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
and notwithstanding any opposition of the Secular Powers These are some if not the chief of them * Namely The entrance of these Ministers of Christ without Arms into whatever Princes Dominions and their preaching there the Gospel of Christ and administring the Sacraments to his Subjects though against his Prohibition * Determining Controversies arising in matters of Faith and Religion and publishing such their Determinations to all the Churches Subjects within any Princes Realms * Making Ecclesiastical Laws for Government and Discipline as need requires * Receiving Accusations examining Witnesses correcting Offenders against the Laws of Christ or of the Church I do not name here the Churches judging of Civil Causes between Christians though this a thing most usual when the Princes and their Courts were Heathen because this is a Right of the Prince to judge all such Causes when brought before him and on that account the practice thereof did return to the Prince when Christian when it had been disused before only because Christians in any contest chose rather or also were enjoined it being a thing not only lawful but in those times very expedient for them to stand to the Arbitration of their Ecclesiastical Governors than to go to the trial of the Civil Law and Secular Magistrate * Declaring Heresie Suspending criminous sinners from the Sacrament Imposing Penances Reconciling Penitents and Excommunicating and casting out of the Church the incorrigible and obstinate * Ordaining Church-Officers in a due Subordination with a strict dependance of the lower upon the higher Clergy so that an Ecclesiastical Function is unlawfully exercised by the one if he enter upon it without the consent or confirmation of the other and that not only of Presbyters without the Bishops and of Bishops without the Metropolitans or Primates but of Primates themselves also without the Patriarchs as hath been shewed * Holding Religious Assemblies both for the Publick Service of God and for the forementioned Church-Affairs * And for this again the respective Superiors Calling and appointing these Meetings in certain places and times which also must be within the Territories of some secular Prince only all these things done by Lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors without Arms unless it be those of the Prince for their protection and in order to ends purely spiritual In which proceedings therefore they remain questionable and to be restrained by the same Temporal Authority when in any exceeding of such limits found to transgress § 23 All these things were practised by the Church in the Apostles times See for several of them 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 1.10 11 13. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 12 13. 4.19 21. 3 John 9.10 Mat. 18.17 18 20. and their holding a Council at Jerusalem Act. 15 and in the primitive times before Constantine though the secular Powers as yet Heathen opposed prohibited executed the chief Actors of them and therefore much more they may be continued and acted by the same Authority when Princes for the gaining of eternal Crowns have subjected their mortal ones to Christianâ—ty and are become Sons of the Church who surely by bringing in their persons under her obedience do not gain any such new Soveraignty over her as by this to take away those former Rights which Heathen Potentates could not justly deny or withhold from her For note here That whatever Prerogative or Priviledge is challenged by a Christian Prince as naturally belonging to the Civil Power cannot be denied also to an Infidel or Heathen Prince when possessed of the same power For example If a Christian Prince may lawfully restrain the Bishops his Subjects from meeting in Synods from executing the Church-Canons or publishing their definitions in matter of Doctrine I mean such as no way concern the State within his Realm without his leave upon this account because he is the Politick Supreme so may a Heathen as having the very same Title to do it And therefore none such must be hastily challenged by the one which if exercised by the other would both have ruined the Government of the Primitive Church and rendered its ordinary practice guilty of a most high Rebellion If these Christian Princes therefore now assist the Church to call her Councils if they adopt her Canons amongst their Laws and use their secular sword much more effective and dreaded by many for the present than her Spiritual one to force their Subjects and hers to a more ready obedience to her Laws we may not therefore argue her former power is now lost for calling Councils or for executing her Canons unless these first be made also their Laws because a secularly-stronger Power is joined with hers for the more advancing the same effect and hence perhaps to some may seem to eclipse Hers. But though in such a Conjunction the Princes Authority seems to have the stronger influence on Church-affairs yet so often as any such Prince in Profession Christian but addicted to some Faction apart withdraws such assistance from his true Mother and leaves Her again as the Heathen Princes did destitute of his aid or also restrained with his Interdicts so often she is forced to renew the Churche's former behaviour in the Heathen times and goes on acting the same things singly by her self armed only with that sword of Justice which Christ hath put into her hands of shutting the Rebellious out of the Kingdom of Heaven Else if we suppose any one Branch of the former church-Church-Authority in such a case as this to be lost by the Princes being Christian any Heretical Prince will now have the same power to ruine the Orthodox and Catholick Religion within his Territories as a Heathen Prince would then have had to destroy the Christian § 24 As you may easily discern if you will suppose such a Prince as Constantius one that professeth Arrianisme to claim as being a Christian Prince the exercising of some of those Powers forementioned which were managed by the Church her self before the times of Constantine Namely a Power To change the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Authority established by the Church to translate Patriarchs or erect new ones and to free the Primates such as are Arrian from obedience to Them and their Synods to introduce new Clergy or depose the former as to the Function of their Office in any place of his Dominions when yet these no way obnoxious to secular Justice for transgressing his Civil Laws in which case should the Prince deprive any such Clergy of life or liberty as Salomon did Abiathar yet the Clergy not the Prince is to supply another and all this without their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors consent and allowance * To hinder the Calling of Ecclesiastical Synods without his Consent as a thing rightly appertaining to him and other Christian Princes not them the Church men * Or these called at least to hinder his Clergy from assisting there and to deny their Decrees obligatory at least within the Circuit of his Government * When Synods are
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
S. W †Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 174. whether Princes do not hold such power of translating or erecting Patriarchs from the Churche's Grant Now surely this will be confessed contrary to the Churche's Canons for a Prince to make such a removal of the Patriarchs former Jurisdiction as thereby to null as to his Subjects the authority of a Patriarchal Council And if indeed the erecting and removing Patriarchs did originally belong to Princes yet since the Civil Governments that are contained within the Precincts of one Patriarchy are now in the hands of many several Soveraigns the repeal of any Patriarch's former authority as it relates to the convening of such Councils must be an act at least of the Major part of these Princes as being a thing which equally concerns them all Nor can the Doctor produce an instance of a former fact in this kind And if the Prince can thus free his National Clergy from a Patriarch and his Synod why not also from a General Council that neither it shall oblige his Subjects without his consent Again Doctor Heylin's Plea ‖ Reformation justified p. 84. touching the English Clergy in their Reformation their conferring all their power on the Prince which they formerly enjoyed in their own Capacity A power saith he not only of confirming their Synodical acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity comparing it there to the Roman Senat 's transferring all their power on Caesar I say this Plea as it contains very strange Doctrine so it reacheth not our present matter for if a National Clergy can at pleasure transfer their own spiritual authority over others and that authority too for reforming Errors in matters of Religion to a Lay person or also to his Delegates which authority was intrusted to them by our Lord in a Personal Ordination yet can they not hence transfer to the same Lay-person their Superiors whether persons or Councils spiritual authority over them so that this superior's authority for the future shall not oblige but when such Lay-person first admits it § 64 This from § 53. of Obedience due from the Reformed and particularly from the Church of England to the Council of Trent if this were only a free and Legal Patriarchal Council The true Rights of which also it may not be thought to forfeit by its further pretensions to be a Council Oecumenical As we may not withdraw our due obedience from our Prince when he exacts some other not due or withhold a just debt where more is unjustly demanded But not to stay here § 65 2ly Our Obedience may yet further be rightly challenged to this Council 2. as General if it shall be proved though not so General as several formerly have been yet so General as now in such an alteration of States can be had and it being such the same divine assistance as to ampler formerly may be presumed to be afforded to it for such Controversies as are necessary to be decided And a submission to a Council only so comprehensive several Protestant Divines think reasonable Thus B. Bramhal in Preface to Reply to Chalced. I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so General as can be procured And Schism-guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as General as may be And p. 351. I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had See more in Disc 1. § 35. Dr. Field freely confesseth ‖ Of the Church p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these have no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and his Council as appears Ib. d. 39. p. 563. Where he quotes the Emperor's Law Novel 223. c. 22. confirming the 9 th Canon of Council Chalced. Nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente Consequently these Councils bind so the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith †Answ to Catholick Gent. p. 30. That General Councils are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many Communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled But mean while he saith ‖ Of Schism c. 9. p. 163. We acknowledge the due authority of our Ecclesiastical Superiors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things secundum Deum And Answ to Cathol Gentleman p. 17. A Congregation saith he that is fallible may yet have authority to make decisions and to require Inferiors so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions All which seems to amount to his acknowledging an external obedience of non-contradiction at least and such as Protestants contend for to their National Synods to be due to a Patriarchal or the highest Assembly of Church-Governors which the present or future times in the moral impossibility of having General Councils are capable of § 66 3ly The absence in it of the Representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches 3. the thing principally urged seems no just hinderance why this council of Trent may not be stiled General For evidencing which I desire you to consider with me these Reasons in part cleared before 1st That a Council may be stiled General without the presence in it of some considerable Churches ‖ See before §. 36 43. either 1. When these called by a lawful Authority by reason of poverty and distance of place 1. or persecution c. cannot come and afterward acquainted with the Councils proceedings express no dissent to the Acts thereof See before § 36. the four first Councils as convened for the suppressing of Heresies that chiefly afflicted the Eastern parts so mostly confisting of Oriental Bishops scarce any of the West being present in some of them Or 2. When invited and no way justly letted they refuse to come Or 3. When by some former General Council condemned of Heresie and Schism they are not invited at all to come or coming are repelled For the Church Catholick may be much narrower than Christianity †See before § 39. and Councils are General and obligatory as such if they consist of the Church Catholick though it should be reduced only to one Patriarchate 2. 2 ly Concerning the Calling of the Eastern Churches not entring here into that Controversie whether these Churches do not maintain an Heresie in the Procession of the H. Ghost and
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
of him and his Legates presided in it challengeth Primatus honorem only post Romanum Episcopum †Conc. Constant c. 5. And that Council in their Epistle to Damasus the Roman Bishop acknowledge their meeting in that Council by order of his Letters Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae literas Now for the first Council That of Nice which only remains Here also the Popes Legates are found to subscribe the first before all the other Patriarchs only Hosius bearing no title save Bishop of Corduba gives his Vote and attests the Nicene Creed before these Legates which hath caused much dispute Act. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 5. Gelazius Cyzicenus ‖ and some other Ancients say Hosius presided in it as Sylvestri Episcopi Maximae Romae locum obtinens And indeed the Popes Primacy before the other Patriarchs and so much more before a Bishop of his own Patriarchy being granted and no mention being made of any such Presidentship conferred on Hosius either by election of the Council or of the Emperor what can be said but that he held such Presidency only in this capacity viz. the Popes Deputation as Cyrâ—l also did in the 3d. General Council unless â—ny will say that his voting in the first place was a pure Indulgence of honour to him as being 〈◊〉 a Confessor in Divelesian's days and narrowly missing Martyrdom * the Emperor 's especial Favourite sent by him formerly â—o compose the differences in Egypt ‖ * a person as Athanasius â—aith of him †Apolog. 2. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes Obâ—tantos labores omni Reverentiâ dignus ‖ and now Euscb de vita Const l. 2. c. 62. Socrat. l. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 the Compiler of the new Form of the Nicene Creed To which Creed therefore himself gives the first testimony in this form Hosius Episcopus Civitatis Cordubensis Provinciae Hispaniae dixit â—ta credo sicut superius scriptum est after which consent of his follows in the first place the Pope's Legates Subscripsimus and then that of the other Patriarchs and Bishop Where it may also be confidered what Dr. Field hath observed ‑ That the Subscriptions ‖ p. 652. in the first Councils were more irregular and no such certain and uniform course kept in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops as was afterward For in this Council the third Patriarch of Antioch subscribes not only after the Bishops of Egypt but of Palestine and several others subject to his own Patriarchate And thuâ— far the same Dr. Field proceeds in deferring this Presidentship to the Bishop of Rome All Antiquity saith he †p. 653 yielded to the Bishop of Rome a Presidentship of honour to have preeminence in place to propose things to be debated to direct the Actions and to give definitive Sentence according to the Voices and Judgment of the Council He might have added And in matters concerning Faith to render the Act of it invalid and unconclusive to the Church without his consent according to the ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nibil finiendum c. as appears in his nulling the Act of the second Ephesine Council voting Eutychianisme but not a Presidentship of power to have the power not only of directing but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Council and to conclude of matters after his own judgment though the greater part of the Council like it not yea though no part like it But such a Presidentship of power in the Pope as to conclude matters after his own judgment either against the whole or major part of a General Council is denied as well by modern Catholicks as by Protestants or Antiquity § 47 3 ly What of Presiding in the same is to be said of the Calling of General Councils 1. Where 1. 1st It seems all reason that such Meetings being Consultations for the better managing of affairs purely Ecclesiastical and for the better feeling and preserving of the Churches Unity and Peace of the necessity of which meetings the Clergy can best judge All reason I say it seems that the Calling of them should belong to the Clergy especially when the secular powers are not Christian And this also we find in the Churche's practice that both that first Council Act. 15. and all those following till Constantine's days were assembled by the Churche's sole Authority without the Prince's concurrence or leave and if amongst these Councils none save the first were absolutely General yet this was not from a defect of power in the Church to convene such a Council but that she thought in such a secular opposition her affairs might be by many divided Councils Provincial more privately and securely dispatched as the Controversie about Easter was in the second Century This Right therefore formerly possessed by the Church Princes by their submitting unto it and becoming Christian cannot justly take away nor may be thought to do so by their accumulative power in assisting the Church from time to time for procuring the more effectual concurrence which much depends on their temporal penalties of such great Assemblies But whatever priviledge of calling General Councils should be allowed to Princes so long as Catholick yet at least that Right which in this matter is conceded to belong to the Church in case the Emperor or Prince be Infidel must also be resumed in case the Prince Christian be an enemy to the Orthodox Faith i. e. be either Heretical or Schismatical of which likewise it belongs to the Supreme Governors of the Church to judge For What mischief may the Church suffer from unbelieving that she may not also suffer from Heretical Princes And again must also be resumed in case the secular Princes through whose Dominions the Catholick Church is dispersed be many of many several temporal Interests and in respect of these not facil to concur in the calling such Council where the Church apprehends need § 48 2. Next This hath been shewed already § 9. 16. n. 4. 2. in all the inferior Synods Protestants consenting 1. That the Right of calling them though the Prince be Christian belongs to such an Ecclesiastical person as hath either a superiority of Power over the Members of such Synod as in a Provincial Synod the Metropolitan hath or at least the superiority of Order and Place es in a National Synod the Primate hath in respect of the other Metropolitans whereof it consists 2. And Belongs to such Ecclesiastical persons without their first consulting any other preparatory Synod about calling such Synods 3. And again belongs to some of them as the calling of Patriarchal Synods to the Patriarch when the Bishops so called together by him do live under many several secular Governments Yet which Patriarchs saith Dr. Field ‖ p. 653. are neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith I add Faith either Christian or Catholick they may exercise the
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
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
