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
this Council which they had not before Nor varies it any thing in the good service actually done thereby to the Church by what way soever this power descends upon them § 212 To come closer them to the Particulars For. α. Causes and Appeales To α. See the restraint made therein Sess 13. c. 1. Sess 22. c. 1. Nec appellatio executionem hanc quae ad morum correctionem pertinet suspendat And Sess 24. c. 10. Nec in his ubi de visitatione aut morum correctione agitur exemptio aut ulla inhibitio appellatio seu querela etiam ad sedem Apostolicam interposita executionem eorum quae ab his mandata decreta aut judicata fuerint quoque modo impediat aut suspendat Again Sess 21. c. 8 Sess 25. c. 10. The Pope and Council delegate such persons as shall be chosen in the Provincial or Diocesan Synod together with the Ordinary to be supplied if any one of them dies before the next Synod by the Bishop and Chapter to decide these Appeales in the Province or Diocess where such Controversies arise unless they be such as for the weight of them are thought fit to be removed to Rome Sess 24.5 It is ordered That the criminal causes of Bishops except those more heinous ones of Heresie or the like where their ejectment is questioned which are reserved to the Apostolick See are to be terminated either by a Provincial Council or in the interval by its Deputies And Ib. c. 20. Civil Matrimonial Criminal Causes are left to be ended by inferior Tribunals without the intermedling of the Popes legats or Nuncio's herein except those Quas ex urgenti rationabilique causa judicaverit summus Romanus Pontifex per speciale Rescriptum signaturae sanctitatis suae manu propriâ subscribendum committere aut avocare Where ex urgenti rationabilique causâ rescriptum signaturae sanctitatis sua manu propriâ subscribendum a Rescript after the matter is particularly made known to the Pope and upon this his hand and seal obtained cannot be a thing so ordinarily happening as to overthrow the whole benefit of the Decree as Soave would perswade †p. 792. § 13 Next Concerning the forementioned Provincial and Diocesan Synods which were to elect the persons for deciding such Appeales which Synods the Council judged very necessary Moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componendis c. and to which it committed a chief superintendence over the actions of Bishops as to their due execution of its Decrees touching Reformation It is ordered Sess 24. c. 2. That the Provincial Synods be called by the Metropolitan or he justly hindered by the Senior Bishop of the Province at least once every three years after the Octave of Easter or other time if more convenient and a Diocesan once every year In the calling of and meeting in which if any neglected their Duty they incur the Ecclesiastical Censures prescribed by former Canons And those Bishops who are Subject to no Archbishop are obliged to chuse some Province of whose Synods they shall for the future be members and be subjected to its decrees Ordered also that in these Synods not having a constant being certain Deputies be chosen which may in the Intervals determine such Causes and execute such Orders as this Council hath committed to them But mean while as for other causes not thought meet to be intrusted to Delegats nor that conveniently can be so long suspended as till another Provincial Synod sits which for the great trouble and charge of their meeting later Councils upon the experience of former Canons neglected appointed to be held seldomer nor yet is this obeyed it seemed necessary that without expecting these such causes should from the Pope a higher standing Judge receive a present dispatch of which see what is said before § 16. n. 6. and n. 8. And The restoring of Synodal Judicatures i. e. as to all causes saith Soave †p. 336. was rejected by almost all the Fathers of the Council For which he gives a reason after his usual manner the most uncharitable one he could invent That they did this because such Synodal Judicatures did diminish the Episcopal and were too popular The Episcopal he means taken singly in their distinct Courts else the Synodal is nothing else but a conjunct Judicature of Bishops But perhaps some of those reasons given by Castellus for this apud Soave p. 335. may seem more perswasive viz. Beside their being no standing Court and rarely convened the difficulty that was found to inform so many and the impediments in the examination where many are to do it the infinite length in the proceedings and dispatches the parties and divisions therein that are usually made by the factious for which Castellus imagines that Synods came to be in later times more intermitted and other Courts and Officers brought in to remedy such disorders § 214 Mean while Of Appeales of higher consequence received and judged by most holy Popes Antiquity affords many examples See more mentioned before § 13. n. 1. And indeed such a superlative power as to causes of greater moment seems very necessary For 1 st This Prime Patriarch and supreme Governour in the Church being constituted by a more choise Election is presumed ordinarily to be a more knowing person and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit But 2 ly though he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from heaven yet must he needs be a less partial judge in such matters because not so interessed in the cause or in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also those other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to the Metropolitans power Now the more remote from all private interest and high in place the Judge is the more even he is likely to hold the scales of Justice and to administer it less sweyed with affection or mastered by fear 3 ly The chief Courts to whom beside the Roman Bishop the termination of Appeales of moment is recommended being Provincial National or General Councils were their Judgments never so satisfactory to all parties though Provincial or National Synods have not been alwaies thought so witness those Affrican ones in the cause of Cecilianus yet are these not alwaies to be had The Provincial Synods much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint Councils General yet more rare none of them by reason of the trouble of convening fit upon every such Appeale to be called 4 ly Many cases of Appeales are not matters of Fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jare where the fact is confessed and in such no more plea can be made to have them tryed at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter decided at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria his at Nice As for
