjointed and separated from one another Which unity and peace if we reflect on * the great rarity of General Councils not above 5 or 6 in the Protestant account in 1600. years and * the multiplicity of Primates that are in Christendom all left by Dr. Hammond Supreme and independent of one another or of any other person or Council when a General one not in being and * the experience of their frequent Lapses into gross Errors For almost what great Heresie or Schism hath there been in the Church whereof some Primate was not a chief Abettor and * The Rents in the Church made by these apt to be much greater as the person is higher and more powerful is not sufficiently provided for though much pretended in Dr. Hammonds Scheme Come we then to Dr. Fields Model yet more enlarged The actions saith he ‖ Of the Chur. p. 513. of the Bishop of each particular Church of a City §. 16. n. 5. and places adjoining were subject to the censure and judgment of the rest of the Bishops of the same Province amongst whom for order sake there was one Chief to whom it pertained to call them together to sit as Moderator in the midst of them being assembled and to execute what by joint consent they resolved on The actions of the Bishops of a Province and of a Provincial Synod consising of those Bishops were subject to a Synod consisting of the Metropolitans and other Bishops of divers Provinces This Synod was of two sorts For either it consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and Nation only as did the Councils of Affrica or of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms If of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishop of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Vnity of it Here you see that roundly confest which Dr. Hammond concea'ld Again Ib. p. 668. It is evident That there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods Synods Patriarchal answering to Patriarchs National to Primates and that neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And Ib. p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these had no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and this Council for which see Ib. c. 39. p. 563. where he quotes the Emperors Law Novel 123. c. 22. Patriarcha Dioceseos illius huic causae praebeat finem nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente confirming the 9th Canon of Conc. Chalced. Again p. 567. 568. he saith That it is a Rule in Church-government that the lesser and inferior may not judge the greater and superior That if any Bishop have ought against his Metropolitan he must go as I shewed before to the Patriarch and his Synod to complain as to fit and competent Judges That the great Patriarchs of the Christian Church are to be judged by some other of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops that the Bishop of Rome as first in order among the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty though these later are not found always necessary or present at such judgments nor more of his own Bishops than those whom he can at such time conveniently assemble and consult with as appears in the Appeals of those persons named before § 13. n. 1. may judge any of the other Patriarchs That such as have complaints against them may fly to him and the Synod of Bishops subject to him and that the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses may fly to him and such Synods for relief and help See the same §. 16. n. 6. p 668 Nor doth he acknowledge such an authority of Judicature in these Church Prelates only as joined w th their Synods but also in them single and without them For since it is manifest that the constant meeting of the Provincial Synods twice as it was ordered at the first or once in the year as afterward did very early cease either by the Clergies neglect or the great trouble and charge of such Assemblies and so later Councils accordingly appointed such Synods to be held in stead of twice yearly once in 3. years nor yet are in this well obeyed Hence either all such Causes and Appeals to their Superious still multiplied as Christianity is increased must be for so long a time suspended and depending which would be intolerable and a quick dispatch though less equitable rather to be wished or the hearing of them must be devolved to these single standing Judges as directed by former Church-Canons Concerning this therefore thus the same Doctor goes on ‖ l. 5. p. 514. quoting the Canons of the 6th and 7th Council At the first saith he there was a Synod of Bishops in every Province twice in the year But for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th Council †Can. 8. decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed which Canon was renewed by the 7th General Council ‖ Can. 6. But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy Meetings we shall find that they met not so often and very early may this be found and therefore the Council of Basil appointed Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year and Provincial at the least once in three years And so in time Causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus He. And if this rarer meeting of Provincial Synods transferred many Causes on the
Council and generally approved have force § 43 5ly What is said here of the non-approbation of some Prelates or Churches as frequently happens it s not invalidating a Council 5. or its Decrees must be said also of the absence of some Prelates from the Council or of their non-concurrence when sitting in it their absence 1. Either voluntary as of those who heterodox in opinion and fewer in number foresee that probably they shall be over voted by the rest as the Arrian Prelates did absent themselves from the Council of Sardica and so might also have absented themselves from that of Nice or again the Eutychian Prelats from Chalceâ—on notwithstanding whose absence or non-concurrence the Council will not cease to bear the just title of General provided that it consist of a major part of the Christian Churches and have the concurrence of the Prime Patriarch without whom nihil finiendum Otherwise an Heretical or Schismatical Church can secure themselves as they please from being condemned by any General Council which as long as they are absent will be called not General and so its force cannot extend to them Nay otherwise after any defection from the Orthodox Faith or after any considerable Schism in the Church now there can never be any more Oecumenical Councils because forsooth that party fallen away will give no meeting to the other too prevalent and thus General Councils cease to have any being when there first begins to be any need of them Of this thus a Learned Protestant ‖ Dr. Field p. 651. with intention to make the 5 th Council a General one without the presence of the Pope and his Occidental Bishops The Presidence and Presence saith he of the Bishop of Rome is not so necessary in General Councils but that in case of his wilsul refusal a Council may proceed and be holden for lawful without his consenting to it And As a Council may be holden in such a case i.e. they refusing to come without the presence and concurrence of the Roman Bishop and those that are subject to him so being present if be refuse to concur in judgment with the rest they may proceed without him and their sentence may be of force though he consent not to it What then they presume to affirm thus of the Roman they must not deny of their own Bishops This that the voluntary absence of some Prelates doth not invalidate a Council or its Acts.2. Neither yet doth the absence forced of some others if such as being formerly justly eâ—communicated or anathematized have now no right to any voting in such Councils though perhaps if admitted these might equal the Orthodox in number Thus Gelasius Bishop of Rome †Epist ad Episcopos Dardaniae concerning the Eutychians when very numerous in the East and also of the Favourers of them not to be admitted to a Council Ecclesiastici moris non est cuni his qui pollutam habent communionem permixtamque cum perfidis miscere Concilium And Meritò ab Apostolicâ sede caeterisque Catholicis non jam consulendi erant sed potiùs notandi c. 6ly What hath been here said of the necessary Constitution or Composition of a General Council § 44 and Ratification of its Acts must be said exactly on the same ground 6. concerning a Patriarchal or other inferior Council that it is not necessary that all the Bishops of such Patriarchy be assembled or absent do accept and ratifie it to make it Legal or Obligatory § 45 2. This said concerning the necessary Composition of a General Council come we next to the Presidency and Moderatorship therein 1. Where 1 st As it hath been already shewed in all the other Synods ‖ §. 9 c Protestants consenting †§. 16. that the Presidentship in them without any new election made by the Council or yet by the secular power belongâ— to him who hath the prime place and dignity the presiding in the Provincial Council to the Metropolitan in the National Council where be may Metropolitans to the Primate of them c. which President also had in these Councils a negative voice †See before §. 