proposed rather a Decision by Laicks indifferently chosen in an equal number on both sides †See Soave p. 369. By which bargain they were sure not to lose their Cause if only those nominated by them did not vote against them Was it not then a much wiser course to forbear coming to this Council at all and to plead it non General by their absence when as the proceedings thereof could no way have been defeated or changed by their presence This for the Absence of the Protestant Clergy CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman-Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nations § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. § 69 5ly Neither doth the Absence of many of the Roman Catholick Bishops or of the Bishops of some one Roman-Cathol Prince provided there be a personal presence of some Bishops authorized from a major part of Cathol Princes hinder this Council from being lawfully Patriarchal or General for some of the Reasons given but now § 67. To which may be added these further Considerations to remove any prejudice raised to this Council from the paucity of the number of Bishops in it especially in some Sessions in comparison of some former General Councils § 70 1. The first Consideration is That this Council beyond any former 1. having so many Points of Doctrine and Discipline to examine wherein the Reformed contradicted the immediate-former common tradition and practice and being drawn out for so long a time beginning in 1545 and ending in in 1563 actually fitting for some four years it cannot rationally be expected that such a frequency of Bishops should continually attend it as if it had been convened for deciding some single Controversie and suddenly concluded But in so long a Service much complaint there was especially amongst the poorer sort of their great expences more of the neglect of their several Churches and after a while great longing after their own Country Relations Houses and therefore frequently some stealing away from the Council without the leave and consent of the rest § 71 2. That whereas the Council several times complained especially in the fourth fifth 2. and sixth Sessions and intended to proceed to Censures against the Bishops that were absent in which Council the greatest scarcity was of the Bishops of France and Germany at several times both the French King's and Emperor's Embassadors excused their absence to the Council for some time at least from the necessity there was to retain them at home for the defence of the Catholick Religion against the endeavours and tumults of the Calvinists in France and of the Lutherans in Germany See Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 6. c. 16. Soave p. 509. 552. § 72 1. For the French Bishops 't is true that three of them only attended the beginning of the Council the Archbishop of Renes the Archbishop of Aix and another One of which Renes returned upon the King's Summons before the first Session of the Council but more Bishops from time to time were promised to be sent from thence see Soave p. 143 and after some time were sent when the Council for fear of the Plague was removed from Trent to Bologna ‖ Spendan A.D. 1545. n. 17. Pallavic l. 6. c. 1. n. 10. l. 10. c. 7. n. 2. c. 2. n. 6. And in the time of the Council's fitting afterward at Trent under Pius the Fourth the King of France sent thither the Card. of Lorraine and 14. Bishops who sate in Council and 18. select Divines most of them Sorbon-Doctors maintained there at the King's charge †Pallav. l. 18. c. 17. n. 21. 2 As for the German Bishops because in the beginning of the Council it was thought necessary that they should be detained at home at least many of them to defend the Roman-Catholick Cause in the frequent Diets there and because in Pius his time they were partly terrified with the threats of Hostility upon their Estates from the Protestants then very powerful if they should offer to go to Trent as the Emperor's Embassadors in the Council pleaded for them therefore there was not so great an appearance at any time of them in the Council though nearer than many others and they were dispensed with to appear by Proxies though indeed it was for some Reasons denied to all Proxies non-Bishops to have in the Council any definitive Vote ‖ Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 7. c. 13. l. 20. c. 17. n. 7. l. 23. c. 5. n. 4. But mean while these German Prelates in their several Treaties with the Protestants in these Diets without yielding any thing to them that was contrary to the Conciliar Acts for which see the Relation made by Soave of these Diets do shew a concurrence in all points of their judgments with the others who sate in Council § 73 3. That open discords and wars breaking out several times between several Princes during the sitting of this Council especially between the Pope 3. and the Emperor and King of France as likewise Civil Wars between the Lutherans and Catholicks in the same Prince's Dominions hindred sometimes the Bishops of one Nation sometimes of another from attending the Council The Princes also upon another account sent not or recalled their Bishops as they had some Differences with the Pope or feared that their secular interest might any way suffer in the Council See the Emperor restraining his Prelates from the Council when translated from Trent to Bologna upon pretence of the place too remote for setling the affairs of Germany and for the convenience of the German Bishops who had so great Charges their repairing thither Soave p. 274. But see the true cause Soave p. 261 if we may believe him where he saith The Emperor Charles 5. was much displeased at this Translation of the Council because he saw a weapon i. e. the Council taken out of his hand i. e. from Trent which City was in his power by managing whereof according to opportunity he thought to s◠Religion at peace in Germany and so to put it under his obedience So see the King of France Hen. 2. in Julius his time with whom he had a contest about Parma protesting against the Council in Trent and refusing to send his Bishops thither upon pretence that they could not pass safely neither through the Pope's Territories with whom he had war nor through the Emperor's a Confederate with the Pope Soave p. 319 320. But see the true Cause Soave p. 315. The King hoping that such Protestation against the Council would remove the Pope from his resolutions concerning Parma
