Yet remain they still fettered with the Bonds of a third Obedience I mean Passive in a meek submittance to the Church's Censures And if they shall happen to be excommunicated by the Church and externally disjoyned from its Society yet is it by no means lawful for them after their publishing new Doctrines to proceed also to erect a new Altar or Anti-Communion against it But patiently undergoing its sentence and longing for their peaceable restorement to the former Catholick Communion which is alwaies but One and may not be divided they are to expect from God the vindication of his Truth and their Innocence Which so long as any suffers for he remains still internally a member of this former Society from which externally he is excluded Now by this third Obedience if the Churches Faith in some manner suffers yet its Unity at least will remain unviolated and not divided or torn by Schismes These things I have endeavoured to represent and perswade to the pious Reader in the former Discourses as also in the beginning and conclusion of this present Work have further pressed them Now from such a submission to a legal Church-Authority once gained the same is rightly demanded to that of Trent if this Council proved Legal And then by this Council once received and submitted to is an end put to the most and chiefest of the modern Theological Controversies and present Church-distractions This then is the Task of the following Discourse Of which I implore the Divine Majesty for a prosperous success only so far as it maintains a right and just Cause and so commit the Reader to the gracious Illuminations of his Holy Spirit THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council OBjected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its Proceedings § 5. 4. That Several of its Decisions are without or contrary to Scripture to Primitive Tradition and Tyrannically Imposed § 6. 5. That the Decrees of this Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. n. 2. CHAP. II. Some General Considerations pre-posed 1. Of Inferior Councils The due Subordination and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precedents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. CHAP. III. 2. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the Acceptation of them Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 45. 3. And Calling of them § 47. CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from the subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant-Clergy § 67. CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nation § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by reason of 1. The pretended Non-generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place § 83. 3. Or the want of Safe-Conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishop's or Pope's being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several waies of judging Ecclesiastical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Pope's being Judge § 122. CHAP. VIII II Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonablness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies CHAP. IX III Head Of the Legalness of the proceeding of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 128. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon this Council for the condemning of the Protestant Opinions in condemning which the Fathers of this Council unanimously agreed § 150. 4 That no violence was used upon the Council for defining of Points debated between the Catholicks themselves § 152. Where Of the Councils proceedings touching the chief points in debate Touching 1. Episcopal Residency Jure Divino § 153. 2. Episcopal Jurisdiction Jure Divino § 154. 3. The Popes Superiority to Councils § 155. That these three Points of Controversie however stated are of no great advantage to the Reformed § 156. 5. That no violence was used upon the Council for hindring any just Reformations § 157. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing
482. Most of these Objections you may find after Soave urged by Archbishop Lawd § 27 c. and reinforced in his Defence by Mr. Stillingfl p. 2. c. 8. By B. Bramh. Vind. c. 9. By Dr. Hammond of Her § 11. and many others whether with more force and advantage than is here set down I must desire you to consult the Authors § 7 These are the principal Exceptions occurring in later Protestant-Writers against the Council of Trent Now I desire your patience to hear on the other side what may be said for it Which Council being by reason of the subjection of the Clergy to so many supreme and independent Princes with so much difficulty conven'd not finally concluded till 18 years after its first sitting interrupted by sickness interrupted by wars managed under several Popes of several inclinations and under often-changed interests of most warlike and rival Princes according to their several advantages or disgusts who now sent now withdrew their Bishops and desired to model its Decrees to the content of their Subjects and secular Peace in their Dominions It must needs encounter great diversity of Accidents and not always retain the same face security frequency splendor and reputation nor the same purity and dis-engagement from secular affairs and national obligations Again * Sitting in the time and for the composing of the greatest and the most powerful considering the engagement of the common people as well as of Princes separation and division that ever was in the Christian Church which departed also from the former unity in so many points of Doctrine and Discipline as never did any before and * driving two main designs at once the reformation of manners in the Church and its Governors and the confutation of errors in the Sectaries It must needs be liable to many Intestine as well as External affronts and hinderances from all sides and in so many decisions seem to some to commit not a few oversights But yet notwithstanding all these Intrigues and all that is produced against it I see not but that both its Authority and Integrity may be rationally and justly vindicated § 8 The Considerations upon it for the more orderly proceeding in them I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Concerning the Generality 1. Liberty and just Authority of this Council or of the persons constituting it to oblige the Churches Subjects 2. or especially those of the West 2. Concerning the Invalidity and also probably the uneffectiveness of such a General Council as the Protestants in stead thereof demanded and as should be limited with all the conditions they proposed 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent 3. especially as to those matters which respect the Protestants 4. 4. The many Definitions and Anathema's of this Council and its pretended-new Articles of Faith 5. 