forbid the debating of this matter 2. After experience of the contentions about Residence they could not but foresee that this dispute so much connected with the other might occasion greater disorders of which they would have been guilty had they given leave therefore they * ibid. would not consent by any means 3. The Divines Prelates freely took leave though it was not given them never spoke more boldly than they did upon this subject If you will not believe me believe your friend Soave Read what follows believe your own eyes Michael Orencuspe a Divine of the Bishop of Pampelona argued * p. 558. that howsoever it be true and certain that Bishops are superior jure Pontificio yet the Lutherans are not in this regard to be condemn'd for Hereticks because that cannot be an Article of Faith which is grounded only upon the Law of man * ibid. John Fonseca a Divine of the Archbishop of Granata follow'd saying it neither was nor could be forbidden to speak of it For the Article being propos'd to be discuss'd whether it be heretical or no it is necessary to understand whether it be against Faith against which it cannot be if it do not repugn to the Law of God He said that if the Pope be instituted by Christ because he hath said to Peter Feed my Lambs Bishops are likewise instituted by him because he hath said alike to all the Apostles as my Father hath sent me so I send you And if the Pope be Successor of S. Peter the Bishops are Successors of the Apostles which he prov'd by many Authorities out of the Fathers He added that to be confirm'd or created by the Pope did not conclude that they were not instituted by Christ or had not authority from him For the Pope himself is created by the Cardinals and yet hath his authority from Christ So the Bishops receive the Diocess from the Pope authority from Christ Their Superiority over Priests he prov'd to be jure divino by authority of many Fathers who say that Bishops succeed the Apostles Priests the seventy two Disciples Antony Grossetus insisted upon the same point * p. 559. He said it was necessary to declare that Bishops have not commission for their Office from men for so they would be Hirelings to whom the Lambs do not belong because the man who had committed the care unto them being satisfied they had no more to think on .... In the end he excused himself that he had spoken without premeditation ... not remembring that that point was forbidden to be spoke of Here it is that Soave would make us believe that Grossetus fear'd some bad encounter but I am sure if any bad encounter had ever hapned to him upon this account Soave would have taken care to let us know it Have but a little patience to observe how freely boldly the Bishops deliver'd their opinions in the following Congregations and then Pl give you leave to tell me if you can what bad encounter they fear'd The Archbishop of Granata said * p. 565. They must needs declare both these two points that is that Bishops are instituted jure divino and are jure divino superior to Priests And he confirm'd his opinion at large with many reasons arguments authorities ... He cited Pope Eleutherius who in an epistle to the Bishops of France wrote that Christ had committed the Church Universal to them He added that Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Corinthians saith that the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ is Vicar of the Lord ... that there are extant Epistles of Cyprian to Fabianus Cornelius Lucius and Stephanus Popes where he giveth them the title of Brothers and of Austin written in his own name of the Bishops of Africa in which the Popes Innocentius and Bonifacius are likewise call'd Brothers which is most plain not only in the Epistles of those two Saints but of many others the Pope is call'd Colleague ... that it is against the nature of a Colledge to consist of persons of divers kinds ... In this Colledg of Bishops the Pope is Head but for edification only ... that S. Gregory saith in his epistle to Johannes Syracusanus that when a Bishop is in a fault he is subject to the Apostolick See but otherwise all are equal by reason of humility which Christian Humility is never separated from the Truth He inveigh'd against those Theologues who said that S. Peter had ordain'd the other Apostles Bishops ... * p. 566. He jested at those Divines who had said that all the Apostles were instituted by Christ and made equal in authority but that it was personal in them ought not to pass to their Successors except that of S. Peter asking them as if they had been present with what ground authority or reason they were induced to make such a bold affirmation invented within these fifty years only expressly contrary to the Scripture in which Christ said to all the Apostles I will be with you untill the end of the world which words because they cannot be expounded of their particular persons only must be necessarily understood of the succession of all * p. 567. The Archbishop of Braga prov'd at large the Institution of Bishops de jure divino He said that the Pope cannot take from Bishops the Authority given them in their consecration which doth contain in it the power not only of Order but of Jurisdiction ... that to Titular Bishops a City is allotted which would not be necessary if the Episcopal Order could subsist without Jurisdiction He was follow'd by the Bishops of Segovia of Segna others who spoke as boldy as himself not fearing any bad encounter and Soave says * p. 569. almost the half were of that opinion Afterwards * p. 577. to quench the boyling heat of the controversy about the Institution of Bishops that it might not increase by means of so many who were prepar'd to contradict Laynez they would not hold any Congregation for many days And yet they were so far from fearing any bad encounter that almost every day * p 578. three or four of them joyn'd together went to some of the Legates to renew the instance And one day the Bishop of Guadice with four others told them among other things that * ibid. as a Prince dos institute in a City a Judge of the first instante a Judge of Appeal who though he be superior yet cannot take authority from the other nor usurp the causes belonging to him so Christ in the Church hath instituted all Bishops the Pope superior in whom the Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was yet so that others had theirs depending on Christ alone After all this the Bishop of Segovia when the Prelates met again in Congregation argued * p. 582. that it was decided in the Congregations under Julius III. that Bishops are instituted
