the Catholick Universe met together there never hath been any but in those which are generally by Protestants as well as Catholicks reputed and admitted for such sometimes we find a greater sometimes a smaller number according to the propinquity of the place the peace of the times the numerosity of Sects c. So the four first General Councils all held in the East by reason of the Heresies they opposed chiefly reigning in that Coast consisted mostly of Oriental Bishops The first General Council of Nice had present in it only 2. Presbyters the Bishop of Rome's Legates and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches The 2d General Council of Constantinople had in it no Occidental Bishop at all but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Council assembled in Rome not long after it The 3d. General Council of Ephesus had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Synod The 4th of Chalcedon had only 4. Legates sent thither from the Bishop of Rome after that the Western Bishops assembled in several Provincial Synods had communicated their judgment to them in the Controversie then agitated and besides these 2. Affrican Bishops and one Sicilian Where note That the 3d. also of these Councils transacted most of their business and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch and his Bishops who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius though afterwards he and his consented also to his Condemnation And that the 4th Council acted all things without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch whom also they deposed for his favouring the Heretical Party and for his Contumacy against the See of Rome See Conc. Chalced. Act 4. Yet all these Councils whether the Bishops personally present were fewer or more were accounted equally valid § 34 from the After-acceptation and admittance of their Decrees by the Prelates absent i. e. the acceptation of such persons as if present had had a Vote in them All which Prelates were they personally present in the Council or the much major part of them there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Catholick or of any other Members thereof to confirm its acts nor are they any way capable thereof because the remainder of the Church diffusive I mean of those who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs must be concluded in their Judgment and Sentence by this supposed much-major part thereof that are personally present in the Council But this wanting the other compleatsits defect And upon such Acceptation it is that the 2d. and the 5th of the Councils called General held at Constantinople without the Pope or his Legat's presence therein yet bear the name of General because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus and his Occidental Council convened not long after it and the latter after some time accepted by Vigilius and his Successors with the Western Bishops as on the contrary for want of such Acceptation the 2 d. Ephâ—sin Council though for its meeting as entire and full as most of the other called Oecumenical yet was never esteemed such because its Decrees though passed by a major part of the present Bishops were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council and by Him and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates out of it § 35 And upon this General Acceptation also inferior Councils may become in their Obligation equivalent to Generall since however the Churches Testimony is received whether conjunctly De Concil l. 2. c. 28. or by parts yet Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis So Bellarmine observes ancient Councils less than General very frequently to have determined matters of Faith Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum paucorum Episcoporum Euseb l. 7. c. 24. nec alii multò plures in toto mundo conquesti sunt sed ratum habuerunt Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum in quo nullus fuit Latinorum Latini probaverunt Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia Milevitanum Carthaginense Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum antequà m adessent Latini Latini voluerunt cognoscere rem gestam cognitam approbaverunt All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them Neither did or ought such inferior Councils when necessitated by contentions and disputes define any such thing hastily or rashly but as they well knew before any such Resolution the common Sentiments of the Church Catholick herein Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts. § 36 Next Concerning the just quality measure and proportion of this after-Acceptation several things are to be well observed 1. 1 st That it is not to be extended in a Latitude of Christianity much greater beyond the bounds of the Church Catholick Which Catholick Church is many times of a narrower compass than the Christian Profession all Heretical and Schismatical Churches I mean such as have made a former discession in Doctrine or external Communion from their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors and being but a part have separated from the former whole standing contradistinct to it So after the Nicene Council in Constantines time the Arrians and in S. Austins time the Donatists were esteemed though Christians yet no Catholicks and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity opposite to them Of which thus S. Austin †Contra Episc Fuâ—d c. 4. Tenerme justissimè in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen quod nomen non sine causâ inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit Therefore upon the growth of many Heresies after the Heathen persecutions ceased instead of these words of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints i.e. in it we read in this Creed as explained by Councils I believe One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church 1. One to distinguish it from many varying Sects pretending also to be true Churches of Christ 2. Holy i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith Manners Sacraments Government Discipline delivered by our Lord and his Apostles and in particular Holy as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness but not Holy so as that some external Members thereof may not be by their own default internally unholy and unsanctified and no true Members of Christ 3. Apostolick i. e Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinations and preserving their Traditions for Doctrine Government and Discipline And therefore here the other Clause the Communion of Saints is omitted as sufficiently included in the former Explication which is observed also by Dr. Hammond of Fundamentals p. 69 83. So in the yet more enlarged Athanasian Creed we find the Catholick Faith used in a restrained sence opposed to all those Heresies that are rejected by
that Creed And to this notion of Church Catholick See in Disc 1. § 37. 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting § 37 2ly This Acceptation in respect of the Catholick Church i e. of those Prelates that be not formerly by any Herefie or Schisme shut out of it cannot rationally be required absolutely universal of all but only of the considerably Major part of them for in a Government not simply Monarchical whether Ecclesiastical or Civil no Laws can be promulgated nor Unity preserved if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part and it hath been shewed at large Disc 2. § 25. which I desire the Reader to review and consider well because much weight is laid upon it that the Decrees of the first 4 General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule and Warrant to posterity Nor otherwise can any new Heresie patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick as the most pernicious Heresies have ever been he ever legally suppressed so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest See what hath been said of this in Disc 1. § 28 38 39. Disc 3. § 11 37. That strict condition therefore which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize and ratifie the Definitions and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation seems not reasonable Namely That after their promulgation at least if not before they should be accepted by each Provincial Council and acknowledged to agree with that Faith which they had originally received of Her § 6. n. 8 12. Or That such Conciliar Declarations should be universally received by all Churches Her § 14. n. 4. because such are saith he Christians and Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome and consequently their Negatives as evident prejudices to and as utterly unreconcileable with an universal affirmative as the Popes can be c. Like to which § 12. n. 6. he argues thus concerning the absence or dissent of any Bishops from a Council That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council I add or when met do consent for if there be any left out why may not the promise be good in them though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council And § 5. n. 3. That if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places