5. Concerning the many Constitutions and Acts of great consequence passed in this Council and confirmed by the Pope for the Reformation of several corrupt practices and disorders observed in the Churches Government or Discipline CHAP. II. Of Councils inferior to General The due Subordinations and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precidents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be Her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. § 9 COncerning the first Head to discern more clearly the true State of this Council assembled at Trent It seems necessary that I first give you a brief account of some things more generally appertaining to these Ecclesiastical Courts Of Councils then assembled as need required for deciding Controversies enacting Laws and preserving the Peace of the Church Catholick which is but one throughout the world there have been always used in the Church these several Kinds or Compositions subordinate in Dignity and Authority one to another 1 Episcopal or Diocesan 2 Provincial 3 National 4 Patriarchal and 5 Oecumenical or General Of which Councils the first Pattern under the Gospel was that held at Jerusalem Act. 15. A. D. 51. Amongst these the lowest Synod or Ecclesiastical Council for governing the Church was Episcopal or Diocesan taking the word in its modern sence consisting of the Bishop of any particular Diocess and his Presbyters the Bishop calling them together and moderating the Assembly the Actions and Decrees of which Synod were appealable from and liable to the Judgment and Censure of an higher Council The next Council was Provincial consisting of all the Bishops of a Province in which were many Diocesses called and moderated and its Decrees executed by the Metropolitan The next Synod to whom also the Actions and Decrees of this Provincial were subject was National consisting of the Metropolitans of several Provinces with their Bishops called and moderated by the chief Primate in such a Nation such were several of the Affrican Councils and particularly that held under S. Cyprian de Baptizandis Haereticis there being of these Provinces or greater Circuits six in Affrick and so many Primates or primae Sedis Episcopi of whom the Chief was the Bishop of Carthage The next a Council Patriarchal consisting of the Metropolitans c. of divers Kingdoms and Countries which were contained under the same Patriarchy this called and moderated by the Patriarch The last and supremest is a Council Oecumenical or General to which I should proceed next to shew you of what persons it is to consist who is to call who is to preside in to regulate and ratifie it c. But this I shall defer till § 34. And because the Regulation and Government that is for the necessary preserving of the Churches firmer Peace and Unity established and observed in these lower Councils is by their being more frequently held much better known and also freely acknowledged by Learned Protestants I will first give you some further Account of this that so you may make
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
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
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
and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints and Appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And the Protestant-Primates saith Bishop Bramhal †Vind. c. 1. p. 257. use the same customs of judging Church-Causes without calling Synods Now what is in this kind conceded to Metropolitans much more ought to be to Patriarchs whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial nor ever was a set time appointed for these as for the other This said concerning the Calling of General Councils its belonging of right to the Church and in it to the Supremest Prelate § 49 3ly It is not denied but that the Emperor had and since the dissolution of the Empire other Princes joined 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Prelates as being their Subjects of calling these both in assistance to the Church in her necessities and also in order to their own Civil affairs when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church Provided this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent consent either before or at least after the Indiction of them Of which thus Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt fic tainen ut possit etiam alius Pontifice consentiente Conciliâ—m indicere quinetiam satis sit si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat confirmet at si nec ipse indicat Concilium nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem illud non Concilium sed Conciliabulum fore § 52 And this thing is made good by the ancient practice where As the Emperors being by their secular power much more effectual promoters thereof were prevailed with to call the first General Councils so this was not done but either from the first Motion or with the consent of the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Head of the Church as appears concerning all the first 6. General Councils in the acclamatory speech of the 6 th Council at the conclusion thereof to the Emperor Arius Divisor c. They naming 1 Sylvester 2 Damasus 3 Caelestinus 4 Leo 5 Vigilius 6 Agatho Bishops of Rome joined with the Emperor in the promoting all these Councils And to come to some particulars Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus and to the Council assembled with him at Rome Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae i. e. of Damasus singly this Council not then sitting when the Orientals met first in Council though it did when they writ literas missas Theodosio summâ pietate Imperatori Concerning the 3 d. Council thus Prosper in Chronico Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ Coelestini authoritate Concerning the 4 th Thus the Emperor to Leo in the Epistles pertaining to that Council Superest ut si placuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire c. Synodum celebrare hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur nostris utique desideriis vestra Sanctitas satisfaciet Sacrae Religioni quae utilia sunt decernet Si verâ— hoc onerosum est ut tu ad has partes advenias hoc ipsum nobis prâ—priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum ubi nobis placuerit omues sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire quae Christianorum Religioni atque Catholicae Fidei prosint sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit suâ dispositione declarent To which add * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister to the same Pope Propterea tua Reverentia quocunque modo prospexerit significare dignetur ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi Thraciae atque Illyrici sicut etian nostro Domin piâ—ssimo Imperatori placuit in unani Civitatem velociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire illic facto Concilio de Catholicâ confessione c. te authore decernant And * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the first Act of that Council Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam factum est nec fieri licuit The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Oriental Bishops against John Bishop of Constantinople And that of Gelasius who lived about some 40. years after in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum i. e. the second Ephesin non consentiendo sola summovit authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Lastly If the ancient Canon that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum stand good the calling such Councils by Emperors without the Mandate or confent also of this Bishop will be to no purpose because nothing can be established therein without his concurrence Thus much of the power of Calling General Councils CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy § 67. § 53 THese things touching Church-Government from § â—9 being premised in general a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent as occasion requires I proceed to a more particular consideration of the first Head proposed before ‖ §. 