remaineth subject unto it that it was never so great nor so soundly rooted Thus he To which may be added the like passage in Mr. Stillingfleet †Rat. Account p. 480. I suppose from this Historians Detractions too confidently followed who tells his Readers That the Pope was still in a bodily Fear till the Council was ended to his mind But then what rejoycing that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it § 204 But I suppose it will be sufficient in answer to both to give you the Confessions of the same Soave in the latter end of his History to make appear how untruly these things are said in the beginning For after the Council now ended and a Confirmation desired from the Pope of these its acts the authority of Bishops was found to be so much enlarged by the Council and the former exercise of the Popes Authority though all done with a Salva authoritate Apostolica sedis so much pared the priviledges of the Cardinals and gains of the Court of Rome by the restraints of Appeals of Dispensations of Pluralities of Non-Residence Exemptions Pensions Elections c. so much diminished that the Pope though of himself much inclined to a General Confirmation with his Cardinals and Court is related by Soave to have long time deliberated whether the Articles of Faith only should be accepted and confirmed and those of Reformation rejected or moderated To give you these things rather in his own words which may serve as an Antidote to the former L. 8. p. 814. He saith That the Court understanding that the Pope was resolved for the Confirmation changed their joy into grief and all the Officers complained of the loss they should receive in their Offices if that reformation were executed That Supplications also and Memorials were given to the Pope by those who having bought their Offices and foreseeing this loss demanded Restitution That the Pope having diligently considered hereof deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confirmation and to think upon some remedy for the complaints of the Court. That these Cardinals were almost all of opinion that it was fit they should be moderated before the Confirmation And that it was certain that they who did procure the Council had no aim but to pull down the Popes authority and while the Council did last every one did speak as if It had power to give laws unto him where you see what freedom the Council took At last that satisfied with two speeches the one of Cardinal Amulius the other of Hugo Buon Compagno perswading him and the Court that by dispensing with its acts or giving what interpretations to them he pleased he might provide for his Ministers and Servants and accommodate things to that which might be for the benefit of the Church without violating the Decrees of the Council because in them the Apostolick authority is still reserved the Pope proceeded to confirm them entirely § 205 To verifie some part of which Relation of Soave concerning the reluâ—tance of the Popes Court not without great cause if an eye may be had only to gain I may add what Pallavicino writing but the other day and well acquainted with the present state thereof relates concerning it †That as to Favours and Dispensations Introduct c. 10. formerly granted from the Apostolick See this Council hath so far moderated the use of them that if the Pope will observe these laws the fountain of his beneficence is dried up for one half And that although he hath still a power to dispense with these laws yet the Popes for their Conscience and Honour sake require for the most part such pressing Motives and so rarely happening of doing this that their Concessions in such matters as are prohibited by the Council do not amount to the 20th part of those formerly accustomed And that the same thing also happens * in the Causes primae instantiae as they phrase it that are brought to the Court of Rome And * In those priviledges or exemptions by which many particular persons withdrew themselves from the Jurisdiction of Bishops which was no less than rendring many the immediate Subjects of the Tribunals of the Pope and finally * in all those affairs concerning which the Council grants power to the Bishops that they shall proceed in them as Delegats of the Apostolick See which as to the advancing of the Bishops power amounts to the same as if they dispatched them in their own right without any such formality Thus he And again l. 23. c. 12. n. 5. To Soave †objecting That the leaving the cognition l. 8. p. 792. and termination of several causes to the Bishops Tribunals without any more Appeales to Rome ordered in the 20th Chapter of Reformation Sess 24. was quite destroyed by the exception there added Ab his excipiantur causae quas ex urgenti ration abilique causâ judicaverit summus Romanus Pontifex per speciale Rescriptum Signaturae sanctitatis suae manu propria subscribendum committere aut avocare he answers thus That though the Pope may still call to himself what causes he thinks fit so he passeth this first under his own hand and seal yet that the former faculty of his Officers to call such causes to him though in his name yet without his knowledge or subscription was now ceased by this new Order And That if it be numbred as that is easily counted which is seldom done How many Commissions of this kind are signed by the Pope in a year for the whole Circuite of Christianity if these rise to three or four yearly it is acknowledged very much 〈◊〉 Thus he of the former Income to the Court of Rome much diminished and of the Acts of this Council after the decurrence of an hundred years as to this matter still retaining their primitive vigour publishing these things in that place where in matters so obvious and evident his credit must suffer very much by any falsification But on the other side the Episcopal authority in this Council was so much increased by the Popes and the Councils committing many both persons and affairs before exempt and reserved to their inspection and Government as which Bishops being at a nearer distance could better discern and attend them that the King of Spain said of his That they went to the Council as so many Parish Priests but returned from it so many Popes § 206 Next the Decrees themselves concerning Reformation which in a few hours you may read deliberately over and where especially I would recommend to you the view of those made under Pius and amongst these those chiefly of the 24th Session I say the Decrees themselves do shew the great service which this Council hath done to the Church at that time much relaxed and languishing in its Discipline partly by reason of its non-execution of former necessary Church-Canons
partly by other abuses not provided against by any former laws and now growing intolerable In all which matters a much better face of Ecclesiastical affairs appears at present through the Influence which this Council hath had upon the succeeding times And much have those ungrateful Detractors to answer to God by whom the Good of this great Body of the most sacred of Magistrates hath been not only so little acknowledged but so evil spoken of § 207 It would be too tedious to recite to you all the particular Acts of this Council wherein it hath repaired the former decayes but perhaps not unnecessary in such an ungrateful age to relate and clear some of the chiefest The manners and customs of the Church that chiefly in those times were imagined to give cause of just complaint seem to be 1 st Concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. α. The Avocation of so many Causes and admission of so many Appeales without ascent as formerly through inferior Courts especially those of Diocesan and Provincial Synods β. And the reservation of so many Licences and Dispensations to the Apostolick See and Court of Rome These not to be prosecuted or procured without great charge Nor the Judge at so great a distance capable of so true and exact informations either touching the person or cause 2. γ. The Popes Collation of Bishopricks and other spiritual Benefices in forraine States where the Merits of such persons as are most fit and capable of them are little known to him 3. δ. The imposing of Pensions on such spiritual Benefices ε. or giving them in Commenda ζ. Or uniting many of them into one without any necessity So to furnish Favourites with a superfluous wealth and hidden Pluralities 4. η. The Exemptions of so many persons and Societies from Episcopal Jurisdictions which Bishops by their vicinity of Residence are the fittest rectifiers of all disorders 5. θ Several abuses committed by the Persons publishing Indulgences and collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses § 208 I name not here amongst these Grievances the Popes Annats in lieu of the Tenths of Tithes or other constant supports received from the inferior Clergy out of the several States of the Westerne Church because it neither seemed just to the Council to deprive him of them nor to the Secular Princes in their many Articles of Reformation proposed to request it See those of the Emperor Soave p. 513. of the King of France p. 652. as they well seeing that it was necessary for this General Father of the Church both to have wherewith to maintain so many Officers in his service whether at home or abroad as the Church affairs passing through his hands required and wherewith also to reward their pains And if the ancient Bishops of Rome managed these great affairs with a much smaller Revenue yet it must be granted 1. Both that much less was then necessary by reason as well of the much narrower extent of Christendome as also of the union of most of it in those times under one Secular Power the Emperour whereas now the preservation of the unity of Catholick Faith and necessary correspondence between the Members of this Church so much more diffused and residing in so many States of a contrary temper gives much more trouble and charge to the supream Head thereof And 2ly Must be granted also That by the want then of the present subsistence whilst the Pope was the Emperors temporal Subject both many inconveniences and injuries were suffered and many Benefactions hindered This of the Complaints concerning the Pope and his Court. 