it is not qualified for our belief as Catholick in respect of place because the Faith being one and the same and by all and every of the Apostles deposited in all their Plantations what was ever really thus taught by any of them in any Church will also be found to have been taught and received in all other Apostolical Churches And § 10 n. 2 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th General Council not obliging because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council that of Eliberis which is not true yields saith he an irrefragable proof that the Doctrine of the 2 d. Nicene Council was not testified by all the Churches of all ages to be of Tradition Apostolical I say such an universal acceptation as this of every Church or Province seems upon any such pretence unreasonably exacted 1 st Because all Conciliary Definitions are not as he saith there they are only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches planted by them but are many times Determinations of points deduced from and necessarily consequential to such clear Traditionals whether written or unwritten 2ly Because if the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition yet it is possible that some particular Church may in time depart from such a Tradition entrusted unto them else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition and so when their acceptance is asked may refuse to acknowledge what all the rest justisie And all this clearly appears in those Bishops or Churches that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Councils and in the opposition of S. Cyprian and his Bishops concerning Rebaptization § 41 3ly For the manner of this Approbation of such major part It is thought sufficient if it be a tacit and interpretative Approbation only and not positive or express 3. for who can shew this to most allowed Councils Namely when such Decrees being promulgated they signifie no opposition thereto Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ System fidei c. 23. p. 262 Neque tamen dubitandum est quin statim obligare incipiant actus Conciliares si non appareat Ecclesiarum non dico hujus vel illius vel aliquorum protervorum hominum reclamatio nam praesumendum est omnes consensisse si non constet oppositum ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula ubi post alia dicit Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit necessariò credendum est And thus Dr. Hammond of Heres § 6. n. 15.16 When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on it is then promulgated to all and the universal though but tacit approbation and reception thereof the no considerable contradiction given to it in the Church is a competent evidence that this is the judgment and concordant Tradition of the whole Church though no resolution of Provincial Synods which was used before some General Councils hath preceded But if their Acts are contradicted and protested against this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council And Archbishop Lawd § 26. p. 195. saith It is a sufficient confirmation to a General Council if after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The whole Church admit it saith he And the whole say we or such a major part of the whole as ought to conclude the rest Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity to such Decrees in mens profession and practice For it is all reason that where we cannot have Quod creditum est ubique ab omnibus semper by reason of some divisions in the Church we hold to what is nearest it quod creditum est in pluribus locis à pluribus diutius or antiquiùs For the plures pluribus locis joined in one Communion with the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church here on earth are the securest Expositors to us of quod antiquius or quod creditum semper See Disc 3. § 11. 4ly For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council or only to some § 42 whilst some other Decrees are disclaimed as sometimes happens Here also 4. so far as a due Acceptation is extended so far is our Obligation nor can any reasonably argue that if some Acts of a Council are by some after-opposition rendred invalid therefore no other things pâ—ssed in that
any Point after defined necessary explicitly to be believed not only this one condition of the Churches having defined them is required for none is obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal made to us of the Churches having defined them And then indeed so many Articles are necessary to be explicitly believed as to the doing of our duty in order to our salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as to acquiring some knowledge necessary to our salvation without which knowledge it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is See what hath been already said of this whole matter much what to this purpose in Disc 3. § 85. n. 4. c. § 197 There are then as Catholicks to undeceive Protestants do frequently inculcat and cannot be heard Points or Articles of Faith necessary to our Salvation to be believed or extra quae credita nemo salvus in a tripple sence 1. Some necessary ratione Medii Such as are necessary so absolutely as that an invincible ignorance of them is said to fail of Salvation which are a very few of the many Articles of our Christian Faith 2. Others necessary ratione praecepti which are necessary to be believed only conditionally And they are of two sorts 1. Either such which I am not only obliged to believe when known to me to be Divine Truths but the knowledge also of which as Articles of high concernment I am bound according to the different quality of my condition to seek after wherein my ignorance and neglect when by using a due diligence I might have known them being thus in an high degree culpable doth unrepented of destroy my salvation Such are some other chief Principles of Religion and Piety the ten Commandements and some Sacraments c. delivered in the common Creeds and Catechisms such as are not absolutely necessary ratione Medii 3. 2 Or such as though I am not obliged to such a diligent search of them as of the former yet a belief of them I am to embrace so often as these two things precede 1 st that they are defined by my spiritual Guides to be Divine Revelation c 2 ly that this Definition is sufficiently evidenced to me Where though not my meer ignorance in such Points yet my denial or dis-belief of them thus proposed is to be judged wilful and obstinate and this unrepented of destroyes my salvation § 198 8. This of the Seventh The Eighth consideration is That the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined 8. or made de Fide in the Council of Trent to repeat here what hath been said formerly in the first Disc § 50. were made so by sormer Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The law fulness of communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Popes Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council Lateran Veneration of Images in second Nicene Council Adoration of Christs Body and Blood as present in the Eucharist in the Council of Frankfort if Capitulate Caroli may be taken to deliver the sence of that Council †See Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. Veneration of the Cross †Ib. l. 4. c. 16. and of Relicks ‖ Ib. l. 3. c. 24. in the same Council only this Council condemned the Adoration of Images in such a sence as they mistook the second Council of Nice to have allowed it †See Capitulare prefat Dr. Hamnâ—ond o Idol § 57. Thornd Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Monnastick vows Celibacy of Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead Sacrifice of the Mass and many other apparent in the publick Liturgies of the Church preceding the Council of Trent and unaltered for many ages Protestants being Judges Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practise And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before made them not de Fide or if the Council of Trent or Pius the 4th were first faulty herein But if Councils before Trent have defined such things then by these first were all hopes of peace except by yielding to their Decrees cut off and not by Trent because these Councils are by the Roman Church accepted and held obligatory as well as that of Trent And here I may repeat those words of Bishop Bramhal recited in Disc 1. § 52. in answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon who urged the separation of Protestants from the Church long before the Grievances of Trent or Pius These very Points saith he †p. 263. which Pius the Fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded on us before by his Predecessors i. e. then when Luther and his Followers forsook the Church as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion This is the only difference that Pius 4. dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and be bound them up into a bundle They fashioned the rods i. e. in the Synods held in the Church before Luthers appearance For these Rods only require submittance as being necessary Articles of her Communion and such are only the Definitions of her Councils § 199 9. Consid That the Protestants who accuse seem as guilty in making new definitions in matters of faith and enjoyning them to be believed or assented and subscribed to 9. by those of their Communion as the Council of Trent or Roman Church that is here taxed for it For as the one is said to make new affirmatives in Religion so the other new Negatives all or most of which as hath been shewed in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †§. 