consequence were terminated if not sooner ultimately in a General Council when it could be had personal appeals in the Interval of Councils which whether Episcopal Provincial or Patriarchal cannot be upon every cause without great trouble charge convened were as for greater causes and persons as those of the other Patriarchs or eminent Bishops ended by the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of Rome who made use of such Bishops for his Assessors and Council as could with convenience upon such appeals be brought together See the Council of Sardica can 4 5. Concerning the just Authority of which Council I refer the Protestant-Reader to Mr. Thorndikes Defence thereof Epil l. 3. c. 21. p. 181. and just weights p. 40. But see this practice of Appeals to the First See much more ancient not only as to the West §. 13. n. 1. in the Provinces subject to this Patriarch where we meet with the appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops desiring by him to be restored to their Bishopricks of which they pretended they were unjustly deprived ‖ Cyprian Ep 38. in which matter S. Cyprian †Ep. 68. indeed blames the Pope for receiving them rashly into his Communion when he bad not well examined their Cause nor the justice of the former Sentence passed in Spain on them but not at all for his admitting as Patriarch their appeal and find * the Request of the said S. Cyprian ‖ Ep. 67. made to the Pope for his Letter to the Bishops of France to depose Marcianus a French Bishop for siding with the Novatians again * the appeal of Caeci lianus Primate of Carthage who was wronged by a Council held in Affrick to the Pope and his Council related and justified against the Donatists by S. Austin Ep. 162. But as to the East also where we find the appeal of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople wronged by the Arrian Eastern Synods And long before these the appeal of Dionysius Alexandrinus accused to the Pope by some of Pentapolis †Athanas de Sententia Dionys Alexandrin and so making his Defence to Him and cleared by him and his Council All these before the Decree of Sardica as for the times after it I suppose it needless to mention the appeals of S Chrysostom ‖ Ep. ad Innocent Theodoret †Ep. ad Leonem Flavianus and other Eastern Bishops As for the famous Contest that was had about these Appeals §. 13. n. 2. between Sozimus and Bonifacius Popes and the Affrican Bishops after A. D. 400 and after so many eminent former allowed Examples of such Appeals 1st The Constitution of those Affrican Prelates in a Council held about the same time whether it were the Milevitan or rather another at Carthage as some think it much matters not prohibits such Appeals beyond Sea only to the inferior Clergy in these words ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c. non provocent nifi ad Affricana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum But it enjoyns nothing concerning Bishops 2ly In their dispute with Boniface they handled the matter so gently that as Baronius observes †A. D. 412. they seem'd to debate rather de modo than de Re bespeaking him on this manner ‖ Ep. ad Bonâ—ifac Impendio deprecamur ut ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus †l. 4. c. 8. n. 32. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facilè audiantur i. e. à Rom. Pontifice nisi viz. notoria manisesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maximâ eorum parte For he grants there Vbi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Episcopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim verò ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Cacilian's case And Concilium Nicenum voluit observari ne in suâ Provinciâ Communione suspensi à suâ sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui For the common practice of such Appeals in former times by Athanasius and others shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons of Nice to admit into his Communion any such Bishop as was excommunicated by his Province if the Roman Bishop found him wrongfully suspended And therefore 't is true also that the 6th Nicene Canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisit which the Affricans urged but not this in every case unappealable to Superiors as appears by their former Qualification Ne festinato ne praeproperè c. And particularly for this Province of Affrick S. Austin undertakes against the Donatists a Justification of the Appeal made formerly to a Transmarine Judgment the Donatists much opposing it by Cacilianus Bishop of Carthage when injur'd by an Affrican Council of 70 Bishops The Father giving there his reason also for the Equity of such Appeal because such Ecclesia transmarina was à privatis inimicitiis ab utrâque parte dissensionis aliena Where also he justifies Melchiades Bishop of Rome his admission of this Appeal An fortè non debuit saith he Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primus Numidae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurparit Rogatus Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tot â ill â causâ quid justum videretur statuerent And a little after the foresaid Contest in an Appeal made to Rome by one Antonius constituted formerly Bishop of Fussala by S. Austin This Father writing an Epistle to Pope Celestin about it there no way declines his Sentence but only supplicates his favour in it Collabora nobiscum obsecro Jube tibi quae directa sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsâ Apostolica sede judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam c. And the same Father relating to the forecited Affrican Canon ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. argues thus against the Donatists the lawfulness of Cecilian's Transmarine Appeal †Ep. 162. Neque enim saith he de Presbyteris aut Diaconis aut inferioris Ordinis clericis sed de collegis Episcopis agebatur Qui possunt aliorum Collegarum praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum judicio causam suam integram reservare Upon which passage joined with some other Reasons some ‖ See Ant. Capellus de Appel lationibus c. 4. have contended that the Acts and Epistles of the 6th Council of Carthage to the Pope quarrelling about Appeals are forged and counterfeit These Acts arguing just contrary to S. Austin thus If an Appeal not permitted to inferior
