proper to Hâ—storians to asperse and blemish the most specious and candid actions of those though the most sacred Persons whose interests he disfavours with some or other uncharitable Gloss upon them and to represent the fairest fruit they bear still worm-eaten with some corrupt Design or malignant Intention for which a bare possibility thereof seems his sufficient warrant to affirm it And again for the second constantly after each Session of this Council He under the Mask of the vulgar talk and common Fame takes liberty to sum together all that which he apprehends may any way disparage the precedent Decrees and that which perhaps never entred into any ones save his own fancy 4 Lastly That he was a Person with whom the Arch-Bishop of Spalato had an intimate Acquaintance and of whom also he gives this Character in the Preface to the first Edition of this History London 1619. which Preface is omitted in the latter as some think because it too manifestly discovers the Historians Dis-affection to those whose actions he relates That he lived so in the Roman Captivity as to guide himself by a right Conscience rather than the common Customs That he had a great Zeal to the purity of Religion against such unexcusable i. e. Roman depravations thereof That he abhorred those who defended the Church of Rome's abuses as holy Institutions and professed Truth wherever found was to be embraced That this his work was only known to him and some others his great Confidents From which as also from some Extracts out of his Letters holding correspondence with some French Hugonots mentioned in Casoni's Preface to the Second Volume of Pallavicino may easily be gathered that his Religion was much-what of the same temper and complexion with that of Spalatensis Unless perhaps we may think that after his writing this Book he return'd to a better mind and that from this change came that reluctance of his Spalatensis mentions ‖ Prefat to Soave's History for communicating this work Nay as the same Bishop relates it ‖ a Purpose to have quite suppressed and made it away Destinato ad essere sommerso dal suo Genitore Which thing as he imputes to his fear of some danger from it so Charity will rather judge that it proceeded from remorse of Conscience when in a pious reflection upon his former Conceptions he discern'd that in stead of an History he had brought forth a Satyre against Gods Truth and his Church and the most Supreme and Sacred of those Governors whom our Lord himself had appointed over It and Him However This his History hath not so far corrupted the truth of Affairs as not to contain in it many Evidences very advantageous to the Catholick Cause and so much remains sound in it as may serve very well to confute that which is vitiated and in the main things that are charged against the Pope and Council especially concerning the Councils Liberty this History is found as it were to destroy it self by its own Contradictions A thing which observed by Phil. Quorlius an Italian Doctor produced his Book entituled Historia Petri Soavis ex Authorismet assertionibus consutata This account in my entrance I thought fit to give you of this Author that you may see what just credit on such a Subject he deserves out of whose Quiver the Reformed have taken most of those arrows with which they seek to wound this Council The chief of which I shall first summarily relate to you and so proceed to its intended Defence § 3 First then it is Objected by the Protestant Divines That this of Trent can no way truly be called a General Council as it is stiled by the Romanists 1. α. α Because it is necessary to the Generalness of a Council that some be there and those Authorized from all particular Churches See Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 3. where he quotes Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 17. for it §. 4. ut saltem But none from the Eastern Churches were present in this of Trent or so much as summoned or afterwards approved or consented unto its Acts And the number of the Bishops β. who were present from other Churches was frequently so small that in many Sessions it had scarce 10. Arch-Bishops or 40 or 50 Bishops present Bishop Lawd § 27. n. 2. And That it had not so many Biships present at the Determination of the weightiest Controversies concerning the Rule of Faith as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a Months warning B. Brambal Vindic. c. 9. p. 247. And see what Soave saith to the same purpose l. 2. p. 163. Add to this γ. γ. That it was not lawfully called so as General Councils ought and used to be namely by the Emperor and other Christian Princes but only by the Pope this was one of Henry the 8th's Pleas in his Manifesto's against it Lastly δ. δ. That the Popes themselves as many as lived in the time thereof would never consent that this Council should be affirmed to represent the Vniversal Church prudently foreseeing that if this were granted as in the Council of Constance it was the Council as being the whole would put off its subjection and depend no longer on the Pope that was but a part of it nor would need his confirmation to render it what it was before viz. the Representative of the whole Church thus Dr. Hammond Her 11. § n 8 9. This against its being a General Coucil § 4 2. That neither was it a plenary Patriarchal Council 2. for the West ε ε Because from some Churches in the West as from the Britannick and some other Reformed Churches there were no Bishops present there who also had just cause for their not coming thither B. Lawd ib. n. 2. neither can it justly be pleaded that they were Heretical or Schismatical Churches being never condemned by any former Council B. Brambal Answer to Chalced. p. 351. ζ. ζ. And of other Western Churches save only Italy present very few in all the Sessions under Paul the 3d. but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the sixth Session under Julius the 3d. B. Lawd ib. n. 2. â— And Twice so many Bishops out of Italy present as there were out of all other Christian Nations put together B. Bramb Vind. p. 247. as appears at the end of the Coucil where the Italians are set down 187. and all the rest make but 83. B. Lawd § 29. n. 2. Neither was this Council after its rising fully acknowledged or received by the Western Churches nor by the Britannick and other Reformed Churches Nor by the Gallican Church of the Roman Communion And Let no man say saith B. Bramb Vind. p. 248. that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline not of Doctrine for the same Canonical Obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General I add or other Superior
Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine § 5 3. ' That it was not a Free and Lawful Council 3. 1. λ. Where the accusers or the accused take λ. 1. whether you please namely the Pope and the Bishops persons of the same perswasion and communion with him sate as Judges in their own cause namely in a Question of the Popes Supremacy and of the corruptions of that Church see B. L. § 27 n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's μ. μ. Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council 2. ν. Where was no security in the place of Meeting ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted since the cruel Decrees and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss though armed with a safe Conduct ξ. Whither also ξ. notwithstanding this some of the Protestant party being come yet they were not suffered to propose and dispute their cause And again Ï€. Where after dispute Ï€. had it been granted them yet they if no Bishops could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest but must after the Disputation have been judged and censured by their Adversaries 3. Ï‚. Where all the Members of the Council Ï‚. 3. that had a vote had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy and none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome and were professed enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council B. Lawd § 27. n. 1. 4. σ. σ. 1 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council but only what the Popes Legates proposed the Popes Commission running Proponentibus Legatis σ 2 * where nothing was determined σ 2 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome himself not vouchsafing to be present therein and therefore it was commonly said that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male 5. Ï„. Ï„. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope and many Bishops were introduced who were only titular and ‖ B. Bramb Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishopricks also erected by the Pope during the Council all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes and hence such an unproportionable number there of Italian Bishops § 6 4. v. Suppose the Council in all these Objections cleared v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical and Legal yet have the Reformed this Reserve after all wherefore they cannot justly entertain it * Because some of the Decrees and Definitions are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures or at least not warranted by them φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures as the Nicene and other primitive Councils did but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in matter of Faith Concerning which thus Arch-Bishop Lawd § 28. The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or in necessary sense or the Council is not Lawful For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority to make the Council Authentical and the Decisions of it de fide than any confirmation of the Pope can be Now the Council of Trent we are able to prove had not the first but have departed from the Letter and sense of Scripture and so we have no reason to respect the second See likewise § 27. n. 1. Where he asks How that Council is Legal which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie and make it to be de fide though it hath not the written word of God for warrant either in express Letter or necessary sence and deduction but is quite extra without the Scripture See also Mr Stillingfl p. 477 478. χ χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to or at least not warranted by Primitive and Apostolical Tradition ‖ Soave p. 228. And in the last place Dr. Hammond of Her §. 11. n. 3 7. Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's in these and in many other slight matters if truths upon all those who shall dissent from or at least who shall contradict their Judgment in them this one Council having made near hand as many Canons as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together ‖ Soave p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds * drawn up bp Pius the 4th according to the order of the Council ‖ Sess 24. c. 12. de Refor and * imposed to be believed by all who would enter into the communion of the Church contrary to the 7th Can. of the Third General Council at Ephesus All these Articles Imposed too as Fundamental and to be assented to as absolutely and explicitly for attaining salvation as the Articles of the Creed and so that in disbelieving any of them it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire which Articles are concluded there as the Athanasian Creed with an Haec vera Catholica Fides extra quam nemo Salvus ‖ See Archbishop Lawd p. 51. Bishop Bramh. Vindie of Church of England p. 23â— 231 Reply to Chalâ—ed p. 322. Dr. Hammond Ars to Cath. Gent. p. 138. and to Schism Disarm'd p. 241. Dr. Fern Considerations touching Reformation p. 45. Stillingfl Rat. Acccâ—nt p. 48 c. So that saith Mr. Thorndyke †Fpilog Conclusion p. 413. it was the Acts of this Council that framed the Schisme because when as the Reformation might have been provisional till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace but by yielding to all their Decrees 5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine And next §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation which also are very numerous and 5 one would think the more the better yet these also are not free from their complaints ω. ω. That these Decrees are meer Illusions many of them of small weight taking Motes out of the eye and leaving Beams That the Council in framing them imitated the Physitian who in an Hectical Body laboured to kill the Itch That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved and some Symptomes only cured That in some of more consequence the Exceptions are larger than the Rule And αα αα That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them as he pleaseth Thus Soave frequently That nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council and it ended ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome 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 ‖ Stillingfl Rat. Acc. p. 480
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-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
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
se non deposituros eum si haereticum esse couvincant as Bellarmin †answered long since to this scruple only they swear to defend and promote all De Concil l. 1. c. 21. not to be in any action or plot against any of his legal and Canonical for this is alwaies understood in oaths Rights Authority Priviledges c Now what offence here what restraint of any lawful liberty For an Oath taken in general to all the Canonical rights of the Pope and not specifying any in particular leaves the Bishops and the Council in perfect liberty to dispute examine and determine what are his Canonical and rightful priviledges what not leaves them liberty to question his Supremacy so far as he seems to them to claim any such in causes or over persons Ecclesiastical not appearing by divine right or Church-Constitution due unto him and generally in liberty to question as Bellarmin observes his commanding or practising things they think unlawful And indeed the Bishops in Trent sworn to maintain all his lawful yet did dispute some of his pretended Rights and Priviledges and after much debate left them unstated Nor did the Pope or his Legats though willing enough to have prevented such agitations yet plead any obligation in the Episcopal Oath against them This Oath therefore obliging only to the observation of the former Divine and Church-Laws concerning the Papal Dignities can be no more prejudicial to the liberty of Councils than the former Laws and Canons are prejudicial thereto § 109 4 ly Bishops not sworn yet still remain obliged to the observance of all such Canons so that such Oath is not the addition of a new but the confirmation of a former obligation which 4. when our Superiors for their greater security call for we cannot justly deny 5 ly Yet neither do such obligation nor such Oath laid on Bishops taken singly restrain their liberty § 110 when met in a Council but that they with the present Popes consent 5. may then altor and change those Canons and so their obligation to them No more than a Princes or his Subjects swearing to the observance of the civil laws of a Nation hinders these when met in Parliament to abrogate any law or enact the contrary all oaths to laws have this tacit limitation viz. till those who have the authority shall think fit to repeal them And in the consecration of the Reformed Bishops in England the Oath imposed upon them of obedience to the Archbishop is conceived to be unprejudicial to the liberty of their Synods § 111 6 ly If in this Oath any thing was sworn that was unlawful the Bishops 6. so soon as this unlawfulness appeared to them from that moment without any dispensation were discharged from the observance thereof as Luther and Bucer so soon as it seemed to them unlawful thought themselves quitted from the same or the like Oath formerly taken when they first entred into a religious Order but if nothing was sworn in it but what was lawful why complain the Reformed of this Oath § 112 7 ly Did this Oath of the Bishops lay some restraint upon their liberty it would be only in one point of the Protestant Controversies 7. that concerning the Popes Supremacy but would leave it free as to all or most of the rest Neither see I what influence their swearing to maintain the Popes just Priviledges could have upon their votes in the points of Justification Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and the like For if this be named one of his privileges that their decrees in these points are invalid unless by him confirmed yet there is no reason that this should incline them at all to vote in these contrary to their own judgment 1 st Because omitting here the obligation they have to promote Truth upon whatever resistance they have no cause to presume his Judgment in such points especially after their Consultations would be different from theirs Or 2 ly Because if they knew it would differ yet they understood also that without the Concurrence of their Judgments his likewise is rendred invalid and not able to establish any thing wherein they dissent As in some affairs of this Council it so happened This for the Oath to pass on to others § 113 9 ly Whereas it is pretended that the Bishop of Rome who presided and those Bishops who sat in the Council were a party and Judges in their own cause 9. As for instance the controversies that were to be decided being between these two parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that those of the Council were all Roman Catholicks and the Protestants not permitted to have with the rest any decisive vote Again the Protestants accusing the Roman and other Western Churches of many corruptions both in their doctrine and in their discipline yet that this Council was made up of the Bishops of those Churches which were thus accused Again one controversie being against the superiority of the Order of Bishops to the Presbytery that therefore in this the Bishops were clearly a party Another controversie being against the Popes Supremacy and particularly against his authority of calling and presiding in Councils that therefore in this the Pope was a party Besides that his stiling the Protestants hereticks before the Council renders him in it no impartial nor unprejudiced Judge in their cause I say neither do these pretences hinder this Council supposing it composed of so many Bishops of the Catholick Church as are necessary to the constitution of a General Council or of so many Bishops of the Western Churches as are necessary to the constitution of a Patriarchal from being a lawful Judge in these controversies and the acts therof obligatory to all nor hinder not the Pope from presiding there Where 1 st To consider the legality of the Synod as it consists of such Bishops § 114 And 1 st Here we find that all Heresies and Schismes have had the same plea against the former Councils 1. as the Reformed against this of Trent namely that the contrary party the accuser or the accused was their Judge All the Christian Clergy was once divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians or Nestorians and Anti-Nestorians as in the times of the Council of Trent it was into the Protestants and Roman-Catholicks and the Arrians then accused the Catholick Bishops of their corruption of the doctrine of the Trinity as the Protestants did now the Roman Catholicks of several corruptions in doctrine and discipline Yet so it was that the Arrians were condemned by the Anti-Arrian Bishops as being the major part neither were they allowed any other Judge save these and this a Judgment approved by the Protestants Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople on the one side and Celestine Bishop of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria on the other side counter-accuse one another of Herâ—sie yet was Nestorius sentenced and condemned in the 3d. G. Council by Celestine presiding there by Cyril his Substitute Dioscorus Bishop