85 n. 2. are implicitly new affirmatives Neither can the Church of Rome be more justly questioned in her not leaving points in universals only § 200 and their former indifferency but anew-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation Invocation c. than the Reformed and particularly those of the English Church for new-stating the contrary to these 1. Who as hath been shewed in the 3d Disc c. 7. †§. 85. n. 3. 1. do not suspend their judgment concerning those new points which they say the Roman Church presumes to determine but do in the main Articles handled in the Council of Trent as peremptorily state the one side as the Roman Church the other and as to several points the reformed also were the first I mean in comparison of the Council of Trent in determining them and condemning the doctrines and practises of the other side So to say nothing here of the Augustan Confession composed many years
Yet remain they still fettered with the Bonds of a third Obedience I mean Passive in a meek submittance to the Church's Censures And if they shall happen to be excommunicated by the Church and externally disjoyned from its Society yet is it by no means lawful for them after their publishing new Doctrines to proceed also to erect a new Altar or Anti-Communion against it But patiently undergoing its sentence and longing for their peaceable restorement to the former Catholick Communion which is alwaies but One and may not be divided they are to expect from God the vindication of his Truth and their Innocence Which so long as any suffers for he remains still internally a member of this former Society from which externally he is excluded Now by this third Obedience if the Churches Faith in some manner suffers yet its Unity at least will remain unviolated and not divided or torn by Schismes These things I have endeavoured to represent and perswade to the pious Reader in the former Discourses as also in the beginning and conclusion of this present Work have further pressed them Now from such a submission to a legal Church-Authority once gained the same is rightly demanded to that of Trent if this Council proved Legal And then by this Council once received and submitted to is an end put to the most and chiefest of the modern Theological Controversies and present Church-distractions This then is the Task of the following Discourse Of which I implore the Divine Majesty for a prosperous success only so far as it maintains a right and just Cause and so commit the Reader to the gracious Illuminations of his Holy Spirit THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council OBjected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its Proceedings § 5. 4. That Several of its Decisions are without or contrary to Scripture to Primitive Tradition and Tyrannically Imposed § 6. 5. That the Decrees of this Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. n. 2. CHAP. II. Some General Considerations pre-posed 1. Of Inferior Councils The due Subordination and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precedents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. CHAP. III. 2. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the Acceptation of them Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 45. 3. And Calling of them § 47. CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from the subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant-Clergy § 67. CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nation § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by reason of 1. The pretended Non-generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place § 83. 3. Or the want of Safe-Conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishop's or Pope's being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several waies of judging Ecclesiastical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Pope's being Judge § 122. CHAP. VIII II Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonablness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies CHAP. IX III Head Of the Legalness of the proceeding of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 128. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon this Council for the condemning of the Protestant Opinions in condemning which the Fathers of this Council unanimously agreed § 150. 4 That no violence was used upon the Council for defining of Points debated between the Catholicks themselves § 152. Where Of the Councils proceedings touching the chief points in debate Touching 1. Episcopal Residency Jure Divino § 153. 2. Episcopal Jurisdiction Jure Divino § 154. 3. The Popes Superiority to Councils § 155. That these three Points of Controversie however stated are of no great advantage to the Reformed § 156. 5. That no violence was used upon the Council for hindring any just Reformations § 157. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing
Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine § 5 3. ' That it was not a Free and Lawful Council 3. 1. λ. Where the accusers or the accused take λ. 1. whether you please namely the Pope and the Bishops persons of the same perswasion and communion with him sate as Judges in their own cause namely in a Question of the Popes Supremacy and of the corruptions of that Church see B. L. § 27 n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's μ. μ. Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council 2. ν. Where was no security in the place of Meeting ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted since the cruel Decrees and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss though armed with a safe Conduct ξ. Whither also ξ. notwithstanding this some of the Protestant party being come yet they were not suffered to propose and dispute their cause And again Ï€. Where after dispute Ï€. had it been granted them yet they if no Bishops could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest but must after the Disputation have been judged and censured by their Adversaries 3. Ï‚. Where all the Members of the Council Ï‚. 3. that had a vote had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy and none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome and were professed enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council B. Lawd § 27. n. 1. 4. σ. σ. 1 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council but only what the Popes Legates proposed the Popes Commission running Proponentibus Legatis σ 2 * where nothing was determined σ 2 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome himself not vouchsafing to be present therein and therefore it was commonly said that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male 5. Ï„. Ï„. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope and many Bishops were introduced who were only titular and ‖ B. Bramb Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishopricks also erected by the Pope during the Council all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes and hence such an unproportionable number there of Italian Bishops § 6 4. v. Suppose the Council in all these Objections cleared v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical and Legal yet have the Reformed this Reserve after all wherefore they cannot justly entertain it * Because some of the Decrees and Definitions are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures or at least not warranted by them φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures as the Nicene and other primitive Councils did but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in matter of Faith Concerning which thus Arch-Bishop Lawd § 28. The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or in necessary sense or the Council is not Lawful For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority to make the Council Authentical and the Decisions of it de fide than any confirmation of the Pope can be Now the Council of Trent we are able to prove had not the first but have departed from the Letter and sense of Scripture and so we have no reason to respect the second See likewise § 27. n. 1. Where he asks How that Council is Legal which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie and make it to be de fide though it hath not the written word of God for warrant either in express Letter or necessary sence and deduction but is quite extra without the Scripture See also Mr Stillingfl p. 477 478. χ χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to or at least not warranted by Primitive and Apostolical Tradition ‖ Soave p. 228. And in the last place Dr. Hammond of Her §. 11. n. 3 7. Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's in these and in many other slight matters if truths upon all those who shall dissent from or at least who shall contradict their Judgment in them this one Council having made near hand as many Canons as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together ‖ Soave p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds * drawn up bp Pius the 4th according to the order of the Council ‖ Sess 24. c. 12. de Refor and * imposed to be believed by all who would enter into the communion of the Church contrary to the 7th Can. of the Third General Council at Ephesus All these Articles Imposed too as Fundamental and to be assented to as absolutely and explicitly for attaining salvation as the Articles of the Creed and so that in disbelieving any of them it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire which Articles are concluded there as the Athanasian Creed with an Haec vera Catholica Fides extra quam nemo Salvus ‖ See Archbishop Lawd p. 51. Bishop Bramh. Vindie of Church of England p. 23â— 231 Reply to Chalâ—ed p. 322. Dr. Hammond Ars to Cath. Gent. p. 138. and to Schism Disarm'd p. 241. Dr. Fern Considerations touching Reformation p. 45. Stillingfl Rat. Acccâ—nt p. 48 c. So that saith Mr. Thorndyke †Fpilog Conclusion p. 413. it was the Acts of this Council that framed the Schisme because when as the Reformation might have been provisional till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace but by yielding to all their Decrees 5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine And next §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation which also are very numerous and 5 one would think the more the better yet these also are not free from their complaints ω. ω. That these Decrees are meer Illusions many of them of small weight taking Motes out of the eye and leaving Beams That the Council in framing them imitated the Physitian who in an Hectical Body laboured to kill the Itch That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved and some Symptomes only cured That in some of more consequence the Exceptions are larger than the Rule And αα αα That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them as he pleaseth Thus Soave frequently That nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council and it ended ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it ‖ Stillingfl Rat. Acc. p. 480
Clergy much less to Bishops †Epist. Celest Etsi say they de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi in the Nicene Canon praecaveri quantò magis de Episcopis voluit observari c. And Dr. Field touching this matter hath these words ‖ Of the Church p. 563. The Affricans though within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeal of their Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a General Synod of Affrick wherein the Primate sate as President For otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the Canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus he For otherwise here meaneth he not when such Councils do not sit For surely he would not have a Provincial Council purposely new called upon every personal contention But this overthrows the arguments of the Affrican Bishops who also are said to have denied such Appeals not when Affrican Councils sit only but altogether Again S. Austin clearly justifies Appeals from Affrican Councils also This of the Affrican Controversie about Appeals of as little advantage to non-Appealants as it is of great noise if the matter be on both sides equally weighed Again §. 13. n. 3. Touching another ancient Contest that happened and is also urged by Protestants between the Cyprian Bishops and the Patriarch of Antioch decided in the 3d. General Council Can. 8. you may observe That whatever priviledge or exemption any Church or Province may have had from any Patriarch or his Council as to Elections or Ordinations yet no Church or Person hath been freed from a submittance thereto in point of Appeals or of Decision of Controverfies in matter of Faith Neither here can the Cyprian Bishops by vertue of any such Canon of Ephesus plead their particular exemption from the 7th Canon of Sardica or 9th of Chalcedon which Canon is also seconded by the Imperial Law in Cod. Tit. 4. c. 29. or from the 17th or 26th Canon of the 8th General Council which Canons command such submittance and allow such Appeals in which Appeals also the Inferior Patriarchs were subject to the Superior See before § 12 13 and below the Concession of Dr. Field § 16 n 5 And of the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarch over Cypras as to these matters still remaining after the Canon of Ephesus see S. Jerom ‖ Epist ad Pamachium in his controversie with John Bishop of Jerusalem Ni fallor hoc ibi i. e. in Concilio Niceno ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit totius Orientis Antiochia Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras cui spretâ communione tuâ communicare nos noveras aut si procul expetendum judicium erat Antiochiam potiùs literae dirigendae Totius Orientis and so Cypri Mean while in this necessary Subordination of the lower Clergy or their Synods to the higher § 14 1st Care was taken That Co-ordinate Churches 1. or Provinces or their Synods i. e. such whereof the one could claim no Jurisdiction over the other neither by ancient Custom nor Conciliar Constitution should usurp no authority over one another For which see Can Apostol 36. Conc Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Ephes c. 8. Conc. Constantinop c. 2 3 5. Compared with Conc. Chalced. Act 16. Which Canons and particularly the second and third of the Second General Council at Constantinop do not prove what some would infer That all Provinces are for all power absolute supreme and independent from whom might be no further appeal nor any other Person or Council as Superior take account of their Acts for the contrary known practice in antiquity shews this to be otherwise †See §. 12 13. and thus Provincial Councils would have no subjection to General but only signifie these two things 1st That neither Patriarch nor Primate or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province co-ordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i.e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such superiority See the limitation Conc. Ephes c. 8. Quae non priùs atque ab initio c. And Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause that is still retained in these Canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal As for example Not the Bishops of Alexandria therefore to meddle with the affairs of Antioch Solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae Servatis i. e. without encroaching upon them Nor the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch to meddle with the Ordination of the Bishops in the several Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection 2ly That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the Supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgment of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only co-ordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii For observe that some of those Diocesses that are urged in the former Canon ‖ Conc. Ephes c. 8. to be independent viz. the Diocess of Thrace Pontus and Asia are in the 16th Act of the Council Chalced. where this very Canon was recited mentioned to be subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople subjected i. e. as to confirmation of their Metropolitans and as to Appeals see Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 16. Though still their priviledge stood firm Vt Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae namely unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Diocesium ordinet sua Regionis Episcopos sicut Divinia Canonibus i. e. the Canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum And as these Diocesses were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople so were others to those of Alexandria and Antioch The second necessary provision made by the Church §. 15. n. 1. was That in the Intervals of Synods the respective Presidents thereof should be authorized 2. as standing Church-Officers always extant and accessible to end controversies interpret and execute their Canons since these greater Bodies could not be so frequently as occasions might require without much trouble assembled †See below §. 16. n. 6 8. As also lesser causes were ordered to be finally terminated in some inferior Court without liberty of appeal in all Causes by whatever persons which was the chief matter stood upon by the Affricans against Pope Bonifacius in the case of a Presbyter from one superior Court to a further or also from the standing Ecclesiastical Officers to a future Council that so Contentions might not be unnecessarily prolonged nor the supreme Courts overcharged with business nor Justice deferred See Conc. Milevit c. 22. And Card. Bellarmin De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 24 Quastio de Appellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c.