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE COVNCIL OF TRENT BEING The Fifth Discourse CONCERNING The GVIDE in CONTROVERSIES By R. H. 1 Pet. 3.15 Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos Rationem 2 Cor. 6.8 Per infamiam bonam famam Ut seductores Vcraces Printed in the Year MDCLXXI The Preface IN the former Discourses concerning the Guide in Controversies as also in the Beginning and Conclusion of this present I have endeavoured to perswade a necessicy of Obedience to a lawful Church-Authority from these weighty Considerations whereon seem to be built the Unity and the Peace of Christian Religion 1 First That However the Holy Scriptures are a Rule sufficient yet not in respect of all capacities a Rule so clear but that the true sense of them is by several Parties much disputed and that in points of Faith necessary to be known And therefore as to these need of some other Guide for the direction of Christians in this true Sense 2 That there is contained in these Scriptures a Divine Promise and that not Conditional but Absolute of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries made to the Church-Catholick of all Ages To It not only Diffusive some or other Persons or Churches alwaies not to erre in necessaries but as a Guide or to the Guides thereof 3 Again That the Catholick Church throughout â—he whole World is but One ever contradistinct to all other Communions Heretical or Schismatical And its Governours and Clergy however dispersed through several Nations regulated by the same Laws and straitly linked together in a due subordination whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superiors and a Part to the Whole in such manner as that these Laws observed admit of or consist with no Schisms Divisions or contradicting Parties after any past Declaration of the Church 4 That in this Subordination no inferior Clergy Person Church or Council when standing in any opposition to their Superiors can be this Guide to Christians But only the Superior whether Person or Council and in a Council not wholy unanimous the major Part join'd with the See Apostolick The major part whether those present in the Council and decreeing matters in debate or those absent and accepting their Decrees A regular obedience in any contradiction thus ascending to and acquiescing in the sentence of the most supreme in present actual being That also these subordinations of Church-Governours are so commonly known and by the learned on all sides acknowledged that even a Plebeian following this line though amidst so many Sects calling him hither and thither and all offering to shew him the right way cannot mistake his true Guide 5 That from this present Guide thus discovered All are to learn both as to the true sense of Holy Scriptures and of Antiquity or former Church-Tradition and also the legalness of former Councils c. when any of these are controverted and questioned the Resolution of that which they ought to believe and adhere to so far as its Determinations have prescribed to their Faith And the more important any point is that they are hence the more strictly obliged to the Declarations of this Authority because here more danger in their mistake That here if we grant an Infallibility of this Guide in Necessaries which is amply proved this bindeth its Subjects to an universal acceptance of its Decrees lest perhaps in some Necessary their Faith should miscarry Or this Guide supposed Fallible which presupposeth in such matters some obscurity in the Rule yet neither thus are the bonds of their obedience any way relaxed since their own fallibility is much grearer And if in following such a learned and prudent Conduct they are exposed to some error yet so to much more and more gross by following their own Of the mischief of which Self-conduct the many modern most absurd Sects and especially the Socinians are a dreadful Example Who very inquisitive and laborious and critical as to the Holy Scriptures yet by throwing off the yoke of a legal Church-Authority are by the Divine just judgment delivered up to most Capital and Desperate errors and those running through the whole Body of Divinity 6 That none in the resistance of Authority can be secured by following his Conscience though alwaies obliged to follow it when It culpably misguiding him and in the information whereof he hath not used necessary diligence 7 That where such a weighty Church-Authority I speak of the most supreme to which the Churches Subjects may apply themselves so highly authorized and recommended to us by our Lord sways on the one side and only Arguments and Reasons relating to the matter in Agitation but all these short of certainty on the other here a sober and disinteressed Judgment cannot but pass sentence that it is safer to submit to the first of these than relie on the second And then so often the following our reasons and private opinion and deserting Authority becomes acting against our Judgment and Conscience and the forsaking our private Reason acting according to it 8 That thus at least all those who have a contrary perswasion to Authority but short of certainty i. e. all illiterat and plebeians unable to examine Controversies or also learned that after examining them are left still in some doubt which two sorts will comprehend the most Christians are engaged in Conscience to yield their assent to the Decisions of this Authority 9 That an absolute and Demonstrative Certainty indeed where-ever it is is exempted from all such obedience to Authority as shall require submission of Judgment and Assent But that such a Certainty is very difficultly attained in matters Intellectual and abstracted from sense more difficultly yet in those Spiritual and Divine especially such Divine and Spiritual matters where Church Authority i. e. so numerous a Body of learned and prudent men discern little reason for that we pretend Certainty of and so much against it as that they declare the contrary for certain To which may be added the frequent experience of our own weakness when by more study and better weighting and comparing contrary Reasons we come to doubt of the truth of several things wherein formerly we thought our selves most fully satisfied 10 That supposing such a Certainty attained and so obedience of Assent justly repealed yet if this be of a Truth of no great importance or consequence of which great importance too as well as of the truth it self they are to be certain here still another Obedience viz. that of silence or Non-contradiction tyes us fast and rests still due and payable to Church-Authority And so these Certainists or Demonstrators become at least tongue-tied and constrained to stand single and disinabled to father or beget Sects 11 Or in the last place if this also Certain that it is a Truth of great concernment and the Error of the Church-Guides therein not only manifest but Intolerable and so they here obliged also to break this second obedience silence and to publish such truth
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
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 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 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. 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. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to Church-Authority § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against church-Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent 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 the Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. THE most General Councils that can be procured joyned also with S. Peter's Chair § 1 being asserted in the former Discourses †Of the Guide in Controversies as the Supreme and Final Judge and Decider of Ecclesiastical Controversies And of these Councils That of Trent being as the last so particularly applied to the Examining and Determination of all those Points of Difference which have lateliest afflicted these Western Churches so that if the Protestant Party could be induced to accept and acquiesce in its Judgment all modern Controversies of moment were ended it seems necessary for perfecting the Design of the former Discourses in the last place so far to vindicate the Supream Legal and Obliging Authority of this Council from the many Objections which Protestants bring against it as that the more moderate among them may clearly see that if they are willing to submit either their Judgment or their Silence to any such Council as the present times of the Church can afford they have no just reason to deny it to this of Trent To manifest which I will first set you down the chief Particulars that are ordinarily urged by the later Reformed Writers against It And then shew you what in the same Particulars may be said for it leaving both to your sober Arbitrement as in a matter which is of no less concernment to you than the setling of your Faith in so many weighty Points of Religion as this Learned and Wise Assembly hath determined About which Points others still remain questioning and disputing Divided as from the Church so among themselves and uncapable of a Remedy I wish you in the Reading of this accompanied with Soave's History on the one hand and that of Pallavicino on the other to whom for avoiding tediousness I shall often refer you To the first as an Author of much Reputation with Protestants and one who it seems would let no Falficy pass prejudicial to their Interest To the second as One who though of an opposite side yet contrary to Soave's practice is careful in matters of Weight to signifie the Writings from which he extracts his Intelligence Nor do I herein exact from a Protestant Reader more credit to him that his Margin or other known History secures Yet if that be true that Cesar Aquilino a Roman Catholick and quoted for this by a late Protestant Writer ‖ Stillingst Rat. Account p. 481. saith of him That he hath done more disservice to the Church of Rome by his Answer than ever Father Paul the unmasked Pietro Soave did with his History I have reason from this also to hope that what I shall have occasion to cite out of him will pass with the more credit and better acceptation to a Protestant Reader since both the first and second of these Histories are still pretended to advance their Cause And yet further since the things wherein Aquilino saith ‖ Aquilino p. 95. this disservice consists are these Quod in illâ Historiâ offendatur Romanorum Pontificum fama Haereticorum dictae enumerantur amplificantur Rixae Contentiones Scandala inter Catholicos quae in Concilio acciderunt sigillatìm referuntur out of the Vatican Archives he perused Quae bona recta he means advantageous to the Catholick Cause à Petro Soave enarrata vel minuuntur vol praetermittuntur vel in contradictionem vocantur in all which Pallavicino seems only censured for not writing more cautiously and partially on the Roman side 2 and for not drawing the Council and the Actions of it much fairer and smoother than the Truth in those secret Papers and Records he consulted did discover them 3 lastly for imprudently publishing what the greatest Patrons of this Councill are said †Soave 7. l. Init. to have hitherto with the greatest Art concealed I shall I say the more confidently for this make use of his Testimony without any further Vindication of his Veracity desiring Protestants to make their advantages of an Author reported so much assisting their Pretensions and partaking so little of the Arts of a Politician and that valued more the fidelity of an Historian than the promoting of the Roman or his own Interest which Himself also sometimes as freely professeth as they say truly observing That History is like a Picture then better and more commendable when it represents not what is fairest but what likest to the Original § 2 This Council then being assembled since Luther's Reformation and purposely disallowing and condemning it very solicitous and diligent have the Reformed likewise been in multiplying Arguments against it Especially they being assisted with the History thereof delivered by Petro Soave Polano i. e. as is supposed by Protestants Father Paul a Venetian Friar Yet indeed against whose sincerity in composing this work there seem not wanting many real Exceptions if you please to consider with me 1 First That he lived in the time of the great dissention between the State of Venice and the Pope and then also was engaged in Writings against the Pope's Proceedings whence he may be suspected in this work also to have been too much biassed by a contrary Interest 2 Again That whenas he was but eleven years old at the concluding of this Council and so could write nothing out of his own knowledge but out of the Relations and Notes of others Printed or Manuscript yet very seldom in things of so great moment doth he inform the Reader whence he extracts his matter and is contradicted in many of his Relations by Pallavicino referring herein to the Records of this Councill extant in several places and to many other Writings sufficiently common of such Persons as were Members of the Council or publickly employed in its Affairs the Names of which he sets down in his l. 18. c. 10. n. 14. and out of which he saith he compiled a good part of his own work yet none of which Writings as he collects from several passages of his History had come to Soave's view 3 Next That for those things wherein this Author lies under no suspicion of Errour as to the matter related yet seems he frequently very culpable as to the Colours he lays upon it For whereas no action can be for its substance so good but that it may be vitiated and change its nature from several Circumstances so often as it is done out of an ill intention or for some impious end of Policy Ambition Covetousness or the like Nor again scarce any Truth can be in its own light so clear and evident but that some Veri similities may be ranged on the other side to obscure and cloud it this Author for the first of these through the course of his History may be observ'd contrary to the Modesty which is particularly
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
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
Metropolitans sole Judicature much more did that rarer assembling of a Patriarchal or General Council leave appeals in greater Causes to the single Arbitrement of the Patriarch assisted with his ordinary Council or Consistory Here §. 16. n. 7. then you see in Dr. Field the ground of a thorow Union in Christs Church whereas that of Dr. Ferne and Dr Hamond though it served their turn for the remedy of a Presbyterian defection or the extravagancies of some particular Bishop yet afforded no standing cure as it did concern them it should not for those of a Primate or for any National Division Only one Reservation Dr. Field hath in this place perhaps with an eye to protect the Reformation thereby which Dr. Hamond I conceive thought it not safe to trust to That the Bishops of a Province subject to a Metropolitan or the Metropolitan and his Bishops subject to a Patriarch may declare in what cases he incurreth the sentence of Suspension Excommunication Deposition or Degradation pronounced by the very Law and Canon it self and so may withdraw themselves from his Obedience Thus he Where suppose this â—e would have should be granted him concerning a General Council all of â—t united and declaring such a thing if such a thing may be of the Supreme Prelate of the Church and President of this Council because there is no Superior Person or Court of Judicature whereby this President may be tried And also granted concerning such proceeding against any Subordinate Superior as against the Metropolitan or Primate whenever he freely confesseth that transgression of the Canons which they charge him with for in such a case their obedience is due not to him any longer but to the Canons and to his Superiors that maintain them But most presumptuous and unreasonable it seems for Subjects to make any such Declaration and withdraw Obedience whenever such matter is in contest between them and him and a superior person or Court provided to decide it and yet more unreasonable if a part only of the Subjects suppose of a Primate or Patriarch should declare so when another part withstands them and declares the contrary And see Can. 10. of the 8. General Council punctual against any such Delaration or Discession before a Judgment Nullus Clericus ante Synodicam Sententiam à communione proprti Patriarchae se separet c. Idem de Episcopis statuimus erga proprios Metropolitanos similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarchum suum This of Dr. Field See the places quoted out of B. Bramhal to the same purpose Disc 2. § 24. n. 1. And Disc 1. § 27. The like is acknowledged at large §. 16. n. 8. by the Archbishop of Spalato and amongst these Patriarchs the supereminent Priviledges of the first or Roman Patriarch the evidences of Antiquity producing such a consent in these Learned men are displayed by him in his Repub. Eccles l. 3 c. 2 10. There c. 2 n. 1. having named the other lower subordinations of Church-Governors ad vitanda Schismata he goes on Ac demum Primatibus Metropolitanis Episcopis unus Patriarcha in totâ integrâ aliquâ Provinciâ in certis similiter causis praeside ret Et quia non semper adeo facile est Episcopos comprovinciales or compatriarchales much more in vnum convenire expedien fuit ut Metropolitant Primates Patriarchae multa soli absolverent qua Synedi absolvere debuissent essentque quasi totius Synodi Vicarii Commissarii Further of these Patriarchs he saith ‖ l. 3. c. 10. n. 26. Siâ—ut Metropolitanus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere corrigere debeat emen dare ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus sive in judiciis actis suis ne etiam in hoc Synodus etiam semper cum incommedo conveniat à Patriarâ—his voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo lex Mâ—tropolitanos emendari nisi tam gravis sit causa publica praesertim fidet ut totius regionis Synodus sive Oecumenica debeat convenire Quoting the words of the 8. General Council Can. 17. sayâ—ng the same Senioris novae Romae Praesules c. Metropolitanorum habeant potestatem ad convocandum eos not this in t mes of Heathenism but when Christian Religion flourished under secular Princes already subjected to it urgente necessitate ad Synâ—dalem conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama cos super quibusdam delictis forsan accusaverit Further ascending to the Roman Patriarch he thus goes on to declare his privâ—ledges ‖ l. 4. c. 9. n. 1. Habebat etiam Romrnus Pontisex Patriarchalia privilegia palliuâ—â— sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere eosdâ—m à lege divina velsacris Canonibus deviantes corripere in officio continere controversias inter cosdem exortas componere causasque eorundem interdum i. e. in causis gravioribus audire decidere totius Patriarchatus Concilia convocare n. 14. Ex loâ—o sui primi Patriarehatu sSacrorum Canonum primus habebatur praecipuus observator custos ac vindex quos si alicubi violari cognosceret acâ—r monitor insurgebat n. 15. Ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque provinciae regionis not only of his Patriarchy qui se ab Episcopis propriae provinciae gravari sentinent in judicits Ecclesiasticis tanquam ad sacram anchoram consugerent apud ipsum innocentiam suam probaturi Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant ab objectis criminibus tanquam si essent supremi judices absolvebant and this so anciently as Cyprians time and before the first General Council of Nice n. 16. Ille propter summam ipsius existimationem commune quasi vinculum nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae Communionis in tota Ecclesiâ Catholicae Communionis dux arbiter ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret vel adimeret caeterae quaeque Ecclesiae omnes ordinariè darent pariter vel adimerent So Spalatensis §. 16. n. 9. Mr. Thorndike first in general saith †fast waâ—gnte p. 41. That the Soul of the Visible Unity of the Church consisteth in the resort of inferior Churches to superior of which he discourseth more largely in Right of the Church c. 2 and in the correspondence of Parallel-Churches That the Church so stated is a standing Synod able by consent of the chief Churches containing the consent of their resorts i. e. of the inferior Churches resorting to them to conclude the whole That Rome Alexandria Antiochia were from the beginning of Christianity visible Heads of these great Resorts in Church Government which the Council of Nâ—ce made subject to them by Canon-Law for the future ‖ p. 39. our British Church not excepted †p. 40. And more particularly in justifying the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and the Canons of Sardica concerning Appeals to him Shall I not ask saith he what
pretence there could be to settle from other parts Appeals to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of Rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome And before speaking of the Eastern Arrians desiring to be heard at Rome by Julius Shall I believe saith he as some Learned men i. e. Protestant conjecture That Pope Julius is meerly an Arbitrator named by one party whom the other could not resuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot Thus Mr. Thorndike I fear I have tired you with the same things so often repeated by several Authors but this may serve the more to confirm the verity of that wherein they agree As for the Obedience acknowledged by them due to the Church according to these Subordinations I shall have occasion to give you a further account of it hereafter § 17 Now this Subordination not only of the lower Ranks of Clergy Presbyters and Bishops of the same but of these higher Primates and Patriarchs of several Nations ending its ascent in a Primacy not of order ineffective but also of Power placed in the Prime Patriarch especially conduceth to the necessary coherence of the always one-only-Communion of the Church Ca-National and to the suppression of Heresies and Schismes oftner tholick than Diocesan only or Provincial § 18 A thing which the moderate spirit of Grotius well observed and spared not often to speak of Quae verâ— est causa saith he in his first Reply to Rivet ‖ Ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholices maneant in eodem corpore non ruptâ Communione contrà qui inter Protestantes dissident idem sacere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraternâ loquuntur Hoc qui rectè expenderit inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus which brings to mind that of S. Jerom †Adversus Jovin l. 1. c. 14. concerning S. Peters Primacy Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constitute Schismatum tollatur occasio Capite constituto but Prâ—macy of Order without power helps no schisms And again the same Grotius in the close of the last Reply to Rivet ‖ Apol. Discussio p. 255. written not long before his death Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque Corpus semper optatam à Grotio sciunt qui eum norunt Existimavit autem aliquando incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione Postea vidit id planà fieri nequire quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia sermè omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima Protestantes nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt cur sactae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur partes aliae atque aliae sint exsurrecturae Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit causae divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canonas fatente Melancthone qui eum Primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retimendam unitatem Thus Grotius Which passageis taken notice of by Dr. Hammond in Schism p. 158 and seemingly allowed the Dâ—ctor there seeming to admit the Popes authority so far as it is justifiable by the ancient Canons which authority you have seen how far it is by other Protestants out of the same Canons advanced And indeed to exclude this supreme Patriarchal authority and constitute such an Aristocratical or rather so many several Monarchical absolute equal independent Covernments in regard of any spiritual Superior as there are Primates several Monarchical Governments I say for the Aristocratical Government consists in one Council or Court having its constant and set Meetings such as are not those Meetings of the Highest Ecclesiastical Synods and therefore they cannot bear this Stile seems most destructive of the Churches Vnity and Peace And then to make amends for this the subjecting all these distinct Monarchical Governments to a General Council proves no sufficient Remedy when we reflect how many and frequent are Clergy-differences how few such Councils have hitherto been how difficult such a Council since the Division of the Empire to be convened or rather how impossible according to the Protestants Composition of it who as they frequently appeal to it so load it with such conditions as they may be sure such Court can never meet to hear their Cause Thus much is contributed by Learned Protestants toward the confirmation of the two last the 3 d. and 4 th Constitutions § 20 5ly After such a Regular and well-compacted Government thus setled in the Church Next it was strictly ordered by the Church-Laws and by her greatest Censures imposed on Delinquents That no Clergy in any maâ—ters of meerly Spiritual Concernment should decline the Authority or Judgment of these their Ecclesiastical Superiors or their subjection to the Church-Canons by repairing or appealing to any secular Tribunal from which Tribunals some in those days sought relief either that of other inferior Lay Magistrates or of the Emperor himself Nor should seek new Ecclesiastical Dâ—gnities erected by the Emperors Pragmatick contrary to the Canons Decreed also it was that in such case any Church-authority or priviledges attempted to be so alienated should still continue to the former Possessors For which see Conc. Antioch c. 11 12. Conc. Sardic c. 8. Conc. Chalced. c. 9 12. Conc. Milevit c. 19. Conc. Tâ—let 3 c. 13. 8 Gen. Conc. c. 17 21. § 21 Which Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they may appear no way unjust or infringing the Rights of Temporal Soveragnty It is to be noted and therefore give me leave to spend a few lines in the hand That the Church from the beginning was constituted by our Lord a distinct Body from the Civil State and is in all such States but one visible Society Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam all the parts of it having one and the same interest through those several Dominions and regulated within these Territories by its own Laws without which Laws no Communion can consist independently as to matters purely spiritual on the State and the exercise of these not lawfully to be inhibited or altered by it whilst all the Civil Rights of such States mean while doremain unviolated by these Church-Laws and the secular Sword is left where it was before in the hand of the Secular Governors so that the Church in any difference cannot be the invading but only the Suffering party § 22 Now if you would know more particularly what those Rights are which the Church hath from the begining practised and vindicated as belonging to her independently