10. so it seems all reason that iâ— a General Council also that Prelate should preside who is the Bishop of the chief See and to whom in all ages all other Churches and Prelates have allowed the Primacy i. e. the Bishop of Rome See 2. Gen. Counc c. 5. All reason I say That the Primate of the Patriarchs Preside in a General Council as the Primate of the Metropolitans in a National And that what other Priviledges these other Presidents enjoyed in those Councils the same at least though we set aside here his universal Pastorship He should enjoy in This agreeable to that ancient Canon and Custom in the universal Church mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13. And Sozamen l. 2. c. 13. And vindicated by Pope Innocent apud August Epist 91. And yet more anciently by Pope Julius against some Oriental Bishops apud Athanas Apol. 2. Sinâ— Romans Pâ—â—tifice nihil finiendum § 46 2 ly If in this Matter Prescription may be of any force de facto the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of â—ome in the ancient Councilâ— General hath always bean allowed this Presidentship As will appear to any reviewing the Church-History for the first 8. General Councils In 4. of which Councils namely the 4th 6th 7th and 8th the Protestant grant it without dispute Next For his Presidency in the 3d. General Council it seems evident enough ‖ l. 1. c. 4. Conc. Eph. pars 2. Act. 1. from the testimony of Evagrius ‖ that Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was deputed by him to execute this Office who saith That the Bishops meeting in that Council Cyrillo locum Celestini Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis obtinente accersunt Nestorium c. whose Deputy also Cyril was made before for the excommunication of Nestorius by the Authority of the Apostolical See as appears in the Pope's Letter to Cyril †Act. Concil Eph. Tom. 1. Nostrâ vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententiam exequêris c. For the 2 d. and 5 th General Council both held at Constantinople as it is true that the Pope presided not in them because indeed neither He nor his Legates were present in them so it is true that these Councils were not General till they were after their Session accepted by him and the other Western Churches But yet both these Councils apparently enough yield the Presidency to him in general Councils the 5 th which much courted his presence in express terms in Eutychiâ—â— the Patriarch of Constantinople his Letter to him ‖ Petinius ‖ Conc. Constan Collat. 1. presidente nobis vestrâ Beatitudine communi tractatu eadem capitula in medio proponenda quari c. And the 2 d. in that which infers his presidency whilst the Bishop of Constantinople who in the absence
same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And the 8 th General Council Can. 17. upon occasion of some Metropolitans qui ne secundum vocationem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant à mundi Principibus se detineri sine ratione causantur declares also thus against such Princes Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat impium esse ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant And all these things are justified and allowed by Protestants Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason That the calling of a General Council i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs and their Patriarchies should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs or Bishop of the chief See though we suppose that he claim no more than a preeminency of order as Primates do over Metropolitans § 49 Of this matter therefore some Learned Proteâ—â—rnts seem to speak more moderately 1 st Thus Mr. Thorndike concerning the Right of Calling Councils its belonging to the Church Epil p. 33. I must saith he here not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles He accounting that Assembly Act. 1. at the election of Matthias a General Council and again that Act. 15. And then thus B. Bramhal concerning the Prime Patriarch's calling such Council Schism-guarded p. 356. If the Pope saith he hath any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of Vnity or of his Protopatriarchate we do not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. confesseth that power which we acknowledge that is that though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs yet the Right to convocate General Councils should pertain unto him So B. Bramhal Dr. Field speaks yet more distinctly and copiously †Of the Chur. p. 697. The State of the Christian Church saith he being spiritual is such that it may stand though not only forsaken but grievously oppressed by the great men of the world and therefore it is by all resolved on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of convocating these her spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her weâ—fare though none of the Princes of the world do favour her And there is no question but that this power of convocating these Pastors is in them that are first and before other in each company of spiritual Pastors and Ministers Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop of Provincial to the Metropolitan of National to the Primate and of Patriarchal to the Patriarch And of these he saith That they neither are so depending c. quoted before § 48. Lastly Concerning the Calling of General Councils In times of persecution saith he and when there are no Christian Princes i. e. to assist the Church as he saith afterward If there be any matter of Faith or any thing concerning the whole State of the Christian Church wherein a common deliberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary he that is in order the first among the Patriarchs with the Synods of Bishops subject to him may call the rest together as being the principal part of the Church whence all actions of this nature do take beginning Instancing in Julius and Damasus Bishops of Rome with their Councils practising this So Dr. Field § 50 Only here you see two limitations or bars put in by him for the Reformation to make some advantage of The one In times of persecution or when the Church hath not Princes to assist her then the power of Calling General Councils to belong to the Clergy The other That then it belongs in the Clergy to the prime Patriarch yet not singly but joined with his Council for saith he ‖ p. 668. the first Patriarch hath not power singly to call together the other Patriarchs and their Bishops because none of them is superior to another in degree as Bishops are to Presbyters nor so in Order Honour and Place as Metropolitans are to Bishops or Patriarchs to Metropolitans Now to the first of these his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution see what hath been said already ‖ and his own instances prove against it for Julius § 47 and Damaâ—us summoned the Oriental Bishops to such a Council the one of them in the Reign of Constans the other of Theodosius both of these being Christian Orthodox Catholick Emperors Though if this be allowed that in any non-assistance of the secular powers Heathen or Christian it matters not the Church hath power when she judgeth it requisite to assemble such Councils more needs not be desired Concerning his second Limitation In the reason he gives for it he omits one Superiority among the rest which would have fitted the purpose namely the Superiority that Primates have to the other Meropolitans in their calling a National Synod and that without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops first consulted I ask therefore why not the Primate of the Patriarchs do the like 2 ly If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs neither hath he joined with his Synod his Synod having no more power over other Patriarchs then himself As for the Instances Julius sent to the Orientals singly concerning a Council to be joined of both the East and West Damasus indeed sent when a Western Council was sitting but this called for other matters and not for this to give him a Commission for such a Summons or to join with him in it as if the first Patriarch cannot when need requires call a General Council without first Summoning and convening a Patriarchal Council to give their consent to the calling of this General A thing to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council a matter of so great trouble and delay as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council either for this or for much other Church-business as hearing Appeals of less account c. which come to the Patriarchs hands And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much where he saith ‖ p. 513. That in time causes growing many and the difficulties intollerable in coming together