See below § 16. n. 6 8. This in the third place from § 12. of the Churches subjecting both Ecclesiastical Persons and Councils One to Another the less to the greater in point of Judicature and Authority for preventing of Schismes 4ly When the two Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers that are subordinate §. 15. n. 2. do dissent the obedience of the Subjects of both in such case being once apparent was to be rendred to the Superior So if a Diocesan or Provincial Council ought to yield to a National the Subjects of such Province or Diocess when these two Councils clash ought to conform in their Obedience to the National not to a Diocesan or Provincial Council against it Now §. 16. n. 1. for such a subordination of the several Church-Officers and Synods forenamed and for Obedience when these dissent due to the Superior the two points last mentioned I will to save the labour of further proof give you the Concessions of Learned Protestants though this be done with some limitations accomodated to the better legitimating of their Reformation of which limitations see below § 16. n. 4. n. 7. and again § 28. desiring you also to peruse those set down already to the same purpose in the second Discourse § 24. n. 1. c. Of this matter then thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case between the Church of England and Rome p. 48. The Church of Christ is a society or company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13.17 And he that will not hear the Church is to be as a Heathen and a Publican Mat. 16. And applying this to the Presbyterians and other Sects dividing from the English Bishops and Synods ‖ p. 46. They have incurred saith he by leaving us and I wish they would sadly consider it no less than the guilt of Schisme which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or Sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and Sacriledge unto it And thus Dr. Hammond §. 16. n. 2. somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism c. 8. p. 157. The way saith he provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Vnity of the Faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence 1st Their resolving c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans of the Metropolitans in every Region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a primacy of Order or Dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and greeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses And when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial Patriarchal General Again Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these beginning at the lowest and so ascending to the highest Those Brethren or People saith he ‖ 7. which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained or appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks †8. In like manner if we ascend to the next higher Link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Brethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt Next For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates §. 16. n. 3. § 20. he goes on thus It is manifest That as the several Bishops had prefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans he having shewed in § 11.12 the first Institution thereof Apostolical in Titus and Timothy nay we must yet ascend saith he one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs Concerning whose authority having produced several Canons of Councils § 25. he concludes thus All these Canons or Councils deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops from the Apostles and first Planters of the Churches wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the authority which these have by Canon and Primitive Custom over them And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors he affirms also due on the same account to their several Synods †Answ to Catholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29. It is evident saith he That the power which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council where these Bishops are assembled and the despising of that Council is an offence under the first sort of Schism and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors whereof it is compounded Thus Dr. Hammond ascending in these subordinations as high as Primates But Dr. Field Bishop Bramhal and others §. 16. n. 4. rise one step higher to the Proto-primates or Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called and their Councils And strange it is if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest that Dr. Hammond could pass by these in his speaking of the remedies of Schism with so much silence not mentioning Patriarchs but only as taken for Primates or their Councils See * Answ to Cathol Gent. c. 3. n. 9 10 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial National Oecumenical Councils but passeth by Patriarchal and * Schism p. 158 where he names Provincial Patriarchal General but useth Patriarchal there for National or the Council presided-in by the Primate to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch Strange I say considering not only the clear evidence of ancient Constitutions and
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
Metropolitans sole Judicature much more did that rarer assembling of a Patriarchal or General Council leave appeals in greater Causes to the single Arbitrement of the Patriarch assisted with his ordinary Council or Consistory Here §. 16. n. 7. then you see in Dr. Field the ground of a thorow Union in Christs Church whereas that of Dr. Ferne and Dr Hamond though it served their turn for the remedy of a Presbyterian defection or the extravagancies of some particular Bishop yet afforded no standing cure as it did concern them it should not for those of a Primate or for any National Division Only one Reservation Dr. Field hath in this place perhaps with an eye to protect the Reformation thereby which Dr. Hamond I conceive thought it not safe to trust to That the Bishops of a Province subject to a Metropolitan or the Metropolitan and his Bishops subject to a Patriarch may declare in what cases he incurreth the sentence of Suspension Excommunication Deposition or Degradation pronounced by the very Law and Canon it self and so may withdraw themselves from his Obedience Thus he Where suppose this â—e would have should be granted him concerning a General Council all of â—t united and declaring such a thing if such a thing may be of the Supreme Prelate of the Church and President of this Council because there is no Superior Person or Court of Judicature whereby this President may be tried And also granted concerning such proceeding against any Subordinate Superior as against the Metropolitan or Primate whenever he freely confesseth that transgression of the Canons which they charge him with for in such a case their obedience is due not to him any longer but to the Canons and to his Superiors that maintain them But most presumptuous and unreasonable it seems for Subjects to make any such Declaration and withdraw Obedience whenever such matter is in contest between them and him and a superior person or Court provided to decide it and yet more unreasonable if a part only of the Subjects suppose of a Primate or Patriarch should declare so when another part withstands them and declares the contrary And see Can. 10. of the 8. General Council punctual against any such Delaration or Discession before a Judgment Nullus Clericus ante Synodicam Sententiam à communione proprti Patriarchae se separet c. Idem de Episcopis statuimus erga proprios Metropolitanos similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarchum suum This of Dr. Field See the places quoted out of B. Bramhal to the same purpose Disc 2. § 24. n. 1. And Disc 1. § 27. The like is acknowledged at large §. 