of Alexandria and the Eutychian party had great contest with the rest of Christian Bishops Anti-Eutychians proceeding so far that Dioscorus with his party presumed to excommunicate Leo yet was he and his party judged and condemned by the Anti-Eutychian party being a major part in the 4th G. Council the same Leo presiding there by his Legats and Dioscorus though the 2d Patriarch being not permitted to sit or vote in the Council And these Judgments approved by the Protestants Arius an Alexandrian Presbyter and Alexander the Bishop there had much controversie between them and accused one another before the Council of Nice yet Alexander in that Council sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest and gave his definitive vote against him And doubtless had Arius been a Bishop and the major part of that Council Arian Arius should have judged Alexander in the same manner Allowed examples in this kind might be alledged infinite 2 ly Now to shew §. 125. n. 1. that such judgments are lawful and obligatory notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party 2. formerly accusing and accused by the other of corruptions errours usurpations c. I beg these three things to be granted me having elsewhere sufficiently secured them 1 That the Church is delegated by Christ as the supream Judge on earth for all â—heological and Spiritual matters secure for ever not to erre in necessaries and that as a Guide 2 ly That the judgment of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church as being at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution and common practice of former Councils as appears by the subscriptions to them established the Representative thereof is to be taken for that of the Church or else the judgement of all former Councils even of the four first may be questioned 3 ly That the vote of the major part where all consent not in the same judgment must conclude the whole both for those Bishops sitting in the Council and those Bishops absent that accept it Which Judge §. 115. n. 2. that hath been of all former ages by whom Christians have been settled in truth against all former Heresies Arianism Nestorianism Pelagianism c. if any because he finds it not to suit with the late Reformation will now reject let him tell us what other Judge he can put in their place For if this ancient and former Judge must be supposed contrary to our Lords Promise deficient in necessaries and incident into Heresie Blasphemy Idolatry and then if a few of these ecclesiastical Governours surmising this against many a few Interiors against many their Superiors only after they have first made their complaints to them and propounded their reasons and been rejected may then apply themselves to procure the assistance and power of the temporal Magistrate one who may be seduced also and assist in a wrong cause and so may first sit down in the Chair and judge of the wilfulness and obstinacy of these others in defence of their supposed errors and crimes and then may proceed to a reforming of the Church or some part thereof against them things which a late opposer of this Council †Mr. Stillings p. 478.479 is necessitated to maintain will not thus the revolution of judging and governing in ecclesiastical affairs proceed in infinitum and necessarily bring in a confusion of Religion's as some Countreys have had late experience For This second Judge and Reformer and this Secular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries And then how is there any remedy of these crimes and errours unless there may be also a third Judge allowed to reform against them and then may not the Superiors and major part again take their turn to reform these Reformers And where will be an end of this Controversie who shall last decide Controversies Every Judge that we can set up being also a party and so to leave his Chair after that there appears another to question his judgment But if we are to stay in some judgment to avoid such confusion where more reasonably can we rest than in the three former Proposals § 116 And from them it will follow 1. That those who are no Bishops must be content not to be Judges or to have definitive votes in Councils and if any such have a controversie with or against Bishops must be content after their best informations preferr'd to the Order to be judged by the same Bishops who 't is probable upon some new evidence may alter their former sentences But yet suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes I see not what the Protestants can advantage themselves thereby as long as if any inferior Clergy all must have so and the greater number give law to the fewer For the inferior Catholick-Clergy in the time of the Council of Trent far out-numbred the Reformed § 117 2. Again from them it follows That if the Bishops are appointed the sole Judges of such matters and causes they do not cease to be so upon any either interest or siding which they may be shewed to have in the cause And indeed if we consider * their former common Tenents and practises in those things which upon some opposition they meet afterward to judge * to what side of a controversie the major part of them hath formerly inclined or also declared for it something of what they judge tending to their Honour another to their Profit another to their Peace in some sence they may almost alwaies be said to judge in their own cause or on their own side So when ever they are divided into two opinions or parties who ever of them judgeth here and none may judge beside them judgeth in his own cause And so it is when any one opposeth the Church in any of her Traditions or Doctrines formerly owned by her For instance when one opposeth the Order of Bishops the just obligation of the Churches Decrees questioneth * whether the Church-Governours succeeding the Apostles hold such or such their authority immediatly from Christ independent on secular Princes * Whether the receiving of Holy Orders be necessary for administring the Sacraments * Whether Tithes be due jure divino In all these we must say that the Church is appointed by God Judge in her own cause Or if in some of these things not the Clergy but the Laity be the right Judge yet so we still make him who judgeth to judge in his own cause and in a matter wherein he is interessed whilst he so much againeth in those things as the other loseth Of this matter thus Mr. Chellingw †p. 60. In controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Controversie whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party § 118 But now suppose judging in their own cause must by no means be allowed to any and so the Church about any difference being divided
at least by the Emperor one not without Designs * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods the charges of continuing there great not a few Bishops and other Divines poor great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council especially in its first beginning the more necessitous without some maintenance of their charges threatening to depart as Soavo himself acknowledgeth p. 124 and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them before they had his leave and saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7. these pensions were so small being but 25 Crowns a month that the Bishops so reliev'd staid not without murmuring that thus they were deprived of a just pretence to go away and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated attendance than thanks for his allowance and often complaining of their want some of them saith he in the consultations gave more molestation than some others both to the Legats and to the Pope But if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service it had been easie for Christian Princes by the like allowances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions to have countermined such policies § 171 To the 5th The admitting Titular Bishops 'T is true that some Titular Bishops were in the Council To 5. but they are justified by their allowed ordination of Priests to be true Bishops and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council and vote therein without asking any ones leave I find not any said to be in the Council who were not made Bishops before it Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope as some others do either of erecting any new Bishopricks or creating Titular Bishops during the sitting of the Council nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope save two and those at the first beginning of the Council nor these meerly Titular laus Magnus and Robert Venants waucap One Archbishop of Vpsali in Sweden the other of Armagh in Ireland both excluded from their Sees by Princes enemies to the Catholick Faith Of whom as you may read what is said in Soave p. 140. to their disparagement so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their commendation The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts so chiefly for their Country one being a Swede the other a Scot that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them Lastly if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope the same may be said of them as hath been †§. 167. of the Italians in general * That the Pope found but little assistance from them where he most needed them nor was any advantagious thing done for Him in the Council by their help * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs and passed several Acts against †Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 4. de Deform Sesss 14. c. 2 them when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council some of them would have spoken there in their own defence especially that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bishop without his licence But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress for the future the creating any such Bishops for the reasons given in Soave p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops or of those who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches or of Prelats imployed in greater affairs § 172 To the last The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations and had in them a vote with the rest but were not admitted to have a definitive vote in the Council for this reason least so whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence these their Substitutes coming abundantly from all parts might overbear the Bishops in the Council these being men of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption as they might of the Bishops themselves and this being a thing which those Prelats who afforded their own personal attendance would be much offended with Yet was it attempted to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent as to some of the German Bishops but that this could not be easily done exclusively to others †See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8. l. 21. c. 1. n. 3. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason alledged by Protestants viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted I cannot judge But those Bishops who sent Proxies themselves afterward accepting the Council did what was equivalent to their own or their Proxies definitive voting in it But to conclude this matter suppose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly and to the prejudice of the Council in some things yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above § 148 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things which were therein actually and unanimously established which is enough to overthrow the Reformation CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3. That all General Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new Divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in some former Councils § 198. 9. That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10. That a Discession from the Church and declaration against its Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. § 173 THus much from § 147.
the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
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
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
in carnalibus but a Clerical suiting to their Order upon pain of the sequestring and if they continue obstinate Privation of their Benefices Again Sess 22. c. 1. Renews the observance of all those former Church-Canons Quae de luxu commessationibus coreis aleis lusibus ac quibuscunque criminibus nec non saecul aribus negotiis fugiendis copiose ac salubriter sancita fuerunt iisdem paenis vel majoribus arbitrio Ordinarii imponendis And that no appeale should frustrate the execution of these laws which belong to the correction of manners § 235 To μ. To μ. Non-Residence In Sess 23. c. 1. And Sess 6. c. 1 2. 1st It is declared by the Council That neither Bishops nor inferior Clergy enjoying any Benefice with Cura animarum may be absent from their charge at any time without a just cause and that by their long and causless absence they incur mortal sin 2ly As to Bishops for the absence of two months or at the most three in the year the Council leaves the Examen of this just cause of such absence to their conscience Quam sperat religiosam timoratam fore cum Deo corda pateant cujus opus non fraudulenter agere suo periculo tenetur yet admonisheth them especially to forbear this absence as to Advent Lent the Feasts of the Nativity and Resurrection Pentecost and Corpus Christi 3ly But then ordered That none whether Bishop or also Cardinal exceed such time of two or three moneths in the year except upon a cause allowed under their hand by the Pope or the Metropolitan or for the Metropolitans absence by the Senior Resident-Bishop of the Province the Provincial Council being impowred to see to that there be no abuses committed in such licences and that the due penalties be executed on the faulty 4ly As for Priests having cure the Bishop may prohibit their absence for any time exceeding two or three dayes unless they have a licence under his hand for it upon some cause approved Nor yet is such licence for just cause to be granted them for above two moneths unless this be very pressing Discedendi autem licentiam ultra bimestre tempus nisi ex gravi causâ non obtineant 5ly Among just Causes of absence as the Congregation of Cardinals hath interpreted the Council such as these are not allowed * want of a House * a Suit in Law about the living * a perpetual sickness or if it not such as that for the Cure thereof either Medicines or a Physitian is wanting in the place of Residence upon which absence may be conceded for three or four moneths if necessiity require so much * An unhealthful aire of the place to one bred elsewhere unless this aire such only for some certain time * absence desired for study for a sufficiency of learning is supposed to be found by the Examiners in such persons when elected * Their being Officials of the Pope or imployed in some service of the Bishop or Cathedral Church unless it be their assistance of him in the Visitation * The living at a distance three or four miles off and visiting his Church every Lords day These I say and some others are held no just causes for which Residence may be dispensed with 6ly Where such Residence is for a time justly dispensed with the Bishop is to take care that in such absence an able Vicar be substituted with a sufficient allowance out of the Profits by the Bishops arbitration 7ly The Penalty of absence that is not thus allowed is Sequestration of Profits for time of absence to be applied by the Ecclesiastical Superior to pious uses Or in such absence continued above a year and further contumacy shewed when admonished thereof ejectment out of such Bishoprick or Living The former to be done by the Pope whom the Metropolitan or Senior Bishop-Resident is obliged to inform thereof by Letter or Messenger within three moneths the latter by the Ordinary 8ly All former Exemptions or priviledges for non-residence abrogated See also the like strictness concerning the Residence of the Canons of Cathedral Churches and Personal performance of their Church-Offices Sess 24. c. 12. To To The want of frequent Preaching §. 236. n. 1. and Catechising As the Council orders Sess 23. c. 14. That the Bishops take care that the Priests on every Sunday and solemn Festival celebrate Mass so concerning Preaching Sess 5. c. 2. and Sess 24. c. 4. They do declare it to be the chief office of a Bishop and injoyn it to be performed by him in the Cathedral and by other inferior Clergy having care of Souls in their Parishes at least on all Lords dayes and solemn Festivals Or if the Bishop be some way letted that he cannot do it himself then that he procure another to do it at his charge as also if the Rector of a Parish be hindered or do neglect such office the Bishop is to substitute another to supply it appointing to him part of the Profits In which Sermons the Council injoyns Vt plebes sibi commissas pro suâ earum capacitate pascant salutaribus verbis docendo quae scire omnibus necessarium est ad salutem annunciandoque eis cum brevitate facilitate sermonis vitia quae eos declinare virtutes quas sectari oporteat ut paenam aeternam evadere calestem gloriam consequi valeant The Bishop also is to take care that in time of Advent and Lent in such places as he thinks it meet Sermons be had every day or three times a week and in these things the Bishop hath power to compel if need be with Ecclesiastical Censures The Bishop is to take care also That §. 236. n. 2. at least on every Lords day and other Festivals the Priest do catechise the Children of his Parish and teach them the Principles of their faith and obedience to God and their Parents Finally Sess 24. c. 7. and Sess 22. c. 8. to see to That before the Sacraments be administred the force and use of them be explained to the people in the vulgar tongue and that the Catechisme to be set forth by the Council be also faithfully transtated into the vulgar and expounded to the people by their Pastors and that also in the celebration of the Mass and other Divine Service Sacra eloquia salutis monita eâdem vernaculâ lingua singulis diebus festis vel solemnibus explanentur That the Holy Scriptures and instructions necessary for Salvation be explained to them on all Holydaies and solemn Festivals in the vulgar tongue without handling any unprofitable matter or question § 237 Thus there remaining no more obligation on the Church than to render so much of divine matters or exercises intelligible to the common people as is necessary for them to know or practice and this abundantly performed the Council notwithstanding earnest petitions to the contrary saw much reason to retain in the Latin Church the same constancy as is found
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