might be to suppress And judge you by these things how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 104. were in opposition to Austin the Monk who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church and objected against them Quòd in multis Romanae consuetudini immo Vniversalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent quòd suas Traditiones universis quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent All which was true and the Proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle restoring sight to a blind man See Sir Hen. Spelman A. D. 601. Pardon this Digression made to abate a little the Confidence of those who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor and the different observation of Easter Of which matter Mr. Thorndike in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior the visible Heads of which Resort he saith were Rome Alexandria and Antiochia speaks thus more moderately †They that would except Britain out of this Rule Just weights p. 40. of subjection upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head should consider that S. Gregory setting him over the Saxon Church which he had founded according to Rule transgressed the Rule in setting him over the Welsh Church Setting this case aside the rest of that little remembrance that remains concerning the British Church testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome as appears from the Churches of Gaul Spain and Affrick of which there is no cause to doubt that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome § 61 To proceed and from the Council of Arles and Sardica and Ariminum spoken of before ‖ §. 55. to come to later times we find the English Bishops either concurring and presenting themselves as members with the rest in those Occidental Councils of a later Date the several Lateran Councils that of Constance Basil and Florence or in absence acquiessing in and conforming to the Votes and Acts thereof which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils or at least over the Western part thereof which the present Reformation denies him For which see the Council of Constance much urged by Protestants as no Flatterer of the Pope and wherein the Council voting by Nations the English were one of the 4. Sess 8. 15. condemning against Wickleff and Hus such Propositions as these Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi Apostolorum Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares Petrus non fuit neque est Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae Papae Praefectio Institutio à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit Papa non est manifestus verus Successor Apostolorum Principis Petri si vivit moribus contrariis Petro Non est scintilla apparentiae quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam quod Caput semper cum ipsâ militanti Ecclesiâ conservetur conservatur Now the contrary Propositions to these authorized by a Council supposed not General but Patriarchal only are obligatory at least to the members thereof and consequently to their Posterity until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power de novo asking their consent Not many years after the Council of Chalcedon in the Patriarchy of Alexandria there succeeded to Proterius a Catholick Bishop Timotheus an Eutychian since which time also the Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia remain still Eutychian or at least Dioscorists And in the Patriarchy of Antioch to Martyrius a Catholick Bishop succeeded Petrus Fullo an Eutychian And in the Empire to Leo an Orrhodox Emperor succeeded Zeno an Eutychian And all these declared their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon Yet this did no way unfix with posterity the stability of its Authority or Decrees Neither can the modern Eutychians justifie their non-submission to that Council hence because they can produce some persons and those Patriarchs too that have in succeeding times but after a former more general Acceptation opposed it § 62 3 ly After the English and before them the British Bishops thus shewed § 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council upon what pretence 3. or new priviledge fince the Reformation these Bishops should plead any exemption from submitting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy an acceptation sufficient ‖ See before §. 40. I see not For 1 st The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Council irregular for it is granted by Protestants 1. that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council though not of a General of right belongeth to Him neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons or secular Prince hinder their journey †See before §. 16. n. 5 2. 2ly Neither can the absence of the Eastern Bishops here be stood upon because their presence not necessary in such a Council 3ly Nor can the secular power under which such Protestant Bishops live especially whenas no Heathen 3. but himself also a Subject of the Church opposing or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof I mean if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical and spiritual and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights of which enough hath been said formerly § 63 Bishop Bramhal's Plea That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects till by him incorporated into his Laws as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws unless first made the King's hath been spoken to before ‖ §. 55. Dr. Hammond's grand Plea on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Reformation See his Treatise of Schism c. 6 7 p. 115 132 137 138 142. viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriarchies to remove that of Rome to Canterbury helps not at least in this matter nor perhaps did he ever mean it should extend so far as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council For 1st He grants That the Prince can do no such thing so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church See Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 164. A Power saith he Princes have to erect Metropoles and hence he collects new Patriarchs but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular because he is in some doubt as appears in his Answer to