16. n. 8. by the Archbishop of Spalato and amongst these Patriarchs the supereminent Priviledges of the first or Roman Patriarch the evidences of Antiquity producing such a consent in these Learned men are displayed by him in his Repub. Eccles l. 3 c. 2 10. There c. 2 n. 1. having named the other lower subordinations of Church-Governors ad vitanda Schismata he goes on Ac demum Primatibus Metropolitanis Episcopis unus Patriarcha in totâ integrâ aliquâ Provinciâ in certis similiter causis praeside ret Et quia non semper adeo facile est Episcopos comprovinciales or compatriarchales much more in vnum convenire expedien fuit ut Metropolitant Primates Patriarchae multa soli absolverent qua Synedi absolvere debuissent essentque quasi totius Synodi Vicarii Commissarii Further of these Patriarchs he saith ‖ l. 3. c. 10. n. 26. Siâ—ut Metropolitanus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere corrigere debeat emen dare ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus sive in judiciis actis suis ne etiam in hoc Synodus etiam semper cum incommedo conveniat à Patriarâ—his voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo lex Mâ—tropolitanos emendari nisi tam gravis sit causa publica praesertim fidet ut totius regionis Synodus sive Oecumenica debeat convenire Quoting the words of the 8. General Council Can. 17. sayâ—ng the same Senioris novae Romae Praesules c. Metropolitanorum habeant potestatem ad convocandum eos not this in t mes of Heathenism but when Christian Religion flourished under secular Princes already subjected to it urgente necessitate ad Synâ—dalem conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama cos super quibusdam delictis forsan accusaverit Further ascending to the Roman Patriarch he thus goes on to declare his privâ—ledges ‖ l. 4. c. 9. n. 1. Habebat etiam Romrnus Pontisex Patriarchalia privilegia palliuâ—â— sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere eosdâ—m à lege divina velsacris Canonibus deviantes corripere in officio continere controversias inter cosdem exortas componere causasque eorundem interdum i. e. in causis gravioribus audire decidere totius Patriarchatus Concilia convocare n. 14. Ex loâ—o sui primi Patriarehatu sSacrorum Canonum primus habebatur praecipuus observator custos ac vindex quos si alicubi violari cognosceret acâ—r monitor insurgebat n. 15. Ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque provinciae regionis not only of his Patriarchy qui se ab Episcopis propriae provinciae gravari sentinent in judicits Ecclesiasticis tanquam ad sacram anchoram consugerent apud ipsum innocentiam suam probaturi Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant ab objectis criminibus tanquam si essent supremi judices absolvebant and this so anciently as Cyprians time and before the first General Council of Nice n. 16. Ille propter summam ipsius existimationem commune quasi vinculum nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae Communionis in tota Ecclesiâ Catholicae Communionis dux arbiter ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret vel adimeret caeterae quaeque Ecclesiae omnes ordinariè darent pariter vel adimerent So Spalatensis §. 16. n. 9. Mr. Thorndike first in general saith †fast waâ—gnte p. 41. That the Soul of the Visible Unity of the Church consisteth in the resort of inferior Churches to superior of which he discourseth more largely in Right of the Church c. 2 and in the correspondence of Parallel-Churches That the Church so stated is a standing Synod able by consent of the chief Churches containing the consent of their resorts i. e. of the inferior Churches resorting to them to conclude the whole That Rome Alexandria Antiochia were from the beginning of Christianity visible Heads of these great Resorts in Church Government which the Council of Nâ—ce made subject to them by Canon-Law for the future ‖ p. 39. our British Church not excepted †p. 40. And more particularly in justifying the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and the Canons of Sardica concerning Appeals to him Shall I not ask saith he what
Council and generally approved have force § 43 5ly What is said here of the non-approbation of some Prelates or Churches as frequently happens it s not invalidating a Council 5. or its Decrees must be said also of the absence of some Prelates from the Council or of their non-concurrence when sitting in it their absence 1. Either voluntary as of those who heterodox in opinion and fewer in number foresee that probably they shall be over voted by the rest as the Arrian Prelates did absent themselves from the Council of Sardica and so might also have absented themselves from that of Nice or again the Eutychian Prelats from Chalceâ—on notwithstanding whose absence or non-concurrence the Council will not cease to bear the just title of General provided that it consist of a major part of the Christian Churches and have the concurrence of the Prime Patriarch without whom nihil finiendum Otherwise an Heretical or Schismatical Church can secure themselves as they please from being condemned by any General Council which as long as they are absent will be called not General and so its force cannot extend to them Nay otherwise after any defection from the Orthodox Faith or after any considerable Schism in the Church now there can never be any more Oecumenical Councils because forsooth that party fallen away will give no meeting to the other too prevalent and thus General Councils cease to have any being when there first begins to be any need of them Of this thus a Learned Protestant ‖ Dr. Field p. 651. with intention to make the 5 th Council a General one without the presence of the Pope and his Occidental Bishops The Presidence and Presence saith he of the Bishop of Rome is not so necessary in General Councils but that in case of his wilsul refusal a Council may proceed and be holden for lawful without his consenting to it And As a Council may be holden in such a case i.e. they refusing to come without the presence and concurrence of the Roman Bishop and those that are subject to him so being present if be refuse to concur in judgment with the rest they may proceed without him and their sentence may be of force though he consent not to it What then they presume to affirm thus of the Roman they must not deny of their own Bishops This that the voluntary absence of some Prelates doth not invalidate a Council or its Acts.2. Neither yet doth the absence forced of some others if such as being formerly justly eâ—communicated or anathematized have now no right to any voting in such Councils though perhaps if admitted these might equal the Orthodox in number Thus Gelasius Bishop of Rome †Epist ad Episcopos Dardaniae concerning the Eutychians when very numerous in the East and also of the Favourers of them not to be admitted to a Council Ecclesiastici moris non est cuni his qui pollutam habent communionem permixtamque cum perfidis miscere Concilium And Meritò ab Apostolicâ sede caeterisque Catholicis non jam consulendi erant sed potiùs notandi c. 6ly What hath been here said of the necessary Constitution or Composition of a General Council § 44 and Ratification of its Acts must be said exactly on the same ground 6. concerning a Patriarchal or other inferior Council that it is not necessary that all the Bishops of such Patriarchy be assembled or absent do accept and ratifie it to make it Legal or Obligatory § 45 2. This said concerning the necessary Composition of a General Council come we next to the Presidency and Moderatorship therein 1. Where 1 st As it hath been already shewed in all the other Synods ‖ §. 9 c Protestants consenting †§. 16. that the Presidentship in them without any new election made by the Council or yet by the secular power belongâ— to him who hath the prime place and dignity the presiding in the Provincial Council to the Metropolitan in the National Council where be may Metropolitans to the Primate of them c. which President also had in these Councils a negative voice †See before §. 