and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints and Appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And the Protestant-Primates saith Bishop Bramhal †Vind. c. 1. p. 257. use the same customs of judging Church-Causes without calling Synods Now what is in this kind conceded to Metropolitans much more ought to be to Patriarchs whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial nor ever was a set time appointed for these as for the other This said concerning the Calling of General Councils its belonging of right to the Church and in it to the Supremest Prelate § 49 3ly It is not denied but that the Emperor had and since the dissolution of the Empire other Princes joined 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Prelates as being their Subjects of calling these both in assistance to the Church in her necessities and also in order to their own Civil affairs when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church Provided this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent consent either before or at least after the Indiction of them Of which thus Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt fic tainen ut possit etiam alius Pontifice consentiente Conciliâ—m indicere quinetiam satis sit si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat confirmet at si nec ipse indicat Concilium nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem illud non Concilium sed Conciliabulum fore § 52 And this thing is made good by the ancient practice where As the Emperors being by their secular power much more effectual promoters thereof were prevailed with to call the first General Councils so this was not done but either from the first Motion or with the consent of the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Head of the Church as appears concerning all the first 6. General Councils in the acclamatory speech of the 6 th Council at the conclusion thereof to the Emperor Arius Divisor c. They naming 1 Sylvester 2 Damasus 3 Caelestinus 4 Leo 5 Vigilius 6 Agatho Bishops of Rome joined with the Emperor in the promoting all these Councils And to come to some particulars Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus and to the Council assembled with him at Rome Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae i. e. of Damasus singly this Council not then sitting when the Orientals met first in Council though it did when they writ literas missas Theodosio summâ pietate Imperatori Concerning the 3 d. Council thus Prosper in Chronico Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ Coelestini authoritate Concerning the 4 th Thus the Emperor to Leo in the Epistles pertaining to that Council Superest ut si placuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire c. Synodum celebrare hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur nostris utique desideriis vestra Sanctitas satisfaciet Sacrae Religioni quae utilia sunt decernet Si verâ— hoc onerosum est ut tu ad has partes advenias hoc ipsum nobis prâ—priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum ubi nobis placuerit omues sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire quae Christianorum Religioni atque Catholicae Fidei prosint sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit suâ dispositione declarent To which add * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister to the same Pope Propterea tua Reverentia quocunque modo prospexerit significare dignetur ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi Thraciae atque Illyrici sicut etian nostro Domin piâ—ssimo Imperatori placuit in unani Civitatem velociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire illic facto Concilio de Catholicâ confessione c. te authore decernant And * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the first Act of that Council Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam factum est nec fieri licuit The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Oriental Bishops against John Bishop of Constantinople And that of Gelasius who lived about some 40. years after in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum i. e. the second Ephesin non consentiendo sola summovit authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Lastly If the ancient Canon that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum stand good the calling such Councils by Emperors without the Mandate or confent also of this Bishop will be to no purpose because nothing can be established therein without his concurrence Thus much of the power of Calling General Councils CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy § 67. § 53 THese things touching Church-Government from § â—9 being premised in general a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent as occasion requires I proceed to a more particular consideration of the first Head proposed before ‖ §. 8. concerning the Generality and just Authority of this Council to oblige all the Churches Subjects especially those of the West 1. Where in the first place it is to be noted That supposing this Council of Trent no legal and free General yet if it be a free and legal Patriarchal Council thus it will stand obligatory at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction to the Reformed and particularly to the English Church For 1 st It hath been formerly cleared both by the Church-Canons ‖ See before §. 11 12. c. and the Concessions of Protestants †§. 16. n. 4. c. That as a Diocesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses or to a Provincial where the Metropolitan presides and again a Provincial or Metropolitan Synod to a National or that composed of many Provinces
wherein the Primate of the Metropolitans presides so again is this National Synod the Catholick Church in many Nations being but One subject to that composed of several Nations and their Primates called and presided-in by one of the principal Patriarchs Neither whatever Superiority such Patriarch really hath needeth he for the subjection of such Primates and their respective Churches to this Patriarchal Council any other power over these Primates save what these Primates are granted to have over the Metropolitans whose Proyincial Synods we see are subjected to a National or the Primate's Synod Neither if it could be proved that the chief Patriarchs have over National Primates no superiority of power or at least that some particular Provinces as to Ordinations or some other Jurisdictions are utterly exempt from Patriarchal authority may therefore such Provinces pretend freedom from any obedience to the Decrees of a Council Patriarchal wherein some one of these Patriarchs presides no more than they can justly pretend freedom from a Council Oecumenical on the same account in which Council Oecumenical or General though the same Primates should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical Person their Superior yet could they not deny the Council to be so Subject then are National Synods and Churches to Patriarchal and to this end every Church as Dr. Field observes p. 513. cited before § 16. n. 5. is subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporated into the Vnity of it Of the necessity of which Union of Churches in Patriarchal Synods in the so much more difficult and chargeable assembling of such as are absolutely Vniversal see before § 16. n. 4. § 54 2. Next The Church of England one of those the most anciently professing Christianity 2 which it is clear it did before Tertullian's time ‖ See Tertullian Apol. ad versus Judaeos c. 7. Origen in Ezech. Hom. 4 Bede Hist Angl. l. 1. c. 4. never pretended subjection to any other Patriarch or his Council than this of the West to whom also it ascribes its Conversion without dispute as for the Saxons or English if not also as for the Britains And accordingly both in ancient and latter times if the mos antiquus obtineat in the 6 th Canon of Nice be of any force it hath always ranged it self and appeared in the Western Councils as a Member of this Patriarchy and of the Latine Church and from time to time concurred in the passing of those Canons which have established the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and of these Patriarchal Councils § 55 After several Christians suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's time In the Council at Arles in France 10. years before that of Nice assembled by Constantine who being born in England and his Mother an English woman and a Christian and being after his Father's death here also first declared Emperor by his Army may be presumed to have had some particular respects for the Brittish Clergy we find the presence and subscription of several Brittish Bishops acknowledged by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schism p. 110. and B. Bramhal †Vindic. of the Church if England p. 98. and of which thus Sir Henry Spelm. A. D 314. Aderant è Britanniâ celebriores ut videtur tres Episcopi Surely in dignity much preceding and much ancienter than the Bishop of Caerleon nempe Eboracensis Londinensis de Civitate Coloniae Lodunensium quae aliàs dicitur Camelodunum una cum Sacerdote Presbytero Diacono qui Canones assensu suo approbabant in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos The first Canon whereof setleth the matter of Easter to be kept through all the Churches on the same day and the divulgation of this through all Churches was committed to the Bishop of Rome the Western and Prime Patriarch secundum consuetudinem saith the Canon Again at the Council held at Ariminum and before this in that of Sardica assembled A. D. 347. some 20. years after that of Nice is found the presence of the Britain amongst other Western Bishops witnessed by Athanasius who was present there himself in his second Apology And therefore may the Canons of that Council be presumed among the rest to be ratified by them or at least being passed by the major part of that Occidental Council to oblige them Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop how they allow and ratifie his supreme Decision of Appeals c. Protestants are not ignorant and therefore to evade it make such exceptions as these ‖ B. Bramhal Reply to S. W p. 24. 