practice relating to these Patriarchs and their Synods but the great necessity thereof as to the Vnity of the Churches Faith and Conservation of her Peace and that much more since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms by reason of which secular contrary Interests the several parts and members of the Catholick Church dispersed amongst them are more subject to be disjointed and separated from one another Which unity and peace if we reflect on * the great rarity of General Councils not above 5 or 6 in the Protestant account in 1600. years and * the multiplicity of Primates that are in Christendom all left by Dr. Hammond Supreme and independent of one another or of any other person or Council when a General one not in being and * the experience of their frequent Lapses into gross Errors For almost what great Heresie or Schism hath there been in the Church whereof some Primate was not a chief Abettor and * The Rents in the Church made by these apt to be much greater as the person is higher and more powerful is not sufficiently provided for though much pretended in Dr. Hammonds Scheme Come we then to Dr. Fields Model yet more enlarged The actions saith he ‖ Of the Chur. p. 513. of the Bishop of each particular Church of a City §. 16. n. 5. and places adjoining were subject to the censure and judgment of the rest of the Bishops of the same Province amongst whom for order sake there was one Chief to whom it pertained to call them together to sit as Moderator in the midst of them being assembled and to execute what by joint consent they resolved on The actions of the Bishops of a Province and of a Provincial Synod consising of those Bishops were subject to a Synod consisting of the Metropolitans and other Bishops of divers Provinces This Synod was of two sorts For either it consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and Nation only as did the Councils of Affrica or of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms If of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishop of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Vnity of it Here you see that roundly confest which Dr. Hammond concea'ld Again Ib. p. 668. It is evident That there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods Synods Patriarchal answering to Patriarchs National to Primates and that neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And Ib. p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these had no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and this Council for which see Ib. c. 39. p. 563. where he quotes the Emperors Law Novel 123. c. 22. Patriarcha Dioceseos illius huic causae praebeat finem nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente confirming the 9th Canon of Conc. Chalced. Again p. 567. 568. he saith That it is a Rule in Church-government that the lesser and inferior may not judge the greater and superior That if any Bishop have ought against his Metropolitan he must go as I shewed before to the Patriarch and his Synod to complain as to fit and competent Judges That the great Patriarchs of the Christian Church are to be judged by some other of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops that the Bishop of Rome as first in order among the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty though these later are not found always necessary or present at such judgments nor more of his own Bishops than those whom he can at such time conveniently assemble and consult with as appears in the Appeals of those persons named before § 13. n. 1. may judge any of the other Patriarchs That such as have complaints against them may fly to him and the Synod of Bishops subject to him and that the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses may fly to him and such Synods for relief and help See the same §. 16. n. 6. p 668 Nor doth he acknowledge such an authority of Judicature in these Church Prelates only as joined w th their Synods but also in them single and without them For since it is manifest that the constant meeting of the Provincial Synods twice as it was ordered at the first or once in the year as afterward did very early cease either by the Clergies neglect or the great trouble and charge of such Assemblies and so later Councils accordingly appointed such Synods to be held in stead of twice yearly once in 3. years nor yet are in this well obeyed Hence either all such Causes and Appeals to their Superious still multiplied as Christianity is increased must be for so long a time suspended and depending which would be intolerable and a quick dispatch though less equitable rather to be wished or the hearing of them must be devolved to these single standing Judges as directed by former Church-Canons Concerning this therefore thus the same Doctor goes on ‖ l. 5. p. 514. quoting the Canons of the 6th and 7th Council At the first saith he there was a Synod of Bishops in every Province twice in the year But for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th Council †Can. 8. decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed which Canon was renewed by the 7th General Council ‖ Can. 6. But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy Meetings we shall find that they met not so often and very early may this be found and therefore the Council of Basil appointed Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year and Provincial at the least once in three years And so in time Causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus He. And if this rarer meeting of Provincial Synods transferred many Causes on the
and notwithstanding any opposition of the Secular Powers These are some if not the chief of them * Namely The entrance of these Ministers of Christ without Arms into whatever Princes Dominions and their preaching there the Gospel of Christ and administring the Sacraments to his Subjects though against his Prohibition * Determining Controversies arising in matters of Faith and Religion and publishing such their Determinations to all the Churches Subjects within any Princes Realms * Making Ecclesiastical Laws for Government and Discipline as need requires * Receiving Accusations examining Witnesses correcting Offenders against the Laws of Christ or of the Church I do not name here the Churches judging of Civil Causes between Christians though this a thing most usual when the Princes and their Courts were Heathen because this is a Right of the Prince to judge all such Causes when brought before him and on that account the practice thereof did return to the Prince when Christian when it had been disused before only because Christians in any contest chose rather or also were enjoined it being a thing not only lawful but in those times very expedient for them to stand to the Arbitration of their Ecclesiastical Governors than to go to the trial of the Civil Law and Secular Magistrate * Declaring Heresie Suspending criminous sinners from the Sacrament Imposing Penances Reconciling Penitents and Excommunicating and casting out of the Church the incorrigible and obstinate * Ordaining Church-Officers in a due Subordination with a strict dependance of the lower upon the higher Clergy so that an Ecclesiastical Function is unlawfully exercised by the one if he enter upon it without the consent or confirmation of the other and that not only of Presbyters without the Bishops and of Bishops without the Metropolitans or Primates but of Primates themselves also without the Patriarchs as hath been shewed * Holding Religious Assemblies both for the Publick Service of God and for the forementioned Church-Affairs * And for this again the respective Superiors Calling and appointing these Meetings in certain places and times which also must be within the Territories of some secular Prince only all these things done by Lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors without Arms unless it be those of the Prince for their protection and in order to ends purely spiritual In which proceedings therefore they remain questionable and to be restrained by the same Temporal Authority when in any exceeding of such limits found to transgress § 23 All these things were practised by the Church in the Apostles times See for several of them 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 1.10 11 13. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 12 13. 4.19 21. 3 John 9.10 Mat. 18.17 18 20. and their holding a Council at Jerusalem Act. 15 and in the primitive times before Constantine though the secular Powers as yet Heathen opposed prohibited executed the chief Actors of them and therefore much more they may be continued and acted by the same Authority when Princes for the gaining of eternal Crowns have subjected their mortal ones to Christianâ—ty and are become Sons of the Church who surely by bringing in their persons under her obedience do not gain any such new Soveraignty over her as by this to take away those former Rights which Heathen Potentates could not justly deny or withhold from her For note here That whatever Prerogative or Priviledge is challenged by a Christian Prince as naturally belonging to the Civil Power cannot be denied also to an Infidel or Heathen Prince when possessed of the same power For example If a Christian Prince may lawfully restrain the Bishops his Subjects from meeting in Synods from executing the Church-Canons or publishing their definitions in matter of Doctrine I mean such as no way concern the State within his Realm without his leave upon this account because he is the Politick Supreme so may a Heathen as having the very same Title to do it And therefore none such must be hastily challenged by the one which if exercised by the other would both have ruined the Government of the Primitive Church and rendered its ordinary practice guilty of a most high Rebellion If these Christian Princes therefore now assist the Church to call her Councils if they adopt her Canons amongst their Laws and use their secular sword much more effective and dreaded by many for the present than her Spiritual one to force their Subjects and hers to a more ready obedience to her Laws we may not therefore argue her former power is now lost for calling Councils or for executing her Canons unless these first be made also their Laws because a secularly-stronger Power is joined with hers for the more advancing the same effect and hence perhaps to some may seem to eclipse Hers. But though in such a Conjunction the Princes Authority seems to have the stronger influence on Church-affairs yet so often as any such Prince in Profession Christian but addicted to some Faction apart withdraws such assistance from his true Mother and leaves Her again as the Heathen Princes did destitute of his aid or also restrained with his Interdicts so often she is forced to renew the Churche's former behaviour in the Heathen times and goes on acting the same things singly by her self armed only with that sword of Justice which Christ hath put into her hands of shutting the Rebellious out of the Kingdom of Heaven Else if we suppose any one Branch of the former Church-Authority in such a case as this to be lost by the Princes being Christian any Heretical Prince will now have the same power to ruine the Orthodox and Catholick Religion within his Territories as a Heathen Prince would then have had to destroy the Christian § 24 As you may easily discern if you will suppose such a Prince as Constantius one that professeth Arrianisme to claim as being a Christian Prince the exercising of some of those Powers forementioned which were managed by the Church her self before the times of Constantine Namely a Power To change the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Authority established by the Church to translate Patriarchs or erect new ones and to free the Primates such as are Arrian from obedience to Them and their Synods to introduce new Clergy or depose the former as to the Function of their Office in any place of his Dominions when yet these no way obnoxious to secular Justice for transgressing his Civil Laws in which case should the Prince deprive any such Clergy of life or liberty as Salomon did Abiathar yet the Clergy not the Prince is to supply another and all this without their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors consent and allowance * To hinder the Calling of Ecclesiastical Synods without his Consent as a thing rightly appertaining to him and other Christian Princes not them the Church men * Or these called at least to hinder his Clergy from assisting there and to deny their Decrees obligatory at least within the Circuit of his Government * When Synods are
and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints and Appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And the Protestant-Primates saith Bishop Bramhal †Vind. c. 1. p. 257. use the same customs of judging church-Church-Causes without calling Synods Now what is in this kind conceded to Metropolitans much more ought to be to Patriarchs whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial nor ever was a set time appointed for these as for the other This said concerning the Calling of General Councils its belonging of right to the Church and in it to the Supremest Prelate § 49 3ly It is not denied but that the Emperor had and since the dissolution of the Empire other Princes joined 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Prelates as being their Subjects of calling these both in assistance to the Church in her necessities and also in order to their own Civil affairs when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church Provided this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent consent either before or at least after the Indiction of them Of which thus Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt fic tainen ut possit etiam alius Pontifice consentiente Conciliâ—m indicere quinetiam satis sit si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat confirmet at si nec ipse indicat Concilium nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem illud non Concilium sed Conciliabulum fore § 52 And this thing is made good by the ancient practice where As the Emperors being by their secular power much more effectual promoters thereof were prevailed with to call the first General Councils so this was not done but either from the first Motion or with the consent of the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Head of the Church as appears concerning all the first 6. General Councils in the acclamatory speech of the 6 th Council at the conclusion thereof to the Emperor Arius Divisor c. They naming 1 Sylvester 2 Damasus 3 Caelestinus 4 Leo 5 Vigilius 6 Agatho Bishops of Rome joined with the Emperor in the promoting all these Councils And to come to some particulars Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus and to the Council assembled with him at Rome Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae i. e. of Damasus singly this Council not then sitting when the Orientals met first in Council though it did when they writ literas missas Theodosio summâ pietate Imperatori Concerning the 3 d. Council thus Prosper in Chronico Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ Coelestini authoritate Concerning the 4 th