10. so it seems all reason that iâ— a General Council also that Prelate should preside who is the Bishop of the chief See and to whom in all ages all other Churches and Prelates have allowed the Primacy i. e. the Bishop of Rome See 2. Gen. Counc c. 5. All reason I say That the Primate of the Patriarchs Preside in a General Council as the Primate of the Metropolitans in a National And that what other Priviledges these other Presidents enjoyed in those Councils the same at least though we set aside here his universal Pastorship He should enjoy in This agreeable to that ancient Canon and Custom in the universal Church mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13. And Sozamen l. 2. c. 13. And vindicated by Pope Innocent apud August Epist 91. And yet more anciently by Pope Julius against some Oriental Bishops apud Athanas Apol. 2. Sinâ— Romans Pâ—â—tifice nihil finiendum § 46 2 ly If in this Matter Prescription may be of any force de facto the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of â—ome in the ancient Councilâ— General hath always bean allowed this Presidentship As will appear to any reviewing the Church-History for the first 8. General Councils In 4. of which Councils namely the 4th 6th 7th and 8th the Protestant grant it without dispute Next For his Presidency in the 3d. General Council it seems evident enough ‖ l. 1. c. 4. Conc. Eph. pars 2. Act. 1. from the testimony of Evagrius ‖ that Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was deputed by him to execute this Office who saith That the Bishops meeting in that Council Cyrillo locum Celestini Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis obtinente accersunt Nestorium c. whose Deputy also Cyril was made before for the excommunication of Nestorius by the Authority of the Apostolical See as appears in the Pope's Letter to Cyril †Act. Concil Eph. Tom. 1. Nostrâ vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententiam exequêris c. For the 2 d. and 5 th General Council both held at Constantinople as it is true that the Pope presided not in them because indeed neither He nor his Legates were present in them so it is true that these Councils were not General till they were after their Session accepted by him and the other Western Churches But yet both these Councils apparently enough yield the Presidency to him in general Councils the 5 th which much courted his presence in express terms in Eutychiâ—â— the Patriarch of Constantinople his Letter to him ‖ Petinius ‖ Conc. Constan Collat. 1. presidente nobis vestrâ Beatitudine communi tractatu eadem capitula in medio proponenda quari c. And the 2 d. in that which infers his presidency whilst the Bishop of Constantinople who in the absence
of him and his Legates presided in it challengeth Primatus honorem only post Romanum Episcopum †Conc. Constant c. 5. And that Council in their Epistle to Damasus the Roman Bishop acknowledge their meeting in that Council by order of his Letters Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae literas Now for the first Council That of Nice which only remains Here also the Popes Legates are found to subscribe the first before all the other Patriarchs only Hosius bearing no title save Bishop of Corduba gives his Vote and attests the Nicene Creed before these Legates which hath caused much dispute Act. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 5. Gelazius Cyzicenus ‖ and some other Ancients say Hosius presided in it as Sylvestri Episcopi Maximae Romae locum obtinens And indeed the Popes Primacy before the other Patriarchs and so much more before a Bishop of his own Patriarchy being granted and no mention being made of any such Presidentship conferred on Hosius either by election of the Council or of the Emperor what can be said but that he held such Presidency only in this capacity viz. the Popes Deputation as Cyrâ—l also did in the 3d. General Council unless â—ny will say that his voting in the first place was a pure Indulgence of honour to him as being 〈◊〉 a Confessor in Divelesian's days and narrowly missing Martyrdom * the Emperor 's especial Favourite sent by him formerly â—o compose the differences in Egypt ‖ * a person as Athanasius â—aith of him †Apolog. 2. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes Obâ—tantos labores omni Reverentiâ dignus ‖ and now Euscb de vita Const l. 2. c. 62. Socrat. l. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 the Compiler of the new Form of the Nicene Creed To which Creed therefore himself gives the first testimony in this form Hosius Episcopus Civitatis Cordubensis Provinciae Hispaniae dixit â—ta credo sicut superius scriptum est after which consent of his follows in the first place the Pope's Legates Subscripsimus and then that of the other Patriarchs and Bishop Where it may also be confidered what Dr. Field hath observed ‑ That the Subscriptions ‖ p. 652. in the first Councils were more irregular and no such certain and uniform course kept in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops as was afterward For in this Council the third Patriarch of Antioch subscribes not only after the Bishops of Egypt but of Palestine and several others subject to his own Patriarchate And thuâ— far the same Dr. Field proceeds in deferring this Presidentship to the Bishop of Rome All Antiquity saith he †p. 653 yielded to the Bishop of Rome a Presidentship of honour to have preeminence in place to propose things to be debated to direct the Actions and to give definitive Sentence according to the Voices and Judgment of the Council He might have added And in matters concerning Faith to render the Act of it invalid and unconclusive to the Church without his consent according to the ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nibil finiendum c. as appears in his nulling the Act of the second Ephesine Council voting Eutychianisme but not a Presidentship of power to have the power not only of directing but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Council and to conclude of matters after his own judgment though the greater part of the Council like it not yea though no part like it But such a Presidentship of power in the Pope as to conclude matters after his own judgment either against the whole or major part of a General Council is denied as well by modern Catholicks as by Protestants or Antiquity § 47 3 ly What of Presiding in the same is to be said of the Calling of General Councils 1. Where 1. 1st It seems all reason that such Meetings being Consultations for the better managing of affairs purely Ecclesiastical and for the better feeling and preserving of the Churches Unity and Peace of the necessity of which meetings the Clergy can best judge All reason I say it seems that the Calling of them should belong to the Clergy especially when the secular powers are not Christian And this also we find in the Churche's practice that both that first Council Act. 15. and all those following till Constantine's days were assembled by the Churche's sole Authority without the Prince's concurrence or leave and if amongst these Councils none save the first were absolutely General yet this was not from a defect of power in the Church to convene such a Council but that she thought in such a secular opposition her affairs might be by many divided Councils Provincial more privately and securely dispatched as the Controversie about Easter was in the second Century This Right therefore formerly possessed by the Church Princes by their submitting unto it and becoming Christian cannot justly take away nor may be thought to do so by their accumulative power in assisting the Church from time to time for procuring the more effectual concurrence which much depends on their temporal penalties of such great Assemblies But whatever priviledge of calling General Councils should be allowed to Princes so long as Catholick yet at least that Right which in this matter is conceded to belong to the Church in case the Emperor or Prince be Infidel must also be resumed in case the Prince Christian be an enemy to the Orthodox Faith i. e. be either Heretical or Schismatical of which likewise it belongs to the Supreme Governors of the Church to judge For What mischief may the Church suffer from unbelieving that she may not also suffer from Heretical Princes And again must also be resumed in case the secular Princes through whose Dominions the Catholick Church is dispersed be many of many several temporal Interests and in respect of these not facil to concur in the calling such Council where the Church apprehends need § 48 2. Next This hath been shewed already § 9. 