Metropolitans sole Judicature much more did that rarer assembling of a Patriarchal or General Council leave appeals in greater Causes to the single Arbitrement of the Patriarch assisted with his ordinary Council or Consistory Here §. 16. n. 7. then you see in Dr. Field the ground of a thorow Union in Christs Church whereas that of Dr. Ferne and Dr Hamond though it served their turn for the remedy of a Presbyterian defection or the extravagancies of some particular Bishop yet afforded no standing cure as it did concern them it should not for those of a Primate or for any National Division Only one Reservation Dr. Field hath in this place perhaps with an eye to protect the Reformation thereby which Dr. Hamond I conceive thought it not safe to trust to That the Bishops of a Province subject to a Metropolitan or the Metropolitan and his Bishops subject to a Patriarch may declare in what cases he incurreth the sentence of Suspension Excommunication Deposition or Degradation pronounced by the very Law and Canon it self and so may withdraw themselves from his Obedience Thus he Where suppose this â—e would have should be granted him concerning a General Council all of â—t united and declaring such a thing if such a thing may be of the Supreme Prelate of the Church and President of this Council because there is no Superior Person or Court of Judicature whereby this President may be tried And also granted concerning such proceeding against any Subordinate Superior as against the Metropolitan or Primate whenever he freely confesseth that transgression of the Canons which they charge him with for in such a case their obedience is due not to him any longer but to the Canons and to his Superiors that maintain them But most presumptuous and unreasonable it seems for Subjects to make any such Declaration and withdraw Obedience whenever such matter is in contest between them and him and a superior person or Court provided to decide it and yet more unreasonable if a part only of the Subjects suppose of a Primate or Patriarch should declare so when another part withstands them and declares the contrary And see Can. 10. of the 8. General Council punctual against any such Delaration or Discession before a Judgment Nullus Clericus ante Synodicam Sententiam à communione proprti Patriarchae se separet c. Idem de Episcopis statuimus erga proprios Metropolitanos similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarchum suum This of Dr. Field See the places quoted out of B. Bramhal to the same purpose Disc 2. § 24. n. 1. And Disc 1. § 27. The like is acknowledged at large §. 16. n. 8. by the Archbishop of Spalato and amongst these Patriarchs the supereminent Priviledges of the first or Roman Patriarch the evidences of Antiquity producing such a consent in these Learned men are displayed by him in his Repub. Eccles l. 3 c. 2 10. There c. 2 n. 1. having named the other lower subordinations of Church-Governors ad vitanda Schismata he goes on Ac demum Primatibus Metropolitanis Episcopis unus Patriarcha in totâ integrâ aliquâ Provinciâ in certis similiter causis praeside ret Et quia non semper adeo facile est Episcopos comprovinciales or compatriarchales much more in vnum convenire expedien fuit ut Metropolitant Primates Patriarchae multa soli absolverent qua Synedi absolvere debuissent essentque quasi totius Synodi Vicarii Commissarii Further of these Patriarchs he saith ‖ l. 3. c. 10. n. 26. Siâ—ut Metropolitanus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere corrigere debeat emen dare ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus sive in judiciis actis suis ne etiam in hoc Synodus etiam semper cum incommedo conveniat à Patriarâ—his voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo lex Mâ—tropolitanos emendari nisi tam gravis sit causa publica praesertim fidet ut totius regionis Synodus sive Oecumenica debeat convenire Quoting the words of the 8. General Council Can. 17. sayâ—ng the same Senioris novae Romae Praesules c. Metropolitanorum habeant potestatem ad convocandum eos not this in t mes of Heathenism but when Christian Religion flourished under secular Princes already subjected to it urgente necessitate ad Synâ—dalem conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama cos super quibusdam delictis forsan accusaverit Further ascending to the Roman Patriarch he thus goes on to declare his privâ—ledges ‖ l. 4. c. 9. n. 1. Habebat etiam Romrnus Pontisex Patriarchalia privilegia palliuâ—â— sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere eosdâ—m à lege divina velsacris Canonibus deviantes corripere in officio continere controversias inter cosdem exortas componere causasque eorundem interdum i. e. in causis gravioribus audire decidere totius Patriarchatus Concilia convocare n. 14. Ex loâ—o sui primi Patriarehatu sSacrorum Canonum primus habebatur praecipuus observator custos ac vindex quos si alicubi violari cognosceret acâ—r monitor insurgebat n. 15. Ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque provinciae regionis not only of his Patriarchy qui se ab Episcopis propriae provinciae gravari sentinent in judicits Ecclesiasticis tanquam ad sacram anchoram consugerent apud ipsum innocentiam suam probaturi Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant ab objectis criminibus tanquam si essent supremi judices absolvebant and this so anciently as Cyprians time and before the first General Council of Nice n. 16. Ille propter summam ipsius existimationem commune quasi vinculum nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae Communionis in tota Ecclesiâ Catholicae Communionis dux arbiter ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret vel adimeret caeterae quaeque Ecclesiae omnes ordinariè darent pariter vel adimerent So Spalatensis §. 16. n. 9. Mr. Thorndike first in general saith †fast waâ—gnte p. 41. That the Soul of the Visible Unity of the Church consisteth in the resort of inferior Churches to superior of which he discourseth more largely in Right of the Church c. 2 and in the correspondence of Parallel-Churches That the Church so stated is a standing Synod able by consent of the chief Churches containing the consent of their resorts i. e. of the inferior Churches resorting to them to conclude the whole That Rome Alexandria Antiochia were from the beginning of Christianity visible Heads of these great Resorts in Church Government which the Council of Nâ—ce made subject to them by Canon-Law for the future ‖ p. 39. our British Church not excepted †p. 40. And more particularly in justifying the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and the Canons of Sardica concerning Appeals to him Shall I not ask saith he what
12. And indeed such an Eye to and Reverence of the Orientals had the Council of Trent that in several passages it seems to take great care * of Anathematizing any such Doctrines as were in those parts commonly received Of which see something besow § 186. or of giving them any occasion to protest against it This said of the absence of the Greeks * § 67 4 ly Neither doth the absence of the Protestant-Clergy hinder this of Trent from being a Lawful and obliging Patriarchal 4. or also General Council 1. First Not the absence of so many of them as were no Bishops because they had no right to sit 1. or vote there if we may be suffered to model that of Trent according to former General and approved Councils 2. 2. Nor the voluntary and un-necessitated absence of such of them as were Bishops though those of a whole Province or Nation be so absent if invited if secured as the Protestants were See below § 92 c. and yet not coming For as hath been shewed in Councils as the Vote so the Presence of some Bishops from a major part of Christian Provinces and a like Acceptation of its Acts after the Council concluded is sufficient to nominate the Council General and render its Acts obliging or else farewel General Councils and their power For these being ordinarily assembled for the rectifying of some part peccant when will not such Bishops as are heterodox fearing some censure or ill success from the rest out-numbring them purposely absent themselves or such Princes as are any way obnoxious as Hen. 8. was having assumed a new Church-Supremacy not prohibit them Of this thus Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 4. Such a promulgation as is morally sufficient to give notice that such a Council is called is sufficient in case of Contumacy and where they who are called and refuse to come have no just cause for their not coming And D. Field ‖ p. 651. forbears not to pronounce the 5 th Council held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian A. D. 553 General when as yet the Prime Patriarch and his Western Bishops were neither present in it at least any considerable number of them nor in absence had approved it General i. e. in case saith he of their wilful refusal See his words set down before § 43. Some other cause therefore must be urged and not this barely of their absence why the Council is not without them Legally General or obliging 3. Nor doth the involuntary absence of some Bishops if hindered by some secular power or also if not admitted 3. or excluded by the Council hinder it from being Legitimate if the excluded be proved such as profess and own those Opinions that have been condemned and the defenders thereof anathematized by former lawful Councils Now whether the Protestant party might justly have been excluded upon this Title see below § 198. Nay further For those Bishops who are not yet condemned by any former Church-Decree yet if they be accused or suspected of some new dangerous Errour it hath not been unusual in former allowed Councils the major part thereof so agreeing to deny them the liberty of sitting or giving their vote therein till first by the judgment of the Council they be cleared of it For which see the Proceedings against Dioscoruus Bishop of Alexandria and his chief Adherents in the 4 th General Council Act. 1. Yet §. 86. n. 1. notwithstanding such just pretensions of excluding the Protestant Divines from the Council of Trent de facto they were not so But had granted to them Plenissimam securitatem as their Safe-Conduct Sess 18 expresseth it Veniendi proponendi loquendi Articulos quoslibet tam scripto quam verbo liberè offerendi cosque Scripturis Sacris Beatorum Patrum Sententiis rationibus astruendi ad objecta Concilii Generalis respondendi c. See also that Safe Conduct before this Sess 13. And some Protestant Divines appeared in this Council upon such security ‖ See Soave p. 374 375. But behold within three Weeks after their arrival there the Protestant Princes that had sent these to treat here an Vnion of Religion and the Peace of Christendom appear in Arms on a sudden invade the Emperor secure and wholly unprovided and narrowly saving himself from their Hands by flight from Ispruck at midnight And their victorious Armes now not far distant from Trent and a rumor spread that they would suddenly possess themselves of the Alpes to hinder the entrance of forreign Forces struck the Council with such a terror that they were necessitated to suspend it for some time and seek their safety by a dispersion of their Members Nor did the Council by reason of the tumults in Germany and wars in Italy and France †Conc. Trid. Bulla cel brat Coâ—e Sess 17. meet again till ten years after this in the beginning of Pius the fourth after that the Reformed Religion had received an incredible growth in those troublesom and distracted times wherein by the Emperor's being constrain'd to grant a Toleration the Evil One had much more advantage to sow his Tares as also at its first birth Protestantism was cherished with a like Toleration by reason of the Invasions of the Turk and the Aids against Him necessary from the Protestant party No sooner had Pius renewed the Council but there was another Safe-Conduct for Protestants published like that under Julius but not made use of But let us now suppose the Council undisturbed in the manner before related §. 68. n. 2. and these Protestant Divines that came to the Council still continuing there and indulged not only 1 the freedom of Disputing but 2 their Decisire Vote Touching which thing see the Caution premised by the Council ‖ Apud Binnium Conc. Trid. Sess 15. That if for that time the Protestants were permitted to give a Placet it should be no prejudice to the Rights or Honour of the present or future Councils which shews the Council not resolved to deny this to them if much stood upon Yet what least advantage to repeat here again something said already in the first Disc § 36. n. 3. could Protestants have extracted from these For the first their Freedom of Disputing and perswading What could they now have said after a thirty years Crowth of their Doctrine that they had not formerly written and the Council perused And with what face could they have declined the exposition of Scriptures by former Ecclesiastical Tradition Councils and Fathers by which they were cast For the latter their power of Voting What signified their number to that of Catholick Bishops Or if the Votes were changed from Personal to National still less relief to them from hence especially if such Nations be considered in a due proportion according to the multitude of their Clergy Which the Protestants well discerned when waving any such trial i. e. of Ecclesiastical matters by Ecclesiastical Judges they
proposed rather a Decision by Laicks indifferently chosen in an equal number on both sides †See Soave p. 369. By which bargain they were sure not to lose their Cause if only those nominated by them did not vote against them Was it not then a much wiser course to forbear coming to this Council at all and to plead it non General by their absence when as the proceedings thereof could no way have been defeated or changed by their presence This for the Absence of the Protestant Clergy CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman-Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nations § 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. § 69 5ly Neither doth the Absence of many of the Roman Catholick Bishops or of the Bishops of some one Roman-Cathol Prince provided there be a personal presence of some Bishops authorized from a major part of Cathol Princes hinder this Council from being lawfully Patriarchal or General for some of the Reasons given but now § 67. To which may be added these further Considerations to remove any prejudice raised to this Council from the paucity of the number of Bishops in it especially in some Sessions in comparison of some former General Councils § 70 1. The first Consideration is That this Council beyond any former 1. having so many Points of Doctrine and Discipline to examine wherein the Reformed contradicted the immediate-former common tradition and practice and being drawn out for so long a time beginning in 1545 and ending in in 1563 actually fitting for some four years it cannot rationally be expected that such a frequency of Bishops should continually attend it as if it had been convened for deciding some single Controversie and suddenly concluded But in so long a Service much complaint there was especially amongst the poorer sort of their great expences more of the neglect of their several Churches and after a while great longing after their own Country Relations Houses and therefore frequently some stealing away from the Council without the leave and consent of the rest § 71 2. That whereas the Council several times complained especially in the fourth fifth 2. and sixth Sessions and intended to proceed to Censures against the Bishops that were absent in which Council the greatest scarcity was of the Bishops of France and Germany at several times both the French King's and Emperor's Embassadors excused their absence to the Council for some time at least from the necessity there was to retain them at home for the defence of the Catholick Religion against the endeavours and tumults of the Calvinists in France and of the Lutherans in Germany See Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 6. c. 16. Soave p. 509. 552. § 72 1. For the French Bishops 't is true that three of them only attended the beginning of the Council the Archbishop of Renes the Archbishop of Aix and another One of which Renes returned upon the King's Summons before the first Session of the Council but more Bishops from time to time were promised to be sent from thence see Soave p. 143 and after some time were sent when the Council for fear of the Plague was removed from Trent to Bologna ‖ Spendan A.D. 1545. n. 17. Pallavic l. 6. c. 1. n. 10. l. 10. c. 7. n. 2. c. 2. n. 6. And in the time of the Council's fitting afterward at Trent under Pius the Fourth the King of France sent thither the Card. of Lorraine and 14. Bishops who sate in Council and 18. select Divines most of them Sorbon-Doctors maintained there at the King's charge †Pallav. l. 18. c. 17. n. 21. 2 As for the German Bishops because in the beginning of the Council it was thought necessary that they should be detained at home at least many of them to defend the Roman-Catholick Cause in the frequent Diets there and because in Pius his time they were partly terrified with the threats of Hostility upon their Estates from the Protestants then very powerful if they should offer to go to Trent as the Emperor's Embassadors in the Council pleaded for them therefore there was not so great an appearance at any time of them in the Council though nearer than many others and they were dispensed with to appear by Proxies though indeed it was for some Reasons denied to all Proxies non-Bishops to have in the Council any definitive Vote ‖ Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 7. c. 13. l. 20. c. 17. n. 7. l. 23. c. 5. n. 4. But mean while these German Prelates in their several Treaties with the Protestants in these Diets without yielding any thing to them that was contrary to the Conciliar Acts for which see the Relation made by Soave of these Diets do shew a concurrence in all points of their judgments with the others who sate in Council § 73 3. That open discords and wars breaking out several times between several Princes during the sitting of this Council especially between the Pope 3. and the Emperor and King of France as likewise Civil Wars between the Lutherans and Catholicks in the same Prince's Dominions hindred sometimes the Bishops of one Nation sometimes of another from attending the Council The Princes also upon another account sent not or recalled their Bishops as they had some Differences with the Pope or feared that their secular interest might any way suffer in the Council See the Emperor restraining his Prelates from the Council when translated from Trent to Bologna upon pretence of the place too remote for setling the affairs of Germany and for the convenience of the German Bishops who had so great Charges their repairing thither Soave p. 274. But see the true cause Soave p. 261 if we may believe him where he saith The Emperor Charles 5. was much displeased at this Translation of the Council because he saw a weapon i. e. the Council taken out of his hand i. e. from Trent which City was in his power by managing whereof according to opportunity he thought to s◠Religion at peace in Germany and so to put it under his obedience So see the King of France Hen. 2. in Julius his time with whom he had a contest about Parma protesting against the Council in Trent and refusing to send his Bishops thither upon pretence that they could not pass safely neither through the Pope's Territories with whom he had war nor through the Emperor's a Confederate with the Pope Soave p. 319 320. But see the true Cause Soave p. 315. The King hoping that such Protestation against the Council would remove the Pope from his resolutions concerning Parma
necessary here to be said for those inconsidering persons with whom speaking last serves for an Answer since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions clears it I say by that common Rule owned also by Protestants themselves †Stillingfl p. 536. That in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western at the making of the Decrees yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth exâ—post-facto make the Council I add or any Session thereof truly Oecumenical Yet in the last place I need not tell you that the Articles made under Pius alone from Session 17-to its Conclusion the ratification of which is here not questioned are so many and so principal as that these utterly ruine the Reformation though the rest of the Council for the paucity of the Representatives were cassated Amongst these Decrees are The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Coelibacy of Priests Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Celebration of the Divine Service in a more generally-unknown Tongue the Assertion of Purgatory the Sacrifice of the Mass and several others § 77 6. Or 6ly If this Council under Pius also seem not sufficiently numerous 6. because more than half of them were Italian Bishops yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward by the Bishops of those Nations who had sometimes none and other times but few Representatives in it sufficiently repairs this defect also See before § 36 37. Now amongst all those Catholick Churches the Acceptation of the French is only that which can be doubted of And concerning this you may observe 1st That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France 1. as well those absent as those present in the Council See for this the many Petitions made at several times by the whole Clergy assembled to the King that he would receive it like the rest of Catholick Princes set down in Review of Council Trent l. 1. c. 2. There 1576. the Archbishop of Lyons in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois doth in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France speak thus unto the King They most humbly desire you that according to their more particular Requests exhibited in their Remonstrances you would authorize and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent which by the advice of so many Learned men hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor Wherein Sir they hope and expect from you as a most Christian Ring the assistance of your authority to put this Reformation in execution where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation as well as Doctrine Again 1579 in a like Assembly of the Clergy at Melun the Bishop of Bazas in their name speaks thus to the King The Clergy entreateth your Majesty that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline reform themselves in good earnest Amongst all the Rules of Reformation Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost and written by the Holy Council of Trent in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the Body Ecclesiastical but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church upon pain of being reputed Schismatical against the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome and of incurring the Curse of God and eternal damnation Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause spake at Fountainâ—leau in this fort The Council of Trent is received kept and observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates this Kingdom only excepted which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it to the the great scandal of the French Nation and of the title of Most Christian wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured So that under colour of some Articles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire c. A. D. 1585 the same request was renewed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German in Paris Not the Gallican only but the whole Church Catholick doth summon intreat and pray you to receive it the Council of Trent No good Christian can or ought ever to make any question but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See the consent of all Christian Princes who sent their Ambassadours thither who staid there till the very upshot without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published There being such a number of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and learned men from all parts yea not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom sent thither by the late King your Brother who having delivered consulted and spoken their opinion freely did consent and agree to what was there determined And since the writing of the Review A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris Cardinal Perron and Cardinal Richlieu then Bishop of Lusson prosecuted again the same request And though this without success yet of the solemn Acceptation of this Council the next year after at least by the Representatives of the Clergy thus Spondanus ‖ In A. D 1615 n 7 In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis 1614 quanivis nobilitas vota sua junxisset viz. Vt sacrum Concilium Tridentinum Regia authoritate promulgaretur in Râ—gnâ— praestitum a Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Abbatibus ac caeteris qui aderant ex cunctis Regni provinciis Delegatis viris Ecclesiasticis extitit quantum in ipsis suit dum scilicet unanimi 〈◊〉 â—mnium consensu illud recipientes suis se functionibus observaturos promiserunt ac jurarunâ— After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country ‖ A D 1546 n 4 Non solum non in Decretis Fidei ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae ullum unquam fuisse objectum dubium Sed ipsa Dicreta Reformationis tam ab ecclesiasticis susceptafuisse quam etiam paucis quibusdam exceptis chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with ecclesiastical commendams Singillatim Regiis Constitutionibus recepta per Ministros Regios executioni mandata These I have transcribed to shew you the French Clergies conformity to this