Thus the Emperor to Leo in the Epistles pertaining to that Council Superest ut si placuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire c. Synodum celebrare hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur nostris utique desideriis vestra Sanctitas satisfaciet Sacrae Religioni quae utilia sunt decernet Si verâ— hoc onerosum est ut tu ad has partes advenias hoc ipsum nobis prâ—priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum ubi nobis placuerit omues sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire quae Christianorum Religioni atque Catholicae Fidei prosint sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit suâ dispositione declarent To which add * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister to the same Pope Propterea tua Reverentia quocunque modo prospexerit significare dignetur ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi Thraciae atque Illyrici sicut etian nostro Domin piâ—ssimo Imperatori placuit in unani Civitatem velociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire illic facto Concilio de Catholicâ confessione c. te authore decernant And * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the first Act of that Council Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam factum est nec fieri licuit The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Oriental Bishops against John Bishop of Constantinople And that of Gelasius who lived about some 40. years after in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum i. e. the second Ephesin non consentiendo sola summovit authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Lastly If the ancient Canon that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum stand good the calling such Councils by Emperors without the Mandate or confent also of this Bishop will be to no purpose because nothing can be established therein without his concurrence Thus much of the power of Calling General Councils CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy § 67. § 53 THese things touching Church-Government from § â—9 being premised in general a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent as occasion requires I proceed to a more particular consideration of the first Head proposed before ‖ §. 8. concerning the Generality and just Authority of this Council to oblige all the Churches Subjects especially those of the West 1. Where in the first place it is to be noted That supposing this Council of Trent no legal and free General yet if it be a free and legal Patriarchal Council thus it will stand obligatory at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction to the Reformed and particularly to the English Church For 1 st It hath been formerly cleared both by the Church-Canons ‖ See before §. 11 12. c. and the Concessions of Protestants †§. 16. n. 4. c. That as a Diocesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses or to a Provincial where the Metropolitan presides and again a Provincial or Metropolitan Synod to a National or that composed of many Provinces
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
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
Council high esteem of it and reiterated intercessions for it to the King and to the State who in Ecclesiastical matters I think ought to take them for their Guides and for their Judges § 78 2. Next That this Council was opposed by the King or Civil State of France not for any Decrees concerning the matters of faith 2. or doctrine but of Reformation as containing in them something contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church or rather of the King in or over the Gallican Church Whilst I say there was no exception taken at any point of doctrine For that point of the Popes superiority to a Council opposed by the French was not decreed at all in Trent whatever Ferieres in Soave p. 8â—8 saith to the contrary nor do the words there urged by Ferieres imply so much nor those most addâ—cted to the Pope pretend so much Nay Pallav. 24 l. 14. c. 12. 〈◊〉 saith that Pope Pius having nine parts of ten in the Council ready to vote this superiority yet suffered this controvâ—rsie to rest undetermined because of the dissent of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the French Bishops Here then the reformed cannot plead any disobligation to the Council for these things wherein the Council is generally accepted by so great a part of the Church ‖ See below §. 147. because that in some other things it is by some particular State refused § 79 3. Again That those 13. Articles drawn up concerning reformation of secular Princes 3. set down by Soave p. 769. which upon his Embassadors complaint occasioned the French Kings Protestation Soave p. 760. but gave offence likewise to the Emperour and the Kingdom of Spain c. ‖ were upon this resentment of Princes laid aside and all that was enacted by the Council in stead of these concerning Princes is contained in the 20 cap. of Reformation in the last Session Cupiens Sancta Synodus c. Where you may see with what great modesty and respect the Council treateh these Secular Suprems Admonendos esse censuit confidens eos c. Proptereaque admonet Imperatorem c. But so it is that had they prosecuted the former 13. Articles that were drawn up such thing seems not deprived of a plausible excuse for that there was nothing proposed in them but what was formerly contained in the Imperial Laws as Cardinal Morone the Popes Legat in the Council assured the Emperour See Pall. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6. and as is exâ—ressed in the Preface to those Articles See Soave p. 769 and for that they only admonished suprem Princes to cause their inferiour Magistrates against whom was their chief complaint for their infringing the Churches Immunities †Pallav. l. 22. c. 6. n. 1. to observe the former grants of the Secular Powers made to the Church which Grants some conceive after a free donation of them cannot be at pleasure resumed especially when confirmed to the Church many of them by a decurrent practise from the times of the first Christian Emperours What passages in the Council especially in the two last Sessions as infringing the rights of Princes were excepted against by the Kingdom or Parliaments of France you may see for it would be too tedious to recount them here in Soave p. 819. c. and you may see the defences in behalf of the Council returned to them by Palavacin in l. 24. c. 10. and concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in temporal matters l. 12 c. 3. As for that particular urged by Soave and others ‖ Sess 25. c. 19. de Reform of the Councils depriving those Princes of their States who shall allow Duels That clause in it Quod ab Ecclesia obtinent Jurisdictione Dominio civitatis castri aut loci in quo vel apud quem duellum fieri permiserint quod ab ecclesia obtinent privati intelligantur shews this privation limited to those places where the Church hath the Temporal Dominion But mean while where ever is supposed either a publick concurrence and consent of the secular powers to such an Act of the Church or a former grant made by them of such Priviledges and Rights to the Church here such Act of the Church cannot be justly censured