partly by other abuses not provided against by any former laws and now growing intolerable In all which matters a much better face of Ecclesiastical affairs appears at present through the Influence which this Council hath had upon the succeeding times And much have those ungrateful Detractors to answer to God by whom the Good of this great Body of the most sacred of Magistrates hath been not only so little acknowledged but so evil spoken of § 207 It would be too tedious to recite to you all the particular Acts of this Council wherein it hath repaired the former decayes but perhaps not unnecessary in such an ungrateful age to relate and clear some of the chiefest The manners and customs of the Church that chiefly in those times were imagined to give cause of just complaint seem to be 1 st Concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. α. The Avocation of so many Causes and admission of so many Appeales without ascent as formerly through inferior Courts especially those of Diocesan and Provincial Synods β. And the reservation of so many Licences and Dispensations to the Apostolick See and Court of Rome These not to be prosecuted or procured without great charge Nor the Judge at so great a distance capable of so true and exact informations either touching the person or cause 2. γ. The Popes Collation of Bishopricks and other spiritual Benefices in forraine States where the Merits of such persons as are most fit and capable of them are little known to him 3. δ. The imposing of Pensions on such spiritual Benefices ε. or giving them in Commenda ζ. Or uniting many of them into one without any necessity So to furnish Favourites with a superfluous wealth and hidden Pluralities 4. η. The Exemptions of so many persons and Societies from Episcopal Jurisdictions which Bishops by their vicinity of Residence are the fittest rectifiers of all disorders 5. θ Several abuses committed by the Persons publishing Indulgences and collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses § 208 I name not here amongst these Grievances the Popes Annats in lieu of the Tenths of Tithes or other constant supports received from the inferior Clergy out of the several States of the Westerne Church because it neither seemed just to the Council to deprive him of them nor to the Secular Princes in their many Articles of Reformation proposed to request it See those of the Emperor Soave p. 513. of the King of France p. 652. as they well seeing that it was necessary for this General Father of the Church both to have wherewith to maintain so many Officers in his service whether at home or abroad as the Church affairs passing through his hands required and wherewith also to reward their pains And if the ancient Bishops of Rome managed these great affairs with a much smaller Revenue yet it must be granted 1. Both that much less was then necessary by reason as well of the much narrower extent of Christendome as also of the union of most of it in those times under one Secular Power the Emperour whereas now the preservation of the unity of Catholick Faith and necessary correspondence between the Members of this Church so much more diffused and residing in so many States of a contrary temper gives much more trouble and charge to the supream Head thereof And 2ly Must be granted also That by the want then of the present subsistence whilst the Pope was the Emperors temporal Subject both many inconveniences and injuries were suffered and many Benefactions hindered This of the Complaints concerning the Pope and his Court. 2. Concerning the Clergy 1. unfit persons elected into Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Benefices § 209 without a sufficient pre-examination of their learning and manners 2. λ. Pluralities of Benefices where these singly afford a maintenance sufficient whilst other worthy persons are destitute and the mis-expence of such ample Church-Revenue on their Secular Relations 3. μ. Non-Residence where having the care or charge of souls 4. ν In their Residence Neglect of frequent Preaching and Catechising And Their not celebrating at least part of the Divine Service nor teaching the ignorant the Mysteries of Religion in the vulgar tongue 5. ξ. Their being restrained from marriage and in Celibacy their frequent incontinency and violation of Chastity 6. Ï€ Their withholding the Communion of the Cup both from the Laity and themselves when not officiating 7. Ï. Their too common use of Excommunication applying many times the severest of the Churches Censures to the smallest Delinquencies 8. σ. To which may be added the many disorders then observed in Regulars and Monasticks 9. Ï„. The correction necessary of several things in the Missals and Breviaries and bringing them to a greater uniformity § 210 Concerning these and several other grievances see the Articles of Reformation proposed by the Emperors Agents before the 21. and 24. Sessions in Soave p. 513 and 751 and by the French before the 23. Session in Soave 632. These therefore the Council took into due consideration and rectified what they judged amiss * so far as that Iron-age would permit of which the Council thus complains Sess 25. De Reform Regul c. 21. Adeo dura difficilùque est praesentium temporum conditio ut nec statim omnibus nec commune ubique quod optaret remedium posset adhiberi and * so far as the National parties in the Council inured to several customes and injoying different priviledges without the making of a schisme could agree upon rectified I say so far as their Ordinations strengthened with severe penalties could do it But the constant execution of these depends on others whose diligence or supineness herein must needs produce in the Church contrary effects and also the necessity of leaving their Canons upon just occasions all which no law can fit dispensable must also leave open a passage to such Governours as are corrupt or negligent of doing this without a reasonable cause § 211 1st Then for those matters that concern the Pope and Court of Rome See the many Decrees in this Council wherein the Bishops are substituted as perpetual and standing Delegates of the Apostolick See for the Execution of them and the former Reservations remitted though this to the great diminution of the Revenue of the Pope and his Officers as hath been said †Such Decrees are § 205 Sess 5. c. 1 2. De Reform Sess 6. c. 4. Sess 7. c. 6. Sess 13. c. 5. Sess 21. c. 5 8. Sess 22. c. 5.8 Sess 24. c. 11. And very many others In which matter though the Bishops are impowred as Delegates of the See Apostolick because the point whether Bishops hold their Jurisdictions as to the exterior and forensick exercise thereof in and over such particular things and persons immediatly from Christ or from the Pope was indeed much agitated in the Council but on no side determined Yet so it is that a possession they have now of several branches of such Jurisdiction since