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
that Creed And to this notion of Church Catholick See in Disc 1. § 37. 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting § 37 2ly This Acceptation in respect of the Catholick Church i e. of those Prelates that be not formerly by any Herefie or Schisme shut out of it cannot rationally be required absolutely universal of all but only of the considerably Major part of them for in a Government not simply Monarchical whether Ecclesiastical or Civil no Laws can be promulgated nor Unity preserved if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part and it hath been shewed at large Disc 2. § 25. which I desire the Reader to review and consider well because much weight is laid upon it that the Decrees of the first 4 General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule and Warrant to posterity Nor otherwise can any new Heresie patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick as the most pernicious Heresies have ever been he ever legally suppressed so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest See what hath been said of this in Disc 1. § 28 38 39. Disc 3. § 11 37. That strict condition therefore which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize and ratifie the Definitions and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation seems not reasonable Namely That after their promulgation at least if not before they should be accepted by each Provincial Council and acknowledged to agree with that Faith which they had originally received of Her § 6. n. 8 12. Or That such Conciliar Declarations should be universally received by all Churches Her § 14. n. 4. because such are saith he Christians and Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome and consequently their Negatives as evident prejudices to and as utterly unreconcileable with an universal affirmative as the Popes can be c. Like to which § 12. n. 6. he argues thus concerning the absence or dissent of any Bishops from a Council That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council I add or when met do consent for if there be any left out why may not the promise be good in them though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council And § 5. n. 3. That if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places it is not qualified for our belief as Catholick in respect of place because the Faith being one and the same and by all and every of the Apostles deposited in all their Plantations what was ever really thus taught by any of them in any Church will also be found to have been taught and received in all other Apostolical Churches And § 10 n. 2 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th General Council not obliging because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council that of Eliberis which is not true yields saith he an irrefragable proof that the Doctrine of the 2 d. Nicene Council was not testified by all the Churches of all ages to be of Tradition Apostolical I say such an universal acceptation as this of every Church or Province seems upon any such pretence unreasonably exacted 1 st Because all Conciliary Definitions are not as he saith there they are only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches planted by them but are many times Determinations of points deduced from and necessarily consequential to such clear Traditionals whether written or unwritten 2ly Because if the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition yet it is possible that some particular Church may in time depart from such a Tradition entrusted unto them else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition and so when their acceptance is asked may refuse to acknowledge what all the rest justisie And all this clearly appears in those Bishops or Churches that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Councils and in the opposition of S. Cyprian and his Bishops concerning Rebaptization § 41 3ly For the manner of this Approbation of such major part It is thought sufficient if it be a tacit and interpretative Approbation only and not positive or express 3. for who can shew this to most allowed Councils Namely when such Decrees being promulgated they signifie no opposition thereto Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ System fidei c. 23. p. 262 Neque tamen dubitandum est quin statim obligare incipiant actus Conciliares si non appareat Ecclesiarum non dico hujus vel illius vel aliquorum protervorum hominum reclamatio nam praesumendum est omnes consensisse si non constet oppositum ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula ubi post alia dicit Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit necessariò credendum est And thus Dr. Hammond of Heres § 6. n. 15.16 When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on it is then promulgated to all and the universal though but tacit approbation and reception thereof the no considerable contradiction given to it in the Church is a competent evidence that this is the judgment and concordant Tradition of the whole Church though no resolution of Provincial Synods which was used before some General Councils hath preceded But if their Acts are contradicted and protested against this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council And Archbishop Lawd § 26. p. 195. saith It is a sufficient confirmation to a General Council if after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The whole Church admit it saith he And the whole say we or such a major part of the whole as ought to conclude the rest Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity to such Decrees in mens profession and practice For it is all reason that where we cannot have Quod creditum est ubique ab omnibus semper by reason of some divisions in the Church we hold to what is nearest it quod creditum est in pluribus locis à pluribus diutius or antiquiùs For the plures pluribus locis joined in one Communion with the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church here on earth are the securest Expositors to us of quod antiquius or quod creditum semper See Disc 3. § 11. 4ly For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council or only to some § 42 whilst some other Decrees are disclaimed as sometimes happens Here also 4. so far as a due Acceptation is extended so far is our Obligation nor can any reasonably argue that if some Acts of a Council are by some after-opposition rendred invalid therefore no other things pâ—ssed in that
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
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
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
whose vigilant providence never deserts his Church either converts Him or removes Him I say however these things be stated yet as to our present business of Trent neither did the Pope out of any such private guilt of Heresie or other Crime forbear to call this Council nor when it was assembled and the Protestants complaints against the Pope well known did this supreme Court find any ground or cause of such extraordinary proceedings against him For 1st For his Presidentship in the Council which was excepted against how could the Council deprive him of this right which was no new tyranny or device but that office which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils which the Church ever had Of which see what is said before § 46. c. And as for any false doctrines crimes or corruptions charged on Him this Council found none valid as to his own person either for removal of Him from such Presidentship or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical § 124 Many corruptions indeed and great need of Reformation of several things both in the Church and in the Court of Rome as the Protestants complain'd of so the Council and also the Pope himself acknowledged And in the remedying of these the Council spent the longer part of their Acts which have been not meerly delusory as a late Writer would blast them †Stillingf Rat. Account p 482. who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority but very effective as to the having produced a vigorous and during Reformation in the Roman Church and that of the chiefest disorders complain'd of as is shewed more particularly below § 203. c. And this real effect it was which with an holy envy the Clergy of France discovered in other Catholick Countries and which made them so importunate with the King and State of France to give them there the like force and that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit †See §. 77. c. And so much were these severe Decrees resented and dreaded in the Court of Rome that Soave †p. 8 6. reports That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court representing their losses and prejudices and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness and of the Apostolick See and diminution of his Revenues Of which see much more below § 204. This in the second place that the Council who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church if any so be and of these matters found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person as might justly abridge any of his priviledges therein nor that any Reformation in the Church or Court was obstructed by his Authority § 125 3. Lastly Neither doth the Popes calling or declaring the Lutherans 3. Hereticks before the sitting of this Council render him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council and other Popes as the fore-mentioned Celestine and Leo having formerly declared against the errors of Nestorius and Dioseorus yet afterward approvedly presided in Councils and there again condemned them But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans Hereticks without shew of wrong if so be that their tenents or some of them had been determined against and condemned in former lawful Councils as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were For if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie those who own it without a new process may be pronounced Hereticks Now t is clear that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned in the 2d Nicene in the 8. G. Council in the Lateran under Innocent 3. in that of Florence in that of Constance ‖ See below §. 198. Add to this * that Leo the 10th who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther and his followers to be proceeded against as Hereticks was deceased before this Council and presided not in it * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council did not formerly pass any formal sentence against the Lutherans or Hereticks but only in his Bull concerning Reformation of the Court of Rome Obiter named them so which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree yet in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent forbears also to name them so * That Pius the 4th who renewed the Council and concluded it was absolutely free from giving them this offence therefore the Acts at least under him enough to condemn them are not upon this pretence to be invalidated But here it must not be forgotten that not only the Pope but the Emperour the King of France and sometime the King of England Henry the 8th before the Council pronounced them Hereticks published Edicts and denounced heavy punishments against them and yet afterward they did not for this utterly decline these Princes judgments as hoping that such proceedings might be upon better informations and second considerations reversible § 126 To the question asked here †Mr. Stilâ—ingf Râ—t Account p. 492. If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils why was the Council of Trent at all summoned It is easily answered 1 st That though many of the Protestant tenents had been considered and condemned in former Councils yet not all because some of them not then appearing 2 ly Had all been so yet that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts to reiterate their sentence and by new Declarations and perhaps new reasons too to enforce their former Laws and Decrees so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say and disobey them whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors and in their Resolution for the maintainance thereof So Arianism after the Nicen was condemned again by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality by the Council of Sardica and Berengarius and his party being condemned by five several Councils before the great Lateran and that of Florence yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condemnation so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie CHAP. VIII II. Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonableness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to the Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies § 127 THus much from § 53. of the first General Head I proposed § 8. concerning the sufficient generality of this Council to render it obligatory Now I pass to the second concerning the novelty canonical invalidity and probably ineffectiveness as to their carrying the cause of such a General Council as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent and as should be regulated with all their
trial in this Council as formerly by Church-Tradition Councils and Fathers interpreting Scriptures controverted But now the Learned amongst the Reformed perhaps like the ancient Sectarists but now mentioned ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur think fit to take another way and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed as the Roman overthrown by those same ancient Councils and Fathers Whereby we are now made believe that these their Fore-Fathers mainly declined that Authority which clearly established their opinions and on the otherside the Roman Catholicks together with the Pope vehemently contended for that Authority that manifestly ruined theirs § 129 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions should be preferred 7. i. e. those opinions which were regulated by the word of God 8. 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg A. D. 1555. continue in force Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Protestants were A toleration of all sects that every one might follow what religion pleaseth them best as you may see in Soave p. 378. and 393. § 130 The sum therefore of the fift seventh and eighth condition is this Of the Fifth that Protestants shall vote in the Council definitively together with the Catholicks but this the Protestants must needs see by the Catholicks over-numbring them would signifie little Therefore the seventh condition cautioneth that if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents than for them yet this plurality may not carry the business but that their opinion if the more sound though it have fewer Suffrages shall be preferred But again this they saw was very unlikely either that the others who voted against their opinion should judge it the more sound or themselves only judging it more sound that the others upon this should prefer it Therefore the 8th condition makes sure work that if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions yet they shall not condemn but allow every one that pleaseth still to retain them and on these conditions they will submit to a Council § 131 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made which see in Soave p. 369. That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope 9. and of the Bishops his adherents and it being unjust that either the Plaintiff or the Defendent should be the judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets there might be Judges indifferently chosen by both sides to take knowledge of the controversies § 132 In satisfaction to these their demands To the first see what is said above § 47. and § 80. To the second what is said § 83. c. To the Canon urged See Bellarmins answer de Concil l. 1. c. 21. The Canon intends criminal matters where witnesses are necessary not matters of faith The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem Arianism arising in Alexandria judged at Nice in Bithynia To the third see what is said before § 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it in Soave p. 80. is sufficient That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council to which it belongs according to the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council recited before cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas And that for the manner and Form it was not convenient that they should prescribe it to all Nations nor think their Devines only inspired by God c. To the fourth what is said § 105. c. And that de facto such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom was seen in several controversies that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes and a contrary party about Episcopal Jurisdiction c. To the fifth what is said § 68. n. 2. 115. c. and 118. where it is also shewed by the suppositions there made that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants it would have nothing promoted their cause unless perhaps they think that the evident arguments which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents would have converted so many of their adversaries as joyned with them would have made a major part in the Council But besides these arguments seen and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council in their books who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned without working any such effect upon them what success their disputations would have had in the Council may be gathered * from that which they had in the German Diets from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant and inflexible in their former perswasions as themselves and * from that effect which they have in Christendome ever since that Council to this day the major part undeniably remaining still Catholick and the other of late much decreasing § 313 To the sixth I have said much elsewhere which you may remember 1. Surely nothing can be more reasonable and just when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of than that the litigants for what is either said in the Scriptures or necessarily deduced from them stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church and he that disclaims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge that these Fathers and Councils are against him and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie When you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture saith King Charles †3d. Paper of blessed memory to his weak Antagonist Mr. Henderson and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer Neither have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented and again †4th Paper When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences Thus against Puritans against Socinians c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things wherein her eyes are shut against Catholicks But set this humane Authority quite aside the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side than on the other because it saith only the same words to or for both and thus as by other
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
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
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