1. That it doth not appear That the British Bishops did assent to that Canon But this matters not the major part in Councils concluding the rest and neither doth it appear on the other side but that they did approve it which also is to be presumed where appears no contradiction 2 Again urged That it was no General Council But it sufficeth for the Britains if it were at least a compleat Occidental Council 3. Pleaded That these Canons of Sardica were never incorperated into the English Laws and therefore did not bind English Subjects But Church-Canons and Decrees in matters Ecclesiastical do oblige all the Members of the Church though Princes oppose Oblige Princes also if Christian and so the Churches Subjects And the Author that requireth this incorporation of Church Canons into the Princes Laws explains himself elsewhere ‖ Schism guarded p. 160. to mean only that Church-Decrees oblige not as to the using any coactive power in his Realms for the execution of them without the Princes leave because saith he such external coactive Jurisdiction is originally Political a thing granted him so that before such leave or enrolment the Churches Decrees oblige both Prince and People if Christian in foro Conscientiae the disobedient justly incurring the Churches censures the thing we here contend for Lastly The 9 th Canon of Chalced. a subsequent General Council is pretended to contradict these of Sardica in giving the Supremacy in Appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople But I need not tell him that this Constantinople Supremacy is not for the West but East which is for the Controversies of those Provinces there subject to that Patriarch § 56 And from the presence of the Britain Bishops in these ancient Councils if I may make here a little digression appears the ignorance of the Abbot of Bangor if the Relation be true in being such a stranger to the Popes Person Authority or Titles after A. D. 600. after all that power exercised by him for so many Ages in the Western Provinces conceded by Protestants see Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. from c. 32. to c. 40. after so many missions of several holy Bishops from the Pope of Rome either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland or to reform it * Of Fugatius and Damianus very early sent by Pope Eleutherius in King Lucius his days which King
might be to suppress And judge you by these things how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 104. were in opposition to Austin the Monk who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church and objected against them Quòd in multis Romanae consuetudini immo Vniversalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent quòd suas Traditiones universis quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent All which was true and the Proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle restoring sight to a blind man See Sir Hen. Spelman A. D. 601. Pardon this Digression made to abate a little the Confidence of those who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor and the different observation of Easter Of which matter Mr. Thorndike in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior the visible Heads of which Resort he saith were Rome Alexandria and Antiochia speaks thus more moderately †They that would except Britain out of this Rule Just weights p. 40. of subjection upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head should consider that S. Gregory setting him over the Saxon Church which he had founded according to Rule transgressed the Rule in setting him over the Welsh Church Setting this case aside the rest of that little remembrance that remains concerning the British Church testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome as appears from the Churches of Gaul Spain and Affrick of which there is no cause to doubt that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome § 61 To proceed and from the Council of Arles and Sardica and Ariminum spoken of before ‖ §. 55. to come to later times we find the English Bishops either concurring and presenting themselves as members with the rest in those Occidental Councils of a later Date the several Lateran Councils that of Constance Basil and Florence or in absence acquiessing in and conforming to the Votes and Acts thereof which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils or at least over the Western part thereof which the present Reformation denies him For which see the Council of Constance much urged by Protestants as no Flatterer of the Pope and wherein the Council voting by Nations the English were one of the 4. Sess 8. 15. condemning against Wickleff and Hus such Propositions as these Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi Apostolorum Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares Petrus non fuit neque est Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae Papae Praefectio Institutio à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit Papa non est manifestus verus Successor Apostolorum Principis Petri si vivit moribus contrariis Petro Non est scintilla apparentiae quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam quod Caput semper cum ipsâ militanti Ecclesiâ conservetur conservatur Now the contrary Propositions to these authorized by a Council supposed not General but Patriarchal only are obligatory at least to the members thereof and consequently to their Posterity until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power de novo asking their consent Not many years after the Council of Chalcedon in the Patriarchy of Alexandria there succeeded to Proterius a Catholick Bishop Timotheus an Eutychian since which time also the Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia remain still Eutychian or at least Dioscorists And in the Patriarchy of Antioch to Martyrius a Catholick Bishop succeeded Petrus Fullo an Eutychian And in the Empire to Leo an Orrhodox Emperor succeeded Zeno an Eutychian And all these declared their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon Yet this did no way unfix with posterity the stability of its Authority or Decrees Neither can the modern Eutychians justifie their non-submission to that Council hence because they can produce some persons and those Patriarchs too that have in succeeding times but after a former more general Acceptation opposed it § 62 3 ly After the English and before them the British Bishops thus shewed § 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council upon what pretence 3. or new priviledge fince the Reformation these Bishops should plead any exemption from submitting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy an acceptation sufficient ‖ See before §. 40. I see not For 1 st The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Council irregular for it is granted by Protestants 1. that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council though not of a General of right belongeth to Him neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons or secular Prince hinder their journey †See before §. 16. n. 5 2. 2ly Neither can the absence of the Eastern Bishops here be stood upon because their presence not necessary in such a Council 3ly Nor can the secular power under which such Protestant Bishops live especially whenas no Heathen 3. but himself also a Subject of the Church opposing or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof I mean if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical and spiritual and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights of which enough hath been said formerly § 63 Bishop Bramhal's Plea That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects till by him incorporated into his Laws as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws unless first made the King's hath been spoken to before ‖ §. 55. Dr. Hammond's grand Plea on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Reformation See his Treatise of Schism c. 6 7 p. 115 132 137 138 142. viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriarchies to remove that of Rome to Canterbury helps not at least in this matter nor perhaps did he ever mean it should extend so far as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council For 1st He grants That the Prince can do no such thing so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church See Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 164. A Power saith he Princes have to erect Metropoles and hence he collects new Patriarchs but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular because he is in some doubt as appears in his Answer to