the conveniency of hearing witnesses where this necessary in such Appeales it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoyning Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the Seventh Canon of Sardica seems to take special care or at least that Commissioners might be sent to examin witnesses at home in the non observance of which Canons perhaps some Roman Bishops may have been culpable and caused some affliction to the Churches Subjects But yet other exigences may occur every cause not being sit to be decided by Delegates that require the trial to be before the Pope's own person to which greater necessities the trouble caused to witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council of Sardica c. 4. And we have no reason to think but that this grave Assembly at Sardica weighed the troubles of such Appeales as well as the Affricans did afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the Intervals of Councils Schisms and Divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many supremes terminating all spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or Countries Christian 5 ly If this Avocation to the supreme be now done without the Method sometimes used of ascending by degrees through many subordinat Courts this when such Courts have not a cogent power for terminating the Cause seems only a shortning both of the trouble and charge § 215 To β Dispensations See Sess 25. c. 18. where in General Provision is made by the Council That Si urgens justaque To β. ratio major quandoque utilitas postulaverint cum aliquibus dispensandum esse id causâ cognita ac summâ maturitate atque gratis à quibuscunque ad quos dispensatio pertinebit erit praestandum aliterque facta dispensatio surreptitia censeatur This Dispensation then by whomsoever given is to be made gratis otherwise to be held surreptitious and the cognition of this surreption is referred to the Ordinary Sess 22. c. 5. Again ordered Sess 22. c. 5. That no Dispensations of Grace obtained at Rome shall take effect except first examined by the Bishop of the place whether obtained justly and upon a right information Again Sess 24. c. 6. Bishops are impowred to dispense with their Subjects in foro conscientiae in all irregularities and suspensions for secret offences except voluntary murther c. and to absolve in all cases occult that are reserved to the See Apostolick Of which and other the like relaxations in this Council of their former restraints what the issue hath been in the Court of Rome see what is quoted before †out of Pallavic Introduction c. 10. § 216 Mean while as the same Council hath observed Sess 25. c. 18. it seems necessary 1 That laws be not so enacted as to leave in the hands of no person a power of Dispensations 2 And again necessary That this power of Dispensing be not as to matters more important left alwaies in the hands of Inferior Magistrates especially those living upon the place and therefore more liable to be sweyed by friendships importunity fear and over-awing this last requisite that the obligation of laws by the facility of dispensing be not quite dissolved the first that the law too rigidly exacted may not sometimes oppress And what Civil Government is there that by its retaining a Dispensative power as to their temporal laws in the hand of the supreme Magistrate doth not amply justifie the Ecclesiastick herein § 217 Such a Dispensative power therefore from antient times hath been thought fit to be deposited in the chief Bishop of the Christian Universs and from him such Dispensations and relaxations to be received as necessity requires Such was that conceded by S. Gregory l. 12. Ep. 31. to the English upon the hazzard of their deserting the new-founded Christianity concerning Marriages for a time in some degrees prohibited by the Canons of the Church and that to the Sicilian Bishops who could not be brought to do more concerning holding a Provincial Council once a year when the Canons required twice Before him such that conceded by Gelasius in Ep. to the Bishops in Italy complaining to him that many of their Churches by the Gothick wars were rendred destitute of a Clergy in which he relaxed several things required by the former Canons to Ordinations c. after he had made this Presace Necessaria rerum dispensatione constringimur sic Canonum paternorum decreta librare retro Praesulum decessorumque nostrorum praecepta metiri ut quae praesentium necessitas temporum restaurandis Ecclesiis relaxanda deposcit quantum potest fieri temperemus Igitur tam instituendi quam promovendi clericalis obsequii sic spatia dispensanda concedimus c. Before him by Simplician Epistle 14. to the Emperor Zeno in which he allowed the election of the Bishop of Antioch made for preventing a sedition at Constantinople contrary to the Fourth Nicen Canon And before him by Celestine †Socrat. Hist l. 7. c. 39.40 allowing by his Letters sent to the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch the Election of Proclus who was before the designed Bishop of Cyzicum to be Bishop of Constantinople procured by the Emperor Theodosius for preventing some Tumults where the Pope either dispensed with †See Conc. Antioch c. 2. or more indulgently expounded some former Church Canons that seemed to have prohibited all Translation of Bishops To γ. See the answer to κ. § 218 To δ. Pensions reserved by the Pope out of some richer Ecclesiastical Benefices To δ. as rewards of persons much meriting in the Churches service It seemed hard To δ. suppose it could have been justly done to deprive the Pope of them whilst Secular Princes would still retain them and were much displeased when in the Articles provided for Reformation of Princes †Mentioned in Soave p. 769. such things were demanded of themselves as they would have redressed in others yet the Council thus far moderated this matter That those Bishopricks or Benefices of a smaller Revenue not amounting to above such a certain summe yearly should not be for the future charged with any such Pensions Sess 24. c. 13. And for the rest since all Pensions could not be voided which perhaps had been best yet may it seem as equitable That the Ecclesiastick Governours do continue to make use of them for recompensing persons of extraordinary merit in the Church as Princes those in the State Especially when the Council hath provided that they be taken from no Church but where such an overplus may be spared and that Revenue only applied to maintain two which indeed is superfluous for one § 219 To ε. The like much-what may be said of Monasteries To ε. or other Ecclesiastical Benefices with or
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
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