after the Churches Doctrine sufficiently established in the Nicen Creed There Credentibus quident saith the Council apologizing for it self sufficit ad utilitatem Fidei i. e Nicenae in discussa i. e. without further consequences multiplied from it prospectio His autem qui doctrinam rectam pervertere moliuntur ad singula quae malè pariunt oportet occurrere eorum objectis propria quaeque providere Nam si omnes contenti essent fidei Nicenae constituto which indeed may also be said of the Apostles Creed pietatis semitam nullâ innovatione turbarent deceret Ecclesiae Filios in Councils nihil amplius excogitare Sed quia multi a rectâ lineâ per anfractus erroris exorbitant necesse nobis est veritatis eos inventione convertere commentaque eorum devia salutaribus adjectionibus refutare non ut novum ad pietatem quasi fides desit semper aliquid exquirentes sed ut contra ea quae ab illis innovata sunt excogitantes quae salubria judicantur Thus that Council apologizeth for its new Definitions Where Excogitare and veritatis inventione and the adversaries object ng to them Innovation c shew that Councils may define not only express Traditionals in matters of faith but any new conclusions extracted from such Traditionals Neither seems it to be much material §, 183. n. 2. 1. Whether the Definitions of latter Councils when inserted into former Creeds be called explanations and Declarations of or Additions to the former faith which was a great contest between the Greek and the Latine Church in the Council of Florence provided they be only such things as are granted to be necessarily educed out of former Principles of faith 2. Nor 2ly much matters it as to the assent that ought to be yielded to them when known to be the Churches Definitions whether they be not inserted into former Creeds but delivered apart For an obligation we have to the one sort as well as to the other For example There is no less an obedience due to Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dei Genetrix intimating the unity of Christs person though compounded of two distinct Natures defined by the third General Council though not interposed in the Creed than to one Baptisme or Filioque which were so interposed Only it seems that an Insertion into the Creed is purposely made of those points of faith which among the rest are conceiv'd more necessary not only to be assented to when known but to be explicitly known by every Christian or in infected times fit to be distinctly confessed by every Catholick Though yet so indifferent was this matter as to principal points That Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks urged in the Council of Florence †Sess 5. that it was forborn to be added to the Nicen Creed by the Ephesin Fathers yet is found in terms equivalent to be put in the Athanasian Creed Not two but one Christ by unity of Person and this allowed of by the Reformed and again found in express terms to be put in the Definition of their Faith according to some Copies made shortly after by the Council of Chalcedon See Sess 5. where also before the passing of this Definition the Fathers cryed out against the Nestorians Ista fides Orthodoxorum Sancta Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scribatur In Symbolo sic addatur †Sess 5. As likewise afterward found to be put in express terms in the Creed of the fourth Toletan Council The like may be said of One Baptism for Remission of sins defined indeed against the Novatians by the Nicen Council but by the second General Council of Constantinople first mentioned in the enlarged Creed The like of that clause they that have done evil into everlasting fire omitted in the Constantinopolitan but put in the Athanasian Creed perhaps against the Origenists who held the fire temporary and malos post purgationem malorum regna Dei lucique restituendos ‖ Austin de Hares Nay In the now-receiv'd Apostles Creed it self there seems something to be additional inserted by latter times propter nonnullos Haereticos saith Ruffinus in Expositione Symboli not found in the prime Copies thereof at least not in those anciently used in the Roman Church as Descendit ad inferos and vitam aeternam See the Authorities quoted by Archbishop Vsher De Symbolo Apostolico vetere Rom. Ecclesiae This in Explication of the much mis-understood Ephesin Canon urged as prohibiting any future additions to the Nicen Creed or the following ages enlarging the Articles of the former Catholick Faith Now to proceed § 184 4. That many Controversies and Questions started in this Council of Trent yet 4. because they had not sufficient evidence in Scripture or Tradition to decide them were left unstated by it For which see what hath been said formerly § 149. And great prudence and care was used that nothing should pass there from which any considerable number dissented And Pallavicino observes ‖ l. 12. c. 1. n. 4. out of several Registers of the Councils Acts whereof he had the perusal that Soave perhaps the more to trouble and muddy the clearness of the Catholick Doctrine as it opposed that of the Innovators or to shew his own Reading in points where there happens to be any difference among the Schoolmen doth many times bring-in the skirmishing of the Theologs one with another concerning them when as in Reality there was no such contest amongst them in the Council Though on the other side this is not denied several times to have happened and perhaps some of the Disputants desirous that their own tenents might pass for the common Doctrine of the Church but as I said the Legats and others not ingaged in such a quarrel by their great judgment composed such strifes without giving in the Session and the Decree the victory to either side a moderation much complained of by the Protestants the Spectators who from thence might have hoped some schisme and the rise of a civil war in the Catholick Communion § 185 5. That the Lutherans broaching so many erroneous positions and joyning together the tenents of so many several Sects that had been before them innovating something in every part of Divinity caused the Council of Trent to multiply so many Anathemas against them and joyn together also the results of many former Councils This being the course observed in the Council first for some selected persons to read the Lutheran writings on the subject in hand and to collect out of them the erroneous and noxious propositions and then for the whole Council when such propositions upon examination were unanimously disallowed to anathematize though some among these of much less malignity than others especially all those errors which were destitute of the patronage of some reverend Father or other writer of the Church for where the Council found any such Patronage they used them more gently and prosecuted them not
the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
of Heresie yet the maintainer thereof now first by his pertinacy against the Churches Authority begins to be an Heretick †See Disc 3. §. 18. And though the ignorance of such point of faith before might bring some damage as to our salvation yet now doth it more when a contrary error begins to corrupt our practice I say such Point begins to be necessary in a new Degree of necessity to be believed or assented to or not to be dissented from or denied or not the contrary of it to be believ'd so soon as we have had a sufficient proposal of the Councils defining it And necessary it is then to be believ'd not out of an obligation or duty of belief we owe to such a Credend as that without believing it we cannot attain salvation but out of the duty of obedience we owe to the Church when defining it as that without yielding this obedience to Her we become guilty of such a sin as unrepented of ruins salvation Especially when as this our Holy Mother doth not enjoyn to us the belief of such a Divine Truth but upon some considerable Motive for the repelling and suppressing of some error that is less or more dangerous and for the preservation of some part of necessary truth or good life Concerning which Proposals the Churches pronouncing Anathema to the non-Submitters seems secur'd as by ancient practice so by our Lord's order Matt. 18 17. He that will not hear the Church let him be to us as an Heathen though otherwise the pure nescience of such a Doctrine abstracting from such Proposal harms no man as to exclusion from salvation any more after the Churches Definition than before it See what hath been said of this matter in the third Disc § 18. and § 85. n. 6. § 193 Thus to express if I can yet more clearly though with some repetitions a thing whereat so many of the Reformed and those not of the meanest sort seem to stumble and take offence an Article of Faith as to a more universal Proposal of it and general obligation to believe it so sufficiently proposed may be said new and then in respect of this new Declaration and Obligation a Divine Truth may be an Article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means so ever knows now that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new Article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or condemne but assented to and believed by him 1 When therefore a thing is said to be no Dogma Fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is either that in such express terms it is so now as it was not formerly by some fuller explication or new Deduction Or that it is now rendred necessary to be believed by all persons by whom it was not so formerly for want then of so evident a proposal 2 Again when a Point is said thus to be rendred by the Definition of a Council necessary to be believed which was not so formerly It is meant necessary to be believed not for the matter thereof Either 1st As if the actual knowledge and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to salvation at all or now more then formerly For thus a few points only some think not all those of the Apostles Creed are necessary and nothing is thus necessary at any time that is not so alwaies Or 2ly As if the actual knowledge thereof is beneficial to our salvation now and was not so at all formerly For as it is now perhaps beneficial in more respects so in some respects was it alwaies and therefore if we knew it not before so much imperfection there was then in our faith as to something revealed though not a deficiency thereof in absolutely necessaries But necessary to be believed now more than formerly ex accidenti because 1st we have a sufficient Proposal thereof by the Church-Definition now that it is a divine Truth which Proposal perhaps we had not before in so express terms and so universally discovered by the former Tradition and 2ly Because we have also a sufficient proposal or notice that such a Definition hath been made by the Church And so in not believing it we are now defective in our obedience and acceptance of some divine Truth which is made known to us by the Church as some way profitable to our salvation some way advangious to God's Glory some way conducible to Christian Edification to the peace of the Church and suppression of Heresie or to some other good end By whose Definitions from time to time the Rule of our faith is made still more compleat and conspicuous both as to the registring and solemn inrolling of her former Traditions and as to the express knowledge of several Consequences necessarily issuing from the former Principles of the Christian Belief more compleat I say to the end of the world as to several points in some respect or other beneficial to be known Though from the first the Christian Faith was ever perfect as to any knowledge simply necessary or also as to all that were fundamentally useful And therefore the chief Duty that the Church now requires to many of her Decisions made from time to time as counter-works against Hereticks and extracted alwaies out of the former Materials of Original Traditions is not so much an actual knowing of them for every Christian though this also-she desires as esteeming the knowledge of them some way contributing to Christian perfection but that they be not dissented from or opposed when made known to him and that the Contradictory of them be not believed by Him § 194 As for the profession of the Roman faith required in the Bull of Pius wherein are said to be 12. new Articles added to the Apostolical I wonder why they say not 12. score or a 1200. rather for if it adds any it adds omnia à S. Tridentinâ Synodo ab Oecumenicis Conciliis à sacris Canonibus tradita definita declarata as it runs in the same Bull though it expresseth only some few of them 1st All the order that the Council of Trent gave concerning this Profession of Faith was Sess 24. de Refor cap. 12. Provisi etiam de beneficiis teneantur Orthodoxae suae fidei publicam facere professionem in Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientià se permansuros spondeant So that Haec est Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus is a Declaration of the Pope not of the Council not can it have any more authority than other Papal Decrees 2. And again what ever profession of faith is made in that Bull or if it oblige further therein than the Canons of the Councils do bind yet it concerneth not any persons save those who enter into religious Orders or into some Ecclesiastical Benefice as appears in the Preface 3. These persons are not
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
§ 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church Definitions § 264. § 247 HAving thus dispatched the five Heads which I intended to speak of I desire you now to review the objections which were proposed in the beginning of this Discourse § 3. c. against this Council which for the most part I think now will appear to you to have their main force and sting already solved and taken away To α. To α. The words of Bellarmine who is quoted here by the Archbishop are not Vt ex omnibus Provinciis or which is more from all particular Churches which the Archbishop saith But Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui conveniant See touching this matter what is said before § 35. c. 65 66 67 69. Whether a Council be General or in its obligation equivalent thereto much matters not that Council is equivalent to a General whose Decrees are accepted by the much major part * of the Church-Catholick or * of all particular Churches in it Now the Greek Churches do agree with the Council of Trent in the chief points determined therein against the reformed †See 3. Disc §. 158 c. Their Prelats also were invited in the General Summons and the Council or those who called it no causers of their absence but their great distance their Present secular poverty and oppression The open wars then between the Turk and Christendome Lastly the general accord and peace in their Churches as to the Trent Controversies § 248 To β. β. See before § 70 75 77. The paucity of Prelats in some Sessions occasioned by the long duration of the Council by the wars and jealousies of Princes by the Bishops necessary defence of their several charges at home against the reformed in France and Germany was abundantly recompenced * by the ratification of the Decrees of those Sessions by a very numerous and unanimous Body assembled in the later end of the Council and * by the acceptation of the absent Prelats after the Council § 249 To γ. To γ. See what hath been said § 47. c. 80 81. It was called as General Councils ought and use to be namely by the Prime Patriarch and chief Ecclesiastical Person of Christianity presiding in such Councils as other inferiour Councils are also usually assembled by the Ecclesiastical Prelats presiding therein the Emperour and much major part of Christian Princes consenting to it desiring it and sending their Bishops and Orators to it § 250 To δ. To δ. This title representing the Church Vniversal never used by any General Council save only by Constance and Basil who also decreed a General Council its superiority to the Pope was opposed by the Pope or his Legats not because he held not this Council to be General or Oecumenical for the title of it every where with the Pope's approbation runs Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica Generalis Tridentina Synodus but because he held no General Council whatever neither that of Trent nor that of Nice to represent the Vniversal Church exclusively to him i. e. so as to have authority to conclude and oblige the whole Church by its Acts without these Acts first receiving their confirmation from the See Apostolick That this only was the Controversie see witnessed by Soave p. 138. Now this whether the Acts of a General Council unconfirmed by the Prime Patriarch of the Church be valid the Dr. knows hath alwayes been a question among Roman Catholicks and so hath that Proposition in him Haeres 11. s 9. n. 10. Whether the Vniversal Church Representative understood so as not including the Apostolick See may erre Or Whether the testimony of an Oecumenical Council understood exclusively to the Apostolick See be the testimony of the whole Church Which question as some of the French Church seem to affirm so other Churches deny neither was it decided in the Council of Trent of which see what is said before § 155. but yet de facto the Pope's Confirmation was desired by this Council see the last Act Sess 25. Neither doth this thing concern the Council of Trent more than any other General Council Nor is the deciding of this question material to the Protestants concerning any such Council whose Acts are confirmed by the Pope in which the stating of this question surely is needless whether such acts are also of force without the Pope § 251 To ε. To ε. See what is said § 67 64. Neither doth the absence of Protestant Clergie such as are not Bishops disauthorize the Council for such have no right to sit or vote in it Nor the voluntary absence of Protestant Bishops if invited if secured as they were n = †See §. 68.82 c. 92. Nor lastly the exclusion or non admittance of them if guilty of Tenents censured and condemned by former lawful Councils as many of the former Protestant Doctrines were n = ‖ See §. 198. The several causes alledged by Protestants for absenting themselves have been shewed in this discourse not sufficient or satisfactory from § 82. to § 122. and from § 159. to § 172. To ζ. To ζ. review the answer to See the reason of the absence of the French Bishops in some Sessions no way chargable on the Council or on the non-freedom thereof before § 70 c. § 252 To To See what is said § 167. where is shewed that the nearness and non-impediment of the Italian Bishops by reason of the freedom of that Country from Lutheranisme and not any particular interest of theirs thwarting the proceedings of the Council was the true cause of their being so numerous That the absence of other Bishops was culpable but no way their presence that the much major part of them were Subjects to other Princes the Emperor King of Spain Duke of Florence the State of Venice c. not the Pope and did manifestly in the Council follow and adhere to their Interests and Instructions in several matters That as to the Protestant Controversies the Pope had no need of their assistance against the rest the whole Council in these unanimously according and that as to the contests between the Episcopal and Papal Rights many of them sided against him which is every where shewed also in Soave's History describing the great perplexities and Artifices of the Pope and his Legats in preserving his pretended priviledges and not that they might be confirmed or asserted by the Council but that not diminished or voted down by it Lastly that however such a number of Italian Bishops might hinder something prejudicial to the Pope from being voted in the Council yet were they insufficient alone to vote any thing or to pass any Decree at least in matter of Doctrine against the rest because no such things were valid a considerable part dissenting as the non-Italian or also the Bishops of any one greater
Protestant-tenents Heresies To μ. if several of them were condemned by several allowed Councils ‖ See §. 198. and consequently the maintainers of them were Hereticks Yet is it usual for Councils and other Courts of Judicature to reiterate their sentence so often as offenders reiterate the same faults or revive the same errors And therefore was this done in Trent § 256 To ν. To ν. See § 83 92. The place of the Council was chosen by the consent of most Christian Princes no place could be appointed of an equal convenience for all Countries the place was under the Emperours power as himself often declared not accessible by the Popes forces and secure enough to the main Body of Protestants those of Germany from which place also their forces when time was frighted the Council Lastly nearer to them than to the Catholicks of Spain and France A Sase-conduct also the Protestants had as large as could justly be desired and the Exceptions they took against it were unreasonable Of which see before § 104. The Council of Constance is also much wronged and the proceedings thereof against Jo. Huss mis-related Of which see before § 101. The Divines also that upon the Safe-conduct came to the Council of Trent were courteously treated and dismissed though the designs of those Princes that sent them thither were treacherous and bloody †§. 68 90. § 257 To ε. To ε. The whole abode of the Protestant Divines of Trent from their first coming to their departure was but in all about a Fortnights time after which short time the Protestant Princes unexpectedly appeared in Arms. Though it is true also that at their coming one of the Legats his accidentally falling sick of a disease of which he died within a few weeks somewhat retarded the business of treating with them the manner of which treaty required much deliberation Lastly by their printing the defence of their tenents the Fathers of the Council heard sufficiently what they could say yet were no way sweyed with their Arguments § 258 To π. To π. See § 68. n. 2. and what is said before to λ. To refer the judgment of Spiritual matters to Lay-persons as more indifferent or to change the former ordinary Ecclesiastical Judges of such Controversies because these are fore-known to be of a contrary opinion to those who are to appear before their Tribunal is shewed before § 254. to be a most unreasonable demand Neither if such thing had been granted could it have advantaged the Protestants For whether their Judge had been the whole and not only the Episcopal Clergy or Secular Princes or People a major part of all these they knew to be Catholick and of a belief opposit to theirs †See before §. 115. n. 2. §. 118. c. And whom their writings had hitherto not changed or perswaded why should they think their discourse or disputes would Lastly an equal number on both sides without any umpirage appointed to be their Judges is a Court that where either party is resolute can proceed to no sentence They who foresee a major part of those to whom our Lord hath committed the Government and guidance of his Church opposing their Doctrine are already self-condemned as to Authority and ought not to seek a new Judge but reform their errors sect 259 To ς. To ς. See what is said § 105. To shew that this Oath was not given in any prejudice to the freedom of the Council for 1st It was only an oath used at Ordinations not new framed for or imposed on the Council at Trent It or the like was anciently taken by the Bishops when ordained without being thought prejudicial to the liberty of former Councils 2. Again an Oath it was only obliging to a legal obedience due by the Divine or Church-laws an Oath to this purpose being taken also by Protestant Bishops and so strengthning only that engagement of Bishops to the observance of these laws which they had before when yet unsworn So that notwithstanding such Oath they might question any Papal pretended right which they thought not Canonical As also it is clear they freely did without any thought or jealousie of their trespassing against this Oath and without the Pope's Legats objecting it to them 3. Again neither did such Oath in such a sence restrain them to observance of the Canons as that now when in a conjunct Body and the See Apostolick concurring they might not also abrogate and change the same Canons as thought fit 4 However An Oath it was laying no restraint upon the Counicls liberty as to voting any way concerning most of the Protestant Controversies unless perhaps that of the Popes Supremacy 5. Again If this Oath binding them to any thing thought unlawful their learning well enough knew they were without any Dispensation obliged to break not keep it and that in an unlawful ingagement every one is free from it as soon as he knows it such 6. Lastly this Oath being taken generally by all how come the French and Spanish Bishops to be said to have acted so diversly from the Italian Bishops if all were so straightly tyed by the same Oath to the Popes interest As for what is said That none had suffrage in this Council but such as were profest enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council Here since it cannot be denied that all the Bishops present in Trent had Suffrages none excluded it is by the Objectors confessed that not only a Major part but the whole Council of Trent was an enemy to the Reformation and the Pope as to all those Points that proceeded singly against them secure enough of a full vote without the multiplying of Italian or Titular or Pensionary Bishops § 260 To σ. To σ. 1 1 See § 160 The proposal of the Legats could alter nothing in the Councils votes as to the things that were proposed especially as to those Protestant Controversies wherein they unanimously agreed but only could hinder some things from being voted because not proposed But no Protestant Controversies are found so omitted Again such Proposal seems very necessary for order sake nor was any way used by the Legats to abridge the desires of any considerable part of the Council concerning any proponends as is amply shewed See § 164 § 160. § 261 To σ. To. σ. 2 2 Things were first consulted on and voted in Trent not at Rome the Pope usually advertised of their Consultations after the judgment of the Congregations already passed returned Instructions to his Legats before the General Sessions concerning his opinion of the matter in hand and commendable had it been and advantageous to the Synod could the Bishops or Metropolitans of each Province have done the like to their Representatives Celestine and Leo declared their judgments to the third and fourth General Council not to give a law to them but advice If the Pope's Instructions to his Legats concerning any Points