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
was to violate it saying that it was a strange thing that he who was head of the Church and the Cardinals who were principal members and the other Prelats in Rome who have voice in the Council should be accounted strangers and might not be informed of what is handled therein and speak their opinion when as those who have no lawful part in it hold it lawful to intermedle and that in an ill sort That it is plain that the Prelats went to Trent with commission from their Princes according to which they proceed and that the Embassadors by letters and perswasions do compel them to follow the interest of their Masters and yet for all this no man saith which should be said that the Council is not free Thus Pius in the Consistory And indeed had not only the Pope but also all the absent Bishops in the world assembled a Council of their Clergy and sent their judgment from time to time to Trent so long as the Council was not obliged to follow it this would have brought no subjection or dishonour but have added more reverence to its Decrees enacted after they had first been sifted by so many several Examinations Nor do I see how the Popes Paul or Pius their Consultations with their Council of Bishops at Rome before every Session of Trent concerning the points to be determined therein and upon it declaring their judgment to the Legats or to the Council provided they use no unlawful practises for the corrupting of any ones judgment should be more thought to prescribe to or to diminish the freedom thereof than the precedent consultations used anciently in Provincial Councils concerning some point afterward to be defined in a General was held prejudicial to it or than Pope Celestines or Leo's precedent Letters to the third and fourth General Council declaring their judgment concerning what was to be discuâ—sed there may be thought an unlawful prescription to them though the Hereticks condemned by these Councils excepted against it And de facto what Secular Prince was there whose Orators in the Council acquainted him not continually with the actions thereof and accordingly received new instructions for their negotiations § 166 To what hath been said I have one thing more to add That as such a frequent reconsulting the Apostolick See was unusual in many former Councils so there was not thereof in them the same necessity because such Councils being assembled for the determining some one or a few points of Controversie the Popes Legats received full Instructions concerning the faith of the Roman See therein before their first coming but in so many controversies of all sorts as here came to be agitated it was impossible for that Bishop either fully to pre-inform his Missioners or to foresee the questions As Canus who was one of this Council long since observed in Com. loci l. 5. c. 5. And if it be said that the Popes presence in the Council might have prevented all such trouble and offence his absence seems rather eligible for this that so he might do all things with more mature advice and less precipitancy on whose judgment the affairs of the Council did chiefly depend to which may be added what himself urgeth to the Emperour †Pallav. l. 2. c. 8. n. 4. that his personal presence there then would have seemed to tend much more to the overawing and oppressing of the Councils liberty § 167 To the 3d. 1 The great number of Italian Bishops and To 3. 2 the not voting by Nations Of the first of these the thing being confessed these things may be said * That such a thing without the Popes particular design would have happened these Bishops being much nearer than those of Spain and France and not having the like impediments of Lutheranisme and National Colloquies as the Germans * that suppose the Pope had sent them all the charitable may clearly see another cause thereof than only their driving there of the Popes interest namely the sometimes great scarcity of Bishops in the Council especially at the first opening of it * That if other Bishops were hindered to be present the frequency of the Italians how numerous soever if of such as had lawful Suffrages cannot be blamed though the absence of others be excused That as the Pope was diligent to send in these so was he very solicitous by writing to their Princes to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations as appears frequently in the History and so also was the Council it self and the Italians therein which Council also had proceeded to lay heavy mulcts upon the Absents had not the Embassadors interceded and in part excused them Of which see before § 71. * That though the Italian Bishops in general are confessed to be inclined more than others to maintain the Popes honour and greatness yet so many of them as were not beneficed in the Popes state and subject to his temporal Dominion which was very inconsiderable in respect of the rest of Italy if we may believe Soave were addicted much more to their own Princes in things wherein their Embassadors craved their assistance than to the Pope as on which Princes they had a greater dependance in respect of their Estates their Parentage c. than on the Pope Therefore we find not only those of the Imperial or Spanish States of Italy but the Venetians and Florentines in several things to have divided from those of the Papacy See Soave p. 504. 559 558. * That nothing could be passed in the Council as to matters of doctrine if a considerable part contradicted though a major part favoured it and that the non-Italians were never but accounted in respect of the Nations represented by them a considerable part so that to hinder something from being voted such a number of Italians was or might be made use of but to vote any thing they alone were esteemed uneffective and the omissions of the Council may be sometimes charged upon them but not the Acts. * That whether the Pope had the Suffrages of the Italian Bishops at his beck or no he had no need of any such assistance for the Protestant-Controversies in condemning of which Soave confesseth the votes of the whole Council to concur as hath been shewed before as to many particulars § 150 and see Soave p. 182 183. saying That as to those points like a City beleagred the factions among them ceased and all joyned against the common enemy § 168 Lastly as to those Controversies wherein the Council was more divided and the Popes single interests were more nearly concerned * That de facto he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops nor the major part of the Council at his command to vote what he pleased This also frequently appears from Soave's own relations In these he makes often mention of the Bishops of Naples and Lombardy the greatest part of Italy their conforming to the Emperor their Soveraigns inclinations
Nation were granted to be To θ. To θ. See what is said § 39. c. 67. An universal Acceptation by all Churches of the Acts of a Council to render them obliging is not necessary for so none would be valid wherein the Doctrines of any Church are censured § 253 To To See what is said § 77. Both the Ecclesiastical and Civil State of France accepted the Trent Decrees as to matter of Doctrine the things wherein Protestants chiefly oppose it The Ecclesiastical State of France accepted and petitioned the King and Civil State to receive this Council also in points of Discipline And if the Civil State received it not in every thing I mean so far as it medled not with their temporal rights I think it appears from the former Justification of the Legality of this Council that they cannot be freed from fault Neither if that State refuse these Canons of Discipline will it just fie the Protestants for refusing the rest of Doctrine unless the French plead the Council totally illegal as they do not neither will it justifie the Protestants at least in refusing these if the French do faultily refuse them To λ. To λ. See what is said §. 254. n. 1. from § 113. to § 127. where is shewed 1st As to the Bishops That the same plea hath been usually made against former Councils by the Hereticks they condemned That the Christian world was divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians before the Council of Nice as it was into Catholicks and Protestants before that of Trent and the Arrians were many waies proceeded against before the assembling of that Council by some of those Bishops who yet afterward sat in Council as their Judges and the Anti-Arrian Bishops only as the major number condemned the other That the Church-Governours whatever their perswasions are formerly known to be in the controversie proposed cannot be removed from the Tribunal for the deciding purely ecclesiastical and spiritual matters and this is only necessary not to see whether they side any way or own a party but only to see on which side is the major part That in causes of Religion in which all men are concerned and the Clergie especially stand obliged earnestly to defend the truth and oppose Novelties and are culpable in remaining neuters and omitting this duty to use Mr. Chilling-worths words it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but that the Judge must be some way or other a party if he may be called a party who hath formerly declared himself of such an opinion But if their being questioned of judging in their own cause relate not here to matters of opinion but of honour or profit then for most matters defined in the Council of Trent its judgment cannot be declined on this later account being given in matters meerly speculative or at least far remote from such Secular concernments 2ly As to the Pope That the same things may be repeated for him as for the Bishops That Popes have often presided by their Legats in former allowed Councils when they were accused and excepted against by those persons for the judging of whose cause the Council was convened As Celestine excepted against by Nestorius presided in the Third and Leo by Dioscorus in the Fourth General Council That it is thought most reasonable that the supreme Civil Judge either by himself or his Substitutes be the Judge of all those causes which concern his own Rights when there is a controversie in these between him and some of his Subjects That if the Pope for defects in his Office or other personal faults be Table to any other Judge it must be to the Council Now by this Council he remaineth either cleared or not condemned as to the Accusations of Protestants This having ever been the chief plea for those §. 254. n. 2. who foresee that they shall be over-numbred and over-voted in a Council to alledge it to consist of a contrary Party and so to decline its judgment for usually no Council happens to be called for suppressing any new Doctrine till a considerable opposition is first made by those Pastors of the Church against such Doctrine who also are the proper Judges of it I think it not amiss in the last place to give you the judgment of Protestants themselves touching the insufficiency of such an excuse when by God's providence it happened afterward to be their own case in I think the most noted and general Synod that hath been held amongst them since the Reformation I mean the Synod at Dort assembled A. D. 1618. Wherein were present Delegates from the King of England Elector Palatine Landgrave of Hess the four Protestant-Cantons of the Swisses the Commonwealth of Geneva c. For some time great Controversie had been in the Low-Countries concerning the high points of Predestination Grace and Freewill the Pastors there divided into Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants the contest proceeding so far in several places as to a seperation of Communion Upon it this National Synod is called and the Remonstrants in this of Dort foreseeing themselves in the same condition as the Protestants did in that of Trent defencâ—d themselves with the same Arts and Excuses †See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 25. Alledged that the Synod excepting the Forrainers did mostly consist a thing which could not be denied of an already declared contrary Party who it was unreasonable that they should sit Judges in their own cause a party too who had before also separated themselves from communicating with the Remonstrants and amongst other things those Remonstrants did particularly insist upon this very plea we are now speaking to of the Protestants against the Council of Trent which was held justly to exempt them from any obligation to its Decrees They required also a Synod as the Protestants did in the time of that of Trent In which a set and equal number on either side might be chosen to consider how to accommodate rather than decide these Controversies After which any Clergy dissenting being only removed from their places might still enjoy the same liberty of conscience as others For that since the Apostles there was no such infallible Guidance of the Holy Spirit but that Modern Synods might erre as several Ancient had done †See Synod Delf Sess 26. In answer to this the Synod defends it self all the forrain assistants thereof concurring in their judgment with such replies as these §. 254. n. 3. Than which only changing the name I cannot imagine a better justification of the Council of Trent 1st Concerning the members of the Synod their being of a contrary perswasion and so a Party and Judges They say see Acta Synod Dordr Sess 26. p. 84. Nunquam praxin hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse ut Pastores quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio sese opponerent as the Tridentine Bishops before that Council did propterea jure suffragiorum aut de illis ipsis erroribus judicandi potestate exciderent
Authority of the Councils and their Creeds will you say he doth not but on the Scriptures Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian and those urged against him and weighed them in the Ballance If yet they have not ought they If they ought what a task here for young Protestant-students what an Eternal Distraction in this a search what heavenly peace in the other obedience to the judgements of former Councils and Vacancy for better imployments Again If they ought what all Protestants the most of them as of all Christians are illiterate Men not having either leisure or ability to search c. Must these adhere therefore to former Councils and their Creeds in these Points Then in others and in this of Real Presence or Transubstantiation and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiastical Authority or Ministry standing in opposition to a superior But this is Schism in them both and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd for his denying it to another to whom it is due Nor would M Claude be well pleased if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers divided from the rest of their Consistory Class or Synod As for the Tryal §. 321. n. 26. he motions to be made by H. Scriptures This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done first as it ought And the issue of it was That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence the other in another For Example The one understood Hoc est Corpus meum literally the other in a Metaphor and so differently understood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause Here the true sence of Scripture became the Question and their Controversie For the Judge and Decâ—der of this between them when time was they took a Council For since Scripture they could no more take the sence of that being their Question to whom should they repair but the Church and of the Church a Council is the Representative Councils several to a great number in several ages †See Guide in Controver Disc 1. §. 57 58. decided this matter declared the sence of the Scriptures but so as it liked not one Party These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sentence of the Fathers and Primitive Church i.e. of their writings Again the sence of these writings as before that of Scriptures is understood diversly by the Contesters And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question and Controversie Nor here will Disputes end it Witness so many Replies made on either side Former Councils as they have given their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures so they have of those of the Fathers but their Authority is rejected in both And a new Council were it now convened besides that M. Claud's Party being the fewer and so easily over-voted would never submit to it we may from M. Claud's Confession †l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 p. 337. That both Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist rationally conjecture that Protestants in such Councils would remain the party condemn'd What then would this person have He would have the Controversy begin again and return to the Scriptures Which is in plain Language That the Question should decide the Controversie and till this can do it That so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party all should have their Liberty For when they are the stronger they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences and though not professing themselves infallible yeâ— upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction upon pain of Suspension from their Function to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth and to teach them to the People as such and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary till they shall recant their Errour Of which see before § 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal as they had done from that of Trent but could not be beard As for that which follows in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal challenging a Submission and Conformity of so many Protestants as have no certainty of their new Opinions rather to the Church than to Innovators to me it sounds thus That every plain and simple Protestant 1st thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture in this Point of the Eucharist and so in others any way necessary to be clear and without dispute and the more simple he is the sooner he may think so because he is not able to compare all other Texes nor to examine the contrary sences given by others or the reasonable grounds thereof 2. Next that every one who thinks his Exposition or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point is by this sufficiently assured that he hath a right Faith or from this sence of his knows what he ought to believe and forms a Judgement herein as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another a strange proposition but I see nothing else from which such person collects his faith to be right if any doth produceit 3ly That every such simple person now easily knows whether the Society wherein he lives be a true Church or otherwise viz. as they agree with or dissent from that right Faith of his already supposed or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word i. e. in his clear Sence thereof 4ly Knowing thus from this his clear exposition or sence of Scripture what he ought to believe he needs not trouble himself what the Ancient Church hath believed which is very true nay he knows without reading them or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them that the Fathers if of the number of the Faithful were of his Opinion by M. Claud's arguing forementioned I desire the Reader to review his words or the 5th 6th Chapters of his 1st Book and see if he can make any better construction of them Now if there be any Sence in this he saith How can he hinder but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea Church-authority being laid aside for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions viz. his clear sence of Scripture quite contrary to the Protestants clear sence And in any Controversie amongst Protestants Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants here both sides have the same Plea one against another namely the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them And why doth not this certainty void their