you of That if the Acts of Pius the Fourth if the proceedings of that Council in his time be justifiable though those of and under Paul and Julius should be proved some way faulty the number of Prelates insufficient their decisions factiously carried c. yet this Tridentine Council will stand universally in force as to all the decrees thereof because this Council under Pius reviewed and ratified and made their act all the Decrees made before with what supposed defect or culpableness of their proceedings you please for that may be right that is not done rightly under Paul and Julius So that who so justifieth this Council save only for Pius his times doth somewhat more than what is necessary 2ly For the place I desire these things may be considered § 83 1 st That no place can be chosen any where so absolutely free but that he under whose temporal Dominion it is 1. may infer some violence to the Council or to some party therein with whom he is offended and so whereas the Church and the Pope as well as Temporal Princes have their rights and priviledges which may be violated the place of the Council in any Secular State may seem not free enough for the Pope and the Church and again since the Secular Princes have often differences and several interests as it happened frequently in the time of the Council of Trent the place of the Council in ones Dominions will not seem free enough to another Unless it may be thought a sufficient remedy for such unavoidable inconvenience that when such violence appears the Council may cease acting or be suspended or dâ—ssolved or injured States withdrraw from it their Bishops § 84 2 ly That the place of former Councils appointed at Rome or in some other City in Italy as it was in the Roman Lateran Florentine Pisan Councils was not accounted therefore to render them not free because of the nearer influence from Pope though in all those Councils there was something to be decided wherein the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio but was inclined more to one side than another and wherein one side might pretend him a Party as in the controversies of the Waldenses of Beâ—engarius of the Grecians c. § 85 3 ly That the Imperour took sufficient care that thâ—s Council should not be coâ—vâ—â—ed in any place of Italy 3. which was under the Temporal Dominâ—on of the Pope or where himself had not the câ—â—ef command He consented indeed that the Council should be kept in Mantua but see what he declared first to the Protestants concerning this place in Soave l. 1. p 80. That the Duke thereof was vassâ—l to the Empire so that the Pope had no power there and that if they desired any further caution himself was ready to give it them To which they answered how rationally I leave it to you That no safe-conduct could there free them from danger for the Pope having adherents throughout all Italy who bitterly hated them there was great danger of treachery and sâ—cret plots †Sâ—â— Soavâ— p. 77. And as little reason as these had Henry the Eight to protest against the Council at Mantua for fear of the Pope § 86 4 ly That the Pope had indeed no reason to allow the Council to be kept in any City of Germany 4 that was near the Protestants not to avoid their pleas but * for fear of their Arms of which fear whether he had any just cause we shall see more by and by as likewise * for the too great distance from Rome whereby he could not so easily from time to tâ—me give directions to his Legats in those many controversies which were likely to be agitated in that Council and in all which it was impossible for him to give them a precedent information with a sufficient foresight § 87 5 ly That this Council was celebrated in a place to which the Emperour and the major part of Christian Princes namely all the Catholick 5. gave their consent and sent some sooner some later their Bishops and Embassadours too which was enough to legitimate it though perhaps they would rather have chosen another and not all the same See Soave p. 101 and p. 702. Where the King of France desiring a translâ—tion of the Council form Trent to Constance Wormers c. for the more convenience of the Dutch English and part of the French Prelats Soave reports the King of Spain returning this answer That the Council was assembled in Trent 〈◊〉 all the solemnities with consent of all Kings Princes and at 〈…〉 â—â—nce of Francis the French King that the Emperour had superiority in that City as in the others that were named and might give full security to all in case the former safe conduct were not sufficient § Again celebrated in a place confining on Germany and nearer to the Protestants there than it was to the Catholicks of France or Spain and of which the Emperour was the châ—ef Lord. § Therefore Soave p. 309. represents the Emperour dâ—scoursing thâ—s to the Protestants concerning this City That they should leave all to his care who knew how to handle the business that they should suffer other Nations to mâ—et and that himself would go in person if not thither yet to some near place and would take ordâ—r nâ—t by words but dâ—eds that all should pass with goâ—d termâ— And below that he as Advocate to the holy Chuâ—ch and Dâ—fender of the Councils will do what â—elongeth to his charge as he hath promis d. And p. 669 reâ—â—tâ—s How the Cardinal of Lorraine sent a Gentleman to the Empercur to desire him that he would not remove further from the Council in regard of the fruit which thâ—y hoped forby means â—f his vicinity which will kâ—ep every one in his duty and hinder the attempts of thosâ— who would translate it into another place c. And p. 30â— relates the Popes fears That he could not take all suspicion from the King of France if the Council should be celebrated in Frent a place subject to the Emperour and near unto his Army Again a place it was * not accessible by the Popes Forces unless marching first through anothers Dominions and trespassing on the Emperour who was in Italy it self a Prince much more powerful than he and a place which either the Emperours or Protestant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march And therefore was not the Pope free from fears concerning it though he had more of Germany as may be seen in Soave l. 5. p. 436. where he saith That the Pope was troubled because the Protestants of Germany unto whom a great part of France was united would demand exorbitant things which he could not grant them and doubted they might be able to disturb the Council with Arms that He confessed that the dangers were great and the remedies small and was perplexed and troubled in mind Thus Soave § 90 Nor