necessary here to be said for those inconsidering persons with whom speaking last serves for an Answer since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions clears it I say by that common Rule owned also by Protestants themselves †Stillingfl p. 536. That in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western at the making of the Decrees yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth exâ—post-facto make the Council I add or any Session thereof truly Oecumenical Yet in the last place I need not tell you that the Articles made under Pius alone from Session 17-to its Conclusion the ratification of which is here not questioned are so many and so principal as that these utterly ruine the Reformation though the rest of the Council for the paucity of the Representatives were cassated Amongst these Decrees are The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Coelibacy of Priests Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Celebration of the Divine Service in a more generally-unknown Tongue the Assertion of Purgatory the Sacrifice of the Mass and several others § 77 6. Or 6ly If this Council under Pius also seem not sufficiently numerous 6. because more than half of them were Italian Bishops yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward by the Bishops of those Nations who had sometimes none and other times but few Representatives in it sufficiently repairs this defect also See before § 36 37. Now amongst all those Catholick Churches the Acceptation of the French is only that which can be doubted of And concerning this you may observe 1st That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France 1. as well those absent as those present in the Council See for this the many Petitions made at several times by the whole Clergy assembled to the King that he would receive it like the rest of Catholick Princes set down in Review of Council Trent l. 1. c. 2. There 1576. the Archbishop of Lyons in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois doth in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France speak thus unto the King They most humbly desire you that according to their more particular Requests exhibited in their Remonstrances you would authorize and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent which by the advice of so many Learned men hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor Wherein Sir they hope and expect from you as a most Christian Ring the assistance of your authority to put this Reformation in execution where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation as well as Doctrine Again 1579 in a like Assembly of the Clergy at Melun the Bishop of Bazas in their name speaks thus to the King The Clergy entreateth your Majesty that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline reform themselves in good earnest Amongst all the Rules of Reformation Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost and written by the Holy Council of Trent in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the Body Ecclesiastical but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church upon pain of being reputed Schismatical against the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome and of incurring the Curse of God and eternal damnation Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause spake at Fountainâ—leau in this fort The Council of Trent is received kept and observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates this Kingdom only excepted which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it to the the great scandal of the French Nation and of the title of Most Christian wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured So that under colour of some Articles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire c. A. D. 1585 the same request was renewed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German in Paris Not the Gallican only but the whole Church Catholick doth summon intreat and pray you to receive it the Council of Trent No good Christian can or ought ever to make any question but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See the consent of all Christian Princes who sent their Ambassadours thither who staid there till the very upshot without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published There being such a number of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and learned men from all parts yea not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom sent thither by the late King your Brother who having delivered consulted and spoken their opinion freely did consent and agree to what was there determined And since the writing of the Review A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris Cardinal Perron and Cardinal Richlieu then Bishop of Lusson prosecuted again the same request And though this without success yet of the solemn Acceptation of this Council the next year after at least by the Representatives of the Clergy thus Spondanus ‖ In A. D 1615 n 7 In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis 1614 quanivis nobilitas vota sua junxisset viz. Vt sacrum Concilium Tridentinum Regia authoritate promulgaretur in Râ—gnâ— praestitum a Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Abbatibus ac caeteris qui aderant ex cunctis Regni provinciis Delegatis viris Ecclesiasticis extitit quantum in ipsis suit dum scilicet unanimi 〈◊〉 â—mnium consensu illud recipientes suis se functionibus observaturos promiserunt ac jurarunâ— After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country ‖ A D 1546 n 4 Non solum non in Decretis Fidei ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae ullum unquam fuisse objectum dubium Sed ipsa Dicreta Reformationis tam ab ecclesiasticis susceptafuisse quam etiam paucis quibusdam exceptis chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with ecclesiastical commendams Singillatim Regiis Constitutionibus recepta per Ministros Regios executioni mandata These I have transcribed to shew you the French Clergies conformity to this
before the sitting of this Council and condemning most of the points which this justifies the Sacrifice of the Mass Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Purgatory Indulgences and some others were condemned and declared to be against Gods Word by the Articles of the Church of England many years before the same were either imposed to be sworn to by Pius or defended and justified by the Articles of Trent the one done in 1549. the other in 1562. 2 ly Who leave as little liberty to their Subjects to hold the Roman tenents as the Roman Church doth to hold theirs For as the Roman Church doth Anathematize those who affirm the contrary to her Articles to be true so doth the Church of England in the Synod held under King James 1603. can 5. excommunicate those that affirm any of her Articles to be erroneous And for this Churches requiring also not only an external non-contradiction but internal assent I desire you to weight the proofs produced in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †wither §. 83. n. 1. to avoid Repetitions I remit you And if we look into the Protestant Churches abroad we find the National Synod of Dort assembled A. D. 1618. touching some differences among their Divines in those high and dark points of Divine Predestination Co-operation of Grace and Freewill c. where were present also some Divines sent from all the other Protestant-Churches following the Doctrine of Calvin except the French We find it I say in those five Points * to have passed partly in asserting Truths partly in condemning errors no less than 91. Articles or Canons What might their Canons have amounted to had they discussed so many Points of Controversie as that of Trent did And then * to enjoyn all the Pastors their Subjects the teaching to the people of these Truths and therefore the believing of them and * to excommunicate all those holding the contrary as corrupters of the Truth till they shall give satisfaction to the Church in professing the true Doctrines The words of the Synod Sess 138. are these Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Faederato Belgio Ecclesiarm Pastoribus c. ut banc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five Points in Controversie sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which publick teaching of them required includes assent to them Then against the Remonstrants pronounceth thus Synodus suae Authoritatis ex verbo Dei probe conscia omnium legitimarum tum veterum tum recentiorum Synodorum vestigiis insistens declarat atque judicat Pastores illos c. the Remonstrant Ministers corruptae Religionis scissae Ecclesiae unitatis reos teneri Quas ob causas Synodus praedictis omni ecclesiastico munere interdicit eisque ab officiis suis abdicat donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam ecclesiae satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur Then orders Vt Synodi Provinciales neminem ad sacrum Ministerium admittant qui doctrinae hisce Synodicis constitutionibus declaratae subscribere eamque docere recuset § 201. Only this main difference there is between these two Churches That the one requires assent to her Articles telling her Subjects that in necessaries she cannot erre the other requires assent declaring to her followers that she may erre even in points Necessary The one requires assent in obedience to her Authority delegated to her by our Lord the other seems to require assent only from the Evidence in Scripture or otherwise of the matter proposed Therefore so many of her Subjects as see not such Evidence in equity me thinks should be freed from her exacting their assent And then such obligation to assent would fail of its end expressed before her Articles viz. the hindering diversity of Opinions and the establishing of consent touching true Religion § 202 10. Lastly to shut up all Whatever offence either this strict Profession of Faith summ'd up by Pius 10. or Anathemas multiplied by the Council of Trent may have given to the Reformed yet neither the one nor the other can justly be charged to have given occasion to their discession and rent from the former Catholick Church Which Division and as I have shewed †§. 