Proceedings § 5. 4 That Several of its Decisions are without or contrary to Scripture to Primitive Tradition and Tyrannically Imposed § 6. 5. That the Decrees of the Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. THE most General Councils that can be procured joyned also with S. Peter's Chair § 1 being asserted in the former Discourses †Of the Guide in Controversies as the Supreme and Final Judge and Decider of Ecclesiastical Controversies And of these Councils That of Trent being as the last so particularly applied to the Examining and Determination of all those Points of Difference which have lateliest afflicted these Western Churches so that if the Protestant Party could be induced to accept and acquiesce in its Judgment all modern Controversies of moment were ended it seems necessary for perfecting the Design of the former Discourses in the last place so far to vindicate the Supream Legal and Obliging Authority of this Council from the many Objections which Protestants bring against it as that the more moderate among them may clearly see that if they are willing to submit either their Judgment or their Silence to any such Council as the present times of the Church can afford they have no just reason to deny it to this of Trent To manifest which I will first set you down the chief Particulars that are ordinarily urged by the later Reformed Writers against It And then shew you what in the same Particulars may be said for it leaving both to your sober Arbitrement as in a matter which is of no less concernment to you than the setling of your Faith in so many weighty Points of Religion as this Learned and Wise Assembly hath determined About which Points others still remain questioning and disputing Divided as from the Church so among themselves and uncapable of a Remedy I wish you in the Reading of this accompanied with Soave's History on the one hand and that of Pallavicino on the other to whom for avoiding tediousness I shall often refer you To the first as an Author of much Reputation with Protestants and one who it seems would let no Falficy pass prejudicial to their Interest To the second as One who though of an opposite side yet contrary to Soave's practice is careful in matters of Weight to signifie the Writings from which he extracts his Intelligence Nor do I herein exact from a Protestant Reader more credit to him that his Margin or other known History secures Yet if that be true that Cesar Aquilino a Roman Catholick and quoted for this by a late Protestant Writer ‖ Stillingst Rat. Account p. 481. saith of him That he hath done more disservice to the Church of Rome by his Answer than ever Father Paul the unmasked Pietro Soave did with his History I have reason from this also to hope that what I shall have occasion to cite out of him will pass with the more credit and better acceptation to a Protestant Reader since both the first and second of these Histories are still pretended to advance their Cause And yet further since the things wherein Aquilino saith ‖ Aquilino p. 95. this disservice consists are these Quod in illâ Historiâ offendatur Romanorum Pontificum fama Haereticorum dictae enumerantur amplificantur Rixae Contentiones Scandala inter Catholicos quae in Concilio acciderunt sigillatìm referuntur out of the Vatican Archives he perused Quae bona recta he means advantageous to the Catholick Cause à Petro Soave enarrata vel minuuntur vol praetermittuntur vel in contradictionem vocantur in all which Pallavicino seems only censured for not writing more cautiously and partially on the Roman side 2 and for not drawing the Council and the Actions of it much fairer and smoother than the Truth in those secret Papers and Records he consulted did discover them 3 lastly for imprudently publishing what the greatest Patrons of this Councill are said †Soave 7. l. Init. to have hitherto with the greatest Art concealed I shall I say the more confidently for this make use of his Testimony without any further Vindication of his Veracity desiring Protestants to make their advantages of an Author reported so much assisting their Pretensions and partaking so little of the Arts of a Politician and that valued more the fidelity of an Historian than the promoting of the Roman or his own Interest which Himself also sometimes as freely professeth as they say truly observing That History is like a Picture then better and more commendable when it represents not what is fairest but what likest to the Original § 2 This Council then being assembled since Luther's Reformation and purposely disallowing and condemning it very solicitous and diligent have the Reformed likewise been in multiplying Arguments against it Especially they being assisted with the History thereof delivered by Petro Soave Polano i. e. as is supposed by Protestants Father Paul a Venetian Friar Yet indeed against whose sincerity in composing this work there seem not wanting many real Exceptions if you please to consider with me 1 First That he lived in the time of the great dissention between the State of Venice and the Pope and then also was engaged in Writings against the Pope's Proceedings whence he may be suspected in this work also to have been too much biassed by a contrary Interest 2 Again That whenas he was but eleven years old at the concluding of this Council and so could write nothing out of his own knowledge but out of the Relations and Notes of others Printed or Manuscript yet very seldom in things of so great moment doth he inform the Reader whence he extracts his matter and is contradicted in many of his Relations by Pallavicino referring herein to the Records of this Councill extant in several places and to many other Writings sufficiently common of such Persons as were Members of the Council or publickly employed in its Affairs the Names of which he sets down in his l. 18. c. 10. n. 14. and out of which he saith he compiled a good part of his own work yet none of which Writings as he collects from several passages of his History had come to Soave's view 3 Next That for those things wherein this Author lies under no suspicion of Errour as to the matter related yet seems he frequently very culpable as to the Colours he lays upon it For whereas no action can be for its substance so good but that it may be vitiated and change its nature from several Circumstances so often as it is done out of an ill intention or for some impious end of Policy Ambition Covetousness or the like Nor again scarce any Truth can be in its own light so clear and evident but that some Veri similities may be ranged on the other side to obscure and cloud it this Author for the first of these through the course of his History may be observ'd contrary to the Modesty which is particularly
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
consequence were terminated if not sooner ultimately in a General Council when it could be had personal appeals in the Interval of Councils which whether Episcopal Provincial or Patriarchal cannot be upon every cause without great trouble charge convened were as for greater causes and persons as those of the other Patriarchs or eminent Bishops ended by the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of Rome who made use of such Bishops for his Assessors and Council as could with convenience upon such appeals be brought together See the Council of Sardica can 4 5. Concerning the just Authority of which Council I refer the Protestant-Reader to Mr. Thorndikes Defence thereof Epil l. 3. c. 21. p. 181. and just weights p. 40. But see this practice of Appeals to the First See much more ancient not only as to the West §. 13. n. 1. in the Provinces subject to this Patriarch where we meet with the appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops desiring by him to be restored to their Bishopricks of which they pretended they were unjustly deprived ‖ Cyprian Ep 38. in which matter S. Cyprian †Ep. 68. indeed blames the Pope for receiving them rashly into his Communion when he bad not well examined their Cause nor the justice of the former Sentence passed in Spain on them but not at all for his admitting as Patriarch their appeal and find * the Request of the said S. Cyprian ‖ Ep. 67. made to the Pope for his Letter to the Bishops of France to depose Marcianus a French Bishop for siding with the Novatians again * the appeal of Caeci lianus Primate of Carthage who was wronged by a Council held in Affrick to the Pope and his Council related and justified against the Donatists by S. Austin Ep. 162. But as to the East also where we find the appeal of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople wronged by the Arrian Eastern Synods And long before these the appeal of Dionysius Alexandrinus accused to the Pope by some of Pentapolis †Athanas de Sententia Dionys Alexandrin and so making his Defence to Him and cleared by him and his Council All these before the Decree of Sardica as for the times after it I suppose it needless to mention the appeals of S Chrysostom ‖ Ep. ad Innocent Theodoret †Ep. ad Leonem Flavianus and other Eastern Bishops As for the famous Contest that was had about these Appeals §. 13. n. 2. between Sozimus and Bonifacius Popes and the Affrican Bishops after A. D. 400 and after so many eminent former allowed Examples of such Appeals 1st The Constitution of those Affrican Prelates in a Council held about the same time whether it were the Milevitan or rather another at Carthage as some think it much matters not prohibits such Appeals beyond Sea only to the inferior Clergy in these words ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c. non provocent nifi ad Affricana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum But it enjoyns nothing concerning Bishops 2ly In their dispute with Boniface they handled the matter so gently that as Baronius observes †A. D. 412. they seem'd to debate rather de modo than de Re bespeaking him on this manner ‖ Ep. ad Bonâ—ifac Impendio deprecamur ut ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus †l. 4. c. 8. n. 32. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facilè audiantur i. e. à Rom. Pontifice nisi viz. notoria manisesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maximâ eorum parte For he grants there Vbi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Episcopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim verò ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Cacilian's case And Concilium Nicenum voluit observari ne in suâ Provinciâ Communione suspensi à suâ sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui For the common practice of such Appeals in former times by Athanasius and others shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons of Nice to admit into his Communion any such Bishop as was excommunicated by his Province if the Roman Bishop found him wrongfully suspended And therefore 't is true also that the 6th Nicene Canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisit which the Affricans urged but not this in every case unappealable to Superiors as appears by their former Qualification Ne festinato ne praeproperè c. And particularly for this Province of Affrick S. Austin undertakes against the Donatists a Justification of the Appeal made formerly to a Transmarine Judgment the Donatists much opposing it by Cacilianus Bishop of Carthage when injur'd by an Affrican Council of 70 Bishops The Father giving there his reason also for the Equity of such Appeal because such Ecclesia transmarina was à privatis inimicitiis ab utrâque parte dissensionis aliena Where also he justifies Melchiades Bishop of Rome his admission of this Appeal An fortè non debuit saith he Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primus Numidae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurparit Rogatus Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tot â ill â causâ quid justum videretur statuerent And a little after the foresaid Contest in an Appeal made to Rome by one Antonius constituted formerly Bishop of Fussala by S. Austin This Father writing an Epistle to Pope Celestin about it there no way declines his Sentence but only supplicates his favour in it Collabora nobiscum obsecro Jube tibi quae directa sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsâ Apostolica sede judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam c. And the same Father relating to the forecited Affrican Canon ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. argues thus against the Donatists the lawfulness of Cecilian's Transmarine Appeal †Ep. 162. Neque enim saith he de Presbyteris aut Diaconis aut inferioris Ordinis clericis sed de collegis Episcopis agebatur Qui possunt aliorum Collegarum praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum judicio causam suam integram reservare Upon which passage joined with some other Reasons some ‖ See Ant. Capellus de Appel lationibus c. 4. have contended that the Acts and Epistles of the 6th Council of Carthage to the Pope quarrelling about Appeals are forged and counterfeit These Acts arguing just contrary to S. Austin thus If an Appeal not permitted to inferior
Clergy much less to Bishops †Epist. Celest Etsi say they de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi in the Nicene Canon praecaveri quantò magis de Episcopis voluit observari c. And Dr. Field touching this matter hath these words ‖ Of the Church p. 563. The Affricans though within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeal of their Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a General Synod of Affrick wherein the Primate sate as President For otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the Canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus he For otherwise here meaneth he not when such Councils do not sit For surely he would not have a Provincial Council purposely new called upon every personal contention But this overthrows the arguments of the Affrican Bishops who also are said to have denied such Appeals not when Affrican Councils sit only but altogether Again S. Austin clearly justifies Appeals from Affrican Councils also This of the Affrican Controversie about Appeals of as little advantage to non-Appealants as it is of great noise if the matter be on both sides equally weighed Again §. 13. n. 3. Touching another ancient Contest that happened and is also urged by Protestants between the Cyprian Bishops and the Patriarch of Antioch decided in the 3d. General Council Can. 8. you may observe That whatever priviledge or exemption any Church or Province may have had from any Patriarch or his Council as to Elections or Ordinations yet no Church or Person hath been freed from a submittance thereto in point of Appeals or of Decision of Controverfies in matter of Faith Neither here can the Cyprian Bishops by vertue of any such Canon of Ephesus plead their particular exemption from the 7th Canon of Sardica or 9th of Chalcedon which Canon is also seconded by the Imperial Law in Cod. Tit. 4. c. 29. or from the 17th or 26th Canon of the 8th General Council which Canons command such submittance and allow such Appeals in which Appeals also the Inferior Patriarchs were subject to the Superior See before § 12 13 and below the Concession of Dr. Field § 16 n 5 And of the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarch over Cypras as to these matters still remaining after the Canon of Ephesus see S. Jerom ‖ Epist ad Pamachium in his controversie with John Bishop of Jerusalem Ni fallor hoc ibi i. e. in Concilio Niceno ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit totius Orientis Antiochia Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras cui spretâ communione tuâ communicare nos noveras aut si procul expetendum judicium erat Antiochiam potiùs literae dirigendae Totius Orientis and so Cypri Mean while in this necessary Subordination of the lower Clergy or their Synods to the higher § 14 1st Care was taken That Co-ordinate Churches 1. or Provinces or their Synods i. e. such whereof the one could claim no Jurisdiction over the other neither by ancient Custom nor Conciliar Constitution should usurp no authority over one another For which see Can Apostol 36. Conc Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Ephes c. 8. Conc. Constantinop c. 2 3 5. Compared with Conc. Chalced. Act 16. Which Canons and particularly the second and third of the Second General Council at Constantinop do not prove what some would infer That all Provinces are for all power absolute supreme and independent from whom might be no further appeal nor any other Person or Council as Superior take account of their Acts for the contrary known practice in antiquity shews this to be otherwise †See §. 12 13. and thus Provincial Councils would have no subjection to General but only signifie these two things 1st That neither Patriarch nor Primate or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province co-ordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i.e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such superiority See the limitation Conc. Ephes c. 8. Quae non priùs atque ab initio c. And Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause that is still retained in these Canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal As for example Not the Bishops of Alexandria therefore to meddle with the affairs of Antioch Solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae Servatis i. e. without encroaching upon them Nor the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch to meddle with the Ordination of the Bishops in the several Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection 2ly That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the Supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgment of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only co-ordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii For observe that some of those Diocesses that are urged in the former Canon ‖ Conc. Ephes c. 8. to be independent viz. the Diocess of Thrace Pontus and Asia are in the 16th Act of the Council Chalced. where this very Canon was recited mentioned to be subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople subjected i. e. as to confirmation of their Metropolitans and as to Appeals see Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 16. Though still their priviledge stood firm Vt Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae namely unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Diocesium ordinet sua Regionis Episcopos sicut Divinia Canonibus i. e. the Canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum And as these Diocesses were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople so were others to those of Alexandria and Antioch The second necessary provision made by the Church §. 15. n. 1. was That in the Intervals of Synods the respective Presidents thereof should be authorized 2. as standing Church-Officers always extant and accessible to end controversies interpret and execute their Canons since these greater Bodies could not be so frequently as occasions might require without much trouble assembled †See below §. 16. n. 6 8. As also lesser causes were ordered to be finally terminated in some inferior Court without liberty of appeal in all Causes by whatever persons which was the chief matter stood upon by the Affricans against Pope Bonifacius in the case of a Presbyter from one superior Court to a further or also from the standing Ecclesiastical Officers to a future Council that so Contentions might not be unnecessarily prolonged nor the supreme Courts overcharged with business nor Justice deferred See Conc. Milevit c. 22. And Card. Bellarmin De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 24 Quastio de Appellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c.