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
overthrown by it To β β. To β. β. See before § 204. the contrary declared by Soave This briefly here to the Protestant Objections the satisfaction of which hath been more largely prosecuted through the whole Body of the former Discourse And thus through many obstacles I have at length finished my Design the Vindication of a Council which once admitted hath passed a peremptory sentence against the new pretended Reformation and determined all the chiefest modern Controversies CHAP. XIII Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding Assent to Church-Authority § 271. 1. The Necessity of following our Conscience 2. The Certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinion and seeming Reason § 278. § 270 AFter all this pains taken for establishing the Legal Authority of this Council some perhaps will wish this labour had been rather spent in a confirmation by solid and evident arguments of the Truth of its particular Decrees because though we have our end and though this Council should be granted justly to claim all that obedience which will be confessed due to the most supreme Church Authority Yet this most Supreme Church-Authority is denied by Protestants rightly to challenge obedience from its Subjects especially that of assent in several cases Whereof two are much urged and so seem necessary here to be a little more exactly considered before I dismiss the Reader that the precedent Discourse may not be frustrated by such pretences of its desired effect § 271 The first Guard That is used against obedience to such Authority is this That none can be justly obliged to obey any humane Authority so as to go against his conscience or profess any thing truth which he thinks error For though such person erre in thinking such thing an error yet must such an erroneous conscience and not such Authority in this case be followed and obeyed The second is That at least none are obliged to obey the Definitions or Judgment of a legal Church-Authority where such are not only perswaded in conscience but demonstratively certain as some affirm they are of the contrary to its Definition and that therein it manifestly erreth § 272 These two then shall be considered in their order And to the first of them I return this 1. That where Conscience or Judgment for these are both one proposeth any thing for truth yet not without some doubt and fear of the contrary here the Will or the Person ought to suspend action and put the Judgment first on a further search 2ly That where such sear is not the Judgment erring or not erring is indeed to be obeyed because the person alwaies supposeth this not to erre but to propose what is right since he hath no way to know when it erres but by it self And it also can never erre knowingly or willingly 3ly Yet That in the action wherein he followeth it when erring he may much offend God and this more or less according to the quality of the error namely where the Judgment or Conscience doth not invincibly but culpably erre and hath means of being better informed and so of discovering its error So the Jews when killing our Lord and his Apostles most grievously offended God in following an erroneous Judgment or Conscience dictating to them that they did God good service herein And indeed it is a great art of the Devil as much as he can to put out the eye of the Judgment to make men act more resolutely where Conscience leads them on he finding that the zeal of ignorance doth him far more service than a timorous hypocrisie and dissembling against Conscience could ever do § 273 Now here you see our freedom from Guilt in not submitting to Authority is devolved wholy on this our care that this our dissenting Conscience or Judgment be rightly informed seeing our non-obedience finds not the least patronage or excuse from a Conscience culpably erring And with this care of well-informing the Judgment or Conscience it is the Will that is intrusted though the understanding doth the work For we must know that though the Understanding in its assents or dissents acts necessarily and cannot but know and believe what it knows and believes and doth generally in all its acts follow the evidence of its object so far as it appears not the command of the will And therefore Secondly as to those Principles that are per se nota and self-evident as That every whole is bigger than a part The same thing cannot be and not be Equals taken from Equals the remains will be equal Good is to be followed Evil avoided the Judgment cannot suffer the least corruption or alteration from the Will Whence it is that as to such Principles all men how differently soever ingaged in their affections do fully consent and agree Yet as for other propositions the truth of which is not discerned from any self-evidence but learn't by proofs and arguments drawn from some other things better known here the truth of such proposition cannot be attained but by the industry and application of the intellect to the study and discovery of such proofs and again such application of the intellect to one thing or another for a little or a long time depends wholy on the Will And thus come our opinions and tenents to be subjected to our Will and she again is so commonly to our secular interests And she thus by applying the Intellect or Judgment to what things and how far she thinks fit makes in it what impressions she pleaseth And then after all this excuseth her self that she is led by it that it is appointed her Master and Director that it alwaies necessarily assents to what appears truth to it and that she regularly practiseth and lives according to its dictates And she corrupts it in those who deny obedience in spiritual matters to that Ecclesiastical Authority to which it is due commonly by one of these three waies following Which charity towards those who are frequently thus deceived obligeth me here first to set down more particularly and then to consider some remedies thereof § 274 The Will then is wont to abuse the Judgment or Conscience 1. Either first by keeping it in much ignorance as to those things wherein more knowledge may happen to be prejudicial
is pretended would save many other searches Of Church-Authority I say viz. what perpetual power our departing Lord hath left to the Governours thereof and what assistance promised them for exposition of the sence of the Divine Scriptures where this disputed and for deciding controversies in matters of faith And what obligation he hath laid upon all the Churches Subjects to hearken to them and not to depart from their Directions and Determinations ne circumferantur omni vento doctrinae in nequitiâ hominum a yoke the pride of the will hath no great mind to Yet a search this to be undertaken much rather than all the other Because abstracting from this Guide after never so impartial a view of other intrinsecal arguments belonging to the subject debated an ordinary understanding in points somuch abâ—ve reason may happily mistake the Truth and because matters of Faith and Religion wherein the Intellect now negotiates depend chiefly on Church-Tradition not rational-seeming proofs And because a Judgment left to a free information of it self herein must needs find many perswasive arguments to entertain and prefer the Judgment of this Authority when it is on one side though this naked and seconded with no reasons at all that are known to such person for its Proposals before all those intrinsecal reasons relating to the nature of the subject that appear on the other Such perswasive Reasons I mean drawn from Authority as these That this Authority that delivers the contrary to what all my other arguments or reasons recommend to me is by our Lord instated in an Infallibility in all necessaries and that it not I also is to judge what or how much is necessary Or however that this Authority fallible or infallible is by the Divine Ordination in such points of Faith and Religion appointed my guide and in opposition of such Authorities happening the Superior this Guide of which things enough hath been said in the former Discourses That setting aside these principal considerations the persons constituting this Authority are also of greater parts get studies and I have reason to presume more dispassionate than my self and more in number than I or those others of my perswasion that they have seen and considered all those reasons that as yet swey me and have pronounced contrary that they may have reasons for their Decisions that I have not seen nor they are obliged to shew me since my judgment stands subjected to theirs on another account than the evidence of argument § 278 Now in such a case or supposition that the Intellect left free to consider doth assent to such extrinsecal arguments in behalf of Church-Authority against any Reasons belonging to the subject in debate that perswade me contrary to what it hath defin'd Here after studying both Authority and Reason my final Judgment is that I ought to joyn and side with the first against the second though these reasons be unsolv'd or that none better or none at all be presented to me by the said Authority And so now to go against my Reason is to follow my Judgment or Conscience and on the contrary It is to go against my Judgement or Conscience if I follow these my reasons or my private judgment as grounded on them § 279 It may be some who pretend that Conscience releaseth them from Authority have not well considered this and therefore give me leave to dilate a little more upon it If we look then into Secular Affairs this matter seems decided in our ordinary practice Do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced Friend a learned Physitian or Lawyer concerning our Estate or our Health both believe his Directions good and according to them do and also judge we ought to do many things contrary to our own private Judgments i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have imagined not to do so Is not Abraham said to believe a thing that seemed contrary to his own reason Rom. 4.17 18 And so the man in the Gospel Mark 9.24 .. What is the meaning of that saying ordinarily used also by Protestants These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit my judgment herein to the Church Is it as Dr. Fern comments on it †Consid touching Reformation c. 1. n 16. only I submit my judgment as to the publishing of it But this is only a submission of silence not of our judgment at all to the Church and is a submission which may well be performed in things wherein our judgment is utterly fixed and unalterable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain Again What means that of Dr. Hammond Schism 2. c. § 10 where he saith A meek son of the Church of Christ when the Fundamentals of Faith are not concern'd in the concessions c. will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors Submit and Deposit means it not to renounce and desert it in such matters and to believe and hearken to the judgment of the Church rather than to it Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14.23 Whatever is not of faith is sin be objected to any for so doing Because who thus deposits his judgment doth it out of faith namely that the Churches Judgment is wiser safer preferrable to his own § 280 Nor can this indeed rightly be construed a going against our own conscience or judgment considered in general Because this preferring the Churches before our own judgment is certainly an act also of our judgment Since when there is such a weighty authority on the one side and such reasons of our own but these short of certainty on the other our judgment here sits upon and examins both and at length gives sentence that here it is a safer course for us to submit to the first than rely on the second And here then I only go against conscience if I adhere to the second and forsake the first But indeed if the Church which it never doth should require me to subscribe not that I give more credit to her Authority than to my private Reasons but that I have no private reasons ot scruples no repugnances of any verisimilities to the contrary of her Definitions when indeed I have so nor as yet know how to clear them such subscription or profession I grant would be going against my conscience and must at no hand be done This That a submission of our Judgment or professing our assent to Authority where we see no reasons confirming its assertions and many for the contrary is not necessarily a going against our own Conscience or Judgment CHAP XV. Remedies of the former Deceits of the Will Considerations For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Whether Salvation c. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very
jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to present Church-Authority § 292. That learned Protestants have so determined this Point § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311. § 281 NOw a Judgment once set free from the three former great Arts of the Will to misguide it as any ones Secular Interest shall require will begin to consider 1. In opposition to the first of them mentioned before § 274 keeping the judgment in ignorance as to Divine matters and imploying it wholy about other studies That since a right perswasion in Religion is of so great consequence to salvation All those who are not settled in their Belief upon the Basis of Church Authority and so under it remain in a sufficient security of their Faith as to all those points wherein the sense of the Holy Scriptures is disputed and controverted by several parties as for example in these Whether Justification is by Faith alone Whether there be Evangelical Councils as well as Precepts Whether Christ our Lord be Co-Essential with God the Father Whether exhibiting his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Whether there be a Purgatory after this life for some imperfect souls though departing in God's Grace or the like All such I say since they have taken the guidance of themselves in Spirituals into their own hands have great reason themselves to fall most attentively to the study thereof For it were to serve God too carelesly and at hap hazard to cast off Church-Authority for the Exposition and Sence of God's Word in these disputed and difficult matters and not himself to use any other indeavour at all for the right understanding of them And in such indeavour he ought not only to take a perfunctory view of some places that may seem at the first sight to represent to him what he would have but to seek out all those Texts that both sides build upon and then diligently to examine and compare them For though some Texts may seem never so plain as to the Literal and Grammatical sence as what more clear than Accipite comedite Hoc est Corpusmeum Matt 26. yet scarce is there any sentence where the terms are not capable of several acceptions Figurative and Non-literal Or if they be not all sides must necessarily agree in their sence and so about such Texts be no dispute And again there being a necessary consonancy and agreement in every title of Scripture no place how plain soever for the expression it seems to be may be so inter preted as to contradict another that seems as clearly to say the contrary He ought also to weigh not only the immediat sence of Scripture but the necessary consequences and since whatever things are not opposit to Scripture are truly lawful and practicable to discern the true and not only pretended repugnances thereto He ought also to examin Translations peruse the Comments and Expositions of others Modern Ancient For all these things that Authority most exquisitly doth whose judgment and conduct he declines Lastly he must be a Divine who will not be guided by Divines for of the true way of Salvation none can securely be ignorant And what Prelatical Protestant allows this in an Independent or Fanatick when he will neither guide his ignorance by following the learned nor remove it by study § 282 As for Salvation to be had in any Christian Profession though it may be true in a Church where all fundamentals are truly believ'd and Baptism rightly administred for so many as are invincibly ignorant of any better or perhaps other communion for Children and Rusticks those of an immature age or of very low imployments void of literature and publick converse and by their mean condition and inexperience destitute of any improvement of their knowledge yet for all the rest who have better means of understanding Divine matters and of searching the grounds of their Faith and state of their Communion and on whose direction and example every where depend the other meaner and younger sort of people and by their default miscarry ‖ 1 Cor. 8 1â— For these I say their case seems very dangerous who happen to be in any separated Society out of the external Catholick Communion Since the One God will be worshipped as S. Austin †Epist 48. answered those Latitudinarian Donatists not only in verity but unity and again hath left marks and Testimonies sufficiently evident for the discerning and distinguishing that Catholick Communion wherein he will be worshipped from all other Heretical or Schismatical Societies All those therefore who either through their own fault do not know this Communion because they will not search or knowing it yet voluntarily still remain in any other divided from it must needs be in a very perillous Condition The first because their ignorance in a thing so manifest and withal so important must needs be very gross and unexcusable The second because any long stay in any such separated Society to one convinced seems both by the Scriptures and by the Church frequently prohibited And were it not so at least brings so much detriment and damage to the spiritual Condition of such a person as is no way to be recompenced by any other fancied advantages injoyed therein Which things it will not be amiss to discourse a little more fully if perhaps some Laodicean complexion may receive some benefit thereby § 283 1st Then The remaining in any such Communion is prohibited by the Scriptures in many places Eph. 5.7 8. The children of light are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness nor to be partakers with them but to reprove them 2 Cor. 6.14 Light and darkness Justice and iniquity Believers and Infidâ—ls the Temples of God which all good Christians are and of Idols are to have no fellowship or communion together But Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord. And 1 Cor. 3.16 Si quis Templum Domini violarerit disperdet illum Deus Nor may such separation be understood from Infidels Heathens or non-Christians only For 1 Cor. 5.9.11 If a Brother i. e. one that professeth Christianity with us be a Fornicator an Adulterer an Idolater a Drunkard with such a one we are charged not to eat But to with-draw our ordinary converse from him i. e. where no duty of
entirely his To these may be added all those Texts requiring the glorifying of God in our publick worship of him in the Society of his true Church and in the Confession of Christ before men Confession of him with the mouth as well as believing on him with the heart Rom. 10.9 10. of all persons with one mouth as well as with one mind Rom. 15.6 Which Texts seem in a special manner to imply that Confession which is made in the publick Assemblies of the Church Which Assemblies therefore were never intermitted in its greatest persecutions from the Civil Magistrates To these again may be added those many precepts of Vnity and Charity injoyned amongst all the fellow-members of Christ Eph. 4.3 11 12. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. Phil. 1.27 28. Jo. 10.4 5. which Texts seem to extend and oblige to all the external as well as internal acts thereof especially for what concerns Gods publick service and worship And that Article of our Creed that we believe one Church Catholick and Apostolick ie One external visible Communion upon earth united in its members that alwaies is and shall be such seems not sufficiently asserted and professed by any who forbears to joyn himself openly unto it Such a denial before men of the Body of Christ his Church seems not to fall much short of the crime of denying before men the Head Christ Himself But chiefly there where this Church the Spouse of Christ happens to be under any disgrace or Persecution here our taking up the Cross with her and the Doxology of Confessing him and her seems yet more zealously to be imbraced and no such opportunity of so highly promoting our Eternal reward upon any Secular inductive whatsoever to be omitted For which consider Heb. 10.25 § 286 2. This of the remaining in any such separated Congregation prohibited in Scriptures and the contrary also there required Next It is also both prohibited by the ancient Canons of the Church and disallowed by her practice For the Canons see those early ones Can. Apost 11 12 13. 12. Si quis cum damnato Clerico veluti cum Clerico simul oraverit iste damnetur 11. Si Quis cum Excommunicato saltem in domo locutus fuerit iste communione privetur Which Canon calls to mind again 2 Jo. 10. And ‖ l. 6 c. 13. Eusebius reports of Origen when yet a youth that necessitated by reason of poverty to live in the same house with Paulus one not Orthodox in the Faith yet he forbare to be present at Prayers with him Quippe qui ab ineunte aetate Ecclesiae Canonem obnixe observasset probably those Apostolick ones before named See Concil Laodicen held by the Catholicks in the time of the reigning of Arrianisme before the Second General Council Where as it is decreed Non oportere cum Paganis festae celebrare c. 39. And Nonoportere à Judaeis azyma accipere c. 38. So Non oportere cum Haereticis vel Schismaticis orare c. 33. And non oportere Haereticorum benedictiones accipere can 32. See Concil Carthag 4. held A. D. 436. a little after S. Austins death can 72. Cum Haereticis nec orandum nec psallendum And c. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excommunicato sive Clericus sive Laicus excommunicetur So it is then that all Hereticks and Schismaticks such as make Congregations and celebrate the publick Divine Worship separate from the Church stand Excommunicated and Anathematized by the supreme church-Church-Authority in several Canons of Councils And hence all those stand so too who communicate with them in such their service For This freequenting and joyning with them in their service is an external profession of such separation which external Profession alwaies it is that the Church not knowing Hearts proceeds against in her Censures And the Church in her expelling such Congregations from being members any longer of her Communion may be imagined much more to prohibit any pretender to her Communion from being or appearing a member of theirs And though the modern Church laws in several cases may perhaps have remitted some of the ancient rigor that restrains our presence with known and declared Hereticks in the Catholick Divine Service or Sacraments and hath admitted some limitations Yet the communicating with any of a separated external communion in their Divine Service or in such Holy things or Divine Worship as are commonly understood and taken for a distinctive note of such separation from that Church which is the Catholick such a dissembling of ones Religion is at no hand lawful but is a denying before men of Christs Church and so of Christ since who thus denies conjunction with the Body denies it with the Head also that is joyn'd to this Body Nor was there in any times the least dissimulation in any thing required as an external Tessera and Touch-stone of their Religion I say not a non-professing of our Religion but a professing against it ever suffered or excused in the greatest Persecutions Though other usual ceremonies and practices of the Church not distinguishing so essentially and properly her Communion nor this communion made a necessary consequent of them but instituted and performed for other ends may amongst Separatists be dispensed with and omitted As fasting or abstinence on daies appointed for them Provided no great scandal happen thereby But whatever compliances with Separatists for our Secular conveniences may be lawful yet since all suffering for the Catholick Religion is a degree of Martyrdome it is much nobler by keeping the strictest distance to aspire to what is most perfect than by seeking inlargements to hazard the doing of some thing unlawful § 287 Next For the Churche's ancient Practice piz the Catholicks neither going to the Prayers or Sacraments of Sectarists nor admitting these to their own Their Letters Commendatory mentioned Câ—n. Apost 13. called Epistolae formatae sufficiently shew how cauâ—â—ous and strict it was Which Letters from the Churches careful avoiding all mixture with Sectaries were procured so often as any had occasion to travel from one Church to another Without which Testimony they could not be admitted to their prayers c. The same also appears from the strict separation of Catholicks from the potent division of the Arrian Sect. Which Arrians though in many of their Councils they required subscription of no positive Heresie brâ—â—only an omission in their Creeds of some Truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet were the Catholicks even when much persecuted by the Secular Princes and by the banishment of their Pastors in some places destitute of the Sacraments strictly prohibited to come at the Arrian Assemblies though these had the same Sacraments with them and possession of the Cathedrals and other Churches and chose rather to relinquish their Temples to pray at home to live without the Sacraments nay to be without these in their sickness and at their death than to receive them from the Arrians See for these things S. Athanas Epist