maintain'd the superiority of a General Council were zealous for this Title and the others constantly oppos'd it But both parties always agreed that the Council of Trent was as truly General as the first four Councils were or any have been since V. It was never receiv'd by the Protestants Nor by the French Catholicks A. 1. The Council of Nice was never receiv'd by the Arians 2. It was universally receiv'd by both Ecclesiastical Civil State of France in point of Doctrine 3. The Decrees of Reformation were approv'd by all the Catholick Clergy of that Kingdom In the Assembly at Blois in the year 1576. The Archbishop of Lions in the name of all the Ecclesiastical State of France begg'd the assistance of the King's Authority to put this Reformation in execution In the Assembly of Melun 1579. the Bishop of Bazas in their name made the same request to the King chiefly because they are tied bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church upon pain of being reputed Schismatical of incurring the curse of Eternal Damnation At Fontainebleau in the year 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges tells the King The stain reproach of Schism rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire c. In the General Assembly of the States at Paris in the year 1614. Cardinal Perron Cardinal Richelieu then Bishop of Luson prosecuted in vain the same request Thus you see the Catholick Clergy of France unanimously receiving approving the Council of Trent in matter of Discipline The Civil State as it has no share in the Votes of the Council so their non-approbation cannot diminish the Authority of it You may guess at the reasons of excepting against it by what the Queen Regent Catherine de Medicis was pleas'd to tell the Pope's Nuncio that the Council could not be admitted because by the Council's Decrees the King could not gratifie such Ministers of State as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses of Church-Benefices VI. Leo X. before the Convocation of the Council had declar'd that Luther his Adherents were Hereticks Being therefore already condemn'd why should they come to Council A. 1. Their Errors had been condemn'd in former General Councils and since it really was so Why might not the Pope say so 2. Because the Pope had condemn'd them therefore they * See Soave p. 11. appeal'd to a General Council and since they had appeal'd to it Why should they not go to it VII It was not a legal Council A. That is to say it was not such a one as they had a mind to Luther being question'd first made friends to be tried in Germany As soon as he was there condemn'd by Cajetan he appeal'd to the Pope Immediately after foreseeing his condemnation there he intercepted this appeal with * ibid. p. 8. another from the Pope to a General Council having ground to imagine He would never call one who was suppos'd to fear that it would severely reform him his Court. As soon as he saw that in good earnest a Bull was publisht in the year 1537. to call a Council at Vicenza he began presently to vilifie Councils put out a book De Conciliis to prove that they always did more harm than good not sparing so much as the first Councils of Nice or of the Apostles Then he appeal'd from Council to Scripture where He that makes himself supreme Judge of the Sense may easily maintain what absurdity he pleases Soave tells us he was * p. 17. used to say that he was so well assured of his Doctrine that it being Divine he would not submit it so much as to the judgment of Angels yea that with it he was to judge all both men Angels After this his Followers thought it more plausible not to shuffle so visibly but to admit a Council clog it with such conditions as would quite disarm it make it useless You may read them in Soave as follows * p. 600. 1. That it should be celebrated in Germany 2. That it should not be intimated by the Pope 3. That He should not preside but be part of the Council subject to the determinations of it 4. That the Bishops other Prelates should be freed from their Oath given to the Pope 5. That the Holy Scripture might be Judge in Council all Humane Authority excluded 6. That the Divines of the States of the Augustan Confession sent to the Council might not only have a consulting but a deciding voice 7. That the Decisions in Council should not be made as in Secular matters by plurality of voices but the more sound opinions preferr'd that is those which were regulated by the word of God You will not deny but that in England we have had some Kings whose title to the Crown has been unquestionable that some free legal Parliaments have been assembled during their reign Give me leave to put the case that two or three Counties had revolted protesting against all that would be done in such a Parliament refusing to send any Deputies to it but upon these conditions 1. that it be assembled in their Territory 2. that it be not call'd by the King 3. that his Majesty may be subject to it 4. that all the members of it be freed from their Oath of Allegeance 5. that all Humane Authority of former Parliaments may be excluded 6. that they may depute as many as they please with a decisive voice 7. that for fear of being over-voted the Decisions be not made as usually by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions that is their own may be preferr'd What would you think of these Articles Would you conclude the Parliament was illegal if it did not submit to their demands I do not pretend here to make an exact parallel betwixt the Monarchy of the Church that of England yet however the parity is not so unequal but that it may help to open your eyes VIII The Parties concern'd were Judges in their own case A. No more than in the I. of Nice The world was then divided into Catholicks Arians as now into Catholicks Protestants And as the Catholicks had then a right to judge the one so now they had the very same right to judge the other If any part separate from the whole it does not therefore acquire a right of saying that the Whole from which they divide themselves is now a Party therefore must not judge them Pope Leo and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria counteraccus'd one another of Heresy and yet the Pope legally presided in the IV. General Council which condemn'd Dioscorus Neither was it ever thought a sufficient excuse for Dioscorus to say the Pope was a Party Judge in his own case Mr. Chilling worth confesses that in controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to