2. Concerning the Clergy 1. unfit persons elected into Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Benefices § 209 without a sufficient pre-examination of their learning and manners 2. λ. Pluralities of Benefices where these singly afford a maintenance sufficient whilst other worthy persons are destitute and the mis-expence of such ample Church-Revenue on their Secular Relations 3. μ. Non-Residence where having the care or charge of souls 4. ν In their Residence Neglect of frequent Preaching and Catechising And Their not celebrating at least part of the Divine Service nor teaching the ignorant the Mysteries of Religion in the vulgar tongue 5. ξ. Their being restrained from marriage and in Celibacy their frequent incontinency and violation of Chastity 6. Ï€ Their withholding the Communion of the Cup both from the Laity and themselves when not officiating 7. Ï. Their too common use of Excommunication applying many times the severest of the Churches Censures to the smallest Delinquencies 8. σ. To which may be added the many disorders then observed in Regulars and Monasticks 9. Ï„. The correction necessary of several things in the Missals and Breviaries and bringing them to a greater uniformity § 210 Concerning these and several other grievances see the Articles of Reformation proposed by the Emperors Agents before the 21. and 24. Sessions in Soave p. 513 and 751 and by the French before the 23. Session in Soave 632. These therefore the Council took into due consideration and rectified what they judged amiss * so far as that Iron-age would permit of which the Council thus complains Sess 25. De Reform Regul c. 21. Adeo dura difficilùque est praesentium temporum conditio ut nec statim omnibus nec commune ubique quod optaret remedium posset adhiberi and * so far as the National parties in the Council inured to several customes and injoying different priviledges without the making of a schisme could agree upon rectified I say so far as their Ordinations strengthened with severe penalties could do it But the constant execution of these depends on others whose diligence or supineness herein must needs produce in the Church contrary effects and also the necessity of leaving their Canons upon just occasions all which no law can fit dispensable must also leave open a passage to such Governours as are corrupt or negligent of doing this without a reasonable cause § 211 1st Then for those matters that concern the Pope and Court of Rome See the many Decrees in this Council wherein the Bishops are substituted as perpetual and standing Delegates of the Apostolick See for the Execution of them and the former Reservations remitted though this to the great diminution of the Revenue of the Pope and his Officers as hath been said †Such Decrees are § 205 Sess 5. c. 1 2. De Reform Sess 6. c. 4. Sess 7. c. 6. Sess 13. c. 5. Sess 21. c. 5 8. Sess 22. c. 5.8 Sess 24. c. 11. And very many others In which matter though the Bishops are impowred as Delegates of the See Apostolick because the point whether Bishops hold their Jurisdictions as to the exterior and forensick exercise thereof in and over such particular things and persons immediatly from Christ or from the Pope was indeed much agitated in the Council but on no side determined Yet so it is that a possession they have now of several branches of such Jurisdiction since
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
consequence were terminated if not sooner ultimately in a General Council when it could be had personal appeals in the Interval of Councils which whether Episcopal Provincial or Patriarchal cannot be upon every cause without great trouble charge convened were as for greater causes and persons as those of the other Patriarchs or eminent Bishops ended by the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of Rome who made use of such Bishops for his Assessors and Council as could with convenience upon such appeals be brought together See the Council of Sardica can 4 5. Concerning the just Authority of which Council I refer the Protestant-Reader to Mr. Thorndikes Defence thereof Epil l. 3. c. 21. p. 181. and just weights p. 40. But see this practice of Appeals to the First See much more ancient not only as to the West §. 13. n. 1. in the Provinces subject to this Patriarch where we meet with the appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops desiring by him to be restored to their Bishopricks of which they pretended they were unjustly deprived ‖ Cyprian Ep 38. in which matter S. Cyprian †Ep. 68. indeed blames the Pope for receiving them rashly into his Communion when he bad not well examined their Cause nor the justice of the former Sentence passed in Spain on them but not at all for his admitting as Patriarch their appeal and find * the Request of the said S. Cyprian ‖ Ep. 67. made to the Pope for his Letter to the Bishops of France to depose Marcianus a French Bishop for siding with the Novatians again * the appeal of Caeci lianus Primate of Carthage who was wronged by a Council held in Affrick to the Pope and his Council related and justified against the Donatists by S. Austin Ep. 162. But as to the East also where we find the appeal of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople wronged by the Arrian Eastern Synods And long before these the appeal of Dionysius Alexandrinus accused to the Pope by some of Pentapolis †Athanas de Sententia Dionys Alexandrin and so making his Defence to Him and cleared by him and his Council All these before the Decree of Sardica as for the times after it I suppose it needless to mention the appeals of S Chrysostom ‖ Ep. ad Innocent Theodoret †Ep. ad Leonem Flavianus and other Eastern Bishops As for the famous Contest that was had about these Appeals §. 13. n. 2. between Sozimus and Bonifacius Popes and the Affrican Bishops after A. D. 400 and after so many eminent former allowed Examples of such Appeals 1st The Constitution of those Affrican Prelates in a Council held about the same time whether it were the Milevitan or rather another at Carthage as some think it much matters not prohibits such Appeals beyond Sea only to the inferior Clergy in these words ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint c. non provocent nifi ad Affricana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum But it enjoyns nothing concerning Bishops 2ly In their dispute with Boniface they handled the matter so gently that as Baronius observes †A. D. 412. they seem'd to debate rather de modo than de Re bespeaking him on this manner ‖ Ep. ad Bonâ—ifac Impendio deprecamur ut ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus †l. 4. c. 8. n. 32. Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facilè audiantur i. e. à Rom. Pontifice nisi viz. notoria manisesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus aut maximâ eorum parte For he grants there Vbi gravis notoria est suspicio erga proprios primarios Judices Episcopos reos potuisse ad aliena or extera judicia praesertim verò ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Cacilian's case And Concilium Nicenum voluit observari ne in suâ Provinciâ Communione suspensi à suâ sanctitate vel festinatò vel praeproperè vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui For the common practice of such Appeals in former times by Athanasius and others shews that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons of Nice to admit into his Communion any such Bishop as was excommunicated by his Province if the Roman Bishop found him wrongfully suspended And therefore 't is true also that the 6th Nicene Canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisit which the Affricans urged but not this in every case unappealable to Superiors as appears by their former Qualification Ne festinato ne praeproperè c. And particularly for this Province of Affrick S. Austin undertakes against the Donatists a Justification of the Appeal made formerly to a Transmarine Judgment the Donatists much opposing it by Cacilianus Bishop of Carthage when injur'd by an Affrican Council of 70 Bishops The Father giving there his reason also for the Equity of such Appeal because such Ecclesia transmarina was à privatis inimicitiis ab utrâque parte dissensionis aliena Where also he justifies Melchiades Bishop of Rome his admission of this Appeal An fortè non debuit saith he Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primus Numidae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurparit Rogatus Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tot â ill â causâ quid justum videretur statuerent And a little after the foresaid Contest in an Appeal made to Rome by one Antonius constituted formerly Bishop of Fussala by S. Austin This Father writing an Epistle to Pope Celestin about it there no way declines his Sentence but only supplicates his favour in it Collabora nobiscum obsecro Jube tibi quae directa sunt omnia recitari Existat exemplo ipsâ Apostolica sede judicante vel aliorum judicia firmante quosdam c. And the same Father relating to the forecited Affrican Canon ‖ Conc. Melevit c. 22. argues thus against the Donatists the lawfulness of Cecilian's Transmarine Appeal †Ep. 162. Neque enim saith he de Presbyteris aut Diaconis aut inferioris Ordinis clericis sed de collegis Episcopis agebatur Qui possunt aliorum Collegarum praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum judicio causam suam integram reservare Upon which passage joined with some other Reasons some ‖ See Ant. Capellus de Appel lationibus c. 4. have contended that the Acts and Epistles of the 6th Council of Carthage to the Pope quarrelling about Appeals are forged and counterfeit These Acts arguing just contrary to S. Austin thus If an Appeal not permitted to inferior
might be to suppress And judge you by these things how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 104. were in opposition to Austin the Monk who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church and objected against them Quòd in multis Romanae consuetudini immo Vniversalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent quòd suas Traditiones universis quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent All which was true and the Proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle restoring sight to a blind man See Sir Hen. Spelman A. D. 601. Pardon this Digression made to abate a little the Confidence of those who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor and the different observation of Easter Of which matter Mr. Thorndike in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior the visible Heads of which Resort he saith were Rome Alexandria and Antiochia speaks thus more moderately †They that would except Britain out of this Rule Just weights p. 40. of subjection upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head should consider that S. Gregory setting him over the Saxon Church which he had founded according to Rule transgressed the Rule in setting him over the Welsh Church Setting this case aside the rest of that little remembrance that remains concerning the British Church testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome as appears from the Churches of Gaul Spain and Affrick of which there is no cause to doubt that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome § 61 To proceed and from the Council of Arles and Sardica and Ariminum spoken of before ‖ §. 55. to come to later times we find the English Bishops either concurring and presenting themselves as members with the rest in those Occidental Councils of a later Date the several Lateran Councils that of Constance Basil and Florence or in absence acquiessing in and conforming to the Votes and Acts thereof which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils or at least over the Western part thereof which the present Reformation denies him For which see the Council of Constance much urged by Protestants as no Flatterer of the Pope and wherein the Council voting by Nations the English were one of the 4. Sess 8. 