Synodica ad Antiochenses And Epist. ad ubiq Orthodoxes S. Austin De verâ Religione c. 5. S. Hilary lib. contra Arrian S. Basil Epist 293. to some Egyptian Bishops And see in Theodoret ‖ Hist l. 2. c. 17. the jealous deportment of the Romans towards Felix who substituted by the Arrian Emperor in Liberius his place sent into banishment Tametsi saith Theodoret fidem in Concilio Nicaeno expositam ipse servavit integram tamen quia cum illis qui eandem labefactare studebant libere communicarit nemo ex Romae habitatoribus in Ecclesiam dum ille intus erat ingredi voluit And this resolution signified to Constantius happily procured the return of Liberius This of the Declaration of the Church against any such liberty of Christian Communion where soever our Secular interest or Education may be apt to fix us 3. But were there no such bars put in against it by the Scriptures or H. Church yet this were enough to disswade it § 288 that by remaining in any such separated Society either we are put to practice several things contrary to a right Faith and good manners and offensive to a a good Conscience or at least necessitated to forego the practice of many other things beneficial not to say necessary which are to be injoyed only in the Communion of this Catholick Church not so in others For a particular Catalogue of which not to be here too tedious I refer you to the Preface before the former Discourses touching the Guide in Controversies and to the conclusion of the third Discourse § 155 c. Lastly as for that internal Communion with the Church which it granted some who want the external may nevertheless injoy or the security of a votum where is an actual defect of the participation of its Sacraments that some may have they seem no way to such persons as those who are not by force hindred of her Communion but invited to it do voluntarily deprive themselves And partaking the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing to us where de facto we may have them and de facto do refuse them And then what other advantages can there be that can make us satisfaction for such a loss I will conclude this point with the Declaration sent to the followers of the Donatists some of whom for their stay in that Sect urged this very excuse we are now speaking to Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit by S. Austin and the rest of the Provincial Council at Cirta in Numidia presently after that famous Conference with them at Carthage A. D. 411. †S. August Epist 152 Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesia fuerit separatus amongst whom they reckoned the Sect of the Donatists quantumlibet laudabiliter se vivere existimet hoc solo scelere quod à Christi unitate disâ—unctus est non habebit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum And as for the Sacraments received in that separation Sacramenta Christi say they though celebrated in the same manner with them as in the Church in sacrilegio schismatis ad judicium habetis quae utilia salutaria vobis erunt cum in Catholicâ pace habueritis Caput Christum ubi charitas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Thus much I fear not needlesly I have taken occasion from § 283. to set down in opposition to that irrational Fancy Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit not knowing but that this Discourse may meet with some Readers not much averse from such a perswasion For by the foresaid Arts of the Will mens Judgments are too apt to digest opinions very gross where the Secular advantages by these are very great 2. Thus much considered by a Judgment set at liberty in order to the first Art of the Will to deceive it Viz. It s keeping the Judgment in much ignorance as to the Divine matters and to a cold indifferency as to parties and diverting it wholy to other matters Next as to the Second mentioned before § 275. namely applying it indeed to the learning of these Truths but this only from those Authors and Instructors that are of its own party a rectified Judgment will as freely conclude and resolve That all those who are not well settled upon this Basis of Church Authority and so by a resign'd obedience have prevented all disputes ought rather in making such a quest after Divine Truth in so many Controversies agitated between parties and in chusing their Religion to apply themselves for learning it to the reading of those Books and Authors and discoursing with those persons who oppose the tenents in which they have been educated and to which all Secular or carnal advantages do incline them that thus they may bring things to some equipoise and having first heard the plea of both sides be able to make a truer Judgment And if in the issue neither side do seem to preponderate should chuse rather that to which their interest seems more averse for they may well imagine that men are ordinarily so far partial to their own sides that they would not think both equal unless that against 〈◊〉 were over weight and that a crooked staff to be made streight must be bent the contrary way And upon this such Judgment also will consider That since our first perswasions in Religion and the particular sect thereof wherein we live are not taken up upon our own choice but anothers who having some command over us anticipate our judgment and educate us in what opinions they please hence it is that our constancy and perseverance even sometimes to the loss of Estate and Life to whatever we thus casually first light on called by the name of Fidelity and love of Truth and the contrary perfidiousness and Apostacy is indeed before we have examined things better only a rash and inconsiderat Obstinacy and that on the contrary in prudence every one ought to put himself in a great indifferency to change those first principles he is thus seasoned and possessed with as he shall by new experience find cause and to esteem that only Constancy in his Religion i. e. in his true serving of God to alter every day and that through a thousand Secular obstacles to any thing wherein he conceives he may serve him better As in our manners when any way deficient we do this without reproach Yet further will consider since as hath been shewed there is but one Communion of all those various Sects in which promiscuously the Education of Christian Youth happens to be moulded namely that which adheres to the Supreme Church-Authority that is Catholick and truly disingaged of Schism That all those who find themselves to live under such Superiors as are broken off and stand divided from their Superiors and condemned by them ought to entertain a great jealousie of their present state and not acquiesce in any such Government at adventure but presently to reduce their subjection to
fortunes less necessitated to serve private interests are by all these the less liable to error of the two And that the confining of the belief of such persons to the directions of supposed fallible Superiors is of the two evils the much more tolerable than the leaving them in such high an spiritual matters to the roving of their own fancies For thus in stead of some few errors of the Church in matters obscure will be multiplied thousands of such persons in matters most evident and clear § 293 S. Austin speaks much on this subject in his Book de utilitate Credendi of the benefit of believing the Church written to his friend Honoratus led away by many extravagant Manichean dotages advising him submission of judgment to church-Church-Authority Nihil est facilius saith he †De utilitate Credendi c. 1. quam non solum so dicere sed etiam opinari verum invenisse sed reipsâ difficillimum est And †c. 12. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis under which name he saith he comprehends all except those quibus inest quanta in esse homini potest ipsius hominis Deique firmissime percepta cognitio utilius atque salubrius esse praeceptis obemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere Hoc si in rebus minoribus ut in mercando vel colendo agro c. expedire nemo ambigit multo magis in religione Nam res humanae promptiores ad dignoscendum sunt quam divinae in quibusque praestantioribus sanctioribus quo majus ets obsequium cultumque debemus eo sceleratius periculosiusque peccatur And c. 17. he argues Si unaquae disciplina quanquam vilis facilis ut percipi possit Doctorem aut magistrum requirit quid temerariae superbiae plenius quam divinorum sacramentorum libros ab interpretibus suis nollecognoscere And c. 7. Nullâ imbutus poeticâ disciplinâ Terentionum Magistrum sine Magistro attingere non auderes Tu in eos libros qui quoquomodo se habeant sanctitamen divinarumq rerum pleni prope totius generis humani confessione diffamantur sine duce irruis de his sine praeceptore audes ferre sententiam c. And c. 16. Cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibiratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana Thus he to induce Honoratus in such divine matters to yield the guidance of himself to Church-Authority And then the Church-Authority he would have him submit to he describes thus c. 17. Quae Ecclesia usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circum latrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum Majestate damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Cui nolle primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae Nam si nulla certa ad sapientiam salutemque animis via est nisi cum cos rationi praecolit prepares them fides quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quam tanto labore praeditae praedictae rather authoritati velle resistere Again c. 16. Quae authoritas sepositâ ratione quam sinceram intelligere ut saepe diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis very frequent in his times See De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. partim sequentium multitudine And c. 14. Quae celebritate consensu vetustate roboratur And c. 11. Si jam satis tibi jactatus videris finemque hujusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros maenatura est I have given you St. Austins advice somewhat more largely as hoping his words will have more weight § 294 And because if this obligation of submission of judgment to Authority for the unlearned not able to examin Controversies or the learned after examination in some degree unsatisfied be received for a truth thus the greatest part of Christians are hereby for ever settled in their religion and belief as to all points determined by the Church I will here also set down for the benefit of such Readers as most value their judgment the testimony of several learned Protestants in confirmation of it several of which have been mentioned in the former Discourses The Reader who thinks the allegation of witnesses needless in a matter so evident and would only know when Ecclesiastical Authorities divide and dissent to which of them his submission is due may omitting them pass on to § 296. In confirmation hereof then first consider that noted passage of Dr. Field in the Preface of his Book §. 295. n. 1. recommending to Christians chiefly the discovery of the True Church and when this found submission to it Seeing saith he the Controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment In the same manner Dr. Hammond writes §. 295. n 2. in his Answer to the Catholick Gentleman chap. 2. p. 17. When the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit a bare yielding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve may rationally be yielded to a Church or the Governours of it without deeming them inerrable And in his Treatise of Heresie § 13. n. 2 3. he speaks thus of the Christians security from the Divine Providence in his adherence in matters of Faith to church-Church-Authority If we consider Gods great and wise and constant Providence and care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit scandals and false teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly servants If I say we consider these and some other such like general promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to
fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should erre in matter of Faith I adde to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without Idolatry practice and therein find approbation and reception amongst all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the general approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation Thus he But if here the Doctor be asked why upon these considerations he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents For example all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation held before Luther I suppose his answer is ready because these were not General nor universally accepted But since these were the most General that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction and had also the most universal acceptation that those times could afford unless he would have also the Berengatians the persons condemned in them to accept them an acceptation most unreasonably demanded why do not here also Gods Providence and Promises stand ingaged in compassion to the meek and pious Subjects of the Church that these Councils erre not nor the Christians of those times fall into such a temptation as it must needs be if these the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence as is the committing of Idolatry ever since See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to this it is saith he that Christ is said Eph. 4.12 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i. e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting the Saints into a Church for the building up of the body of Christ confirming and continuing them in all truth that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages 't is every where apparent by Ignatius his Epistles that the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that form of wholsome words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted c. And in his Treatise of Schisme chap. 2. § 10. he speaks in this manner A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due For the Church where his lot is fallen may by Heresie or Schisme stand divided from the Church-Catholick Here he allows depositing of our judgment in deference to our Superiors where the Fundamentals of Faith c. are not concerned But would not one think rather that in these points especially a person to be safe should adhere to the Churches judgment rather than his own Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality Doctor Jackson on the Creed §. 295. n 3. l. 2 § 1 c. 6. p. 175. in stating the Question ‖ p. 170. Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any opinion or action goes on thus Superiors saith he are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine or not of capacity to discern or not of power or place to determine whether they be lawful or no. Again p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion he argues thus Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill that may ensue a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice either for doing or omitting it The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent for here is an indifferency of perswasions But suppose we have not such indifferency yet p. 172 Whilst men of skill and judgment saith he appointed by God to advise in such matters are otherwise perswaded than we in private are the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action wherein heretofore we thought was not And the performance of obedience it self is a good and acceptable action in the sight of God Now what he saith here concering the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion Again Ibid p. 174. True spiritual obedience were it rightly planted in our hearts would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake than to disobey authority for the private dislike of them Both our disobedience i. e. dissent or non-submission of judgment to the one and dislike of the other are unwarrantable unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors and express law of the most High And. c. 4. p. 165. Sundry saith he in profession Protestants in eagerness of opposition to the Papists affirm that the Church or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed then only be obeyed when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart and consciences of such as must believe and obey them And this in one word is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors and to deprive them of all obedience unto whom doubtless God by his word hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars unto which he demands belief or obedience what obedience do men perform unto him more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever he be that can shew us the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all But
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-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
against themselves A consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age saith Mr. Chillingw ‖ p. 376. * Allowing certain Tradition hardly of any thing save of the H. Scriptures And few or no Traditive interpretations thereof I have the words from Mr. Chillingw No Tradition saith he †p. 376. but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain our Lord and his Apostles but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in And Traditive Interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found So he * Alledging that the Fathers tranferred several conceits and customs into the Church from their new-deserted Paganism Platonick philosophy And Divinity of the Sybils or at least out of compliance with such new Heathen Converts And then that the more prudent and sober Fathers through timorousness and despair of a reformation have complied with the rest and been carried down with the stream Thus Zuinglius †De verâ fallâ Religione p. 214. of S. Austin touching Corporal Presence in which point many Protestants would have him their Patron Facile adducimur saith he Augustinum prae aliis acuto perspicacique ingenio virum suâ tempestate non fuisse ausum diserte veritatem proloqui quae jam casum magnaâ parte dederat Vidit omnino pius Homo quid hoc Sacramentum esset in quem usum esset institutum verum invaluerat opinio de Corporeâ carne And thus Chemnitius ‖ Exam. Con. Trid. 3. part p. 197. of the same Father touching Invocation of Saints Haec Augustinus sine Scripturâ temporibus consuetudini cedens And Bochart Origin de l' Invoc p. 488. St. Austin who seems to have been of a disposition wonderfully sweet and courteous suffers himself often to comply with the common errors and superstitions indeavouring rather to put a good sense upon them than to cross them c And Tantae vir authoritatis in negocio Dei libere loqui non audebat Cum praesumptionibus omnia impleri videret schismatis metu aperte damnare non audebat saith Vossius †Thes de Invocat S. Again * saying they held many things only as probabilities which later times have advanced into matters of faith and that necessary He finds them also in Appeale to this Antiquity ascending rather to the 3 first ages thereof ages wherein the Church was persecuted and few Records are left of her general Doctrines or Practices and more willingly declining the later where the Records many and the Church in her flourishing condition more fully displaying to the world all her Government and Discipline these men confessing some appearances of several of the Tenents and Customâ— they oppose in the fourth age Lastly he finds them apt to change the phrase and language of the Ancients and bogling at many of their terms such as those of Merit Satisfaction Altars Priests Sacrifices c. which novelty of words often argues a new conceit of things This the Protestants behaviour to Antiquity in relating which those who are versed in their books of Controversie especially the writings of the French know that I falsifie nothing whereas on the other side the opposite party to this he finds usually defending those works of the Fathers which the others question and not discarding Records certainly ancient because perhaps some of them mis-entitled as to the Author or somewhat antidated as to the time Again stating their Theological questions and extracting their Comments on Scripture controverted out of their writings Covering their defects and charitably interpreting what in them is any way capable thereof and reconciling their seeming Contradictions Lastly Sainting the Fathers and solemnly commemorating them in their publick service Often urging and laying much weight on ancient Tradition and so keeping stable and firm from generation to generation the Doctrine and Faith of the Church and out of this Tradition convincing Heresies Defending the legal authority of those Councils which the other oppose and gathering their Canons into certain Heads for the standing Laws and Rules of present-present-Church Government Not looking back with such rigor and jealousie upon their supreme Judges and examining their numbers their Commissions Elections if these free from Simony Ordinations nay Baptism nor holding them of more virtue authority or illumination as to the deciding of Controversies or enlarging Creeds in one age than another but in all ages alike necessary alike assisted § 305 4. But yet further He may discover the pretence to the Fathers that is made by this party of late not to have been so much in that beginning of the Reformation See before § 104. and 128. in the times of the Council of Trent their plain refusing to be tried by the Councils Fathers Church-Tradition but as these are first proved to have founded their Doctrine in the Scriptures See the two heads thereof Luther and Calvin their plain dealing in this matter in the many Quotations cited out of them before Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. c. Quanti errores saith Luther in omnium Patrum scriptis inventi sunt ‖ In assertiâ—â—ne Articul Quoties sibi ipsis pugnant Quis est qui non saepius scripturas torserit c. And contra Regem Angliae Non ego quaero saith he quid Ambrosius Augustinus Concilia usus saeculorum dicunt Miranda est stultitia Satanae quae iis impugnat quae ego impugno And lib. de ministris Eccl. iâ—stituend Non habent Papistae quod his apponant i. e. to his private sence and exposition of Holy Scriptures nisi Patres Concilia Consuetudinem Is not that enough Calvin De Ecclesiae reformandae ratione c. 19. to the judgement of Antiquity urged against him in the point De sacrificio Missâ returns such general answers as these not unfrequent with him also concerning many other points Veterum sententias non moror quas ad obruendam veritatem hic congerunt Moderatores Solemne est nebulonibus istis you must pardon his heat like that of Luther quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur corradere And below Desinant boni Moderatores veterum sententiis pugnare in malâ causâ Again Non est quod vel Ambrosium vel alium quemp iam ex totâ veterum cohorte acutius vidisse putemus quam ipsum Apostolum Again Vt millies clament Papistae oblatum olim fuisse panem veteres ita solitos facere non novam esse censuetudinem toties excipere nobis licebit Christi mandatum inviolabilem esse regulam quae nullâ hominum consuetudine nullâ praescriptione temporum convelli aut refigi debeat And Quod ad veteres spectat non est quod in eorum gratiam ab aeterna inflexibili Dei veritate i.e. his own fancies concerning God's Truth recedamus And