which are set down in these two Historians as likewise the Writings of several of them now extant may best inform you of their Abilities As for the matters decided in this 4th Session though Soave represents here the people of Germany as much aggravating them yet as if he had forgotten himself in the next page ‖ p 164. he brings in the Pope as much sleighting them and admonishing his Legates That they should not spend time in matters not controverted as they had done in those handled the last Session i. e. the Fourth wherein all agree that they are undoubted Principles The Decision therefore only of points amongst Catholicks universally received as it had not so needed not the confluence of so great a Body 5. But 5ly Let the paucity of the Bishops there or the absence of the Representatives of some whole Nation Catholick § 75 be never so prejudicial to the Acts of some former Sessions of this Council under Paul or Julius yet an amends is made for it in the times of Pius when a much fuller body of Fathers in all of those who subscribed in the end of the Council 255. the Seven Generals of the Religious Orders and the Seven Abbots being included and amongst them a Mission of Bishops from those Catholick Princes who were formerly deficient and these Bishops assisted with a very great number of the most Learned Divines selected out of all Christian Countries and Religious Orders the Catalogue of whom is printed at the end of the Council did review and ratifie all that those fewer had formerly enacted and by their reading first and then subscribing-to the Acts of the whole Council from the beginning thereof 1545 added that strength to those Acts which they may be thought from such a paucity formerly to have wanted Of which Ratification even by the French among the rest thus Soave p. 804. Afterward a Proposition was made for the Reading in Session the last Session of all the Decrees made under Paul and Julius to be approved which Modena opposed saying it would be a derogation to the authority of the Council of those times if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers and would shew that this and that was not all one because none can confirm his own things Others said it was necessary to do it for that cause that authority might not be taken from them by saying they were not of the same Council And the same Frenchmen who before did so earnestly desire that it might be declared that the Council was new and not continuated with that under Paul and Julius did now labour more than others that there might be taken away all cause of any doubting that all the Acts from the year 1545. until the end were not of the same Synod Thus iâ— happeneth as in humane Affairs so in Religion also that one's credulity is changed with his interest Therefore now all aiming at one mark it was determined simply to read them and say no more for so the unity of the Council was most plainly declared and all difficulties removed which the word Confirmation might bring leaving every one to think what he listed whether the reading of them did consequently import a Confirmation or Declaration of their validity or an inference that it was one Synod which made with that which read them and therefore being owned as Acts of the same Body they needed no more confirmation in the 25 th Session thereof than the Acts of the 23d or 24th Session did Here then we see either confirmed or owned those Acts were by all none opposing any of them as erroneous or faulty and then the controversie whether they were thus approved and acknowledged as the acts of one and the same Council or as the Acts of several as the Emperor signified to his Embassadors apud Pallav. l. 24 c 8. n. 7. is not much material And indeed the former indeavours of the French not Prelates but Ministers of State as also of the Emperor's at the first opening of the Council under Pius That this Council then might not be declared a Continuation of the former Council was not at all from any Dislike of the former Decrees But partly that by this the Protestants whose reduction these Princes much intended might not be discouraged from appearing in this Council under Pius ‖ Soave p. 434. Pallav. l. 15. c. 1. n. 6. and the French also partly for maintaining the honour of the Protestation of the French King Henry 2. against the sitting of this Council under Julius though this also out of no quarrel to any thing done in the Council then but the pretence of no security in sending his Bishops to it by reason of the Pope's warring upon Parma which he endeavoured by all means to divert †Soave p. 315 321 819. After this saith Soave p. 813 the Secretary going into the midst did interrogate whether in the name of the Council a Confirmation should be demanded of Pius of all things decreed under Paul Julius and His Holiness And they answered not one by one but all together Placet So saith Soave But Pallav. l. 24. c. 8. n 8. proves by several veral testimonies that the Votes were here given as usually one by one One only the Archbishop of Granata a Spaniard dissenting as holding the Acts of the Council valid without any further confirmation And the great unanimity of the Council when drawing toward an end is elsewhere sufficâ—ently intimated by Soave p. 782. a little before the 24 th Session where he saith Here I must make a great mutation of stile For whereas in the former Narration I have used that which is proper to describe variety of minds and opinions one crossing the designe of another c. hereafter I must make relation of one aim only and uniform operations which seem rather to fly than run to one only end c. § 76 Here then we see this numerous Body of Bishops exceeding that which hath been convened in several former Councils confessedly General 1 Rehearsing 2 Subscribing-to 3 Requesting from the Chief Pastor of the Church Catholick a Confirmation of the Decrees of the Council not only those last under Pius but the former under Paul and Julius from the beginning they not particularly re-voting indeed those former Decrees lest so those should seem the Acts of another Body the reason given for it but acknowledging them rather as their own Acts and themselves the same continued Body with those that made them and in this the French Bishops as forward as any and all this testified by Soave no friend to the Council And after all this is it not strange that any one should attempt to perswade his Reader ‖ See Mr. Stil linfl Râ—t Acc. p. 496. that these Bishops indeed using some Artifice caused the former Decrees to be read but did not ratifie or accept them But something was
Council high esteem of it and reiterated intercessions for it to the King and to the State who in Ecclesiastical matters I think ought to take them for their Guides and for their Judges § 78 2. Next That this Council was opposed by the King or Civil State of France not for any Decrees concerning the matters of faith 2. or doctrine but of Reformation as containing in them something contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church or rather of the King in or over the Gallican Church Whilst I say there was no exception taken at any point of doctrine For that point of the Popes superiority to a Council opposed by the French was not decreed at all in Trent whatever Ferieres in Soave p. 8â—8 saith to the contrary nor do the words there urged by Ferieres imply so much nor those most addâ—cted to the Pope pretend so much Nay Pallav. 24 l. 14. c. 12. 〈◊〉 saith that Pope Pius having nine parts of ten in the Council ready to vote this superiority yet suffered this controvâ—rsie to rest undetermined because of the dissent of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the French Bishops Here then the reformed cannot plead any disobligation to the Council for these things wherein the Council is generally accepted by so great a part of the Church ‖ See below §. 147. because that in some other things it is by some particular State refused § 79 3. Again That those 13. Articles drawn up concerning reformation of secular Princes 3. set down by Soave p. 769. which upon his Embassadors complaint occasioned the French Kings Protestation Soave p. 760. but gave offence likewise to the Emperour and the Kingdom of Spain c. ‖ were upon this resentment of Princes laid aside and all that was enacted by the Council in stead of these concerning Princes is contained in the 20 cap. of Reformation in the last Session Cupiens Sancta Synodus c. Where you may see with what great modesty and respect the Council treateh these Secular Suprems Admonendos esse censuit confidens eos c. Proptereaque admonet Imperatorem c. But so it is that had they prosecuted the former 13. Articles that were drawn up such thing seems not deprived of a plausible excuse for that there was nothing proposed in them but what was formerly contained in the Imperial Laws as Cardinal Morone the Popes Legat in the Council assured the Emperour See Pall. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6. and as is exâ—ressed in the Preface to those Articles See Soave p. 769 and for that they only admonished suprem Princes to cause their inferiour Magistrates against whom was their chief complaint for their infringing the Churches Immunities †Pallav. l. 22. c. 6. n. 1. to observe the former grants of the Secular Powers made to the Church which Grants some conceive after a free donation of them cannot be at pleasure resumed especially when confirmed to the Church many of them by a decurrent practise from the times of the first Christian Emperours What passages in the Council especially in the two last Sessions as infringing the rights of Princes were excepted against by the Kingdom or Parliaments of France you may see for it would be too tedious to recount them here in Soave p. 819. c. and you may see the defences in behalf of the Council returned to them by Palavacin in l. 24. c. 10. and concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in temporal matters l. 12 c. 3. As for that particular urged by Soave and others ‖ Sess 25. c. 19. de Reform of the Councils depriving those Princes of their States who shall allow Duels That clause in it Quod ab Ecclesia obtinent Jurisdictione Dominio civitatis castri aut loci in quo vel apud quem duellum fieri permiserint quod ab ecclesia obtinent privati intelligantur shews this privation limited to those places where the Church hath the Temporal Dominion But mean while where ever is supposed either a publick concurrence and consent of the secular powers to such an Act of the Church or a former grant made by them of such Priviledges and Rights to the Church here such Act of the Church cannot be justly censured and to use Spalatensis ‖ De Repub. Eccles l. 6. c. 10. n. his words concerning the third Capitulation in the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. which is also much agitated Legitimum erit si supremorum Principum concessione tacita vel expressa editum fuerit Lastly since many of those regal rights mentioned in Soave and pretended to be violated by the Council were not peculiar to France but common to iâ— with all other Princes it is most probable that had the Council bin faulty therein other Princes would have resented such wrongs and remonstrated against them as well as France For they did so against those 13. Articles which were afterward laid aside but yet nor they nor their Embassadors vigilant and exceptions enough in other matters who then attended the Council and unanimously assented to these Acts discerned in them any such violation and we may much rather conclude them just because the Emperour King of Spain and many other Princes accepted them than unjust because one King or State refused them And from finding the causes of the French State rejecting the Council so slight perhaps it was that Hen. 4. at his reconcilement promised with an oath to Pope Clement 8. to use all his endeavour that this Council might be in his Kingdom entirely received ‖ Sponda A.D. 1595. n. 9. Pallaviâ— 24. â— 10. n. 15. and Cardinal D' Ossat his great Councellor and manager of his affairs at Rome often writ in behalf of the Council both to Secretary Villeroi and to the King himself That he found nothing in the Council opposit to the Kings Authority Many things beneficial none contrary to the Gallican Church unless some one perhaps may think Simonies and other abuses and faults to be priviledges of the Church Gallican That it displeased the great ones in France because thereby they were not permitted to enjoy Benefices incompatible and with such other abuses as were prohibited by the Council See his Letters to Villeroi Feb. 15. 1597. And Mar. 31. 1599. And May 16. 1600. quoted in Paull l. 24. c. 10. To which I may add what Caterina de Medicis Q. Regent of France had urged before this to the Pope's Nuncio ‖ Pallavic Ib. c. 11. n. 2.4 That the Council could not be admitted because by the Councils decrees the King could not thereafter gratifie such Ministers of State as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses or other Benefices of the Church holden in Commendam 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
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
now you may see the reason of what Soave said above and the great point the Protestants had gained if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil though that Form names with the Scriptures Concilia Doctores praxin Apostolicam primitivae Ecclesiae for the judge of Controversies But why is the Tridentine Council so averse you will say that Scripture only should be the Judge or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion For this reason because when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture as mostly it is it is fit the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein or else what end can be of such Controversie when those against whom the Councils declare shall so often say the Councils declare against the Scriptures i. e. their sense of them But here it is sufficient that though the Safe-conduct as to the way which the Protestants demanded of the trial of their Doctrines was excepted against of which more by and by yet as to the security of their persons it was unquestioned Thus much from § 82. that no deficiency in the Summons place or Safe-conduct hath rendred this Council illegal or non-obliging 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 Bishops or Popes being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Popes being Judge § 122. § 105 8 ly NEither doth the Oath 8. that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope hinder this Council consisting of those Bishops from being a free legal and obliging Council The sum of which Oath is Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae Domino meo Papae N. ejusque Successoribus Canonice intrantibus Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae Regulas Sanctorum Patrum adjutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnem Hominem Regulas Sanctorum Patrum or Regalia Sancti Petri as it is in later Pontificals which Regalia I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in or near them as also non ero in Consilio ut vitam perdat and several other Passages in the Oath seem to be Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere angere promovere curabo Nec ero in Consilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliquae sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris status potestatis eorum machinentur § 106 1. Where note first That it is the ordinary 1 and customary Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Council and that it is for substance the same oath as hath been usually sworn in former ages precedent to many other Councils without being complained of or conceived any way to abridge their Liberties Nor is it now a grievance save to such as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights § 107 2 ly That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours 2. is required by the Reformed themselves and every Bishop in the Church of England at his Consecration takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop and the Metropolitan Church and their Successors And though in a thing so far as it is granted lawful it matters not how new is the practice yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patriarchy hath been also anciently used See the order in Conce Tolâ—t 11. can 10. Omnes Pontifices Rectoresque Ecclesiarum tempore quo ordinandi sunt sub cautione promittant ut fidem Catholicam custodiant atque obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi dependant where why omnes Pontifices praeeminenti sibi may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch as of the Metropolitan I see nothing to hinder And see apud Baron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man and other Bishops of those times at their Ordination Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps vicarioque tuo B. Gregorio Papae successori ejus me omnem fidem puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibere in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere Again Fidem puritatem meam atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae i e. Petri cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi solvendique data est praedicto vicario tuo atque Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist l. 10. ep 31. Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus sub anathematis Obligatione promitto sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus vicario Beato Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem haec Sancta 4or Evangelia c. where though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it ‖ See Stillinsl p. 490. yet the word promitto sancti Petri Apostolorum Principis vicario me in Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum in this as also me fidem atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturumâ— in the precedent Form include a fidelity and subjection to St. Peter's Chair and that the Bishops in those ancient dayes sware no less to continue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome than in the unity of the Catholick Church Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable and therefore in the same Form it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae and those who desert it are said to depart à radice unitatis Now this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case why may it not be so at another time And if this Council of Trent by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope may not be thought Free to proceed against any disorders in this See neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths since that Toletan Council since Gregories or Winfrids times be thought so § 108 3 ly Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience only to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require Donec Pontifex est dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum sacros Canones jubere potest sed non jurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in Concilio vel
into two Parties and Communions neither must judge as both being parties and these perhaps very unequal I ask what course is left to end such difference 1. Shall either Party chuse an equal number of Clergy with full authority to determine it But these having equal votes will counterpoise one another and so decide nothing Or suppose one or two should as it were betray their trust and pass over to the other side for truth and error are not capable of moderating the point and compounding the middle doctrine between both as many other litigious matters are yet I think no party especially the major will ever yield to commit the future profession of their Religion to such a chance 2. Or shall the Clergy on both sides first pleading their cause before them cast the judgment and decision thereof upon the Laity But are not the Laity in matter of Religion which concerns all all parties as well as the Churchmen and ranged with the several divisions of the Churchmen in distinct communions Will the Protestant be judged by the Emperour or the Roman Catholick by the Duke of Saexony because a Lay-man But if an equal number of Laicks because there also are parties shall be chosen on both sides whether Princes or others the same accidents recur as in taking an equal number of Clergy Blessed be God who hath established a firmer course for the perpetual settlement of the peace of his Church § 119 Neither belongs this course of judging in their own cause only to Ecclesiasticks but is found the same in the civil supreme power I say supreme For as for inferiour Judicatures exclusion of parties from being Judges is easie by reason of many both collateral and superior Courts which may be repaired to For the supreme power then when any difference happens between a Prince and his Subjects part of his people adhering to him part divided from him when a part of his Kingdom rebelleth against him opposeth some part of his Royal Prerogatives or the equity and justice of some of his Laws Here 1. Either such offence must not be judged 2. Or the supreme Magistrate hearing the Plea of his Subjects must judge in his own cause either by Himself or by his Substitute which is all one as if by himself For he can give this Substitute no such power to judge this cause unless he have such power himself Again it is to be presumed that such Substitute shall be one of his own perswasions and who will think themselves any whit relieved by having their adversary to nominate the person that shall judge the cause between him and them But if such Substitute by receiving new informations may change his former judgment so may the Prince hearing the cause himself and being better informed so much the sooner he hoped to change his as he hath no other above him whom he is bound to observe 3. or 3ly The matter must be referred to the arbitrement of an equal number of both parties so many loyal Subjects and so many Rebels but what good issue can be hoped of this 4. or lastly to the arbitrement of some neighbouring State But neither may this State being never without some Interest of its own be thought an impartial Judge Here then I conceive that the concession of the Statist will be that the supreme Governour is to judge in his own cause upon the penalty of the divine revenge and publick infamy if he judge amiss and then how is the same thing unjust in the Superior Governours of the Church especially when as such judgment of their is not valid unless it be of a major part of them § 120 It follows then from what is here said that in these Ecclesiastical Judgments it is not to be considered of what interest or side or how affected these persons are that so if opposit to us we may decline their Tribunal who are by Christ appointed to judge but to what side it is to which the prevalent and major part of them is inclined and so this to be conformed to and any parties appealing to a General Council as hoping from it a justification of their cause is nothing else than the alledging that the major part of Christian Bishops are already or will when met and arguing the case be of their perswasion And for the Appellants when they see the other party in such Council far out-numbers theirs to request or caution this General Council may be composed of an equal number of both sides is in effect to appeale from it and to desire that the Council should not be General § 121 This said from § 114. That Bishops the ordinary Judges in matters of Religion though they should be parties in some sence and in the things to be brought before them already declared in their present judgment on one side yet are not therefore streight to quit the Chair and cease to discharge their office Especially where the points controverted are meerly speculative and abstracted from all secular gain and advantage as many of those decided in Trent were 2. Next 2. to the Protestants Articles and Exceptions made more particularly against the Pope and his Court in respect of which they would have had him at least excluded from being a Judge in in this Council of Trent I answer § 122 1. That he cannot be said to have been the sole Judge in these matters but only to have presided in that Court which was so 1. which he hath done often in former allowed Councils when also he was a Person accused by a Party ‖ See §. 114. For every unweighty accusation is not enough to remove the Judge from the Bench or alter the usual course of Justice § 123 2. Whatever Declaration Sentence or Censure of a Council this supreme Bishop and President thereof in some extraordinary Delinquencies if possible these should happen may be liable to as in case of Heresie or some other incorrigible tyranny or heinous Crimes or also in his neglect when so obnoxious to call a Council c. in which cases some Roman Divines that seem no diminishers of the Popes priviledges do freely allow as much as can rationally be required As if you have the curiosity you may see in these places of Bellarmin both in case of his neglect in calling a Council De Concil l. 1. c. 14. § Ad secundum and when the Council is called in case of Heresie or other incorrigible Crime Ib. c. 9. § Quarta causa where also the Cardinal urgeth the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council Debent Generalia Concilia cognoscere controversias circa Rom. Pontificem exortas De Concil l. 2. c. 19 § Primum exemplum De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 30. Tertia Opinio Or whether it be stated rather that He having no Superior Judge such Enormities are for a time to be suffered in this Ecclesiastical Supreme as the like misdemeanours in Socular matters are tolerated in the Civil till God