15. condemning against Wickleff and Hus such Propositions as these Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi Apostolorum Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares Petrus non fuit neque est Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae Papae Praefectio Institutio à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit Papa non est manifestus verus Successor Apostolorum Principis Petri si vivit moribus contrariis Petro Non est scintilla apparentiae quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam quod Caput semper cum ipsâ militanti Ecclesiâ conservetur conservatur Now the contrary Propositions to these authorized by a Council supposed not General but Patriarchal only are obligatory at least to the members thereof and consequently to their Posterity until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power de novo asking their consent Not many years after the Council of Chalcedon in the Patriarchy of Alexandria there succeeded to Proterius a Catholick Bishop Timotheus an Eutychian since which time also the Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia remain still Eutychian or at least Dioscorists And in the Patriarchy of Antioch to Martyrius a Catholick Bishop succeeded Petrus Fullo an Eutychian And in the Empire to Leo an Orrhodox Emperor succeeded Zeno an Eutychian And all these declared their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon Yet this did no way unfix with posterity the stability of its Authority or Decrees Neither can the modern Eutychians justifie their non-submission to that Council hence because they can produce some persons and those Patriarchs too that have in succeeding times but after a former more general Acceptation opposed it § 62 3 ly After the English and before them the British Bishops thus shewed § 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council upon what pretence 3. or new priviledge fince the Reformation these Bishops should plead any exemption from submitting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy an acceptation sufficient ‖ See before §. 40. I see not For 1 st The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Council irregular for it is granted by Protestants 1. that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council though not of a General of right belongeth to Him neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons or secular Prince hinder their journey †See before §. 16. n. 5 2. 2ly Neither can the absence of the Eastern Bishops here be stood upon because their presence not necessary in such a Council 3ly Nor can the secular power under which such Protestant Bishops live especially whenas no Heathen 3. but himself also a Subject of the Church opposing or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof I mean if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical and spiritual and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights of which enough hath been said formerly § 63 Bishop Bramhal's Plea That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects till by him incorporated into his Laws as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws unless first made the King's hath been spoken to before ‖ §. 55. Dr. Hammond's grand Plea on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Reformation See his Treatise of Schism c. 6 7 p. 115 132 137 138 142. viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriarchies to remove that of Rome to Canterbury helps not at least in this matter nor perhaps did he ever mean it should extend so far as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council For 1st He grants That the Prince can do no such thing so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church See Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 164. A Power saith he Princes have to erect Metropoles and hence he collects new Patriarchs but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular because he is in some doubt as appears in his Answer to
you of That if the Acts of Pius the Fourth if the proceedings of that Council in his time be justifiable though those of and under Paul and Julius should be proved some way faulty the number of Prelates insufficient their decisions factiously carried c. yet this Tridentine Council will stand universally in force as to all the decrees thereof because this Council under Pius reviewed and ratified and made their act all the Decrees made before with what supposed defect or culpableness of their proceedings you please for that may be right that is not done rightly under Paul and Julius So that who so justifieth this Council save only for Pius his times doth somewhat more than what is necessary 2ly For the place I desire these things may be considered § 83 1 st That no place can be chosen any where so absolutely free but that he under whose temporal Dominion it is 1. may infer some violence to the Council or to some party therein with whom he is offended and so whereas the Church and the Pope as well as Temporal Princes have their rights and priviledges which may be violated the place of the Council in any Secular State may seem not free enough for the Pope and the Church and again since the Secular Princes have often differences and several interests as it happened frequently in the time of the Council of Trent the place of the Council in ones Dominions will not seem free enough to another Unless it may be thought a sufficient remedy for such unavoidable inconvenience that when such violence appears the Council may cease acting or be suspended or dâ—ssolved or injured States withdrraw from it their Bishops § 84 2 ly That the place of former Councils appointed at Rome or in some other City in Italy as it was in the Roman Lateran Florentine Pisan Councils was not accounted therefore to render them not free because of the nearer influence from Pope though in all those Councils there was something to be decided wherein the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio but was inclined more to one side than another and wherein one side might pretend him a Party as in the controversies of the Waldenses of Beâ—engarius of the Grecians c. § 85 3 ly That the Imperour took sufficient care that thâ—s Council should not be coâ—vâ—â—ed in any place of Italy 3. which was under the Temporal Dominâ—on of the Pope or where himself had not the câ—â—ef command He consented indeed that the Council should be kept in Mantua but see what he declared first to the Protestants concerning this place in Soave l. 1. p 80. That the Duke thereof was vassâ—l to the Empire so that the Pope had no power there and that if they desired any further caution himself was ready to give it them To which they answered how rationally I leave it to you That no safe-conduct could there free them from danger for the Pope having adherents throughout all Italy who bitterly hated them there was great danger of treachery and sâ—cret plots †Sâ—â— Soavâ— p. 77. And as little reason as these had Henry the Eight to protest against the Council at Mantua for fear of the Pope § 86 4 ly That the Pope had indeed no reason to allow the Council to be kept in any City of Germany 4 that was near the Protestants not to avoid their pleas but * for fear of their Arms of which fear whether he had any just cause we shall see more by and by as likewise * for the too great distance from Rome whereby he could not so easily from time to tâ—me give directions to his Legats in those many controversies which were likely to be agitated in that Council and in all which it was impossible for him to give them a precedent information with a sufficient foresight § 87 5 ly That this Council was celebrated in a place to which the Emperour and the major part of Christian Princes namely all the Catholick 5. gave their consent and sent some sooner some later their Bishops and Embassadours too which was enough to legitimate it though perhaps they would rather have chosen another and not all the same See Soave p. 101 and p. 702. Where the King of France desiring a translâ—tion of the Council form Trent to Constance Wormers c. for the more convenience of the Dutch English and part of the French Prelats Soave reports the King of Spain returning this answer That the Council was assembled in Trent 〈◊〉 all the solemnities with consent of all Kings Princes and at 〈…〉 â—â—nce of Francis the French King that the Emperour had superiority in that City as in the others that were named and might give full security to all in case the former safe conduct were not sufficient § Again celebrated in a place confining on Germany and nearer to the Protestants there than it was to the Catholicks of France or Spain and of which the Emperour was the châ—ef Lord. § Therefore Soave p. 309. represents the Emperour dâ—scoursing thâ—s to the Protestants concerning this City That they should leave all to his care who knew how to handle the business that they should suffer other Nations to mâ—et and that himself would go in person if not thither yet to some near place and would take ordâ—r nâ—t by words but dâ—eds that all should pass with goâ—d termâ— And below that he as Advocate to the holy Chuâ—ch and Dâ—fender of the Councils will do what â—elongeth to his charge as he hath promis d. And p. 669 reâ—â—tâ—s How the Cardinal of Lorraine sent a Gentleman to the Empercur to desire him that he would not remove further from the Council in regard of the fruit which thâ—y hoped forby means â—f his vicinity which will kâ—ep every one in his duty and hinder the attempts of thosâ— who would translate it into another place c. And p. 30â— relates the Popes fears That he could not take all suspicion from the King of France if the Council should be celebrated in Frent a place subject to the Emperour and near unto his Army Again a place it was * not accessible by the Popes Forces unless marching first through anothers Dominions and trespassing on the Emperour who was in Italy it self a Prince much more powerful than he and a place which either the Emperours or Protestant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march And therefore was not the Pope free from fears concerning it though he had more of Germany as may be seen in Soave l. 5. p. 436. where he saith That the Pope was troubled because the Protestants of Germany unto whom a great part of France was united would demand exorbitant things which he could not grant them and doubted they might be able to disturb the Council with Arms that He confessed that the dangers were great and the remedies small and was perplexed and troubled in mind Thus Soave § 90 Nor