Conditions Luther the first Parent of this new Sect being questioned for his Doctrines and upon this cited to Rome first made Friends to have his cause tried in Germany having been heard and condemned in Germany by Cardinal Cajetan for one a moderat and learned Prelat he now appeal'd to Rome and to the Pope But well perceiving that his Doctrine would also be most certainly condemned there as it was he suddainly intercepted this Appeal with another †See Adam vitae Lutheri made from the Pope to a Council having some ground to imagine that such a Body would never be conven'd to hear his cause nor the Pope call them together from whom was expected a severe Reformation of Him and his Court But afterward seeing that in good earnest such a Council there would be for a Bull was published for one to be held at Vicenza in 1â—37 and well discerning that neither thus the usual former laws of Councils being observed or only this law of all Assemblies that the much major part shall conclude the whole his Doctrine could stand as indeed it did not He began now to vilifie Councils and put out a book De Conciliis in 1â—39 wherein he declares no good but much hurt to have come to the Church by those that had been held formerly not sparing the very First reverenced by the whole Christian world not that of Nice not that of the Apostles Act. c. 15. Some of his Invectives I have set down already in Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. and so here forbear to repeat them Upon this therefore his last Appeale was from Councils to the Holy Scriptures defending himself with a Si Angelus de Coelo Gal. 18. Attendite à falsis Prophetis ‖ Matt. 17.15 Oves meae vocem meam audiunt †Jo. 10. Omnia probantes ‖ 1 Teess 5.21 c. And here he knew himself safe as any Heresie though never so absurd would be in chusing that to be the Judge or decider of the Controversie which could never deliver any new sentence on any side and where the meaning of its former Sentence deliver'd already which all will stand to were it known is the controversie to be decided But his followers rather than utterly to decline a Council which they had formerly to avoid the standing Church-authorities often called for thought sit to change the ancient form thereof and to clog it with such Conditions as if accepted should perfectly secure them from any danger from it Now the Conditions as they are most fully set down in Soave p. 642. though often mentioned elsewhere †See Soave p. 18 65 80. 1. 2 3. are these 1. That it should not be called by the Pope 2. That it should be celebrated in Germany according to the Canon ut illic lites terminentur ubi exortae sunt 3. That the Pope should not preside in but only be part of the Council and subject to the determinations thereof 4. That the Bishops should be free from their Oath given to the Pope that so they may freely and without impediment deliver their opinions 5. That the Protestant Divines sent to the Council might have a deciding voice with the rest 6. That the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council end all humane authority excluded § 128 Where note that by humane authority they would exclade amongst other things Apostolorum traditiones Concilia authoritates S. Patrum Which together with the Holy Scriptures as necessary to know the true meaning of them where it is disputed was the Rule that the Council entertained to decide present controversies by Of which see Soave l. 4. p. 344. and 323. where he saith the Council prescribed this Rule to the Divines in their disputations about the Articles proposed to them That they ought to confirm their opinions with the Holy Scriptures Traditions of the Apostles sacred and approved Councils and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the Holy Fathers to avoid superfluous and unprofitable questions and perverse contentions Which rule to judge controversies by was also mentioned in the Safe-conduct Quod causae controversae secundum Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum S. Patrum authoritates tractentur in praedicto Concilio and which also long before this was mentioned in the beginning of the Council Sess 4. where a Decree was made Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei c. scripturam sacram interpretari audeat contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater ecclesia aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum And such an advice and rule as this we find given not long after the second General Council to Theodosius the Emperour in a time much over-run with divers Heresies which Emperour thinking that all Sects might easily be united in the Truth by convocating them all together and permitting a free Disputation Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople with others rather perswaded him to take this course Vt fugeret to give you it in Sozomen's words ‖ Sozom. l. 7. c 12. Socrat. l. 5. c. 10. institutas cum sectariis disputationes utpote rixarum atque pugnarum fomites Sed ex ipsis quaereret reciperent ne eos qui ante ecclesiae distractionem interpretes ac Doctores fuissent Scripturae sacrae Etenim si borum Testimonia rejecerint à suis ipsorum consortibus explodentur sin autem sufficere eos ad controversias decidendas arbitrabuntur produci oportet eorum libros c. By which books they would soon be convinced of their errour which advice the Pious Emperour commending and proposing this way of ending Controversie to the Heads of the Sectaries they soon discovered to him their Tergiversation and He there upon authorizing only the Catholick Religion vigorously undertook the suppression of the rest Suitable to this among those General Proposals made by the Pope's Nuncio's in Germany and elsewhere before the sitting of this Council this was the first †Pallavic l. 3. c. 13. n. 2. â— Soave p. 64. That the Council might be free and be celebrated in the manner used by the Church even from the beginning of the first General Councils and the second That all those who met in the Council should engage to submit to the Decrees thereof Things to which the Protestants would no way consent The clause contained in the Safe-conduct of deciding controversies per probata Concilia c. they excepted against see Soave p. 344 and 372 and before § 104. and they refused also to stand to any Council that should proceed as the use had been for 800 years before †Soave p. 18. Here then at that time thus the case stood The Pope and the Tridentine Fathers were for admitting the Protestants for excluding the Form a of Council agreeable with the former and again the one for admitting the other for excluding a