and to use Spalatensis ‖ De Repub. Eccles l. 6. c. 10. n. his words concerning the third Capitulation in the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. which is also much agitated Legitimum erit si supremorum Principum concessione tacita vel expressa editum fuerit Lastly since many of those regal rights mentioned in Soave and pretended to be violated by the Council were not peculiar to France but common to iâ— with all other Princes it is most probable that had the Council bin faulty therein other Princes would have resented such wrongs and remonstrated against them as well as France For they did so against those 13. Articles which were afterward laid aside but yet nor they nor their Embassadors vigilant and exceptions enough in other matters who then attended the Council and unanimously assented to these Acts discerned in them any such violation and we may much rather conclude them just because the Emperour King of Spain and many other Princes accepted them than unjust because one King or State refused them And from finding the causes of the French State rejecting the Council so slight perhaps it was that Hen. 4. at his reconcilement promised with an oath to Pope Clement 8. to use all his endeavour that this Council might be in his Kingdom entirely received ‖ Sponda A.D. 1595. n. 9. Pallaviâ— 24. â— 10. n. 15. and Cardinal D' Ossat his great Councellor and manager of his affairs at Rome often writ in behalf of the Council both to Secretary Villeroi and to the King himself That he found nothing in the Council opposit to the Kings Authority Many things beneficial none contrary to the Gallican Church unless some one perhaps may think Simonies and other abuses and faults to be priviledges of the Church Gallican That it displeased the great ones in France because thereby they were not permitted to enjoy Benefices incompatible and with such other abuses as were prohibited by the Council See his Letters to Villeroi Feb. 15. 1597. And Mar. 31. 1599. And May 16. 1600. quoted in Paull l. 24. c. 10. To which I may add what Caterina de Medicis Q. Regent of France had urged before this to the Pope's Nuncio ‖ Pallavic Ib. c. 11. n. 2.4 That the Council could not be admitted because by the Councils decrees the King could not thereafter gratifie such Ministers of State as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses or other Benefices of the Church holden in Commendam CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by Reason of 1. The pretended Non generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place
you of That if the Acts of Pius the Fourth if the proceedings of that Council in his time be justifiable though those of and under Paul and Julius should be proved some way faulty the number of Prelates insufficient their decisions factiously carried c. yet this Tridentine Council will stand universally in force as to all the decrees thereof because this Council under Pius reviewed and ratified and made their act all the Decrees made before with what supposed defect or culpableness of their proceedings you please for that may be right that is not done rightly under Paul and Julius So that who so justifieth this Council save only for Pius his times doth somewhat more than what is necessary 2ly For the place I desire these things may be considered § 83 1 st That no place can be chosen any where so absolutely free but that he under whose temporal Dominion it is 1. may infer some violence to the Council or to some party therein with whom he is offended and so whereas the Church and the Pope as well as Temporal Princes have their rights and priviledges which may be violated the place of the Council in any Secular State may seem not free enough for the Pope and the Church and again since the Secular Princes have often differences and several interests as it happened frequently in the time of the Council of Trent the place of the Council in ones Dominions will not seem free enough to another Unless it may be thought a sufficient remedy for such unavoidable inconvenience that when such violence appears the Council may cease acting or be suspended or dâ—ssolved or injured States withdrraw from it their Bishops § 84 2 ly That the place of former Councils appointed at Rome or in some other City in Italy as it was in the Roman Lateran Florentine Pisan Councils was not accounted therefore to render them not free because of the nearer influence from Pope though in all those Councils there was something to be decided wherein the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio but was inclined more to one side than another and wherein one side might pretend him a Party as in the controversies of the Waldenses of Beâ—engarius of the Grecians c. § 85 3 ly That the Imperour took sufficient care that thâ—s Council should not be coâ—vâ—â—ed in any place of Italy 3. which was under the Temporal Dominâ—on of the Pope or where himself had not the câ—â—ef command He consented indeed that the Council should be kept in Mantua but see what he declared first to the Protestants concerning this place in Soave l. 1. p 80. That the Duke thereof was vassâ—l to the Empire so that the Pope had no power there and that if they desired any further caution himself was ready to give it them To which they answered how rationally I leave it to you That no safe-conduct could there free them from danger for the Pope having adherents throughout all Italy who bitterly hated them there was great danger of treachery and sâ—cret plots †Sâ—â— Soavâ— p. 77. And as little reason as these had Henry the Eight to protest against the Council at Mantua for fear of the Pope § 86 4 ly That the Pope had indeed no reason to allow the Council to be kept in any City of Germany 4 that was near the Protestants not to avoid their pleas but * for fear of their Arms of which fear whether he had any just cause we shall see more by and by as likewise * for the too great distance from Rome whereby he could not so easily from time to tâ—me give directions to his Legats in those many controversies which were likely to be agitated in that Council and in all which it was impossible for him to give them a precedent information with a sufficient foresight § 87 5 ly That this Council was celebrated in a place to which the Emperour and the major part of Christian Princes namely all the Catholick 5. gave their consent and sent some sooner some later their Bishops and Embassadours too which was enough to legitimate it though perhaps they would rather have chosen another and not all the same See Soave p. 101 and p. 702. Where the King of France desiring a translâ—tion of the Council form Trent to Constance Wormers c. for the more convenience of the Dutch English and part of the French Prelats Soave reports the King of Spain returning this answer That the Council was assembled in Trent 〈◊〉 all the solemnities with consent of all Kings Princes and at 〈…〉 â—â—nce of Francis the French King that the Emperour had superiority in that City as in the others that were named and might give full security to all in case the former safe conduct were not sufficient § Again celebrated in a place confining on Germany and nearer to the Protestants there than it was to the Catholicks of France or Spain