esteemed this a sufficient and lawful Communion and no way offending against any command of our Lord enjoying the contrary 2ly It is a thing not denied by Protestants that Christ now no more divisible is totally contained in or exhibited by every particle of either Symbol 3ly These things supposed the Council maintains Ib. c. 12. that the Church did not change the former ordinary custom of receiving in both kinds without great and just cause moving her thereto 4ly But yet the Council grants also That some just Motives there may be for restoring the use of the Cup especially as to some particular places or persons and lastly referreth the judgment of these and Concession of it to the Pope's prudence the impediment that no such Dispensation was conceded by the Council it self upon so much importunity used by several Princes who having their States much imbroiled with new Sects hoped by this way to give them some satisfaction being this That the Fathers in the Council did not unanimously concur in the same judgment but the Spanish Bishops chiefly made great opposition to it as they not having the same motives which others for such an alteration and much fearing least some Division might happen between National Churches from the Communion celebrated in a several manner †See Soave p. 459 Neither were the rest willing to pass such an act with the displeasure of so considerable a party Though if we may believe Soave the Legats of the Pope then Pius Fourth who of himself also was well inclined to grant it ‖ See Soave p. 459. laboured much for the Concession of it †Soave p. 567. Of which Concession these conditions also were proposed by some in the Council †Soave p. 525. That the Cup should never be carried out of the Church and that the bread only should be sufficient for the sick that it should not be kept to take away the danger of its sowring that they should use little pipes to avoid effusion as was formerly done in the Roman Church And when it could not be passed in the Council Pro being strongly opposed as was said by the Spanish Bishops and others where the Reformed Religion had taken no root it was with much diligence by the same Legats procured that it should not be voted contra but referred to the Pope and this reference also first was drawn up with a clause of the Councils approbation of the Concession thereof if he so pleased in this manner ‖ Apud Pallav l. 18 c. 7. n. 13. That since the Council could not at present determine such affair They remitted it to the judgment of his Holiness who premising the diligences that he thought fit should either with the Conditions forementioned or some other according to his prudence allow the use thereof if it should seem good to him with the vote and approbation of the Council But neither would such clause pass See Soave p. 569. But to the Pope at last it was referred unbyassed any way by the Council to do that in it Quod utile Reipublicae Christianae salutare petentibus usum Calicis fore judicaverit †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. fin § 242 And so it was that after the Council ended the Pope upon the Petition of the Emperour and some others ‖ Soave p. 823. granted the use of the Cup to some parts of Germany Though this practice not having such effect as was hoped for reducing Sectarists as who differed from Catholicks in so many other points for which though they seem to have less pretence yet they did retain in them no less obstinacy neither did it continue long amongst the Catholicks who desired in this matter to conform to the rest of the Church The same practice was likewise indulged formerly by the Popes to the Greeks in Polonia to the Maronites and others reconciled to the Church of Rome that they should still receive the Sacrament in both kinds after their former manner viz. the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood and both delivered them out of the Chalice in a Spoon Indulged also by Pope Paul the Third †Soave p. 293 â—â—4 in the Cessation of the Council to those in Germany who should humbly demand it nor did condemn the Churches contrary practice and so that it were done neither in the same time nor place with that Communion which is given by decree of the Church this caution I suppose being inserted to avoid the offence which others communicating only in one kind might take thereto Indulged also formerly to the Bohemians and Moravians by the Council of Basil See Histor Bohem. apud Aeneam Silvium c. 52. His Boemis Moravis qui consuevissent sub binâ specie panis scilicet vini divinae Eucharistiae communicare licebit And should any Pope or Council restore the use of the Cup generally to the whole Church yet can this no way infer any variation of the Churches Faith or Confession of her former Error For in such matters of practice where no divine precept confineth us to any side the doing one thing is far from inferring a confession of the unlawfulness of having done the contrary unless the Pope or Council should restore the Cup upon this reason because our Lord hath expresly commanded it But then as this would shew a fault so it would no less condemn the practice of antiquity than the present §. 243. n. 1. To To The too much frequency of Excommunication See the Provision made by the Council against it Sess 25. De Reform Gener. c. 3. Excommunication to be forborn where any other punishment effective can be inflicted To σ. To σ. Disorders of Monasticks See the reformation of them delivered Sess 25. in 22. Chapters Wherein amongst other things it is ordered * That frequent Visitations be made of such Houses for the strict obâ—ervance of their Rule and for this purpose those Houses formerly subjected immediatly to the Pope are submitted to the Bishop as his Delegat * That none living in any such Houses retain any Propriety nor any superfluous expence be made therein not suiting to the vow of Poverty * That Monasticks never depart from their Convent for the service of any place or person or any pretence of other imployment whatsoever without a Licence obtained in writing from their Superior otherwise to be punished by the Bishop as Desertors of their Profession * That none shall have leave to wear their habit secretly None be permitted to depart from an Order more strâ—ct to one of more liberty * That the Bishop take care That any offending scandalously out of his Convent receive due punishment * That all Superiours and Officers be elected by secret scrutiny * That no Estate or Goods of any Novice save for his food and apparel be received by any Monastery before his Profession that so after his Noviceship ended he may retain a perfect freedom to depart
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
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
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
necessary here to be said for those inconsidering persons with whom speaking last serves for an Answer since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions clears it I say by that common Rule owned also by Protestants themselves †Stillingfl p. 536. That in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western at the making of the Decrees yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth exâ—post-facto make the Council I add or any Session thereof truly Oecumenical Yet in the last place I need not tell you that the Articles made under Pius alone from Session 17-to its Conclusion the ratification of which is here not questioned are so many and so principal as that these utterly ruine the Reformation though the rest of the Council for the paucity of the Representatives were cassated Amongst these Decrees are The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Coelibacy of Priests Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Celebration of the Divine Service in a more generally-unknown Tongue the Assertion of Purgatory the Sacrifice of the Mass and several others § 77 6. Or 6ly If this Council under Pius also seem not sufficiently numerous 6. because more than half of them were Italian Bishops yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward by the Bishops of those Nations who had sometimes none and other times but few Representatives in it sufficiently repairs this defect also See before § 36 37. Now amongst all those Catholick Churches the Acceptation of the French is only that which can be doubted of And concerning this you may observe 1st That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France 1. as well those absent as those present in the Council See for this the many Petitions made at several times by the whole Clergy assembled to the King that he would receive it like the rest of Catholick Princes set down in Review of Council Trent l. 1. c. 2. There 1576. the Archbishop of Lyons in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois doth in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France speak thus unto the King They most humbly desire you that according to their more particular Requests exhibited in their Remonstrances you would authorize and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent which by the advice of so many Learned men hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor Wherein Sir they hope and expect from you as a most Christian Ring the assistance of your authority to put this Reformation in execution where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation as well as Doctrine Again 1579 in a like Assembly of the Clergy at Melun the Bishop of Bazas in their name speaks thus to the King The Clergy entreateth your Majesty that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline reform themselves in good earnest Amongst all the Rules of Reformation Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost and written by the Holy Council of Trent in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the Body Ecclesiastical but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church upon pain of being reputed Schismatical against the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome and of incurring the Curse of God and eternal damnation Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause spake at Fountainâ—leau in this fort The Council of Trent is received kept and observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates this Kingdom only excepted which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it to the the great scandal of the French Nation and of the title of Most Christian wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured So that under colour of some Articles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire c. A. D. 1585 the same request was renewed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German in Paris Not the Gallican only but the whole Church Catholick doth summon intreat and pray you to receive it the Council of Trent No good Christian can or ought ever to make any question but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See the consent of all Christian Princes who sent their Ambassadours thither who staid there till the very upshot without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published There being such a number of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and learned men from all parts yea not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom sent thither by the late King your Brother who having delivered consulted and spoken their opinion freely did consent and agree to what was there determined And since the writing of the Review A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris Cardinal Perron and Cardinal Richlieu then Bishop of Lusson prosecuted again the same request And though this without success yet of the solemn Acceptation of this Council the next year after at least by the Representatives of the Clergy thus Spondanus ‖ In A. D 1615 n 7 In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis 1614 quanivis nobilitas vota sua junxisset viz. Vt sacrum Concilium Tridentinum Regia authoritate promulgaretur in Râ—gnâ— praestitum a Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Abbatibus ac caeteris qui aderant ex cunctis Regni provinciis Delegatis viris Ecclesiasticis extitit quantum in ipsis suit dum scilicet unanimi 〈◊〉 â—mnium consensu illud recipientes suis se functionibus observaturos promiserunt ac jurarunâ— After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country ‖ A D 1546 n 4 Non solum non in Decretis Fidei ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae ullum unquam fuisse objectum dubium Sed ipsa Dicreta Reformationis tam ab ecclesiasticis susceptafuisse quam etiam paucis quibusdam exceptis chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with ecclesiastical commendams Singillatim Regiis Constitutionibus recepta per Ministros Regios executioni mandata These I have transcribed to shew you the French Clergies conformity to this