200. their Censure also of the Roman Doctrines preceded both the times of Pius and the sitting of this Council and on the contrary their Departure and such Censure first occasioned the Churches standing upon her Defence and the setting up these new fences and Bars for preservation of her ancient Doctrine invaded by them and for hindering her sheep from stragling out of her fold and hearkning after the voice of Strangers CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome § 207. 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218 Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices 220. 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to Pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy § 209. 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non Residence § 235. 4 Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. And the Divine Service not in the vulgar tongue § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. § 203 THus much from § 173. of the 4th Head Concerning the multitude of the Canons Definitions and Anathemas of this Council in points of Doctrine The fifth succeeds touching the Acts for Reformation of several corruptions and disorders in the Churches Government and Discipline which was so much petitioned for by Christian Princes and also from its first sitting undertaken by this Council But with such a contrary and unexpected issue saith Soave †l. 1. p. 2. That this Council being managed by Princes for Reformation of Ecclesiastical Discipline hath caused the greatest Deformation that ever was since Christianity did begin and hoped for by the Bishops to regain the Episcopal Authority usurped for the most part by the Pope hath made them lose it altogether bringing them into greater servitude on the contrary feared and avoided by the See of Rome as a potent means to moderat the exorbitant power mounted from small beginnings by divers degrees unto an unlimited excess it hath so established and confirmed the same over that part which
remaineth subject unto it that it was never so great nor so soundly rooted Thus he To which may be added the like passage in Mr. Stillingfleet †Rat. Account p. 480. I suppose from this Historians Detractions too confidently followed who tells his Readers That the Pope was still in a bodily Fear till the Council was ended to his mind But then what rejoycing 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 § 204 But I suppose it will be sufficient in answer to both to give you the Confessions of the same Soave in the latter end of his History to make appear how untruly these things are said in the beginning For after the Council now ended and a Confirmation desired from the Pope of these its acts the authority of Bishops was found to be so much enlarged by the Council and the former exercise of the Popes Authority though all done with a Salva authoritate Apostolica sedis so much pared the priviledges of the Cardinals and gains of the Court of Rome by the restraints of Appeals of Dispensations of Pluralities of Non-Residence Exemptions Pensions Elections c. so much diminished that the Pope though of himself much inclined to a General Confirmation with his Cardinals and Court is related by Soave to have long time deliberated whether the Articles of Faith only should be accepted and confirmed and those of Reformation rejected or moderated To give you these things rather in his own words which may serve as an Antidote to the former L. 8. p. 814. He saith That the Court understanding that the Pope was resolved for the Confirmation changed their joy into grief and all the Officers complained of the loss they should receive in their Offices if that reformation were executed That Supplications also and Memorials were given to the Pope by those who having bought their Offices and foreseeing this loss demanded Restitution That the Pope having diligently considered hereof deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confirmation and to think upon some remedy for the complaints of the Court. That these Cardinals were almost all of opinion that it was fit they should be moderated before the Confirmation And that it was certain that they who did procure the Council had no aim but to pull down the Popes authority and while the Council did last every one did speak as if It had power to give laws unto him where you see what freedom the Council took At last that satisfied with two speeches the one of Cardinal Amulius the other of Hugo Buon Compagno perswading him and the Court that by dispensing with its acts or giving what interpretations to them he pleased he might provide for his Ministers and Servants and accommodate things to that which might be for the benefit of the Church without violating the Decrees of the Council because in them the Apostolick authority is still reserved the Pope proceeded to confirm them entirely § 205 To verifie some part of which Relation of Soave concerning the reluâ—tance of the Popes Court not without great cause if an eye may be had only to gain I may add what Pallavicino writing but the other day and well acquainted with the present state thereof relates concerning it †That as to Favours and Dispensations Introduct c. 10. formerly granted from the Apostolick See this Council hath so far moderated the use of them that if the Pope will observe these laws the fountain of his beneficence is dried up for one half And that although he hath still a power to dispense with these laws yet the Popes for their Conscience and Honour sake require for the most part such pressing Motives and so rarely happening of doing this that their Concessions in such matters as are prohibited by the Council do not amount to the 20th part of those formerly accustomed And that the same thing also happens * in the Causes primae instantiae as they phrase it that are brought to the Court of Rome And * In those priviledges or exemptions by which many particular persons withdrew themselves from the Jurisdiction of Bishops which was no less than rendring many the immediate Subjects of the Tribunals of the Pope and finally * in all those affairs concerning which the Council grants power to the Bishops that they shall proceed in them as Delegats of the Apostolick See which as to the advancing of the Bishops power amounts to the same as if they dispatched them in their own right without any such formality Thus he And again l. 23. c. 12. n. 5. To Soave †objecting That the leaving the cognition l. 8. p. 792. and termination of several causes to the Bishops Tribunals without any more Appeales to Rome ordered in the 20th Chapter of Reformation Sess 24. was quite destroyed by the exception there added Ab his excipiantur causae quas ex urgenti ration abilique causâ judicaverit summus Romanus Pontifex per speciale Rescriptum Signaturae sanctitatis suae manu propria subscribendum committere aut avocare he answers thus That though the Pope may still call to himself what causes he thinks fit so he passeth this first under his own hand and seal yet that the former faculty of his Officers to call such causes to him though in his name yet without his knowledge or subscription was now ceased by this new Order And That if it be numbred as that is easily counted which is seldom done How many Commissions of this kind are signed by the Pope in a year for the whole Circuite of Christianity if these rise to three or four yearly it is acknowledged very much 〈◊〉 Thus he of the former Income to the Court of Rome much diminished and of the Acts of this Council after the decurrence of an hundred years as to this matter still retaining their primitive vigour publishing these things in that place where in matters so obvious and evident his credit must suffer very much by any falsification But on the other side the Episcopal authority in this Council was so much increased by the Popes and the Councils committing many both persons and affairs before exempt and reserved to their inspection and Government as which Bishops being at a nearer distance could better discern and attend them that the King of Spain said of his That they went to the Council as so many Parish Priests but returned from it so many Popes § 206 Next the Decrees themselves concerning Reformation which in a few hours you may read deliberately over and where especially I would recommend to you the view of those made under Pius and amongst these those chiefly of the 24th Session I say the Decrees themselves do shew the great service which this Council hath done to the Church at that time much relaxed and languishing in its Discipline partly by reason of its non-execution of former necessary Church-Canons