and of which the Emperour was the châ—ef Lord. § Therefore Soave p. 309. represents the Emperour dâ—scoursing thâ—s to the Protestants concerning this City That they should leave all to his care who knew how to handle the business that they should suffer other Nations to mâ—et and that himself would go in person if not thither yet to some near place and would take ordâ—r nâ—t by words but dâ—eds that all should pass with goâ—d termâ— And below that he as Advocate to the holy Chuâ—ch and Dâ—fender of the Councils will do what â—elongeth to his charge as he hath promis d. And p. 669 reâ—â—tâ—s How the Cardinal of Lorraine sent a Gentleman to the Empercur to desire him that he would not remove further from the Council in regard of the fruit which thâ—y hoped forby means â—f his vicinity which will kâ—ep every one in his duty and hinder the attempts of thosâ— who would translate it into another place c. And p. 30â— relates the Popes fears That he could not take all suspicion from the King of France if the Council should be celebrated in Frent a place subject to the Emperour and near unto his Army Again a place it was * not accessible by the Popes Forces unless marching first through anothers Dominions and trespassing on the Emperour who was in Italy it self a Prince much more powerful than he and a place which either the Emperours or Protestant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march And therefore was not the Pope free from fears concerning it though he had more of Germany as may be seen in Soave l. 5. p. 436. where he saith That the Pope was troubled because the Protestants of Germany unto whom a great part of France was united would demand exorbitant things which he could not grant them and doubted they might be able to disturb the Council with Arms that He confessed that the dangers were great and the remedies small and was perplexed and troubled in mind Thus Soave § 90 Nor
Prague for Huss desired none from the Council upon which he also thought fit to venture himself and appear before it The form thereof is this Citamus c. quatenus compareas c. recepturus in omnibus justitiae complementum ad quod a violentia justitiâ semper salvâ omnem salvum conductum nostrum quantum in nobis est fides exigit orthodoxa presentium tenore offerimus Now since Hierom after Huss his having been some time at Constance ventured to appear there upon such a Safe-conduct why may we not reasonably imagine notwithstanding the declarations of some Protestants of the extream folly of such an action that Jo. Huss might have the same confidence or commit the like over-sights as the other as much mistaking at first both the strict justice of the Council and the weakness of his cause The same thing may be probably gathered from his flight after some time out of Constance hidden in a Cart laden with goods which argues the little confidence he had in the Form of his Safe-conduct to protect him from justice as this also doth that neither at his trial nor his Death he is mentioned in his followers relating his story either to have claimed the the priviledge of such a Safe-conduct or accused any of the breach thereof But now suppose it a Safe-conduct securing him not only from violence but also from execution of justice yet is it related to have been so conditioned as that if he should attempt any flight which he did he should forfeit all the benesit of it and thus free Justice Ecclesiastical and Civil proceed against him Now that by one of these waies the Emperour was discharged from his faith given to him may justly be presumed in that after his condemnation for Heresie he made no scruple to put him to death and that before any Conciliar decree was passed by the Council in this matter as it were to relax or dissolve his former engagement Huss his Execution being in July and the aforementioned decree passed in September following § 103 But be these things how they will of which several flourishes and conjectures are made both wayes And let us suppose the Safe-conduct to free him totally from the Secular Justice and some miscarriages also to have been in the proceedings of the Emperour or Council which is not impossible yet not the least errour can be found in the Decree or Constitution or Doctrine of the Council which is so much blamed as which expresly declares That the Prince once his faith given debet facere quod in ipso est i. e quod est in ipsius legitimâ potestate and then This also is granted See Becan c. 12. quoted before § 94. That it is a thing in the Princes lawful power to suspend the execution of his own laws and upon such suppositions if the Emperour through the importunities of some others did not this I see not how he can be therein excused But still the Councils Decree hath no hand in such guilt But lastly The Delegats from Bohemia who where Hussites their repairing some sixteen years after to the Council of Basil upon the security of the Council and the same Emperor Sigismund's Safe-conduct shews sufficiently that the Safe-conducts of Huss and Hierom of Prague were too narrow to shield them from justice as well as from injury and not such faith of the Emperour or Council as was promised to them to have been afterward broken For to the same Faith only the form of of the Safe-conduct changed these Commissioners from Bohemiae freely trusted themselves Thus much of the Council of Constance in which for that which is related here out of the Story I must refer you to Molanus de Fide Haeret servand l. 3. Spondanus and the Authors mentioned by him in A. D. 14 â—5 n. 44 and 45. especially Cocleus in his Histor Hussit l. 2. and 3. who takes his matter out of the Stories delivered by some of Huss his followers § 104 But yet to give all content the Council of Trent in their Safe-conduct did expresly huic constitutioni Constantiensi in hac parte pro hac vice derogare The Trent Conduct thus qualified for their satisfaction yet another exception the Protestants had against it That whereas they chiefly desired two things viz. 1. That the Scripture alone might be the judge or rule to try the Controversies by and 2. That the Protestants joyned in an equal number with the Catholicks might have decisive votes or the Controversies be decided by an equal number of Lay-Judges chosen on both sides The form of this Trent-safe conduct for the Protestants did not as to these exactly follow that of Basil for the Bohemians whereby had it been granted saith Soave †the Protestants would have obtained one great point that is ‖ p. 344. that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture and afterward Soave p. 366. It is pretended That such a Safe-conduct would have given them a decisive voice But in answer to these For this last point there appears no such thing in that conduct of Basil For the former point the words of the Safe-conduct in Concil Basil 4. Sess are these In causa quatuor Articulorum per eos attentorum lex divina praxis Christi Apostolica Ecclesiae primitiva una cum Conciliis Doctoribus fundantibus se veraciter in eadem pro verissimo indifferenti Judice in hoc Basiliensi Concilio admittentur Whereas the words of the Safe-conduct in the Council of Trent are these S. Trident. Synodus concedit quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum Sanctorum Patrum authoritates in praedicto Concilio Tridentino tractentur where we see both the Conducts do agree in praxis or Traditio Apostolorum in Concilia and Doctores or Patres only the later omits the clause fundantes se veraciter in Scriptura The reason of which omission see in Pallav. l. 12. c. 15 n 9. And it is clear at first sight because this clause was capable though contrary to the intention of the Council of Basil of such a false Glosse namely if it be thus understood that when any Authority was produced out of Councils or Fathers the Protestants might accept or reject it as they judged it to be founded or not founded in the Scriptures as would void the sense of the words that went before it and make them needlesly added to lex divinae the Protestants when any such authority out of Councils or Fathers is urged answering Ostende quod illa Conciliae c. se veraciter fundarunt in Scriptura which is the same with Proba hoc quod Concilium dicit ex Scripturis For suppose those Councils quote some Scriptures for what they say yet will not Protestants therefore yield that what they shall say is founded there because they may say they quote them in a wrong sense and
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
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
Authority of the Councils and their Creeds will you say he doth not but on the Scriptures Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian and those urged against him and weighed them in the Ballance If yet they have not ought they If they ought what a task here for young Protestant-students what an Eternal Distraction in this a search what heavenly peace in the other obedience to the judgements of former Councils and Vacancy for better imployments Again If they ought what all Protestants the most of them as of all Christians are illiterate Men not having either leisure or ability to search c. Must these adhere therefore to former Councils and their Creeds in these Points Then in others and in this of Real Presence or Transubstantiation and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiastical Authority or Ministry standing in opposition to a superior But this is Schism in them both and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd for his denying it to another to whom it is due Nor would M Claude be well pleased if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers divided from the rest of their Consistory Class or Synod As for the Tryal §. 321. n. 26. he motions to be made by H. Scriptures This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done first as it ought And the issue of it was That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence the other in another For Example The one understood Hoc est Corpus meum literally the other in a Metaphor and so differently understood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause Here the true sence of Scripture became the Question and their Controversie For the Judge and Decâ—der of this between them when time was they took a Council For since Scripture they could no more take the sence of that being their Question to whom should they repair but the Church and of the Church a Council is the Representative Councils several to a great number in several ages †See Guide in Controver Disc 1. §. 57 58. decided this matter declared the sence of the Scriptures but so as it liked not one Party These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sentence of the Fathers and Primitive Church i.e. of their writings Again the sence of these writings as before that of Scriptures is understood diversly by the Contesters And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question and Controversie Nor here will Disputes end it Witness so many Replies made on either side Former Councils as they have given their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures so they have of those of the Fathers but their Authority is rejected in both And a new Council were it now convened besides that M. Claud's Party being the fewer and so easily over-voted would never submit to it we may from M. Claud's Confession †l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 p. 337. That both Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist rationally conjecture that Protestants in such Councils would remain the party condemn'd What then would this person have He would have the Controversy begin again and return to the Scriptures Which is in plain Language That the Question should decide the Controversie and till this can do it That so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party all should have their Liberty For when they are the stronger they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences and though not professing themselves infallible yeâ— upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction upon pain of Suspension from their Function to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth and to teach them to the People as such and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary till they shall recant their Errour Of which see before § 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal as they had done from that of Trent but could not be beard As for that which follows in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal challenging a Submission and Conformity of so many Protestants as have no certainty of their new Opinions rather to the Church than to Innovators to me it sounds thus That every plain and simple Protestant 1st thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture in this Point of the Eucharist and so in others any way necessary to be clear and without dispute and the more simple he is the sooner he may think so because he is not able to compare all other Texes nor to examine the contrary sences given by others or the reasonable grounds thereof 2. Next that every one who thinks his Exposition or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point is by this sufficiently assured that he hath a right Faith or from this sence of his knows what he ought to believe and forms a Judgement herein as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another a strange proposition but I see nothing else from which such person collects his faith to be right if any doth produceit 3ly That every such simple person now easily knows whether the Society wherein he lives be a true Church or otherwise viz. as they agree with or dissent from that right Faith of his already supposed or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word i. e. in his clear Sence thereof 4ly Knowing thus from this his clear exposition or sence of Scripture what he ought to believe he needs not trouble himself what the Ancient Church hath believed which is very true nay he knows without reading them or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them that the Fathers if of the number of the Faithful were of his Opinion by M. Claud's arguing forementioned I desire the Reader to review his words or the 5th 6th Chapters of his 1st Book and see if he can make any better construction of them Now if there be any Sence in this he saith How can he hinder but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea Church-authority being laid aside for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions viz. his clear sence of Scripture quite contrary to the Protestants clear sence And in any Controversie amongst Protestants Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants here both sides have the same Plea one against another namely the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them And why doth not this certainty void their