avoid but the Judge must be a Party For this must be the first controversy whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a Party Such is the Pope's Case in the Definition of his Supremacy The same necessity is found in supreme Civil power Inferiour Courts are liable to Appeals But if some of the King's subjects rebell against him oppose his prerogatives or laws 't is evidently necessary that the King must judge his own case or the Offence must not be judg'd at all What must the King do Substitute an equal number of Royalists Rebells This can never be an effectual provision for the Common Peace of Government Or must he remit the arbitration to a neighbouring State 1. This state is always interess'd therefore partial 2. This does not leave within the compass of any Kingdom upon earth sufficient power to procure the common good 3. Were it allow'd in Civil Power it cannot be applied to our present case unless Controversies in Religion could be decided out of the Church by men of no Religion at all In the National Synod of Dort in the year 1618. the Low-country Remonstrants seeing themselves like to be over-voted by the Protestants made the same excuses saying that the major part of the Synod was declar'd of a contrary party that they were already excommunicated by them and therefore they ought not to be Judges To this the Synod replied that if this exception were admitted it would subvert the whole frame of Ecclesiastical Government that Pastors would be discourag'd from their duty of opposing the first beginnings of Heresy if therefore they must forfeit their right of giving suffrages or being Judges afterwards that the Arians other Hereticks might ever have pleaded the same exception against the Orthodox Fathers that Divines neither are nor ought to be indifferent in matters of Religion so that if only Neuters may be judges there will be none left in the Church and we must go abroad no body knows where to look for ' em This was the substance of their Answer which I here set down in the Latin to satisfie your curiosity Nunquam praxim hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse ut Pastores quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio se opponerent propterea jure suffragiorum aut de illis ipsis erroribus judicandipotestate exciderent Ita enim omnem everti judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem efficique ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant .... Eos qui in doctrinâ aut moribus scandalorum autores sunt semper Censores suoge Consistoria Classes Synodos ceu partem adversam rejicere .... ad eum modum Arianis aliisque olim hereticis adversus Orthodoxos Pastores semper licuisset excipere The English Divines deliver'd their opinion in these terms 1. Huic sententiae refragatur perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum Nam in Synodis Oecumenicis Nicaeno c. ii qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt ab illis qui eandem sibi traditam admiserunt approbarunt examinati judicati damnati sunt 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit Theologi enim in negotio religionis neque esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae neque esse debent Si igitur soli neutrales possent esse judices extra Ecclesiam in quâ lites enatae sunt quaerendi essent 3. Ipsa aequitas suadere videtur Nam quae ratio reddi potest ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi Pastores qui ex officio receptam Ecclesia Doctrinam propugnantes secus docentibus adversati sunt Si hoc obtinuerit nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisteret ne ipso facto jus omne postmodum de illis controversiis judicandi amitteret Pray give me leave now to ask Why might not the Parties be Judges in the Council of Trent as well as in the Synod of Dort If in one case the Remonstrants were oblig'd to submit to the Protestants Why were not the Protestants oblig'd to submit to the Catholicks in the other The Synod was forc'd to pretend some disparity and for want of a better alledg'd this that the Protestants and Remonstrants were under the same Magistracy And what if if they were We are not now talking of Civil Assemblies but of Ecclesiastical Dos the division of Civil Power destroy the Unity of the Catholick Church which we believe in our Creed Or if there be any reason why when any Schisme arises the Authority of the Whole is devolved to the major part does not the same Reason conclude as evidently in favour of a General as of a National Council IX To make it better appear which was the major part the Protestants ought to have had a decisive voice in Council A. 1. Binius says that the Council premitted this caution that if the Protestants were allow'd for once to give a Placet it should be no prejudice to the right honour of the present future Councils which looks as if the Council were not fully resolv'd to deny this to them if much insisted upon 2. They who openly maintain such doctrines as have been formerly condemn'd in General Councils are cutt of from the Catholick Church they are not Members of it therefore can have no right to a decisive voice 3. If it had been permitted they were still certain to be over-voted by 270. Bishops to whom if you add the Catholick Divines by the same rule as the Protestants there remain'd no ground for any hopes This the Protestants saw well enough therefore were willing to wave all Ecclesiastical Judges Soave tells you how they shuffled in this point One time they proposed a Decision by Laicks indifferently chosen in an equal number on both sides Another time they appeal'd to * p. 73. a godly free Council which is not the Tribunal of Pope Priests only but of all the Orders of the Church not excluding the Seculars Here indeed the Clergy were admitted to this godly free Council but it was only by way of spectators to see what the Laity would please to do there for * ibid. the Pope making himself a party to the cause it was just that the manner and form of the proceeding should be determin'd by the Princes This was the * ib. Answer of 15. Princes 30 Cities assembled in Smalcalda 1535. Again about two years after when the * p. 76. Emperour sent his Vice Chancellor to exhort them to receive the Council they answerd that they had always demanded a free Christian Council that every man may freely speak Turks Infidels being excluded Here you see that every man who call'd himself a Christian no matter how otherwise qualified was to have a free Vote in Council only Turks Infidels were to be excluded Judge you what a free godly Council this was like to be Mean time all this was only a copy of their countenance They clearly foresaw that the much greater part of those to whom