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
Eight hundred years ago and fince that by Lanfrank Guitmund c. at the appearance of Berengarius Which Primitive Tradition and judgement of Antiquity that it was if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils the same concerning these Scriptures with that of the present Church Authority I think any one that is well affected to the peace of the Church and not pre-ingaged in Disputes will receive sufficient satisfaction herein who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by cited parcels the short Discourses on this subject of * St. Ambrose De Myster initiand chap. 9. * The Author of the Books De Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father l. 4 the 4 and 5. Chapters * Cyrill Hierosol Catechis Mystagog 4. and 5. * Chrysostom in Matt. Homil. 83. In. Act. Apost Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 36 37 * Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatens De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hilarius Pictao De Trinitate the former part of the eighth book * Cyril Alexand. In Evangel Johan l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces for the last Protestâ—ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon †§. 307. speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum Molinaeum Not that I affirm here that every one that reads these pieces shall be so perswaded and convinced For as hath been shewed the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising and miscolouring things to the understanding As when perhaps the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father and when one hath first stated the Question to himself ordered his Arguments deduced his Conclusions solved Objections c. and then upon such provocation of an Antagonist is brought to examine their writings here we may presume such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before and to lay down his Arms and that it will go hard if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause Either 1. for the Terms used by the Father he will contend that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times and not in a proper or modern sense Oâ— That their Rhetorick and Eloquence fitted not to state the Question or inform the Judgement but to move Affections and gain the Will doth often make use of such expressions as rigourously taken transcend the Truth Or 2. For the sense given when apparently against him he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities that follow from it or some other Tenents of the Father that will not consist with it and the Translation alsor or the Copy shall many times be blamed Or 3. Touching the Discourse 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father 's other works or some words used in it some Rites or Customs mentioned that are of a later date or age or such work not found in such Editions or not mentioned by later writers or that it is in part corrupted and interpolated and not all of a piece 2 Or at least He will find some Clauses in the same or in some other discourse of the Father whereby he may seem to confess in one place what he denies in another or which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point and so serviceable to no Party I name these defences not so but that some times they may be true but that they are much oftner made use of than there is any just cause and are apt to blind the unwary and preoccupated and such as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth before they are well read in Antiquity So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist §. 321. n. 2. Vigier after the two former Combatants Arnauld and Claude one by taking the Fathers in a plain and literal the other in a Metaphorical sense had each of them challenged Antiquity as clearly on his own side seeks to dispatch the Controversie much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings †3 Reg. 3.27 whose the childe was not Nec mihi nec Tibi sit Saying ‖ Eng. Translat p. 80. That the true belief of the ancient Church about this point of the Eucharist is very hard to be known That there are innumerable perplexities in it and that if the Fathers have believed the Reality as he seeth no reason to doubt but they did they believed it in such a manner which neither Roman Catholicks nor Protestants nor any other Christian Society would approve of And so p. 66 c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstantialists he is content they should be Stercoranists i. e. holding I know not what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord much more gross and incredible than that of Transubstantiation For whether the Greeks fall short of or ago beyond the Latine Church herein he thinks all to his purpose so they be not just the same But then over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies manifesting the unanimous accord herein of the present Oriental with the Western Churches here he will have them to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers but by no means to have derived it from their Forefathers There may have happened saith he ‖ p. 94. a change since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks or by the Voyages of the Portugais and other Nations into the Oriental Churches mean while the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman it may well be considered what would become of the Protestant cause if the Controversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld §. 321. n. 3. For the shewing of which a little more at large because I am speaking here of the Eucharist and what I shall say may serve for a pre-advertisement to some less experienced in this Controversie that may light on his Book and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it prejudicial to the Catholick Faith I beg leave of the Reader to make a step though somewhat out of my way yet not much beside my purpose Remitting those who think this Forreign Author less concerns them to the prosecution of the former Discourse resum'd below § 321. n. 27. 1st This Author busyes himself ‖ l. 2. c. 1. to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance and decay
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in
error may easily be overcome yet it can hardly be silenc'd For as God for the greater tryal of our obedience hath permitced in the world not only Evil but very many allurements also and enticements to it so not only Errors but many verisimilities and appearances of Reason ever ready to support it with those that do not by Humility attain the illuminations of his Grace Evidence sufficient God hath left always to clear and manifest all necessary Truth to those who are of an obedient Spirit and willing to learn it But not sufficient to force like the Mathematicks the Understandings of the self-confident and interested to gain-say it But that they may have some fair colour or other to oppose to it and catch the credulous All which still more infers the great necessity of Church-Authority and a conformity to it and the reasonableness of Monsieur Mainbourg's Method for reducing Protestants to the true Faith †§. 321. n. 10 viz. That matters once decided by this Authority should be no longer disputed A Rule the Protestants i. e. the more potent Party of them for preserving their own peace would have to be observed in the Differences among themselves shewed in the proceedings of the Synod at Dort of which see before § 254. n. 2. but not in those between them and Roman Catholicks because here they are the weaker To whom M. Claud's answer in the Preface of his last Reply to D. Arnaud is this It is unjust saith he that he will have the Decisions of Councils to be Prescriptions against us the Protestants not remembring that nothing can prescribe against Truth especially when it concerns our Salvation And the Determinations of Councils not being with us of any Consideration but as they do conform to the Holy Scriptures and to the Principles of Christian Religion we cannot have from hence any reasonable or profitable way to end the particular differences that divide us but only this to examine the matter to the bottom to discern whether such conformity i.e. of the Councils to the Scriptures which we suppose necessary is or is not To which he adds there as also frequently elsewhere That the shortest and surest and only right way for settling the Conscience in repose which must rest its Faith immediately on Gods word Divine Revelation is for both Parties to proceed to the Trial of their cause all other Authoritie and Methods laid aside by the Holy Scriptures And when he is pressed by his Adversary That in these Controversies at least all persons doubting i e. what is the true sence of the Scriptures controverted and of Antiquity expounding them and not certain of the contrary of what the Church teacheth concerning them as all unlearned Protestants must be ought herein to conform and adhere rather to the Church than to Separatists he seeks to decline it thus That the simplest person may receive sufficient certainty from the clearness of Scripture in all matters necessary that from these Scriptures learning what he ought to believe he may easily know also whether the society he lives in be a true Church and such as will conduct him to Salvation that hence he needs not trouble himself with Controversie touching what the former Church hath believed Yet that our Lord promising to be with true Believers to the end of the word so as they shall not fall into damnable error Chariâ—y obligeth him without his reading them to believe that the Fathers are of this number and so believed as they ought and so were of his Faith To give you his own words l. 1. c. 4. The word of God saith he contains purely and clearly all that which is necessary 〈◊〉 form our Faith to regulate our Worship and Manners And God assisting us with his Grace it is easie for the most simple to judge whether the Ministery under which we live can conduct us to salvation and consequently whether our society is a true Church For for this he needs only examine It as to these two Characters One if they teach all the things clearly contain'd in God's word and the other if they teach nothing besides that is contrary to those things or doth corrupt the efficacy and force of them And afterward This Examen saith he is short easy and proportion'd to the capacity of all the world and it forms a judgment as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another Again l. 1. c. 5. There are two Questions One touching what we ought to believe on the matter of the Eucharist The other touching what hath been believed by the ancient Church The first of these cleared we need not trouble our selves about the 2d Now as for those of our Communion the first Question is cleared by the word of God And for the 2d he resolves it thus l. 1. c. 6 That the Promises of J. Christ assure us that he will be with true Believers to the end of the world Whence he concludes that there hath always been a number of true Believers whose Faith hath never been corrupted by damnable Errors Then that charity obligeth us to believe that the Fathers were of this number And then lastly We knowing from Scripture what we ought to believe in this Point we also are confirmed without studying them that the Fathers believed the same Now to reflect briefly on what he hath said in the order it lies here A Council saith he cannot prescribe against Truth True But the Council is brought in for a Judg where a dispute Question is what or on what side is the Truth The determinations of Councils are not with us of any consideration but as they do conform to the H Scroptures Right But the Council is call'd in for a Judg where a doubt and dispute is what or on what side is the true sence of such and such Scriptures Where if he meaneth that they refuse to submit to a Council unlesse conforming to Scripture as the sence of Scripture is given by the Council that is it we desire for the Council will still profess its following the sence of Script if as this sence understood by the Protestants what is this but to say they will submâ—t to the Judgment or Decision of a Council so often as it shall agree with their own The only reasonable and profitable way to end differences is this to examine the matter to the bottom i.e. whether the Decisions of the Council conform with H. Scripture But when this is done How will the Difference end Will not the Controversie as the Replies multiply swell rather still bigger as his and D. Arnaud's doth Search to the bottom Suppose a Socinian should say this against the former Church-decisions concerning the Trinity the supreme Deity of the Son and H. Ghost Gods essential Omnipresence his absolute prescience of future Contingents c. will Protestants say he makes a rational motion Then how can any Protestant rest his Faith in these Points upon the
Authority of the Councils and their Creeds will you say he doth not but on the Scriptures Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian and those urged against him and weighed them in the Ballance If yet they have not ought they If they ought what a task here for young Protestant-students what an Eternal Distraction in this a search what heavenly peace in the other obedience to the judgements of former Councils and Vacancy for better imployments Again If they ought what all Protestants the most of them as of all Christians are illiterate Men not having either leisure or ability to search c. Must these adhere therefore to former Councils and their Creeds in these Points Then in others and in this of Real Presence or Transubstantiation and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiastical Authority or Ministry standing in opposition to a superior But this is Schism in them both and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd for his denying it to another to whom it is due Nor would M Claude be well pleased if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers divided from the rest of their Consistory Class or Synod As for the Tryal §. 321. n. 26. he motions to be made by H. Scriptures This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done first as it ought And the issue of it was That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence the other in another For Example The one understood Hoc est Corpus meum literally the other in a Metaphor and so differently understood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause Here the true sence of Scripture became the Question and their Controversie For the Judge and Decâ—der of this between them when time was they took a Council For since Scripture they could no more take the sence of that being their Question to whom should they repair but the Church and of the Church a Council is the Representative Councils several to a great number in several ages †See Guide in Controver Disc 1. §. 57 58. decided this matter declared the sence of the Scriptures but so as it liked not one Party These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sentence of the Fathers and Primitive Church i.e. of their writings Again the sence of these writings as before that of Scriptures is understood diversly by the Contesters And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question and Controversie Nor here will Disputes end it Witness so many Replies made on either side Former Councils as they have given their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures so they have of those of the Fathers but their Authority is rejected in both And a new Council were it now convened besides that M. Claud's Party being the fewer and so easily over-voted would never submit to it we may from M. Claud's Confession †l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 p. 337. That both Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist rationally conjecture that Protestants in such Councils would remain the party condemn'd What then would this person have He would have the Controversy begin again and return to the Scriptures Which is in plain Language That the Question should decide the Controversie and till this can do it That so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party all should have their Liberty For when they are the stronger they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences and though not professing themselves infallible yeâ— upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction upon pain of Suspension from their Function to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth and to teach them to the People as such and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary till they shall recant their Errour Of which see before § 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal as they had done from that of Trent but could not be beard As for that which follows in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal challenging a Submission and Conformity of so many Protestants as have no certainty of their new Opinions rather to the Church than to Innovators to me it sounds thus That every plain and simple Protestant 1st thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture in this Point of the Eucharist and so in others any way necessary to be clear and without dispute and the more simple he is the sooner he may think so because he is not able to compare all other Texes nor to examine the contrary sences given by others or the reasonable grounds thereof 2. Next that every one who thinks his Exposition or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point is by this sufficiently assured that he hath a right Faith or from this sence of his knows what he ought to believe and forms a Judgement herein as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another a strange proposition but I see nothing else from which such person collects his faith to be right if any doth produceit 3ly That every such simple person now easily knows whether the Society wherein he lives be a true Church or otherwise viz. as they agree with or dissent from that right Faith of his already supposed or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word i. e. in his clear Sence thereof 4ly Knowing thus from this his clear exposition or sence of Scripture what he ought to believe he needs not trouble himself what the Ancient Church hath believed which is very true nay he knows without reading them or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them that the Fathers if of the number of the Faithful were of his Opinion by M. Claud's arguing forementioned I desire the Reader to review his words or the 5th 6th Chapters of his 1st Book and see if he can make any better construction of them Now if there be any Sence in this he saith How can he hinder but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea Church-authority being laid aside for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions viz. his clear sence of Scripture quite contrary to the Protestants clear sence And in any Controversie amongst Protestants Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants here both sides have the same Plea one against another namely the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them And why doth not this certainty void their