and the fear of such disturbance to the proceedings of the Council make him yield the controversie about Parma Which Controversie lasting for some time longer and the Council at Trent being dissolved within a year by reason of the Profestants in Germany taking Arms hence no French Bishops were present in the Council for its Sessions under Julius But this protestation of the King and absence of the French Bishops the Imperialists saith Soave p. 320. esteemed a vanity because the Act of the major part of the Vniversality is ever esteemed lawful when the lesser being called either cannot or will not be present Yet he saith that the Parliament of Paris was of a contrary judgment viz. that in Ecclesiastical Assemblies where the whole belongeth to all and every one hath his part the assent of every one is necessary Et prohibentis conditio potior and the absent not giving their voices are not bound to receive such a Council In answer to whom Pallavicino ‖ l. 11. c. 18. n. 7. as easily denies that Parliament to have said or held any such thing as applied to Ecclesiastical affairs else in a possession wherein there are many partners or sharers this rule is very true But whatever that Lay-Parliament held it is so exploded a conceit this that the assent of every one is necessary or else the major part of the Council doth not oblige him by which no Arrian Bishop is obliged to obey the Council of Nice that I count it lost time to confute it See again the French King in Pius the Fourth's time upon the Council's beginning to agitate the Reformation of Secular Princes as to their infringing the priviledges of the Church giving order that his Bishops should absent themselves from the Council but the King being better informed by the Card. of Lorraine's Letters to him and those Articles of Reformation of Princes because so offensive being no further proceeded in the French Bishops withdrew not themselves save some few upon their private occasions but continued in it till the end of the Council †Pallavic l. 23 c. 1. Soave p. 783 784 798. 4. That in those Sessions wherein there were but few Bishops § 74 as in the fourth fifth sixth Sessions under Paul the Third yet there was besides them a choice Collection of other Divines some of the most famous for Learning and Writings which that age afforded which Divines though they had no decisive Votes in the Session yet were they constantly consulted with in the preparatory Congregations and nothing ordinarily passed without their preceding Conferences and long and diligent disquisitions such I believe as cannot be matched in the Records of any former Council See * the manner of their proceeding in Soave p 198. and * the testimony he gives them p. 150. That though at the first they seemed in the Council only to make Sermons c. yet when that controverted Doctrines were to be decided and the abuse of Learned men rather than of others to be reformed their worth began to appear Likewise beside these Bishops and other Divines in Trent there was also in the time of the forenamed Sessions a great number of Cardinals Bishops and choice Divines and Canonists at Rome assisting the Pope and consulted by him upon all new occasions of informing his Legates in Trent So that even in the meanest attendance of the Bishops in this place it was not so contemptible a Conventicle as many would make believe Nor are the persons their Resâ—â—eâ—t and acting in the Council so much vilified by one side but that they are as much exalted by another Thus Soave falls upon that part of the Council which seems most weakly guarded the Fourth Session in his p. 163. That some thought it strange that five Cardinals and forty eight Bishops should so easily define the most principal and important Points of Religion never decided before Neither was there amongst those Prelates any one remarkable for Learning some of them Lawyers perhaps Learned in their Profession but of little understanding in Religion few Divines but of less than ordinary sufficiency the greater number Gentlemen or Courtiers and for their Dignities some only titular and the major part Bishops of small Cities particularly of Germany not so much as one Bishop or Divine So Soave And Pallavicino gives him this repulse l. 6. c. 17. n. 12 c. That what the Bishops then said in the Congregations which is to be seen in many other Libraries besides the Vatican sufficiently sheweth their great Learning That there were only 48. Bishops indeed but these not of small Churches as Soave supposeth Besides that every one of the Cardinals besides Poole had noble Bishopricks and most of them more than one as was usual in those days But which is more that these Prelates were choice persons out of Italy Sicily Sardinia France and Spain sent thither by the Supreme Authority Besides whom there were some from Dalmatia Greece Sweden Scotland That the three Legates were all excelle persons and two of them greatly skilled in the Learned Languages to the ignorance of which Tongues Soave imputes the passing of the Determination made in that Session in behalf of the vulgar Translation Cervini especially who then from time to time communicated his doubts with Sirletus then Keeper of the Vatican Library afterwards Cardinal besides the Legates Madruccius and Pacecus were of the greatest and most renowned persons that were in Germany or Spain To these Bishops were adjoyned three Abbots to represent the Benedictine Order and the five Generals of the Mendicant Orders all men of great Learning as Soave frequently though against his will confesseth in his recitations of their Discourses and if we make any account of the persons represented by them it was no small matter that in this Council besides others were then the Heads of almost all the encloystered Families who are so considerable a part of the Church and in fine the chief Conservatory and Receptacle of Theology There assisted this Synod at that time for Counsellors at least forty Divines ‖ See Soave p. 194. of the ablest that were then in Christendom and many of whom have illustrated that Age with their Writings and much exalted it for Theological Learning above many preceding Such were Sotâ— Oleastro Caterino Castro vega c. It is true that there were no Germans there But what marvel if these Prelates came not to the Council who were then in a fight at that very time a Diet being held and a little before it the Colloquy at Ratisbone For whose sakes therefore it was that Madruccius and Toledo Cesar 's Embassadors opposed the Accusation in the Council of the contumacy of the Absents Yet were the matters of the Council conferred with these German Prelates by Letters and their Answers read and the aids of their Pen though not of their Tongue afforded to the Council Thus the one exalts as the other depresseth The Discourses