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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and notwithstanding any opposition of the Secular Powers These are some if not the chief of them * Namely The entrance of these Ministers of Christ without Arms into whatever Princes Dominions and their preaching there the Gospel of Christ and administring the Sacraments to his Subjects though against his Prohibition * Determining Controversies arising in matters of Faith and Religion and publishing such their Determinations to all the Churches Subjects within any Princes Realms * Making Ecclesiastical Laws for Government and Discipline as need requires * Receiving Accusations examining Witnesses correcting Offenders against the Laws of Christ or of the Church I do not name here the Churches judging of Civil Causes between Christians though this a thing most usual when the Princes and their Courts were Heathen because this is a Right of the Prince to judge all such Causes when brought before him and on that account the practice thereof did return to the Prince when Christian when it had been disused before only because Christians in any contest chose rather or also were enjoined it being a thing not only lawful but in those times very expedient for them to stand to the Arbitration of their Ecclesiastical Governors than to go to the trial of the Civil Law and Secular Magistrate * Declaring Heresie Suspending criminous sinners from the Sacrament Imposing Penances Reconciling Penitents and Excommunicating and casting out of the Church the incorrigible and obstinate * Ordaining Church-Officers in a due Subordination with a strict dependance of the lower upon the higher Clergy so that an Ecclesiastical Function is unlawfully exercised by the one if he enter upon it without the consent or confirmation of the other and that not only of Presbyters without the Bishops and of Bishops without the Metropolitans or Primates but of Primates themselves also without the Patriarchs as hath been shewed * Holding Religious Assemblies both for the Publick Service of God and for the forementioned Church-Affairs * And for this again the respective Superiors Calling and appointing these Meetings in certain places and times which also must be within the Territories of some secular Prince only all these things done by Lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors without Arms unless it be those of the Prince for their protection and in order to ends purely spiritual In which proceedings therefore they remain questionable and to be restrained by the same Temporal Authority when in any exceeding of such limits found to transgress § 23 All these things were practised by the Church in the Apostles times See for several of them 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 1.10 11 13. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 12 13. 4.19 21. 3 John 9.10 Mat. 18.17 18 20. and their holding a Council at Jerusalem Act. 15 and in the primitive times before Constantine though the secular Powers as yet Heathen opposed prohibited executed the chief Actors of them and therefore much more they may be continued and acted by the same Authority when Princes for the gaining of eternal Crowns have subjected their mortal ones to Christianâ—ty and are become Sons of the Church who surely by bringing in their persons under her obedience do not gain any such new Soveraignty over her as by this to take away those former Rights which Heathen Potentates could not justly deny or withhold from her For note here That whatever Prerogative or Priviledge is challenged by a Christian Prince as naturally belonging to the Civil Power cannot be denied also to an Infidel or Heathen Prince when possessed of the same power For example If a Christian Prince may lawfully restrain the Bishops his Subjects from meeting in Synods from executing the Church-Canons or publishing their definitions in matter of Doctrine I mean such as no way concern the State within his Realm without his leave upon this account because he is the Politick Supreme so may a Heathen as having the very same Title to do it And therefore none such must be hastily challenged by the one which if exercised by the other would both have ruined the Government of the Primitive Church and rendered its ordinary practice guilty of a most high Rebellion If these Christian Princes therefore now assist the Church to call her Councils if they adopt her Canons amongst their Laws and use their secular sword much more effective and dreaded by many for the present than her Spiritual one to force their Subjects and hers to a more ready obedience to her Laws we may not therefore argue her former power is now lost for calling Councils or for executing her Canons unless these first be made also their Laws because a secularly-stronger Power is joined with hers for the more advancing the same effect and hence perhaps to some may seem to eclipse Hers. But though in such a Conjunction the Princes Authority seems to have the stronger influence on Church-affairs yet so often as any such Prince in Profession Christian but addicted to some Faction apart withdraws such assistance from his true Mother and leaves Her again as the Heathen Princes did destitute of his aid or also restrained with his Interdicts so often she is forced to renew the Churche's former behaviour in the Heathen times and goes on acting the same things singly by her self armed only with that sword of Justice which Christ hath put into her hands of shutting the Rebellious out of the Kingdom of Heaven Else if we suppose any one Branch of the former Church-Authority in such a case as this to be lost by the Princes being Christian any Heretical Prince will now have the same power to ruine the Orthodox and Catholick Religion within his Territories as a Heathen Prince would then have had to destroy the Christian § 24 As you may easily discern if you will suppose such a Prince as Constantius one that professeth Arrianisme to claim as being a Christian Prince the exercising of some of those Powers forementioned which were managed by the Church her self before the times of Constantine Namely a Power To change the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Authority established by the Church to translate Patriarchs or erect new ones and to free the Primates such as are Arrian from obedience to Them and their Synods to introduce new Clergy or depose the former as to the Function of their Office in any place of his Dominions when yet these no way obnoxious to secular Justice for transgressing his Civil Laws in which case should the Prince deprive any such Clergy of life or liberty as Salomon did Abiathar yet the Clergy not the Prince is to supply another and all this without their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors consent and allowance * To hinder the Calling of Ecclesiastical Synods without his Consent as a thing rightly appertaining to him and other Christian Princes not them the Church men * Or these called at least to hinder his Clergy from assisting there and to deny their Decrees obligatory at least within the Circuit of his Government * When Synods are
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
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
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
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
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
§ 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
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
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in