Catholicae detrimentum a Concilio supremo ejus Rectore Desensore auxilium sperandum Neque vero saith he tergiversationis locus est * quod pars altera ad faedus ineundum per vim injustam adacta sit cum paciscentes superiorem Judicem non habeaut qui causa cognita ipsis jus dicat * Nor Quod soedus publica authoritate initum Principi aut Reipublicae paciscenti perniciesum esse appareat Nor * Quodcunque incommodum sen detrimentum Ecclesiae Catholicae ex faederis observatione inferendum and his reason is because if such prejudices to Church or State be once admitted as just causes for voiding the publick Faith Nulla pax aut Societas inter humanum Genus consistere possit This concerning the publick Faith given to Infidels Hereticks Rebels or others in matters where no common Superior is acknowledged to have Right of disposing them otherwise § 97 But as to private Contracts Faith or Oaths where there is a common Superior to both parties who may restrain or moderate these upon all occasions according to the publick and private good here several Laws and Constitutions and common Customs grounded on a moral equity and necessity do give him a power in several cases which may happen such as these where such Contract or Oath is extorted by some injury first done to the party as by force fraud fear or where such engagement made in some great perturbation and transport of mind or where the contract though in a matter lawful yet brings some great unexpected and unforeseen damage to the publick or privat good Spiritual or Civil or also is a hinderance of some considerable greater good of the Church or State which the Contractors ought to prefer before their private when these are judged not by the party but by the Superior to be such the laws I say do give Him power in such cases to relax such pacts or Faith and to oblige the party to whom they are made being subject to him and such laws to remit them And the parties in making any such pact may and ought to know this superintendent power or also all such Oaths and Contracts when they are made are supposed to include a tacit Exception of such cases to be stated by the Arbitrement of such Superiors And indeed what thing better can be contrived within the limits of a settled Government than that such engagements should be transacted with such a reserve of capability of relaxation by the Superior where otherwise either by the difficulty of the observance of them the circumstances being changed they will probably be broken or some great damage by them publick or private inferred But in the publick or private Faith passed between persons that are joyned together in no such society no such thing can be admitted but the matter of such oath or promise being jure Divino lawful and diminishing no third Persons legal Rights all damages whatever are to be sustained in a strict and undispensable observance thereof so far as the party to whom such engagement is made shall exact it And so in some sence Faith is maintained to be kept by Catholicks to Enemies Heretickâ— Infidels c. when not so by one Catholick to another because the constitutions or customs of the Government Ecclesiastiacal or Civil under which Catholicks live do not extend to these other Covenants and the excuse of damage fear force c. hath here no place or consideration where is to be had no common umpire and Judge of such matters § 98 If it be said here That Secular Princes are made by Roman Divines inferiour and subordinate to the Ecclesiastical suprem the Pope or General Council and so that the Sanctions and laws of the Church by what is said before § 97. will void at pleasure the Oath and engagement of Princes to what ever Confederat in whatever matter as this being contrary to the law of a Superior whose Constitutions they are obliged to observe It is answered that the Roman Church owns no such Doctrine nor do the Ecclesiastical Governours claim any Supremacy or Legislative power save in Spiritual matters Contrary to which therefore if any of the Churches Subjects though a Prince make any oath or promise such Faith given is not to be kept by vertue of the former subjection of such person to the Churches Laws But as for any Oaths or engagements of Princes in other matters Secular or also any use of the Secular Sword whether in matters Temporal or Spiritual the Church claims no Superiority herein The Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrate have their distinct and independent Rights and Jurisdictions freely confessed by Cardinal Bellarmine to be both held from Christ and nor from one another Ex Scripturis saith he †De Rom. Pontis l. 5. c. 3. nihil habemus nisi datas Pontifici claves regni caelorum de clavibus Regni Terrarum nulla mentio fit Traditio Apostolica nulla Quando Rex fit Christianus non perdit Regnum Terrarum quod jam obtinebat And quoting a passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus Quicquid saith he Imperatores habent dicit Nicolaus a Christo eos habere Peto igitur rel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus Imperatoribus hoc tanquam summus ipse Rex Imperator aut non potest si potest ergo est major Christo Si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem Regiam Neither is any such Power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals without the exercise of which power the Primitive Church though most grievously oppressed by Secular States yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire as to all things essentially necessary thereto Their proper and distinct Rights then both these supremes have And their oaths and engagement passed in matters of their proper right to what persons soever are denied generally by Catholick Divines to be dissolvable by one another § 99 Of this particular of keeping faith with Hereticks in such matters thus P. Layman a learned Jesuite †Theol. Moral l. 2. Tract 3. c. 12. Dico 4 to Si Catholici cum Haereticis publicum foedus ineant non potest per authoritatem Pontificiam solvi aut relaxari where he quotes also Molanus saying †De fid Haeret servand l. 5. c. 14. Neque ullum hactenus extitit aut unquam extabit hujus rei exemplum And thus Becanus 〈◊〉 de fid Haeret. servand c. 7. Virtutes illae ex quibus oritur obligatio servandae fidei in promissis aeque nos obligant sive apud Catholicos sive apud Haereticos versemur Nusquam enim licet mentiri nusquam jus alterius violare nusquam injustitiam committere nunquam perjurum esse Quando fidelâ—â— paciscuntur cum Gentilibus Idolatris debent issi servare fidem in rebus licitis honestis ergo etiam quando paciscuntur cum Haereticis An oath of fidelity therefore taken by a
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
Conditions Luther the first Parent of this new Sect being questioned for his Doctrines and upon this cited to Rome first made Friends to have his cause tried in Germany having been heard and condemned in Germany by Cardinal Cajetan for one a moderat and learned Prelat he now appeal'd to Rome and to the Pope But well perceiving that his Doctrine would also be most certainly condemned there as it was he suddainly intercepted this Appeal with another †See Adam vitae Lutheri made from the Pope to a Council having some ground to imagine that such a Body would never be conven'd to hear his cause nor the Pope call them together from whom was expected a severe Reformation of Him and his Court But afterward seeing that in good earnest such a Council there would be for a Bull was published for one to be held at Vicenza in 1â—37 and well discerning that neither thus the usual former laws of Councils being observed or only this law of all Assemblies that the much major part shall conclude the whole his Doctrine could stand as indeed it did not He began now to vilifie Councils and put out a book De Conciliis in 1â—39 wherein he declares no good but much hurt to have come to the Church by those that had been held formerly not sparing the very First reverenced by the whole Christian world not that of Nice not that of the Apostles Act. c. 15. Some of his Invectives I have set down already in Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. and so here forbear to repeat them Upon this therefore his last Appeale was from Councils to the Holy Scriptures defending himself with a Si Angelus de Coelo Gal. 18. Attendite à falsis Prophetis ‖ Matt. 17.15 Oves meae vocem meam audiunt †Jo. 10. Omnia probantes ‖ 1 Teess 5.21 c. And here he knew himself safe as any Heresie though never so absurd would be in chusing that to be the Judge or decider of the Controversie which could never deliver any new sentence on any side and where the meaning of its former Sentence deliver'd already which all will stand to were it known is the controversie to be decided But his followers rather than utterly to decline a Council which they had formerly to avoid the standing Church-authorities often called for thought sit to change the ancient form thereof and to clog it with such Conditions as if accepted should perfectly secure them from any danger from it Now the Conditions as they are most fully set down in Soave p. 642. though often mentioned elsewhere †See Soave p. 18 65 80. 1. 