Synods For M. Claude saith The word of God contains nettement clairement all that which is necessary to form our Faith and that the most simple are capable to judge of it c. Unless the Protestant Controversies be never about any thing necessary This is the way M. Claude thought on to leave no Doubters though never so unlearned among Protestants as to the Eucharist or other Points of their Faith But mean while if after such Speculations of his any such Doubters there be I do not find but that he leaves so many wholly to D. Arnaud's disposal viz. that they return to and remain in the bosom of the former Church so long till they become certain of its errors and not follow strangers that have not entered by the dore into Christ's Fold and I hope they will consider it As for the settling of our Conscience this person speaks of by resting our Faith immediately on Gods Word I see not where the sence of the Scriptures is supposed the thing controverted how any one rests his Faith more immediately on God's word by following his own Exposition or Sence thereof or the Exposition of a Minister c. for some person's exposition he must follow than he that follows that of the Church If we are then for a total application to the Scriptures and for searching things to the bottom Let us search there first this main Point that decides all other concerning our Lord's establishing a just church-Church-Authority for ending contentions Where we shall find also that he is not a God of dissention or Confusion 1 Cor. 14.33 Eph. 4.11 14 1 Cor. 12.28 in his House the Church but of Peace And That he hath given his Clergy in a certain Subordination that we should not be carryed about with every wind of Doctrine as we must be when ever these disagree in expounding Scripture to us if we have no Rule which of them to follow The truth of this once found out by our search will save many other searches of which without it I see no end In vain do we endeavour with whatever pains so discern Gods Truth without the illumination of his Holy Spirit and Grace and since revelat parvalis in vain expect this without great Humility and self-dâ—s-esteem and a reverent preference of and pious Credulity toward our just and lawful Spiritual Superiours Credendo first i. e. Ecclesiae saith S. Austin in his Tract De utilitate Credendi †c. 1. praemunimâ—r illuminaturo praeparamur Deo To resume then here the matter we were speaking of before § 321. n 27. § 321. n. 1. from which we have so long digressed For such Persons as are self-confident despisers of Superiors much pre-engaged whatever evident Testimony Truth may have on its side I can affirm nothing For Pride and thinking they see utterly puts out their eyes But I think so many as are no way thus intangled and are humble and well affected to Authority will by reading the pieces aforesaid be reduced either to a full perswasion on the Churches side in this great Point or to a Dubitancy and uncertainty of that which is maintained against it And then this later only as hath been shewed †§. 291. c. is a sufficient Ground and Inductive of their conformity to it I mean to the authority of the present Church In this point then the main Trial seems to be 1. Whether Antiquity indeed so understood and Councils declared the sense of these Scriptures as is pretended Since as Mr. Thorndike hath it in his Rule of Reformation †Forbea and Penalties c. 8. this is to be taken for granted That nothing can be the true sence of Scripture which the consent of the whole Church contradicteth 2. If this found so whether this Authority ought not to prescribe to any particular judgment especially when he perceives the new pretended Demonstrations to the contrary no way to perswade this present Church-Authority as any true Demonstration in the Protestants Definition of it necessarily must For the Second Point Invocation of Saints 1. It is granted by Protestants §. 322. n. 1. that if the Saints deceased hear or otherwise know our requests made to them it is lawful to invocate them or desire their prayers for us as we do those of Saints here and the invocation of them in any other manner Catholicks disclaim 2. It sufficiently appears from the knowledge of things done ‖ or said †2 King 6.8 9 12 31.32 in absence that several Prophets †King 5 25. Act. 5.3 Col. 2.5 and other Saints of God by Revelation or Vision have had here in this life that it is possible that the Saints glorified without imagining any their omni-presence or omni-science may know by the like Revelation Representation or Vision or by some other way as God pleaseth for the particular manner thereof is no way stated by the Church may thus know I say either all or so many of those prayers that are made to them though at the same time by several persons in the most distant places as it may concern their Petitioners touching any benefit to be received by their Intercessions that they should know them Lastly possible that the Saints Glorified may know these or some other instrument of God's mercy viz. Angels know these for them or in their stead for this clause also is put in by St. Austin proceeding most cautiously in this matter These things I say are possible And if any of these be put it is abundantly sufficient to render Invocation of Saints glorified not vain For to frustrate the benefit here of the Saints must neither know nor others for them who only upon their general Intercessions offered may be as God pleaseth made his instruments in relieving the necessities of such Supplicants They must neither know all nor any of our affairs or prayers For if they or others for them only know and relieve some it will be lawful at any time in any thing to implore their help who we know not but in that time and thing they may assist us Again suppose neither the Saints nor others for them save God only to know at all our particular prayers or wants but the Saints only in grosse to intercede for all those that implore their help or yet more generally only for all their fellow-members here that are in distress whether imploring or not imploring their help yet if God at least apply the benefit of any Saints general Intercessions more particularly to those who more particularly honour and with their addresses sollicite such a Saint Such Invocation and Honour still remains profitable and advantageous to the Supplicant Where note §. 322. n. 2. that neither those who make nor yet God who reveales their prayers to the Saints do it at all for this end that so the Saints may make known such their prayers to God a thing in which Protestants please themselves to find absurdities and
is equivalent to this Let all those eat my flesh and drink my blood that will have life It seems most reasonable 1. That such Precept be extended to all Communions whatever as well those private or domestick as the publick since in both possible to be observed For there occurs nothing in our Lords words distinguishing these Communions one from another or ordering a receit of the Cup in the one which shall be left at liberty in the other And so by such sence of Scripture as we have said the practice of Antiquity is condemned 2. That it be extended as to the receiving in both kinds so to the receiving them apart and to the drinking of the one as the eating of the other For the Scripture is no more express for the receiving of the blood than it is for receiving it separated by it self and for drinking of it By which the practice of the Eastern Churches is condemned who receive the Symbole of Christs Body only intinct in the Blood 3. Especially from that text in c. 6. John 53. That this precept be extended to all persons for whom we expect eternal life and so to Infants Therefore the communicating of them also in both kinds or one at least was a custom used in Antiquity Yet such a necessity by vertue of any Scripture-precept Protestants together with Catholicks deny and both desist from such a practice § 326 Again several other Texts we find in Scripture that may seem to have the force of Universal Precepts as much as any concerning communicating in both kinds As Act. 15.29 for abstaining from Blood and things strangled Luke 6.30 Of him that takes away your Goods ask them not again and Give to every one that asketh Matt. 6 17. When you fast wash your face and anoint your head c. 5.34 Swear not at all Matt. 23 9. Call no man your Father on the earth neither be ye called Masters The Quakers Precepts Salute one another with a kiss of charity or an holy kiss frequent in the Apostle Rom 16.16 1 Cor. 16 20. 2 Cor. 13.12 1 Thess 5.26 I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Jo. 13.14 for the Clergies washing feet before the Communion Do this unlimited in St. Luke 22.19 for any Christian whatever his breaking bread or consecrating and distributing the communion If any be sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up not that every sick person that the Apostles prayed over should be cured and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him James 5.14 15. urged as enjoyning extreme unction § 327 Now notwithstanding the shew of strict and universal Precepts yet in the understanding and practising of all these save the last Protestants conform to the judgment of former and present Church And in the last though Catholicks think themselves obliged to receive it as a Precept and accordingly practice yet Protestants deny the one and forbear the other Lastly some Protectants there be and those of note that deny any peremptory precept or command in Scripture as in these so in those urged for Communion sub utraque species * Vbi jubentur in Scripturis saith Bishop Montague †Origin Eccl. p. 396. Infantes baptizari aut Caenam Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare Sexcenta sunt ejusmodi c. de quibus possumus profiteri Nil tale docet scriptura * Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are receiv'd and honoured by us Now such are these which follow The historical Tradition concerning the numbers and dignity of the Books of Canonical Scripture The Catholick exposition of many sentences of holy Scripture Which indeed unless received there will be no conviction or cure of Heresies and Schismes Baptism of Infants observation of the Lords day The service of the Church in a known tongue the tongues used by the Apostolical times for God's publick Service the Church still continues unchanged The delivering of the Holy Communion to the people in both kinds i. e. for publick communions For as for private ancient Tradition many times practised otherwise * Spalatens de Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 6. Dico non esse adeo sub praecepto ut Eucharistia in cibo in potu semper à fidelibus sumatur quin ex gravi seu privatâ privatorum causâ possit cum fructu licite etiam sub solo pane sumi c. And indeed in the omnes added to Bibite Matt. 26. it seems clear that our Lord had no particular intention thereby to prescribe what every Christian was necessarily to practice because the Manducate as necessary as the Bibite is pronounced without an omnes But only to shew what he would have to be done at that time by all the other Apostles as well as by him whom he first delivered the Cup to For whereas several portions of the bread were severally given to every one of them Yet the Cup was delivered only to one from whom it was to be handed successively to all the rest and divided amongst them all Therefore St. Luke instead of omnes hath Take this and divide it among your selves § 328 In this point then the main Trial seems to be Whether Antiquity did indeed use such a practice as on several occasions where inconveniences happened of giving it in both to communicate persons in one kind only Which if found true it would be too great a temerity and boldness in a Protestant to alledge certainly or pretend Demonstration of the sense of any Text of Scripture contrary to that wherein both the present and ancient Church hath understood and interpreted it Especially as I said when these they stile Demonstrations do not convince others or if notwithstanding this they be good and sufficient Demonstrations then must they be so too for mâ—â—y other Texts named before as well as for these touching communion to impose the same sence and universal preceptive force on them Yet against which sence Protestants are necessitated to concur in their judgment with Catholicks nay proceed further to deny some to be Precepts which Catholicks accept for such § 329 This Digression from § 320. I have made as hoping it might be beneficial to shew in some Controversies of consequence what small Foundation Protestants have to pretend Certainty and Demonstration against the former Church's Doctrine To which in the last place I may add that such pretence of Certainty against church-Church-Authority suffers a greaâ— prejudice from that which S. Austin hath observed that it is a plea used by all Hereticks Hoc facium saith he †Enarrat in Psal 8. Haeretici universi vetant credere Ecclesiâ proponente incognita certam scientiam pollicentur And he saith †De
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-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-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
enjoyed Of which persons thus S. Austin †De vera Relig. c. 6. Saepe sinit divina Providentia expelli de congregatione Chrstianâ etiam bonos virâ—s quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum paticuâ—â—ssime pro ecclâ—siae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel schismatis i. e. segregationis conventiculorum as he explains it afterward vel haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quam vero affectu quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns And De Baptism l. 1. c. 17. of such persons he saith Ibi magis probantur quum si intus permaneant only with this exception Cum adversus ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur sed in solidâ unitatis petrâ fortissimae charitatis robore radicantur Thus he in the defence of such § 334 But If an unjust Excommunication should further warrant any to erect Anti-communions and then a private person may also pass sentence of such injastice against the Church who sees not that this pulls down the whole structure of Church-Government and fills it full of schisms and is the same in the Church as this would be in the Civil State if a Subject unjustly condemned to some mulct or imprisonment should presently raise and head an Army against the Prince and with it detain from him some part of his Dominions No man is authorized by suffering injustice to do it § 335 See Christian Reader how many bars are set to keep us within such a degree of subjection to the Church as prevents Schism 1 If we are of those that do not profess certainty of the contrary to that which the Church teacheth as the most of Christans are such here Protestants †See §. 295 agree that we owe the obedience of assent and submission of judgment to the supremest known church-Church-Authority that presides over us 2 But next suppose we pretend certainty of a Truth against this Authority yet in case this truth be not of much concernment Here Protestants ‖ See §. 331. consent that we are to yield the obedience of silence and non-contradiction to it 3 But if the Truth be of moment and so supposed that neither silence may be used herein yet are we still tied at least to yield a third sort of obedience a passive one to the Churches censures even to that of Excommunication though supposed unjust without erecting or resorting to any Anti-Communion to that of our Superiors and of the whole i. e. the Communion Catholick 4 And then whatever degree of obedience a Person well considering these things shall judge due to be yielded to Church-Authority in General I hope the former Discourse by clearing the Legality of it hath justly vindicated to the Council of Trent 5 And this Council once submitted to infers as to all the principal modern Controversies an universal Settlement and Peace Now the great Pastor and Bishop of Souls in an accptable time â— Pet. 2.25 bring home all those Sheep that are yet going astray and hearken to the voice of Strangers into the happy Communion of all his Saints That there may be one Fould and one Shepherd unus Dominus una Fides unum Corpus Jo. 10.16 Eph. 4 â— 5 To Him Allpowerful and Good and the constant lover of his Spouse the Church be given all Glory and Praise in the same his Church forever Amen FINIS ERRATA Page 8. line 19 dele 9. 2. read formed 16. marg r Milevit 28.40 r Catholick 41. r. National 36 marg r. § 34. c. 37 marg r. § 37. 38 marg r. § 38. 39 marg r. § 40. 47 marg r. 667. 79 marg r n. 102. â—6 23 r. Trent 128.3 r. would 136.20.1 obstructions 137.6 r. fifth 149.29 r. Politician 153.25 r. Olaus 26. r. Vpsal 160.23 r. which was established 171.26 r. Hebraei 198.5 r. testimonialibus decimam tantum unius aures Ib. 8. r. Emolumentum ex eisdem ordinum 200. marg r. Agathens 216.13 r so both a 220.40 r. To aâ— 1 see 221. 6. r. To â— 2 § 164. 239.9 r. Rusticks those p. 240. 33. r. Ceriuthus 241.22 r. Caput unum 242.31 dele if we are 245.40 r. it is 246.31 r. to divine 246.19 t schismatis 249.34.34 r. 1st That 251.4 r. Terentianum Maurum 257. marg r Bezam 258.1 r. summi 259. marg r. guarded Ib. marg r. Answ to 264.29 r. in the 164.41 r. iis me 265.23 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi cerei 265.26 r. proferam 266.21 r. consultius 268. marg dele § 207 and § 297. Ib. 19. dele Praestantium virorum Epistolae 273.32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 281.40 r. Censurer 283. marg Forbearance 284.42 r. them As 287.26 r. or Divine l. 32. r. we kneel before and embrace kiss c. 288.32 r. and there the Churches doctrine The Reader is desired to correct with his pen the Errata page 128-287 line 32-and -288.
into two Parties and Communions neither must judge as both being parties and these perhaps very unequal I ask what course is left to end such difference 1. Shall either Party chuse an equal number of Clergy with full authority to determine it But these having equal votes will counterpoise one another and so decide nothing Or suppose one or two should as it were betray their trust and pass over to the other side for truth and error are not capable of moderating the point and compounding the middle doctrine between both as many other litigious matters are yet I think no party especially the major will ever yield to commit the future profession of their Religion to such a chance 2. Or shall the Clergy on both sides first pleading their cause before them cast the judgment and decision thereof upon the Laity But are not the Laity in matter of Religion which concerns all all parties as well as the Churchmen and ranged with the several divisions of the Churchmen in distinct communions Will the Protestant be judged by the Emperour or the Roman Catholick by the Duke of Saexony because a Lay-man But if an equal number of Laicks because there also are parties shall be chosen on both sides whether Princes or others the same accidents recur as in taking an equal number of Clergy Blessed be God who hath established a firmer course for the perpetual settlement of the peace of his Church § 119 Neither belongs this course of judging in their own cause only to Ecclesiasticks but is found the same in the civil supreme power I say supreme For as for inferiour Judicatures exclusion of parties from being Judges is easie by reason of many both collateral and superior Courts which may be repaired to For the supreme power then when any difference happens between a Prince and his Subjects part of his people adhering to him part divided from him when a part of his Kingdom rebelleth against him opposeth some part of his Royal Prerogatives or the equity and justice of some of his Laws Here 1. Either such offence must not be judged 2. Or the supreme Magistrate hearing the Plea of his Subjects must judge in his own cause either by Himself or by his Substitute which is all one as if by himself For he can give this Substitute no such power to judge this cause unless he have such power himself Again it is to be presumed that such Substitute shall be one of his own perswasions and who will think themselves any whit relieved by having their adversary to nominate the person that shall judge the cause between him and them But if such Substitute by receiving new informations may change his former judgment so may the Prince hearing the cause himself and being better informed so much the sooner he hoped to change his as he hath no other above him whom he is bound to observe 3. or 3ly The matter must be referred to the arbitrement of an equal number of both parties so many loyal Subjects and so many Rebels but what good issue can be hoped of this 4. or lastly to the arbitrement of some neighbouring State But neither may this State being never without some Interest of its own be thought an impartial Judge Here then I conceive that the concession of the Statist will be that the supreme Governour is to judge in his own cause upon the penalty of the divine revenge and publick infamy if he judge amiss and then how is the same thing unjust in the Superior Governours of the Church especially when as such judgment of their is not valid unless it be of a major part of them § 120 It follows then from what is here said that in these Ecclesiastical Judgments it is not to be considered of what interest or side or how affected these persons are that so if opposit to us we may decline their Tribunal who are by Christ appointed to judge but to what side it is to which the prevalent and major part of them is inclined and so this to be conformed to and any parties appealing to a General Council as hoping from it a justification of their cause is nothing else than the alledging that the major part of Christian Bishops are already or will when met and arguing the case be of their perswasion And for the Appellants when they see the other party in such Council far out-numbers theirs to request or caution this General Council may be composed of an equal number of both sides is in effect to appeale from it and to desire that the Council should not be General § 121 This said from § 114. That Bishops the ordinary Judges in matters of Religion though they should be parties in some sence and in the things to be brought before them already declared in their present judgment on one side yet are not therefore streight to quit the Chair and cease to discharge their office Especially where the points controverted are meerly speculative and abstracted from all secular gain and advantage as many of those decided in Trent were 2. Next 2. to the Protestants Articles and Exceptions made more particularly against the Pope and his Court in respect of which they would have had him at least excluded from being a Judge in in this Council of Trent I answer § 122 1. That he cannot be said to have been the sole Judge in these matters but only to have presided in that Court which was so 1. which he hath done often in former allowed Councils when also he was a Person accused by a Party ‖ See §. 114. For every unweighty accusation is not enough to remove the Judge from the Bench or alter the usual course of Justice § 123 2. Whatever Declaration Sentence or Censure of a Council this supreme Bishop and President thereof in some extraordinary Delinquencies if possible these should happen may be liable to as in case of Heresie or some other incorrigible tyranny or heinous Crimes or also in his neglect when so obnoxious to call a Council c. in which cases some Roman Divines that seem no diminishers of the Popes priviledges do freely allow as much as can rationally be required As if you have the curiosity you may see in these places of Bellarmin both in case of his neglect in calling a Council De Concil l. 1. c. 14. § Ad secundum and when the Council is called in case of Heresie or other incorrigible Crime Ib. c. 9. § Quarta causa where also the Cardinal urgeth the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council Debent Generalia Concilia cognoscere controversias circa Rom. Pontificem exortas De Concil l. 2. c. 19 § Primum exemplum De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 30. Tertia Opinio Or whether it be stated rather that He having no Superior Judge such Enormities are for a time to be suffered in this Ecclesiastical Supreme as the like misdemeanours in Socular matters are tolerated in the Civil till God