the whole Council hath been shewed †to be so unanimous § 150 § 164 To the 2d The Consultation in every thing made with the Pope 1 st Whereas it is usually urged by Protestants out of Soave †Seep 481 507. That as none could propose any thing in the Council save the Legats so the Legats might propose nothing till they had received a Commission from Rome That nothing was resolved by the Fathers but all in Rome and the Council guided by the Holy Ghost sent thither from time to time in a Cloak-bag from Rome †p. 497. much more is charged than is true For a proposal of the matter◠from time to time to be discussed in Council was made and digested in Trent by a general agreement of the Fathers unknown to the Pope as appears throughout this History After which resolved 1 st some Congregations of Divines disputed the point and considered the matters proposed at which any of the Fathers that would might be present 2. After this arguing followed the Congregations of the Prelats for framing the heads of Doctrine and Reformation according to the most common opinion 3. Then a General Congregation of the same Prelats for giving their votes concerning them and 4 lastly the Session when they were voted again and so published See Soave p. 167. Now all or most part of these saving the last the Session were usually passed without the Popes knowledge or concurrence and the Legats themselves are sometimes found differing from one another in their votes as they were in that of residence †Sav. p. 518. and 496 at which time also some other Bishops gave their vote with reservation to consulting of the Pope which shews the Popes mind though in a matter so much concerning the Apostolick See was not then known But after these General Congregations was usually notice of such Decree as was passed therein sent to Rome before its being voted again and published in the General Session And of this a charge is also given to his Legats by Pope Paul the Third in Soave p. 164. though I find not that Pius required it Nay if we may believe this Historian he seemeth in some places to decline it as appears in the quotations here following The Decree thus sent to Rome was there also by the Popes Council examined and his judgment returned to the Legats concerning it which when differing from that of the Council which thing seldom happened except in the questions between the Episcopal and Papal Rights the Legats endeavoured to procure by common consent either some alterations or at least an omission of such Decree in the following Session but this with all freedom of the Council still observed a good part of whom was also still animated against the Popes interests by the Embassadors of Secular Princes nothing being done against the satisfaction of any considerable part of the Council the uttermost of the Legats attempts then extended to procure an omission of that to which the Pope would not consent not any determining of what he approved when thereby was feared the alienating of some Nation from the Roman Faith and if thus something was hindred by their intermise from being passed by the Council which otherwise would have been so yet nothing was advanced to be passed which otherwise would not have been and so the Conciliary Acts have suffered no prejudice by it Nor any hurt done save that thus men are left to their former Liberty still in some points wherein the Council would have restrained it a thing I hope the Reformed will not complain of you may at your leisure particularly view in Soave the liberty the Council took to examine the Popes proposals in the Institution of Bishops †p 657. 723. and Papal Supremacy and the alterations which were made in them § 165 2. In the next place I will give you the Pope's plea for himself against those 2. who accused him for thus abridging the freedom of the Council To this matter then friendlily complained of by the Emperor in a letter to him thus answered Pius the 4th in another See Pall. l. 20. c. 8. n. 7. That he never gave any such command as that nothing should be decreed in the Council without consulting him first That in things more difficult the Delegats demanded his advice nor could or ought he to deny it them That it crossed not their liberty was not undecent or unusual that the Council it self should desire the judgment of the Apostolick See Nor was it unfitting that the Pope being to give Counsel to his Legats should first take it with the Cardinals men of great judgment and learning especially be not intending that his advices should impose any necessity on the Council to follow them Thus Pius me thinks with much reason And it is manifest that the Council in many things did not follow them And though little was decreed by the Council against that which came from Rome yet both all that came from Rome was not decreed and much decreed that came not from Rome the Pope often desiring them especially for reformations to proceed without consulting him and in Soave p. 503. complaining to his Cardinals of those in the Council who referred themselves unto him because saith he the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his own opinion and not lay the things of difficulty upon the back of another i. e. the Pope that themselves might avoid hatred and envy As also the same Author †p. 723. relates That his Legats sending to Rome the Articles that were drawn up in the Council of the Institution and residence of Bishops the Pope reprehended the Legats for sending them Because he knew that the major part in the Council were good Catholicks and devoted to the Church of Rome and in confidence hereof he was content that the proposition and resolution should be determined in Trent without his knowledge The same Author †p. 684. makes him further in defence of his Instruction from time to time sent to his Legats and to the Council answering the same letter of the Emperour on this manner plausibly enough though as Pallavicino taxeth him misrelating in several things the contents of the letter †l. 20. c. 8. n. 9. That no Council was ever celebrated in absence of the Pope but that he hath sent instructions which the Fathers have also followed That the Instructions do still remain which Pope Celestine sent to the Ephesin Council Pope Leo to that of Chalcedon Pope Agatho to that in Trullo Pope Adrian the first to the second of Nice Pope Adrian the second to the eighth General Council of Constantinople And thus also he makes him to plead his cause at Rome before the Cardinals †p. 503. That he could not chuse but be troubled with that which was spoken concerning the liberty of the Council and that to consult of the matters at Rome
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
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