2 3. are these 1. That it should not be called by the Pope 2. That it should be celebrated in Germany according to the Canon ut illic lites terminentur ubi exortae sunt 3. That the Pope should not preside in but only be part of the Council and subject to the determinations thereof 4. That the Bishops should be free from their Oath given to the Pope that so they may freely and without impediment deliver their opinions 5. That the Protestant Divines sent to the Council might have a deciding voice with the rest 6. That the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council end all humane authority excluded § 128 Where note that by humane authority they would exclade amongst other things Apostolorum traditiones Concilia authoritates S. Patrum Which together with the Holy Scriptures as necessary to know the true meaning of them where it is disputed was the Rule that the Council entertained to decide present controversies by Of which see Soave l. 4. p. 344. and 323. where he saith the Council prescribed this Rule to the Divines in their disputations about the Articles proposed to them That they ought to confirm their opinions with the Holy Scriptures Traditions of the Apostles sacred and approved Councils and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the Holy Fathers to avoid superfluous and unprofitable questions and perverse contentions Which rule to judge controversies by was also mentioned in the Safe-conduct Quod causae controversae secundum Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum S. Patrum authoritates tractentur in praedicto Concilio and which also long before this was mentioned in the beginning of the Council Sess 4. where a Decree was made Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei c. scripturam sacram interpretari audeat contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater ecclesia aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum And such an advice and rule as this we find given not long after the second General Council to Theodosius the Emperour in a time much over-run with divers Heresies which Emperour thinking that all Sects might easily be united in the Truth by convocating them all together and permitting a free Disputation Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople with others rather perswaded him to take this course Vt fugeret to give you it in Sozomen's words ‖ Sozom. l. 7. c 12. Socrat. l. 5. c. 10. institutas cum sectariis disputationes utpote rixarum atque pugnarum fomites Sed ex ipsis quaereret reciperent ne eos qui ante ecclesiae distractionem interpretes ac Doctores fuissent Scripturae sacrae Etenim si borum Testimonia rejecerint à suis ipsorum consortibus explodentur sin autem sufficere eos ad controversias decidendas arbitrabuntur produci oportet eorum libros c. By which books they would soon be convinced of their errour which advice the Pious Emperour commending and proposing this way of ending Controversie to the Heads of the Sectaries they soon discovered to him their Tergiversation and He there upon authorizing only the Catholick Religion vigorously undertook the suppression of the rest Suitable to this among those General Proposals made by the Pope's Nuncio's in Germany and elsewhere before the sitting of this Council this was the first †Pallavic l. 3. c. 13. n. 2. â— Soave p. 64. That the Council might be free and be celebrated in the manner used by the Church even from the beginning of the first General Councils and the second That all those who met in the Council should engage to submit to the Decrees thereof Things to which the Protestants would no way consent The clause contained in the Safe-conduct of deciding controversies per probata Concilia c. they excepted against see Soave p. 344 and 372 and before § 104. and they refused also to stand to any Council that should proceed as the use had been for 800 years before †Soave p. 18. Here then at that time thus the case stood The Pope and the Tridentine Fathers were for admitting the Protestants for excluding the Form a of Council agreeable with the former and again the one for admitting the other for excluding a
the whole Council hath been shewed †to be so unanimous § 150 § 164 To the 2d The Consultation in every thing made with the Pope 1 st Whereas it is usually urged by Protestants out of Soave †Seep 481 507. That as none could propose any thing in the Council save the Legats so the Legats might propose nothing till they had received a Commission from Rome That nothing was resolved by the Fathers but all in Rome and the Council guided by the Holy Ghost sent thither from time to time in a Cloak-bag from Rome †p. 497. much more is charged than is true For a proposal of the matter◠from time to time to be discussed in Council was made and digested in Trent by a general agreement of the Fathers unknown to the Pope as appears throughout this History After which resolved 1 st some Congregations of Divines disputed the point and considered the matters proposed at which any of the Fathers that would might be present 2. After this arguing followed the Congregations of the Prelats for framing the heads of Doctrine and Reformation according to the most common opinion 3. Then a General Congregation of the same Prelats for giving their votes concerning them and 4 lastly the Session when they were voted again and so published See Soave p. 167. Now all or most part of these saving the last the Session were usually passed without the Popes knowledge or concurrence and the Legats themselves are sometimes found differing from one another in their votes as they were in that of residence †Sav. p. 518. and 496 at which time also some other Bishops gave their vote with reservation to consulting of the Pope which shews the Popes mind though in a matter so much concerning the Apostolick See was not then known But after these General Congregations was usually notice of such Decree as was passed therein sent to Rome before its being voted again and published in the General Session And of this a charge is also given to his Legats by Pope Paul the Third in Soave p. 164. though I find not that Pius required it Nay if we may believe this Historian he seemeth in some places to decline it as appears in the quotations here following The Decree thus sent to Rome was there also by the Popes Council examined and his judgment returned to the Legats concerning it which when differing from that of the Council which thing seldom happened except in the questions between the Episcopal and Papal Rights the Legats endeavoured to procure by common consent either some alterations or at least an omission of such Decree in the following Session but this with all freedom of the Council still observed a good part of whom was also still animated against the Popes interests by the Embassadors of Secular Princes nothing being done against the satisfaction of any considerable part of the Council the uttermost of the Legats attempts then extended to procure an omission of that to which the Pope would not consent not any determining of what he approved when thereby was feared the alienating of some Nation from the Roman Faith and if thus something was hindred by their intermise from being passed by the Council which otherwise would have been so yet nothing was advanced to be passed which otherwise would not have been and so the Conciliary Acts have suffered no prejudice by it Nor any hurt done save that thus men are left to their former Liberty still in some points wherein the Council would have restrained it a thing I hope the Reformed will not complain of you may at your leisure particularly view in Soave the liberty the Council took to examine the Popes proposals in the Institution of Bishops †p 657. 723. and Papal Supremacy and the alterations which were made in them § 165 2. In the next place I will give you the Pope's plea for himself against those 2. who accused him for thus abridging the freedom of the Council To this matter then friendlily complained of by the Emperor in a letter to him thus answered Pius the 4th in another See Pall. l. 20. c. 8. n. 7. That he never gave any such command as that nothing should be decreed in the Council without consulting him first That in things more difficult the Delegats demanded his advice nor could or ought he to deny it them That it crossed not their liberty was not undecent or unusual that the Council it self should desire the judgment of the Apostolick See Nor was it unfitting that the Pope being to give Counsel to his Legats should first take it with the Cardinals men of great judgment and learning especially be not intending that his advices should impose any necessity on the Council to follow them Thus Pius me thinks with much reason And it is manifest that the Council in many things did not follow them And though little was decreed by the Council against that which came from Rome yet both all that came from Rome was not decreed and much decreed that came not from Rome the Pope often desiring them especially for reformations to proceed without consulting him and in Soave p. 503. complaining to his Cardinals of those in the Council who referred themselves unto him because saith he the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his own opinion and not lay the things of difficulty upon the back of another i. e. the Pope that themselves might avoid hatred and envy As also the same Author †p. 723. relates That his Legats sending to Rome the Articles that were drawn up in the Council of the Institution and residence of Bishops the Pope reprehended the Legats for sending them Because he knew that the major part in the Council were good Catholicks and devoted to the Church of Rome and in confidence hereof he was content that the proposition and resolution should be determined in Trent without his knowledge The same Author †p. 684. makes him further in defence of his Instruction from time to time sent to his Legats and to the Council answering the same letter of the Emperour on this manner plausibly enough though as Pallavicino taxeth him misrelating in several things the contents of the letter †l. 20. c. 8. n. 9. That no Council was ever celebrated in absence of the Pope but that he hath sent instructions which the Fathers have also followed That the Instructions do still remain which Pope Celestine sent to the Ephesin Council Pope Leo to that of Chalcedon Pope Agatho to that in Trullo Pope Adrian the first to the second of Nice Pope Adrian the second to the eighth General Council of Constantinople And thus also he makes him to plead his cause at Rome before the Cardinals †p. 503. That he could not chuse but be troubled with that which was spoken concerning the liberty of the Council and that to consult of the matters at Rome
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
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