without cure given in Commendam a superintendence over which the Council hath committed for ever either to the Superiors of such Orders or to the Bishops as the Popes Delegates to take care that in the one all religious observance be maintained with all necessaries supplied and in the other the care of souls faithfully discharged and the Vicar sufficiently provided for See Sess 21. c 8. And Sess 25.20 Reform Regul And further c. 21. That for Monasteries Commendatary they for the future shall be conferred only on Regulars A Constitution which in France where very many Monasteries are given by the Prince in Commendams to great Personages hath been one of the chief obstacles of that Princes refusing to accept this Council as to its Acts of Reformation § 220 To ζ. The uniting of Ecclesiastical Benefices As the Council doth allow such an union to be made by the Bishops To ζ. as Delegates of the Apostolick See where one single is not a sufficient maintenance of the Pastor Sess 21. c. 5. Sess 24. c. 15. And allows the same to be done in Bishopricks by the Pope upon Testimonials received from a Provincial Synod of such a necessity Sess 24.13 So on the other side Sess 7. c. 6. It impowers Bishops for ever as the Popes Delegates to inquire into all former unitings of Livings passed within forty years and to void them Nisi eas ex legitimis aut alias rationabilibus causis coram loci Ordinario vocatis quorum interest verificandis factas fuisse constiterit And c. 5. and 7. Constitutes the Bishops likewise visitors of all those having cure that are annexed to Chapters or Monasteries that the incumbent Vicars do their duty and be provided of a sufficient Revenue all manner of priviledges or exemptions being repealed See more below λ § 221 To η. Exemptions This Council hath ordered 1 st That all Churches whatever To η. though formerly exempted those also that are annexed to Colledges or Monasteries be subjected to the yearly visitation of the Ordinary as Delegate of the See Apostolick to see to that the Cura animarum be rightly discharged all things kept in a due repair c. Sess 7 8. 2 ly Sess 22. c. 8. Bishops as Delegates of the Apostolick See are made Executors of all pious Disposures as well Testamentary as of the living Hospitals also and whatever Colledges Confraternities of Laicks Schooles the Almes of the Mounts of Piety c. whatever Exemptions they might have had formerly are subjected to their visitation where it is not otherwise ordered by the Founders to take knowledge of and see executed therein whatever is instituted for God's worship salvation of souls or sustentation of the poor and the Administrators thereof tyed to give to them a yearly account c. 9. 3. Again All Secular Clergy that had formerly any exemption and all Cathedral Chapters formerly exempted under the notion of Regulars which many of them anciently were are likewise submitted for the future to the visitation and correction of the Bishop Sess 6.4 Sess 14. c. 4. Sess 25.6 4. As for Regulars All such living out of their Monasteries and other persons whatever relating to them or otherwise priviledged may be visited corrected punished by the Bishop as are others Sess 6.3 Sess 29.11 Nor may any Regulars preach in any Church not belonging to their Order without the Bishops licence first obtained Nor in Churches of the Order without first shewing to the Bishop a licence from their Superiors and receiving his Benediction 5. Lastly for the Monasteries and Religious Houses themselves exempted from the Episcopal Visitation it is ordered that if the Regular Superiors to whom this is committed omit their duty the Bishop after a Paternal admonition and their six moneths further neglect may proceed to visit and reform them Notwithstanding whatever Exemptions or Conservators appointed of their Priviledges Sess 21.8 § 222 But an universal subjection of Monasteries Universities Colledges to the Ordinary of the place though motioned in the Council was not approved by it Not that such whose publick profession was a stricter life than that of all others should injoy more liberty from Government or at least from that of subordinate and immediate superintendents But because it seemed much more proper that as their Profession was more severe so they should be committed rather to the care of such Superiors who themselves had the same obligations which it was feared that the Ordinary living himself after a Secular way would be more prone to mitigate and relax or some way by contradicting their Orders disturb their Peace And therefore such exemption tended not to an enlargement of their liberty but a confirming their restraints and a quiet and undisturbed observance thereof And such Exemptions and Priviledges we find anciently grated to Religious Houses by Popes famous in Sanctity Of which see many in St. Gregories Epistles not only conceded by himself but mentioned to have been so by his Predecessors See l. 7. Ep. 33. and Ep. 18. And see l. 11. Ep. 8. such Priviledges granted at the request of the Queen of France Yet still as was said but now the Episcopal power is admitted by the Council of Trent in these Houses also upon any continued neglect of their other Superiors when first admonished hereof § 223 To θ. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses It was ordered Sess To ◠21. c. 9. That the Office of the ordinary former publishers of such Indulgences and Spiritual Favours and the Collectors of such Charities having given so much scandal after the indeavour of three several precedent Councils to reform them and all their priviledges should be taken quite away and hence forward that the Ordinary of the place assisted with two of the Chapter should publish the one and collect the other Gratis § 224 Thus much of this Councils rectifying those things which seemed to minister any just cause of complaint concerning the Pope or his Court where also you see how much the Episcopal Authority is inlarged by the Pope's free Concession to them of so many former Reservations and Exemptions So that Lainez the General of the Jesuites in his speech before the 24. Session †observes That the hand of the Council had fallen heavy upon others without touching at all the Bishops that there was contained in those Articles of Reformation much against the Pope against the Cardinals against Arch Deacons against the Chapters against Parish Priests against the Regulars but against the Bishops nothing And Soave †See Palla l. 23. c. 3. n. 30. p. 343 〈◊〉 on Sess 13. produceth the Priests of Germany complaining of the Reformation and saying That the Bishops authority was made too great and the Clergy brought into servitude And †p. 568. on the 22th Session saith That points of Reformation were proposed favourable to the Authority of Bishops that the Legats proceeding might not be hindered by the opposition of
any From all which you may further gather what truth his words have set in the entrance of his History †p. 2. That the Bishops hoping to regain the Episcopal Authority usurped for the most part by the Pope now wholy lost it and the Pope fearing a Moderation of his former exorbitant power had it now much more than ever established and confirmed § 225 Next to proceed to the Grievances concerning the Clergy To To The Complaint concerning unfit and unworthy persons elected both into Bishopticks and inferior Benefices of Cure 1 st For the future Election of Bishops this Council ordered Sess 24. c. 1. That there should be drawn up by the Provincial Synods a certain Form for taking Informations and examining the Persons nominated to such Ecclesiastical Dignities to be approved by the Pope Then concerning the particular Person to be elected an Instrument of the Examination made according to the Form prescribed is to be sent to his Holiness And this Instrument there first to be perused by four Cardinals who if they also approve are to subscribe it and to affirm Se certo to give you the words of the Canon existimare sub periculo mortis aeternae idoneos esse qui Ecclessis praeficiantur the relation also of these Cardinals is to be made in one Consistory but the deliberation deferred to another that things may be more exactly weighed The person also to be chosen is particularly to have the Testimonial of his Ordinary or of the Pope's Nuncio residing in such place Sess 22. c. 2. And what course is observed in Bishops the same ordered to be in the Election of Cardinals Sess 24. c. 1. Lastly the Council admonisheth in General * all those who have the Right of any such Collation Eos mortaliter peccare nisi eos praefici curaverint quos not dignos but digniores Ecclesiis magis utiles ipsi judicaverint And particularly * the Pope that if he be faulty herein either as to the Promotion of Cardinals or Bishops unfit Ovium Christi sanguinem quae ex malo negligentium sui Officii immemorum Pastorum regimine peribunt Dominus Noster Jesus Christus de manibus ejus sit requisiturus § 226 This for the Election of Bishops Next For the Election of worthy Persons into inferior Church-Benefices with Cure 1st It is ordered Sess 24. c. 18. That whoever the Patron be there be six Examiners nominated by the Diocesan Synod all which or at least three of them together with the Bishop are at a time prefix't publickly to try the sufficiency of such as are presented and only such a person as is approved by them or if many be presented who is thought the more worthy is to be admitted to such Benefice without such Examination and approvement the Collation of such Benefice to be accounted Surreptitious and another Election to be made The Bishop being permitted thus to choose the Person even where the Pope gives Institution It a Sanctissimus voluit saith the Congregation of Cardinals appointed for the Interpreters of the Decrees of the Council †In 24. Sess c. 18. fig. 33. quia Episcopus melius cognoscit personas Pius the Fourth †Pallavic l. 22. c. 1. n. 18. quoting Card. Borrom letter to the Legats having also before this Session concerning Benefices in his Disposal made this free offer to the Fathers of the Council 1. Either that henceforth all Benefices having Curam Animarum should be in their Gift and the other without Cure in his Or that henceforth he would bestow them on none who shall not also be by the Ordinary approved worthy 3. Or that he would only make his Election out of such Persons worthy and of the Diocess of whom the Bishop should send him a Roul After which the Council agreed upon the Constitution forementioned