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
trial in this Council as formerly by Church-Tradition Councils and Fathers interpreting Scriptures controverted But now the Learned amongst the Reformed perhaps like the ancient Sectarists but now mentioned ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur think fit to take another way and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed as the Roman overthrown by those same ancient Councils and Fathers Whereby we are now made believe that these their Fore-Fathers mainly declined that Authority which clearly established their opinions and on the otherside the Roman Catholicks together with the Pope vehemently contended for that Authority that manifestly ruined theirs § 129 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions should be preferred 7. i. e. those opinions which were regulated by the word of God 8. 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg A. D. 1555. continue in force Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Protestants were A toleration of all sects that every one might follow what religion pleaseth them best as you may see in Soave p. 378. and 393. § 130 The sum therefore of the fift seventh and eighth condition is this Of the Fifth that Protestants shall vote in the Council definitively together with the Catholicks but this the Protestants must needs see by the Catholicks over-numbring them would signifie little Therefore the seventh condition cautioneth that if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents than for them yet this plurality may not carry the business but that their opinion if the more sound though it have fewer Suffrages shall be preferred But again this they saw was very unlikely either that the others who voted against their opinion should judge it the more sound or themselves only judging it more sound that the others upon this should prefer it Therefore the 8th condition makes sure work that if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions yet they shall not condemn but allow every one that pleaseth still to retain them and on these conditions they will submit to a Council § 131 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made which see in Soave p. 369. That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope 9. and of the Bishops his adherents and it being unjust that either the Plaintiff or the Defendent should be the judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets there might be Judges indifferently chosen by both sides to take knowledge of the controversies § 132 In satisfaction to these their demands To the first see what is said above § 47. and § 80. To the second what is said § 83. c. To the Canon urged See Bellarmins answer de Concil l. 1. c. 21. The Canon intends criminal matters where witnesses are necessary not matters of faith The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem Arianism arising in Alexandria judged at Nice in Bithynia To the third see what is said before § 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it in Soave p. 80. is sufficient That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council to which it belongs according to the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council recited before cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas And that for the manner and Form it was not convenient that they should prescribe it to all Nations nor think their Devines only inspired by God c. To the fourth what is said § 105. c. And that de facto such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom was seen in several controversies that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes and a contrary party about Episcopal Jurisdiction c. To the fifth what is said § 68. n. 2. 115. c. and 118. where it is also shewed by the suppositions there made that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants it would have nothing promoted their cause unless perhaps they think that the evident arguments which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents would have converted so many of their adversaries as joyned with them would have made a major part in the Council But besides these arguments seen and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council in their books who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned without working any such effect upon them what success their disputations would have had in the Council may be gathered * from that which they had in the German Diets from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant and inflexible in their former perswasions as themselves and * from that effect which they have in Christendome ever since that Council to this day the major part undeniably remaining still Catholick and the other of late much decreasing § 313 To the sixth I have said much elsewhere which you may remember 1. Surely nothing can be more reasonable and just when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of than that the litigants for what is either said in the Scriptures or necessarily deduced from them stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church and he that disclaims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge that these Fathers and Councils are against him and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie When you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture saith King Charles †3d. Paper of blessed memory to his weak Antagonist Mr. Henderson and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer Neither have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented and again †4th Paper When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences Thus against Puritans against Socinians c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things wherein her eyes are shut against Catholicks But set this humane Authority quite aside the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side than on the other because it saith only the same words to or for both and thus as by other
in Pius the Fourth's time there was held a Colloquy at Poissy in France 1561. the King and Queen of France being present thereat and fourteen Protestant Divines selected for it with Safe-conduct and here after much disputing at large five of a side were chosen to see if they could compose differences These assayed saith Soare p. 454 to frame an Article concerning the Eucharist the chief point of controversie in general terms taken out of the Fathers which might give satisfaction to both parties which because they could not do they concluded the Colloquy § 144 In this year also the Princes of the Augustan Confession in Germany which Confessionists also were at variance among themselves assembled at Neumburg where Being ashamed saith Soave p. 439 that their Religion should be esteemed a confusion for the variety of doctrines amongst them they did propose that they might first agree in one and then resolve whether they ought to refuse or accept the Synod that under Pius 4. now ready to be opened And here after some things had been proposed for a covering at least of their differences which could not be closed for though here they had sole Scripture for their Rule and themselves for their Judges yet it seems they could not agree them The Duke of Saxony saith the same Author answered that they could not stop the eyes and ears of the world that they should not see and hear their differences and that if they would make shew of union where they were at variance they should be convinced of vanity and lying and so saith Soave after many contentions they remained without agreement in this matter § 145 These Diets and Colloquies about settling Religion I have been the more willing particularly to relate * partly to remove that conceit of many that if the Protestant-Divines had but had a fair hearing of their cause in the Council of Trent a major part would have consented to them whereas we see many a free and fair hearing of them here was in so many Conferences and yet none of their Antagonists of the Catholick party removed thereby from their former principles * And partly to shew you what is most likely to have been the issue of such a General Council as the Protestants called for i e. where an equal number chosen on both sides suppose Lay-persons should have sitten the Presidents and Judges and to make appear that if once we take away the authority of Councils as constituted and composed in the manner alwaies formerly used there is no hope of settling Divinity controversies by Arbitrators For men will submit to nothing against their private reasons or judgment i. e. against their Conscience as many call it unless it be when such persons have detided such a point whose authority they are obliged in conscience to obey § 146 This is said to the Conditions of a General Council which the Protestants of those times demanded But if those conditions only were required which Archbishop Lawd mentions § 30. though § 27. he seems to exact much more who there saith That any General Council shall satisfie him that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observed in the primitive Church Where he refers in the margent to Bellarmins four Conditions de Concil l. 1. c. 17. namely 1. Vt Evocatio sit generalis ita ut innotescat omnibus majoribus Christianis provinciis 2. Vt ex episcopis non excommunicatis nullus excludatur 3. Vt adsint per se vel per alios quatuor praecipui Patriarchae praeter summum Pontificem quia istis subsunt omnes alii Episcopi but to this Bellarmin adds some limitations 4. Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui adveniant then I say as these conditions are most reasonable so I think they have been already shewed to agree to the Council of Trent excepting the third of the dispensableness of which in several cases see both what Bellarmin there saith and what is said above § 65.66 Neither if men would be content with Bishop Bramhal in prefac to Repl. to Chalc. to submit themselves to so General a Council as can be procured as things now are can there be any debate about this Condition CHAP. IX III. Head Of the Legalness of the proceedings of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts when not in others § 147. 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 148. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon the 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 Controversies 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. § 147 THus much from § 127 of the second Head proposed the Conditions of a General Council which the Protestants required Now let us consider the third concerning the legal proceedings of the Council of Trent Where first you must remember That a Council proved illegal or not free in some of its proceedings cannot therefore justly be rejected in all other its acts whatsoever but only in those that are first proved to be illegal and not free and to be reputed as such or at least not accepted as the contrary by that Ecclesiastical Authority which legally concludes the whole For the same Council may become obligatory in some of its Acts when not in others as those shall consent to some Act dissent from others without whose acceptance none are ratified And so it was in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon Whose Decrees though for other matters confirm'd yet its 27th Canon in the preference of the Bishop of Constantinople before the 2d Patriatch of Alexandria being disallowed by the Roman and the other Western Bishops doubtless hence was of no force till afterward this was also by them consented to Neither if we can shew in some Council that the Prime Patriarch presiding in it or the major part of Church-Governours who were absent have rejected some particular Canons thereof can we here plead our selves free from obedience for all the rest see such arguing in Dr Hammond of Heresie § 9. n. 6. and § 11. n. 3 7. which both he and the major part of the Church have allowed and conform to For thus the Eutychian might plead his freedom from any obligation to those Canons of Chalcedon that were universally agreed on by East
would have served much for his ad-advantage when but a few seem'd discontented therewith § 156 But in the next place let us now suppose that the Council un-oppressed the contrary party there had carried all these points against the Pope there could have followed that I discern no such great advantage to Protestantisme thereby as some boast of You may see the consequences endamaging the Pope set down by Soave p. 609 645. some of which are of no great moment and others not truly consequent Certainly the Bishops who contended for their Jurisdiction jure divino intended no such thing as to equal every one himself with the Pope in the Government of the Church or to overthrow thereby * the former Church-discipline * the pre-eminent authority of Primats and Patriarchs conceded by former Councils and * all the jus Ecclesiasticum This may be seen in their argumentations wherein some pleaded a Jurisdiction belonging to all Bishops jure divino and received immediatly from Christ but this not equal with the Popes others their Jurisdiction received jure divino but the use application and matter thereof received from the Pope Soave p. 597 607. 618. 637. Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 3. The French allowing from Christ the Popes superiority as was shewed but now †§. 155. only confining his authority within the Canons Soave p. 640. and the Spaniards who most stickled for Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino yet willingly conceding to the Pope all the power that was acknowledged by the Council of Florence and desiring that both these might be established together as hath been shewed above insomuch as Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 6. saith It seemed to some that the contention was reduced to meer words whilst the one would have the Jurisdiction of Bishops to be immediatly from the Pope the others from Christ yet so that the use and matter of such Jurisdiction depended on the Pope And therefore I see no weight in those words of B. Bramh. schis guarded 10. Sect. p. 474. who to S. Ws. asking whether if the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces had been present in the Council to counterpoise the Italians he would pretend that they would have voted against their Fellow-Catholicks in behalf of Luther and Calvin answereth thus I see clearly that if the Bishops of other Countreys had been proportioned to those of Italy they had carried the debate about Residence yet is not Residence even amongst Protestants voted jure divino the divine Right of Episcopacy and that had done the business of the Western Church and undone the Court of Rome Done the business of the Western Church what meaneth he So as the Pope would have ceased to have had any Supremacy over them why those also allow and submit to it who still hold Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino as none in the Roman Church are obliged to hold the contrary But suppose the Pope disarmed of Supremacy are thus all the other main differences in points of faith between Protestants and these Western Bishops stated on the Protestant side Or will the Reformed now declare them controversies of small moment as Bishop Bramh. in a vehement assaulting of the Court of Rome seems to relax other quarrels with that Church and yield them to their Adversaries But had any the art first to accord these speculative points of difference which the Protestants have with the Western Churches he need not fear that the Popes supremacy could put any bar between the two Religions Which supremacy those Catholick Bishops or Churches that do most abridge and have their free liberty to maintain what in the Council they would have voted concerning this matter do yet continue in the other points as violent and stâ—ff against the reformed as any § 157 5. Thus much of the Popes and Councils proceedings in those three great points of contention Next concerning the Popes carriage toward the Council for other matters of Reformation 5. wherein he is so much accused to have made unjust obstructions Pallavicino in vindication of Pius the 4th in whose times these Reformations were most agitated and proceeded in hath these words l. 24. c. 12 n. 13. Pius the 4th frequently enjoyned his Legats that a Reformation should be made of his Court and of his Tribunals and especially of the Cardinals which reformation he attempting first at Rome in vain remitted it the more earnestly to the Council as may be seen in C. Borrom letters Pall. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 6 7. without any acquainting him first with it frequently grieved and complained that it was not done commended whatever was determined in the Sessions concerning it though unlooked for contrary to his expectation and most damageful to his treasury and to his Court Which words of his are verified both by the frequent Letters to this purpose written to the Council by Carlo Borrhomeo according to the Popes order †Apud Pallav l. 20. c. 5. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 1 2 6 7. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5 12 13. which you may read at your leasure and by the testimony of Lorraine and others in the Council And indeed how could this be otherwise since Carlo Borromeo that holy man was his chief Adviser and chief Minister to the Council in this and all other affairs who was himself one of the severest Reformers yet not besides the Canons that ever the Church of Christ hath known as the history of his life written by Giussano sheweth § 158 And that actually by this Council a great and severe reformation was decreed the Court of Rome much rectified the Popes Revenue much diminished the Jurisdiction of Bishops whether held immediatly or mediatly from Christ here it matters not much enlarged Residency of Bishops whether it be jure divino or Ecclesiastico strictly enjoyned former dispensations and appeals much restrained I refer you to what the Articles themselves especially in the five last Sessions under Pius make appear and to what is said below in the five Head †concerning them §. 207. c. and * to the testimony of the French Bishops set down above § 77. with whom it was a chief motive to request of the King the accepting this Council because the French Church stood in so much need of the reformations established therein than which say they they could find none more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the body Ecclesiastical and * to the testimony of Soave himself recited above § 124. and below § 204. touching the heavy complaint of the Roman Court concerning this reformation and their endeavours with the Pope to hinder for this cause the confirmation of the Council If its laws are not since every where so well observed I desire that the Council or the then Pope may not be indicted for this fault Neither are we for trying the benefit of that Council so much to