charity either to our selves or to them or to some others obligeth us to the contrary And this for many good ends as to preserve our selves from all contagion and infection from their vices or partaking of their punishments or giving suspicion of our consentment with them in their errors or scandal to others who by our example may use the same converse to their hurt To produce some shame and confusion and so perhaps amendment in them Upon this we read St. Austins Holy Mother Monica forbare sitting at table or eating with her Son when addicted to the Manichean Heresie †Austin Confess l. 3. c. 11. Matt. 18.17 If any Brother i. e. in Christianity refuse to hear the Church we to carry our selves to him as to an Heathen who were Idolaters or a Publican with whom the religious Jews forbare to eat or converse Rom. 16.17 Those Christians that cause divisions contrary to the Doctrine which we have received to mark and avoid them Titus 3.10 An Heretick after admonition to be rejected 2. Thess 3.14 If any man obey not our word be a Separatist from the Church and her Doctrine note that man and have no company with him 2 Joh. 10. If there come any unto you and bring not this Apostolical Doctrine receive him not into your house nor say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God save you to him For he that saith so to him communicates with his wickedness And it seems this Apostles practice was according to his rule For Irenaeus ‖ l. 3. c. 3. saith S. Polycrap related of him That going into a Bath to wash himself he presently leaped out of it and departed when he saw Corinthus there who denied our Lords Divinity § 284 The same may be gathered from our glorified Lords own vehement expressions after his Ascension Apocal. 2d and 3d. chapter against those new Sects that indeavoured to mingle themselves with and to seduce the Catholicks by tempting them to compliance when in persecution where he calls them the Synagogue of Satan Profunda Satanae Jesebels followers of Balaam c. Praiseth the Churches of Ephesus and Philadelphia for trying them and not suffering them and not complying and denying him with them but hating their deeds as himself did See Apocalyps 2.2 6. 3.8.9 and censureth others of the Churches for doing the contrary Apoc. 2.14 15 16 20. and especially reprehendeth that of Laodicea for her lukewarmness and neither being cold nor hot and then urgeth her to be zealous Apoc. 3.15 16 19. The same also seems to appear by his severe censure upon occasion of the Samaritan Woman's consulting him about her Religion of the Samaritan Schismatical worship in a Temple built in opposition to that in Jerusalem some 250. years before our Lords coming in Mount Garisim Which one Manasses the High Priest expelled from the function of his Office in Jerusalem procured to be erected and afterward officiated there our Lord telling this woman That the Samaritans knew not what they worshipped and that salvation was of the Jews And before this the same appears * from Gods great displeasure against the Division made by Israel in setting up the Calves though 't is probably imagined worshipping still the same God in the same Representation of Cherubims only in another place And afterward * from Elias his expostulation with the people 3 King 18.21 Vsque quo claudicatis in duas partes which holds as well for separating Sects as false Religions God having so established the Oeconomy of his Church as to be worshipped therein in unity as well as verity Vnus Dominus Caput unum Corpus una fides Eph. 4.4 From all these Texts prohibiting Communication in our daily converse with particular persons so affected I argue how much more we not to communicate 1 with whole Congregations of them and 2 with such Congregations separated from the Church and 3 this in holy things lastly 4 so communicating with them in these as to forbear the same Communion with the Church Catholick § 285 Yet some of these and several other Texts See 1 Cor. 10.20 21. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 13. 2 Cor. 6.14 17 seem more chiefly to prohibit Communion with such in the Sacraments especially that of the Holy Eucharist and the publick Divine Worship and this upon some other yet higher reasons Namely the duty of the publick owning and professing our Religion and the keeping it pure from and unmixt with any unbelieving Heretical or Schismatical Societies For this Holy Sacrament of feeding at the Lords Table being instituted as for a sacred instrument of our Communion with the Deity so also for a publick tessera and mark of a strict league and amity between all those who together partake it so that as the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.17 by being made partakers of that one bread and Body of our Lord we though being many become one bread and one Body and so in this Body members of one another things I say standing thus in this Grand Sacrament of Union neither will the honour we owe to God the Father who dwelleth in us and adopts us for his children 2 Cor. 6.16.18 Nor to God the Son of whose Body we are members 1 Cor. 6.15 16. Nor to the holy Spirit whose Temples we are 1. Cor. 3.16 17. suffer us by such a sacred and solemn tye to link and unite our selves to any Congregations that are once estranged from him or disclaimed by him This is mingling light with darkness 2 Cor. 6.14 †joyning the members of Christ to a Spiritual Harlot by which they two become one Body 1 Cor. 6.15 16. For such a vertue hath this Sacrament as that they become one Body amongst themselves that partake it ‖ 1. Cor. 10.16 17. And by touching the unclean our selves also becoming unclean Lev. 5.2 3. For all those separations under the law of the corporally unclean from the Congregation of the Lord because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord and holy as he is holy Lev. 11.43 44. were only types of the separation which ought to be from such notorious sinners and such false worshippers of him as we here speak of To which the Apostle makes application of them 2 Cor. 6.17 Be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing saith the Lord taken out of Esa 52.11 And hence also taketh he strict order for the separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church especially from the communicating the Sacraments thereof as of a piece of Leaven from a lump unleavened that our Christian Passeover may not be celebrated with such a meslange See 1 Cor. 5.2 5 7 13. Ejection I say or casting them out where the Church hath the power Or her going out from them 2 Cor. 6.17 where they have the power but still a separation there must be else in consorting with them we provoke our Lord to jealousie 1 Cor. 10.22 as if we are not a true and loyal Spouse to Him and
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
Eight hundred years ago and fince that by Lanfrank Guitmund c. at the appearance of Berengarius Which Primitive Tradition and judgement of Antiquity that it was if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils the same concerning these Scriptures with that of the present Church Authority I think any one that is well affected to the peace of the Church and not pre-ingaged in Disputes will receive sufficient satisfaction herein who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by cited parcels the short Discourses on this subject of * St. Ambrose De Myster initiand chap. 9. * The Author of the Books De Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father l. 4 the 4 and 5. Chapters * Cyrill Hierosol Catechis Mystagog 4. and 5. * Chrysostom in Matt. Homil. 83. In. Act. Apost Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 36 37 * Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatens De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hilarius Pictao De Trinitate the former part of the eighth book * Cyril Alexand. In Evangel Johan l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces for the last Protestâ—ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon †§. 307. speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum Molinaeum Not that I affirm here that every one that reads these pieces shall be so perswaded and convinced For as hath been shewed the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising and miscolouring things to the understanding As when perhaps the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father and when one hath first stated the Question to himself ordered his Arguments deduced his Conclusions solved Objections c. and then upon such provocation of an Antagonist is brought to examine their writings here we may presume such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before and to lay down his Arms and that it will go hard if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause Either 1. for the Terms used by the Father he will contend that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times and not in a proper or modern sense Oâ— That their Rhetorick and Eloquence fitted not to state the Question or inform the Judgement but to move Affections and gain the Will doth often make use of such expressions as rigourously taken transcend the Truth Or 2. For the sense given when apparently against him he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities that follow from it or some other Tenents of the Father that will not consist with it and the Translation alsor or the Copy shall many times be blamed Or 3. Touching the Discourse 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father 's other works or some words used in it some Rites or Customs mentioned that are of a later date or age or such work not found in such Editions or not mentioned by later writers or that it is in part corrupted and interpolated and not all of a piece 2 Or at least He will find some Clauses in the same or in some other discourse of the Father whereby he may seem to confess in one place what he denies in another or which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point and so serviceable to no Party I name these defences not so but that some times they may be true but that they are much oftner made use of than there is any just cause and are apt to blind the unwary and preoccupated and such as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth before they are well read in Antiquity So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist §. 321. n. 2. Vigier after the two former Combatants Arnauld and Claude one by taking the Fathers in a plain and literal the other in a Metaphorical sense had each of them challenged Antiquity as clearly on his own side seeks to dispatch the Controversie much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings †3 Reg. 3.27 whose the childe was not Nec mihi nec Tibi sit Saying ‖ Eng. Translat p. 80. That the true belief of the ancient Church about this point of the Eucharist is very hard to be known That there are innumerable perplexities in it and that if the Fathers have believed the Reality as he seeth no reason to doubt but they did they believed it in such a manner which neither Roman Catholicks nor Protestants nor any other Christian Society would approve of And so p. 66 c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstantialists he is content they should be Stercoranists i. e. holding I know not what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord much more gross and incredible than that of Transubstantiation For whether the Greeks fall short of or ago beyond the Latine Church herein he thinks all to his purpose so they be not just the same But then over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies manifesting the unanimous accord herein of the present Oriental with the Western Churches here he will have them to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers but by no means to have derived it from their Forefathers There may have happened saith he ‖ p. 94. a change since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks or by the Voyages of the Portugais and other Nations into the Oriental Churches mean while the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman it may well be considered what would become of the Protestant cause if the Controversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld §. 321. n. 3. For the shewing of which a little more at large because I am speaking here of the Eucharist and what I shall say may serve for a pre-advertisement to some less experienced in this Controversie that may light on his Book and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it prejudicial to the Catholick Faith I beg leave of the Reader to make a step though somewhat out of my way yet not much beside my purpose Remitting those who think this Forreign Author less concerns them to the prosecution of the former Discourse resum'd below § 321. n. 27. 1st This Author busyes himself ‖ l. 2. c. 1. to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance and decay