Which not escaping Soave's Censure who saith That it was framed with exquisite artifice and with a fair shew makes the Bishops Patrons to give the Cure to whom they please upon pretence of Examinations But yet taketh no profit from the Court of Rome The Institution still being reserved to the Pope and a Bull to be had from thence Pallavicino †l. 23. c. 3.12 returns this answer That any reasonable man may well observe what a loss here of his own benefit the Pope consented to for the benefit of the Church when he was pleased to take from himself the bestowing according to his own choise by this being now left to the Bishop and the Examiners of so many Benefices as should happen to be vacant for eight months in the year in so many Kingdoms of Christendom and when he deprived his Court of that frequent Concourse formerly made to it of so many forreign Ecclesiasticks who otherwise must first have made themselves known there for the obtaining these Benefices at home § 227 2. Again to remove all temptations arising from gain to introduce persons into the Clergy of less worth It is ordered Sess 21. c. 1. that all things be passed Gratis save that the under-officers such as have no set stipend may receive some small fee not to exceed the tenth part of a Crown for their labours provided the Collator share nothing in it Nihil saith the Council pro collatione quorumcunque Ordinum etiam clericalis Tonsurae necpro litteris dimissorus aut testimonialibus nec pro sigillo nec alia quâcunque de causâ etiam sponte oblatum Episcopi alii ordinum Collatores aut eorum Ministri quovis praetevtu accipiant Notarii vero in iis tantum locis in quibus non viget laudabilis consuetudo nihil accipiendi pro singulis liteais dimissortis aut Testimonialibusque decima in in tantum unius aurei partem accipere possint dummodo eis nullum Salarium sit constitutum pro officio exercendo nec Episcopo ex Notarii commodis aliquod Emoluentum ex eisdem Ordinum Collationibus directe vel indirecte provenire possit tunc enim gratis operam suam eos praestare omnino teneri decernit And Qui secus fecerint tam dantes quam accipientes ultra divinam ultionem paenas a jure instictas ipso facto incurrant which Decree is understood also of the Collation of Benefices and of Dispensations See the Exposition of the Congregation of Cardinals on this Decree § Item Declarat § 228 3 ly To see also the Parochial duties rightly discharged by the Clergy It is ordered Sess 24.3 That the Bishop by himself or his Vicar visit yearly his Diocess or if large the greatter part of it and the Remainder in the year following and that the Provincial Councils punish any Bishops neglects herein § 228 4 ly Ordered also Sess 29. c. 4. That the Bishop as Apostolical Delegate where the People of a Parish are very numerous may either erect a new dividing the Profits or compel the Rector of such Parish when not able alone to perform the Pastoral Duty to so
too much verified in this our Nation But Dudithius the famous Bishop of Quinquecclesiae in his disconsolate Letter to Beza when Dudithius now a Protestant and married and beginning to stagger in his new Religion that had dispensed with his Celibacy much more deplores these their intestine discords and schismes in a scisme There †Apud Becaw Epist 1. Si quae aliquando saith he inter eruditos ex quodam disputationis quasi calore Controversiae extiterunt illis statim Concilii sive etiam Pontificis decreta finem imposuerunt At nostri quales tandem sunt palantes omni doctrinae vento agitati in altum sublati modo ad hanc modo ad illam partem differuntur Horum quae sit hodie de Religione sententia scire sortasse possis sed quae eras de eadem futura sit opinion neque ille neque tu certo affirmare queas Again Ecclesiae ipsae pugnant inter se capitalibus odiis horrendis quibusdam Anathematismis perhaps looking at the Dissentions then between the followers of Futher Zuinglius Oecolampadius Calvin c. not yet healed Ipsi qui summum haberi volunt Theologi à seipsis indies dissident fidem cudunt à suá ipsius quam paulo ante professi fuerant ab aliorum omnium fide abhorrentem denique menstruam fidem habent perhaps looking at the often varyings of Luther Melancthon Bucer and others from their own former opinions and doctrine Thus Dudithius For though the Churches make some particular standing Articles to bind together their own Subjects yet both the Articles of the several Churches do not accord one with another in some principal Points as appears in the Lutheran Calvinist Belgick French English reformed Churches and the Subjects of each Church do upon the reforming Principles without scruple break these Bonds upon any new greater verisimilities thinking their Christian liberty infringed by them And certainty whatever deviation from Truth and former Tradition we may suppose the first Reformers to have made yet if they could have restrained the people their Subjects from following their example and from taking that liberty of dissenting from them which they being also Subjects took of dissenting from their Superiors both the whole Body of the Reformation would have had much more unity and peace and such persons much less error § 298 2. 2 Advanced thus far learned Protestants consenting That all such persons as we here speak of are to conform to and to suffer themselves in matters of Religion to be guided by Church Authority Next a Judgment freed from the interests of the Will may easily further add That where these Ecclesiastical Governours happen to differ amongst themselves and guide a contrary way here since these are placed for avoiding schismes in a due subordination such persons in such case owe their obedience to the Superiors of them To which in all regular Governments the inferior Magistrates if they do not ought to give place Si aliquid saith St. Austin †De verbis Dom. Serm. 6. Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator nunquid dubitatur isto contempto illi esse serviendum i. e. in things which our Ecclesiastical Guides do not instruct us to be contrary to the Divine Laws So as to spiritual matters and the sence of Scripture a Provincial and a National Synod guiding such persons several waies their obedience is due to the National again a National and a Patriarch Council of all the West or a General determining matters in a diverse manner the obedience of such persons is due to the Patriarchal or General not the National Council And the same it is in any Patriarchy or Province in the intervals of Synods as to the subordinate Pastors and Prelats See the obedience required by the Church of England from all inferior Clergie or Synods to a National Council in the Canons made 1603. Can. 139. and 140. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said sacred Synod are to be subject to the decrees thereof c. let him be Excommunicated And as of persons so Churches That Church saith Bishop Bramhal †Schism guared p. 2 which shall not outwardly aquiesce after a legal determination i. e. of its Superiors and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And elsewhere †Vindic of Church Engl. p. 12. If a Superior presume to determine contrary to the determination of the Church i. e. of his Ecclesiastical Superiors it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him and obey them And I acknowledge saith Dr. Hammond †Knew to Cath. Gentl. c. 8. §. 1. as much as C. G. or any man the Authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And in his Book of Schisme p. 54. and 66. He grants it Schism for the Bishop to withdraw his obedience from the higher power of the Metropolitan or Primate as well as for Presbyters from the Bishop Now from these I collect that if these inferior Synods or Clergy are to yield such external obedience to their respective Superiors Then are the Subjects of these when ever a lower church-Church-Authority clasheth with an higher either in submission of their judgment or of their silence to adhere to the higher nor are the one freed from this duty because the other neglect it So some National and a Patriarchal Council dissenting or some Metropolitan and his Patriarch here the forenamed persons being the Subjects of both owe their submission of judgment only to the higher Church-Authority of the two which Authority if the forecited Protestants allow the lower to dissent from yet not to gain-say § 299 Nor is it reasonable for any to decline here the present Supreme Authority that is extant and in being and transfer such his obedience and submission to a future that hath no being as to transfer it from his Primate or Patriarch or so large and universal Councils as have been convened in his own or in former times to a future absolutely General Council For thus so many only are subject to the present supreme Powers as are content to be so if an appeale to a future Authority streight unties them from it And yet more unreasonable this if this appeale is to such a future Council as probably can never be namely where either the Assembly or the approbation of it must be absolutely Vniversal either as to the whole Body of Christian Bishops or at least as to some Bishops of every Province an usual demand of the Reformed For such Provinces as are censured or condemned by the Council which thing often happens it cannot be presumed that they will ever accept it No more than the Council of Trent supposed
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-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