8. concerning the Generality and just Authority of this Council to oblige all the Churches Subjects especially those of the West 1. Where in the first place it is to be noted That supposing this Council of Trent no legal and free General yet if it be a free and legal Patriarchal Council thus it will stand obligatory at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction to the Reformed and particularly to the English Church For 1 st It hath been formerly cleared both by the Church-Canons ‖ See before §. 11 12. c. and the Concessions of Protestants †§. 16. n. 4. c. That as a Diocesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses or to a Provincial where the Metropolitan presides and again a Provincial or Metropolitan Synod to a National or that composed of many Provinces
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
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
whilst it is thus obeyed it only not he that sheweth it unto us is obeyed And if this were all the obedience that I owe unto others I were no more bound to believe or obey any other man than he is bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastors than the Pastors them Yet certainly God who hath set Kingdoms in order is not the Author of such confusion in the spiritual regiment of his Church Thus Doctor Jackson tying all to obedience or submission to the judgment of their spiritual Guides save only those who are certain of a formal contradiction between God's Laws and their Injunctions To this may be added that much noted place of Mr. Hooker in his Preface to Ecclesiastical Policy §. 295. n. 4. § 6. commenting there on Deuteron 17.8 c. where it is said ver 11. According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left God was not ignorant saith he that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversie he ordained should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment However better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily to some end And here he answers the objection that men must do nothing against conscience saying Neither wish we that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do But we say this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn à parte rei to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending And yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment seemed ' yea and perhaps truly seemed that the law did disallow For if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace c And again Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe these laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the law of God But their perswasion in this case i. e. where their Superiors have determined otherwise they are bound for the time i. e. till the same Authority reverse it and release them to suspend c. unless they have an infallible Demonstration Thus he Where you see he grounds their yielding to Authority and changing their former perswasion upon an non-certainty of such perswasion As for his limited expression before in litigious and controverted causes of such quality whatever he meaneth thereby the Commission and Injunction Deut. 17. extends to all litigious and controverted causes whatsoever As also it is more clearly drawn 2 Chron. 19.5 8 10 11. Where it runs What cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood between law and commandment statutes and judgments ye shall c. And note also that the command Deut 17.10 Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee requires not only a passive willingly paying mulcts or undergoing punishments but active obedience Again an active obedience not only in doing something thought by me lawful but to which I think I am not obliged but in doing also of something where the lawfulness of it is questioned by me which thing also here by the text I am to do if they command me And therefore after such Injunction I ought to alter my former perswasion concerning it and to believe either that in general it is lawful to be done or at least lawful to be done by me not certain of the contrary rebus sic stantibus and such sentence past § 296 To all these testimonies concerning the obligation which illiterat and ignorant or also though learned after much examination doubting and unsatisfied persons have to submit their judgment to Church-Authority I may add the apparent mischiefs which follow the contrary observed amongst Protestants neglecting this duty from the beginning of the Reformation Luther himself much lamenting the divisions he saw among his Disciples even in his own daies Ego saith he †Prefat comeut in Galat. qui jam sum in ministerio Christi viginti annis quanquam nihil sum vere possum testari me plus quam viginti sectis esse petitum c. And in Gen. c. 6. published not long before his death Quantum sectarum excitavit Satan nobis viventibus Quid futurum est nobis mortuis Profecto tota agmina Sacramentariorum Anabaptistarum Antinomorum Servetianorum Campanistarum c. And himself also is much noted for his varying from himself in his opinions often changed But still these divisions are more apparent in the longer course of his Schisme which daily multiplies and brancheth its self into more and more clefts and sects and some of them most gross and ridiculous and for which it is hard to find names and which their forsaken Leaders are much ashamed of whilst the Plebeians will neither study truth themselves nor follow the learned The mistakes of these persons in such high and Divine matters being greater as their science less and their opinions since weakly grounded floating and unconstant and from the usually prevailing interests of the flesh inclined to liberty and sensuality § 297 Of which Divisions Grotius in several of his writings sadly complains as caused by this that they will pitch upon no Superior and common authority by which they will be content to be guided and regulated in their Faith Protestantes saith he in his last reply to Rivet †Apolog. Discussio p. 255. nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt Cur factae partes in unam Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur Partes aliae atque aliae sint exurrecturae And in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace speaking of their primitive Dissentments Confessiones saith he factae sunt variis in locis variae atque inter se pugnantes non modo quae factae erant partes non potuere unquam inter se coalescere sed novae quotidie exortae sunt particulae tot ut nemo sit qui earum inire possit numerum ut faecunda est ista seges unoquoque sibi licere credente quod alius ante usurpavit credibile est novas quotidie extituras A presage at this time
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