happened and consequently that all M. Arnaud 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sence and meaning of Antiquity on what side This stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the 11 th to the present age doth defend a Corporal presence and a literal sence of Hoc est corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M Claude would spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd Him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently garded §. 321. n. 11. He proceeds l. 3c 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and the Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joyn'd to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4 l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sence of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sence This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ From preserving this pretended literal sence it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6. l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity to his natural Body by means of which Vnion or Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and made the same Body with it with his natural Body Again for preserving this literal sence That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body of Christ It seems also That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ upon the Bread with some kind of inherence i. e. of the vertue Although I will not saith he ascertain positively that this is the General Belief of their Church though the expressions seem to sway on this side But however it be this is not our opinion We believe that the Grace of the Holy Ghost and vertue of Christs Body accompanies the lawful use of the Sacrament and that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith as much or more really then of we received it in the mouth of our Body But we 〈◊〉 understand this Real impression or inherence i. e. of the Supernatural Vertue of the Body of Christ See p. 338. †l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. viz. that born of the Virgin of the Greeks Whence it is that our Expressions are not so high as theirs And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as Damascen This Opinion of the Modern Greeks faith he seems to be taken from Damascen some of whose expressions I think fit to produce For it is certain that to make a good Judgement of the Opinion of the modern Greeks we must ascend as high as him And M. Arnaud himself hath observed That John Damascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks Thus He. But § 321. n. 12. lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own nor others easily believe they maintain for he confesseth that it hath something in it that appears little reasonable and especially as to the Augmentation of Christs natural Body to be assez bizarre †and lest he should make it lyable to so many and odious absurdities as that a Transubstantiation which he endeavours to avoid may seem much the more plausible and eligible of the two perhaps I say for these considerations he undertakes to qualifie and render a credible and likely sence to it on this manner In saying 1. That they hold indeed an Vnion of the Divinity to the Bread and that in an higher manner than to any other Sacred sign or Ceremony but yet not Hypostatical 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmentative part of Christ's natural Body but it remaining still entire Bread as before and altered only in a Supernatural vertue added to it 3. Hold it to be joyned to Christs Body and augmenting it but so as to be not individually the same but unmerically distinct from it as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body To be joyned to this natural Body of Christ not locally or to it as present in the Eucharist but as in Heaven How this As saith he a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery And to these 4 Qualifications this Author semms necessitated because otherwise Adoration and Transubstantiation in some part tho not a total Existence of the
whose vigilant providence never deserts his Church either converts Him or removes Him I say however these things be stated yet as to our present business of Trent neither did the Pope out of any such private guilt of Heresie or other Crime forbear to call this Council nor when it was assembled and the Protestants complaints against the Pope well known did this supreme Court find any ground or cause of such extraordinary proceedings against him For 1st For his Presidentship in the Council which was excepted against how could the Council deprive him of this right which was no new tyranny or device but that office which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils which the Church ever had Of which see what is said before § 46. c. And as for any false doctrines crimes or corruptions charged on Him this Council found none valid as to his own person either for removal of Him from such Presidentship or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical § 124 Many corruptions indeed and great need of Reformation of several things both in the Church and in the Court of Rome as the Protestants complain'd of so the Council and also the Pope himself acknowledged And in the remedying of these the Council spent the longer part of their Acts which have been not meerly delusory as a late Writer would blast them †Stillingf Rat. Account p 482. who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority but very effective as to the having produced a vigorous and during Reformation in the Roman Church and that of the chiefest disorders complain'd of as is shewed more particularly below § 203. c. And this real effect it was which with an holy envy the Clergy of France discovered in other Catholick Countries and which made them so importunate with the King and State of France to give them there the like force and that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit †See §. 77. c. And so much were these severe Decrees resented and dreaded in the Court of Rome that Soave †p. 8 6. reports That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court representing their losses and prejudices and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness and of the Apostolick See and diminution of his Revenues Of which see much more below § 204. This in the second place that the Council who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church if any so be and of these matters found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person as might justly abridge any of his priviledges therein nor that any Reformation in the Church or Court was obstructed by his Authority § 125 3. Lastly Neither doth the Popes calling or declaring the Lutherans 3. Hereticks before the sitting of this Council render him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council and other Popes as the fore-mentioned Celestine and Leo having formerly declared against the errors of Nestorius and Dioseorus yet afterward approvedly presided in Councils and there again condemned them But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans Hereticks without shew of wrong if so be that their tenents or some of them had been determined against and condemned in former lawful Councils as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were For if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie those who own it without a new process may be pronounced Hereticks Now t is clear that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned in the 2d Nicene in the 8. G. Council in the Lateran under Innocent 3. in that of Florence in that of Constance ‖ See below §. 198. Add to this * that Leo the 10th who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther and his followers to be proceeded against as Hereticks was deceased before this Council and presided not in it * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council did not formerly pass any formal sentence against the Lutherans or Hereticks but only in his Bull concerning Reformation of the Court of Rome Obiter named them so which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree yet in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent forbears also to name them so * That Pius the 4th who renewed the Council and concluded it was absolutely free from giving them this offence therefore the Acts at least under him enough to condemn them are not upon this pretence to be invalidated But here it must not be forgotten that not only the Pope but the Emperour the King of France and sometime the King of England Henry the 8th before the Council pronounced them Hereticks published Edicts and denounced heavy punishments against them and yet afterward they did not for this utterly decline these Princes judgments as hoping that such proceedings might be upon better informations and second considerations reversible § 126 To the question asked here †Mr. Stilâ—ingf Râ—t Account p. 492. If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils why was the Council of Trent at all summoned It is easily answered 1 st That though many of the Protestant tenents had been considered and condemned in former Councils yet not all because some of them not then appearing 2 ly Had all been so yet that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts to reiterate their sentence and by new Declarations and perhaps new reasons too to enforce their former Laws and Decrees so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say and disobey them whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors and in their Resolution for the maintainance thereof So Arianism after the Nicen was condemned again by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality by the Council of Sardica and Berengarius and his party being condemned by five several Councils before the great Lateran and that of Florence yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condemnation so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie CHAP. VIII II. Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonableness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to the Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies § 127 THus much from § 53. of the first General Head I proposed § 8. concerning the sufficient generality of this Council to render it obligatory Now I pass to the second concerning the novelty canonical invalidity and probably ineffectiveness as to their carrying the cause of such a General Council as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent and as should be regulated with all their