which though advanced by the Clergy all the Embassadours and Orators unanimously opposed †See Soave p. 760 766 769. was stopped by the Legats power though I grant several times diverted or dissuaded by their advice and that proposals also were not unusually made in the Council by others if we may believe Soave proposals both most contrary to the Popes interest and most displeasing to his Legats To name some Such were * those concerning the two great questions about the Institution and residency of Bishops whether jure divino * Articles of Reformation to be joyned in their consultations with those of Doctrine and Religion * The abrogating or moderating of the priviledges and exemptions of Regulars from the Episcopal power * the abrogation or moderating of Commendams Dispensations Union of Benefices Of pensions and reservations of profits out of Ecclesiastical Benefices * Ordination of Titular Bishops Appeales to the Pope * The Councils representing the universal Church All which and many more were agitated in the Council the Legats as Soave represents them relucting yet not offering to infringe the liberty of the Council where they saw the inclinations of a considerable part bent that way So concerning residency and exemptions Soave tells us the truth of the History frequently constraining him to contradict those maximes which are elsewhere laid down by him to infer the slavery of the Council That the Legats were inforced to consent that both should be considered of and that every one speak his opinion of them and that some Fathers should be deputed to frame the Decree that it might be examined Concerning the Articles handling Reformation p. 144 145. he saith The number contending for them was so great that the Legats were confounded And that they yielded to their desire being constrained thereunto by meer necessity Concerning abrogating the exemption of Regulars p. 761 and 167 170. he saith It was a thing moved by the Bishops and that the Pope and Legats desired to maintain the Regulars Priviledges Concerning admission of the Protestant Divines to disputation p. 365. he saith That this opinion being embraced frist by the Germans then by the Spanish Prelats and at last somewhat coldly by the Italian the Legat remained immoveable and shewed plainly that he stood quiet being forced by necessity And concerning the reformation of Princes p. 769. he saith That the Legats gave forth this Article being forced thereunto by the mutiny of the Prelats If you would see more instances in Soave of the Councils bridling and over-ruling the Legats I refer you to Quorlius l. 2. first and second Chapters a diligent Collector of them So p. 656. concerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Emperour and by the French †Soave p. 513 652. which were thought to intrench too much upon the Popes priviledges Soave brings him in giving such instructions to his Legats That they should defer to speak of them as long as was possible That when there was necessity to peruse them they should begin with those that were least prejudicial c. That in case they were forced to propose them imparting their objections to the Prelats their adherents they should put them in discussion and controversie So very frequently in his History you shall find him as if he had forgot himself concerning what he affirms elsewhere of the domineering and tyranny of the Pope and his party revealing the distractions the fears the complaints and upon this the subtile Artifices of the Pope and of his Legats probably such as his own wit could contrive who with his fancy presumes to enter into all their secrets and speaks as if he had the Art of discerning thoughts and intentions as clearly as others do actions and Records and many times as you have seen after all these he represents the Legats yielding and going along with the stream because they could with no Art withstand it But if indeed the proponentibus Legatis was intended or executed in such a manner as Protestants affirm so as that nothing could be moved in the Council but what they pleased though a major part desiring it nor any thing pleased them that it should be moved which was prejudicial to the Popes interest or Grandeur this surely would have remedied and prevented all these fears and jealousies of the Pope and Court of Rome supposing his Legats as Soave alwaies represents them still true and faithful to him But I ask what matter of moment was there how much soever distastful to the Pope or Court of Rome that being presented once in Trent was strangled before it came to be proposed and agitated in the Council The Articles of Reformation that were exhibited by the Imperial and French Embassadors were after some delay taken into consideration in the 24. and 25. Sessions †Soave p. 751 759. And here when some Embassadors proposed that Deputies might be elected for each Nation to take care in the Council of the special interest of it The Cardinal of Lorraine and the other Embassadors both the French and Emperours contradicted it saith Soave alledging that every one i. e. in the Council might speak his opinion concerning the Articles proposed and propose others if there were cause so that there was no need to give this distast to the Pope and the Legats Such a Liberty then de facto there was used in the Council But I say not whether alwaies with that discretion that was needful or whether not with some Contradiction of some persons of a sounder judgment than the rest Or whether the Legats did not well in putting such bounds to this liberty as they well could either by using perswasions to the contrary or by interposing delaies till the first fervour was a little cooled as to many points which they saw unprofitable difficult and apt to divide the Council into parties and not tending to those end for which this Council was chiefly assembled Especially whilst they endeavoured to win the relucting party though this were not very numerous with reason and treating rather than force or overvoting them in Council § 163 4 ly Such a sole priviledge of proposal to be appropriated to the Legats of the Apostolick See further than for order sake seems needless to be contended for For if as Soave often saith the major part of the Council being Italians were at the Popes devotion for deciding all matters what mattered it who or what was proposed 5 ly You may observe That no such prescription as proponentibus legatis was made to the Councils proceedings till Pius his time and yet that all things there run in the same course before as after it Neither do any Protestants esteem the Council more free or equitable unto them under Paul's or Julius's than under Pius's conduct 6. Lastly which must be often said as to the most or all the Protestant Controversies concerning doctrine the Legats proposal could be no disadvantage in condemning which doctrines
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
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
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
esteemed this a sufficient and lawful Communion and no way offending against any command of our Lord enjoying the contrary 2ly It is a thing not denied by Protestants that Christ now no more divisible is totally contained in or exhibited by every particle of either Symbol 3ly These things supposed the Council maintains Ib. c. 12. that the Church did not change the former ordinary custom of receiving in both kinds without great and just cause moving her thereto 4ly But yet the Council grants also That some just Motives there may be for restoring the use of the Cup especially as to some particular places or persons and lastly referreth the judgment of these and Concession of it to the Pope's prudence the impediment that no such Dispensation was conceded by the Council it self upon so much importunity used by several Princes who having their States much imbroiled with new Sects hoped by this way to give them some satisfaction being this That the Fathers in the Council did not unanimously concur in the same judgment but the Spanish Bishops chiefly made great opposition to it as they not having the same motives which others for such an alteration and much fearing least some Division might happen between National Churches from the Communion celebrated in a several manner †See Soave p. 459 Neither were the rest willing to pass such an act with the displeasure of so considerable a party Though if we may believe Soave the Legats of the Pope then Pius Fourth who of himself also was well inclined to grant it ‖ See Soave p. 459. laboured much for the Concession of it †Soave p. 567. Of which Concession these conditions also were proposed by some in the Council †Soave p. 525. That the Cup should never be carried out of the Church and that the bread only should be sufficient for the sick that it should not be kept to take away the danger of its sowring that they should use little pipes to avoid effusion as was formerly done in the Roman Church And when it could not be passed in the Council Pro being strongly opposed as was said by the Spanish Bishops and others where the Reformed Religion had taken no root it was with much diligence by the same Legats procured that it should not be voted contra but referred to the Pope and this reference also first was drawn up with a clause of the Councils approbation of the Concession thereof if he so pleased in this manner ‖ Apud Pallav l. 18 c. 7. n. 13. That since the Council could not at present determine such affair They remitted it to the judgment of his Holiness who premising the diligences that he thought fit should either with the Conditions forementioned or some other according to his prudence allow the use thereof if it should seem good to him with the vote and approbation of the Council But neither would such clause pass See Soave p. 569. But to the Pope at last it was referred unbyassed any way by the Council to do that in it Quod utile Reipublicae Christianae salutare petentibus usum Calicis fore judicaverit †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. fin § 242 And so it was that after the Council ended the Pope upon the Petition of the Emperour and some others ‖ Soave p. 823. granted the use of the Cup to some parts of Germany Though this practice not having such effect as was hoped for reducing Sectarists as who differed from Catholicks in so many other points for which though they seem to have less pretence yet they did retain in them no less obstinacy neither did it continue long amongst the Catholicks who desired in this matter to conform to the rest of the Church The same practice was likewise indulged formerly by the Popes to the Greeks in Polonia to the Maronites and others reconciled to the Church of Rome that they should still receive the Sacrament in both kinds after their former manner viz. the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood and both delivered them out of the Chalice in a Spoon Indulged also by Pope Paul the Third †Soave p. 293 â—â—4 in the Cessation of the Council to those in Germany who should humbly demand it nor did condemn the Churches contrary practice and so that it were done neither in the same time nor place with that Communion which is given by decree of the Church this caution I suppose being inserted to avoid the offence which others communicating only in one kind might take thereto Indulged also formerly to the Bohemians and Moravians by the Council of Basil See Histor Bohem. apud Aeneam Silvium c. 52. His Boemis Moravis qui consuevissent sub binâ specie panis scilicet vini divinae Eucharistiae communicare licebit And should any Pope or Council restore the use of the Cup generally to the whole Church yet can this no way infer any variation of the Churches Faith or Confession of her former Error For in such matters of practice where no divine precept confineth us to any side the doing one thing is far from inferring a confession of the unlawfulness of having done the contrary unless the Pope or Council should restore the Cup upon this reason because our Lord hath expresly commanded it But then as this would shew a fault so it would no less condemn the practice of antiquity than the present §. 243. n. 1. To To The too much frequency of Excommunication See the Provision made by the Council against it Sess 25. De Reform Gener. c. 3. Excommunication to be forborn where any other punishment effective can be inflicted To σ. To σ. Disorders of Monasticks See the reformation of them delivered Sess 25. in 22. Chapters Wherein amongst other things it is ordered * That frequent Visitations be made of such Houses for the strict obâ—ervance of their Rule and for this purpose those Houses formerly subjected immediatly to the Pope are submitted to the Bishop as his Delegat * That none living in any such Houses retain any Propriety nor any superfluous expence be made therein not suiting to the vow of Poverty * That Monasticks never depart from their Convent for the service of any place or person or any pretence of other imployment whatsoever without a Licence obtained in writing from their Superior otherwise to be punished by the Bishop as Desertors of their Profession * That none shall have leave to wear their habit secretly None be permitted to depart from an Order more strâ—ct to one of more liberty * That the Bishop take care That any offending scandalously out of his Convent receive due punishment * That all Superiours and Officers be elected by secret scrutiny * That no Estate or Goods of any Novice save for his food and apparel be received by any Monastery before his Profession that so after his Noviceship ended he may retain a perfect freedom to depart
§ 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church Definitions § 264. § 247 HAving thus dispatched the five Heads which I intended to speak of I desire you now to review the objections which were proposed in the beginning of this Discourse § 3. c. against this Council which for the most part I think now will appear to you to have their main force and sting already solved and taken away To α. To α. The words of Bellarmine who is quoted here by the Archbishop are not Vt ex omnibus Provinciis or which is more from all particular Churches which the Archbishop saith But Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui conveniant See touching this matter what is said before § 35. c. 65 66 67 69. Whether a Council be General or in its obligation equivalent thereto much matters not that Council is equivalent to a General whose Decrees are accepted by the much major part * of the Church-Catholick or * of all particular Churches in it Now the Greek Churches do agree with the Council of Trent in the chief points determined therein against the reformed †See 3. Disc §. 158 c. Their Prelats also were invited in the General Summons and the Council or those who called it no causers of their absence but their great distance their Present secular poverty and oppression The open wars then between the Turk and Christendome Lastly the general accord and peace in their Churches as to the Trent Controversies § 248 To β. β. See before § 70 75 77. The paucity of Prelats in some Sessions occasioned by the long duration of the Council by the wars and jealousies of Princes by the Bishops necessary defence of their several charges at home against the reformed in France and Germany was abundantly recompenced * by the ratification of the Decrees of those Sessions by a very numerous and unanimous Body assembled in the later end of the Council and * by the acceptation of the absent Prelats after the Council § 249 To γ. To γ. See what hath been said § 47. c. 80 81. It was called as General Councils ought and use to be namely by the Prime Patriarch and chief Ecclesiastical Person of Christianity presiding in such Councils as other inferiour Councils are also usually assembled by the Ecclesiastical Prelats presiding therein the Emperour and much major part of Christian Princes consenting to it desiring it and sending their Bishops and Orators to it § 250 To δ. To δ. This title representing the Church Vniversal never used by any General Council save only by Constance and Basil who also decreed a General Council its superiority to the Pope was opposed by the Pope or his Legats not because he held not this Council to be General or Oecumenical for the title of it every where with the Pope's approbation runs Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica Generalis Tridentina Synodus but because he held no General Council whatever neither that of Trent nor that of Nice to represent the Vniversal Church exclusively to him i. e. so as to have authority to conclude and oblige the whole Church by its Acts without these Acts first receiving their confirmation from the See Apostolick That this only was the Controversie see witnessed by Soave p. 138. Now this whether the Acts of a General Council unconfirmed by the Prime Patriarch of the Church be valid the Dr. knows hath alwayes been a question among Roman Catholicks and so hath that Proposition in him Haeres 11. s 9. n. 10. Whether the Vniversal Church Representative understood so as not including the Apostolick See may erre Or Whether the testimony of an Oecumenical Council understood exclusively to the Apostolick See be the testimony of the whole Church Which question as some of the French Church seem to affirm so other Churches deny neither was it decided in the Council of Trent of which see what is said before § 155. but yet de facto the Pope's Confirmation was desired by this Council see the last Act Sess 25. Neither doth this thing concern the Council of Trent more than any other General Council Nor is the deciding of this question material to the Protestants concerning any such Council whose Acts are confirmed by the Pope in which the stating of this question surely is needless whether such acts are also of force without the Pope § 251 To ε. To ε. See what is said § 67 64. Neither doth the absence of Protestant Clergie such as are not Bishops disauthorize the Council for such have no right to sit or vote in it Nor the voluntary absence of Protestant Bishops if invited if secured as they were n = †See §. 68.82 c. 92. Nor lastly the exclusion or non admittance of them if guilty of Tenents censured and condemned by former lawful Councils as many of the former Protestant Doctrines were n = ‖ See §. 198. The several causes alledged by Protestants for absenting themselves have been shewed in this discourse not sufficient or satisfactory from § 82. to § 122. and from § 159. to § 172. To ζ. To ζ. review the answer to See the reason of the absence of the French Bishops in some Sessions no way chargable on the Council or on the non-freedom thereof before § 70 c. § 252 To To See what is said § 167. where is shewed that the nearness and non-impediment of the Italian Bishops by reason of the freedom of that Country from Lutheranisme and not any particular interest of theirs thwarting the proceedings of the Council was the true cause of their being so numerous That the absence of other Bishops was culpable but no way their presence that the much major part of them were Subjects to other Princes the Emperor King of Spain Duke of Florence the State of Venice c. not the Pope and did manifestly in the Council follow and adhere to their Interests and Instructions in several matters That as to the Protestant Controversies the Pope had no need of their assistance against the rest the whole Council in these unanimously according and that as to the contests between the Episcopal and Papal Rights many of them sided against him which is every where shewed also in Soave's History describing the great perplexities and Artifices of the Pope and his Legats in preserving his pretended priviledges and not that they might be confirmed or asserted by the Council but that not diminished or voted down by it Lastly that however such a number of Italian Bishops might hinder something prejudicial to the Pope from being voted in the Council yet were they insufficient alone to vote any thing or to pass any Decree at least in matter of Doctrine against the rest because no such things were valid a considerable part dissenting as the non-Italian or also the Bishops of any one greater
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
Eight hundred years ago and fince that by Lanfrank Guitmund c. at the appearance of Berengarius Which Primitive Tradition and judgement of Antiquity that it was if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils the same concerning these Scriptures with that of the present Church Authority I think any one that is well affected to the peace of the Church and not pre-ingaged in Disputes will receive sufficient satisfaction herein who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by cited parcels the short Discourses on this subject of * St. Ambrose De Myster initiand chap. 9. * The Author of the Books De Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father l. 4 the 4 and 5. Chapters * Cyrill Hierosol Catechis Mystagog 4. and 5. * Chrysostom in Matt. Homil. 83. In. Act. Apost Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 36 37 * Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatens De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hilarius Pictao De Trinitate the former part of the eighth book * Cyril Alexand. In Evangel Johan l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces for the last Protestâ—ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon †§. 307. speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum Molinaeum Not that I affirm here that every one that reads these pieces shall be so perswaded and convinced For as hath been shewed the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising and miscolouring things to the understanding As when perhaps the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father and when one hath first stated the Question to himself ordered his Arguments deduced his Conclusions solved Objections c. and then upon such provocation of an Antagonist is brought to examine their writings here we may presume such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before and to lay down his Arms and that it will go hard if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause Either 1. for the Terms used by the Father he will contend that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times and not in a proper or modern sense Oâ— That their Rhetorick and Eloquence fitted not to state the Question or inform the Judgement but to move Affections and gain the Will doth often make use of such expressions as rigourously taken transcend the Truth Or 2. For the sense given when apparently against him he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities that follow from it or some other Tenents of the Father that will not consist with it and the Translation alsor or the Copy shall many times be blamed Or 3. Touching the Discourse 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father 's other works or some words used in it some Rites or Customs mentioned that are of a later date or age or such work not found in such Editions or not mentioned by later writers or that it is in part corrupted and interpolated and not all of a piece 2 Or at least He will find some Clauses in the same or in some other discourse of the Father whereby he may seem to confess in one place what he denies in another or which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point and so serviceable to no Party I name these defences not so but that some times they may be true but that they are much oftner made use of than there is any just cause and are apt to blind the unwary and preoccupated and such as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth before they are well read in Antiquity So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist §. 321. n. 2. Vigier after the two former Combatants Arnauld and Claude one by taking the Fathers in a plain and literal the other in a Metaphorical sense had each of them challenged Antiquity as clearly on his own side seeks to dispatch the Controversie much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings †3 Reg. 3.27 whose the childe was not Nec mihi nec Tibi sit Saying ‖ Eng. Translat p. 80. That the true belief of the ancient Church about this point of the Eucharist is very hard to be known That there are innumerable perplexities in it and that if the Fathers have believed the Reality as he seeth no reason to doubt but they did they believed it in such a manner which neither Roman Catholicks nor Protestants nor any other Christian Society would approve of And so p. 66 c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstantialists he is content they should be Stercoranists i. e. holding I know not what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord much more gross and incredible than that of Transubstantiation For whether the Greeks fall short of or ago beyond the Latine Church herein he thinks all to his purpose so they be not just the same But then over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies manifesting the unanimous accord herein of the present Oriental with the Western Churches here he will have them to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers but by no means to have derived it from their Forefathers There may have happened saith he ‖ p. 94. a change since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks or by the Voyages of the Portugais and other Nations into the Oriental Churches mean while the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman it may well be considered what would become of the Protestant cause if the Controversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld §. 321. n. 3. For the shewing of which a little more at large because I am speaking here of the Eucharist and what I shall say may serve for a pre-advertisement to some less experienced in this Controversie that may light on his Book and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it prejudicial to the Catholick Faith I beg leave of the Reader to make a step though somewhat out of my way yet not much beside my purpose Remitting those who think this Forreign Author less concerns them to the prosecution of the former Discourse resum'd below § 321. n. 27. 1st This Author busyes himself ‖ l. 2. c. 1. to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance and decay
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