16. n. 4. 2. in all the inferior Synods Protestants consenting 1. That the Right of calling them though the Prince be Christian belongs to such an Ecclesiastical person as hath either a superiority of Power over the Members of such Synod as in a Provincial Synod the Metropolitan hath or at least the superiority of Order and Place es in a National Synod the Primate hath in respect of the other Metropolitans whereof it consists 2. And Belongs to such Ecclesiastical persons without their first consulting any other preparatory Synod about calling such Synods 3. And again belongs to some of them as the calling of Patriarchal Synods to the Patriarch when the Bishops so called together by him do live under many several secular Governments Yet which Patriarchs saith Dr. Field ‖ p. 653. are neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith I add Faith either Christian or Catholick 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 the 8 th General Council Can. 17. upon occasion of some Metropolitans qui ne secundum vocationem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant à mundi Principibus se detineri sine ratione causantur declares also thus against such Princes Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat impium esse ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant And all these things are justified and allowed by Protestants Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason That the calling of a General Council i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs and their Patriarchies should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs or Bishop of the chief See though we suppose that he claim no more than a preeminency of order as Primates do over Metropolitans § 49 Of this matter therefore some Learned Proteâ—â—rnts seem to speak more moderately 1 st Thus Mr. Thorndike concerning the Right of Calling Councils its belonging to the Church Epil p. 33. I must saith he here not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles He accounting that Assembly Act. 1. at the election of Matthias a General Council and again that Act. 15. And then thus B. Bramhal concerning the Prime Patriarch's calling such Council Schism-guarded p. 356. If the Pope saith he hath any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of Vnity or of his Protopatriarchate we do not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. confesseth that power which we acknowledge that is that though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs yet the Right to convocate General Councils should pertain unto him So B. Bramhal Dr. Field speaks yet more distinctly and copiously †Of the Chur. p. 697. The State of the Christian Church saith he being spiritual is such that it may stand though not only forsaken but grievously oppressed by the great men of the world and therefore it is by all resolved on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of convocating these her spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her weâ—fare though none of the Princes of the world do favour her And there is no question but that this power of convocating these Pastors is in them that are first and before other in each company of spiritual Pastors and Ministers Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop of Provincial to the Metropolitan of National to the Primate and of Patriarchal to the Patriarch And of these he saith That they neither are so depending c. quoted before § 48. Lastly Concerning the Calling of General Councils In times of persecution saith he and when there are no Christian Princes i. e. to assist the Church as he saith afterward If there be any matter of Faith or any thing concerning the whole State of the Christian Church wherein a common deliberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary he that is in order the first among the Patriarchs with the Synods of Bishops subject to him may call the rest together as being the principal part of the Church whence all actions of this nature do take beginning Instancing in Julius and Damasus Bishops of Rome with their Councils practising this So Dr. Field § 50 Only here you see two limitations or bars put in by him for the Reformation to make some advantage of The one In times of persecution or when the Church hath not Princes to assist her then the power of Calling General Councils to belong to the Clergy The other That then it belongs in the Clergy to the prime Patriarch yet not singly but joined with his Council for saith he ‖ p. 668. the first Patriarch hath not power singly to call together the other Patriarchs and their Bishops because none of them is superior to another in degree as Bishops are to Presbyters nor so in Order Honour and Place as Metropolitans are to Bishops or Patriarchs to Metropolitans Now to the first of these his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution see what hath been said already ‖ and his own instances prove against it for Julius § 47 and Damaâ—us summoned the Oriental Bishops to such a Council the one of them in the Reign of Constans the other of Theodosius both of these being Christian Orthodox Catholick Emperors Though if this be allowed that in any non-assistance of the secular powers Heathen or Christian it matters not the Church hath power when she judgeth it requisite to assemble such Councils more needs not be desired Concerning his second Limitation In the reason he gives for it he omits one Superiority among the rest which would have fitted the purpose namely the Superiority that Primates have to the other Meropolitans in their calling a National Synod and that without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops first consulted I ask therefore why not the Primate of the Patriarchs do the like 2 ly If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs neither hath he joined with his Synod his Synod having no more power over other Patriarchs then himself As for the Instances Julius sent to the Orientals singly concerning a Council to be joined of both the East and West Damasus indeed sent when a Western Council was sitting but this called for other matters and not for this to give him a Commission for such a Summons or to join with him in it as if the first Patriarch cannot when need requires call a General Council without first Summoning and convening a Patriarchal Council to give their consent to the calling of this General A thing to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council a matter of so great trouble and delay as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council either for this or for much other Church-business as hearing Appeals of less account c. which come to the Patriarchs hands And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much where he saith ‖ p. 513. That in time causes growing many and the difficulties intollerable in coming together
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-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
S. W †Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 174. whether Princes do not hold such power of translating or erecting Patriarchs from the Churche's Grant Now surely this will be confessed contrary to the Churche's Canons for a Prince to make such a removal of the Patriarchs former Jurisdiction as thereby to null as to his Subjects the authority of a Patriarchal Council And if indeed the erecting and removing Patriarchs did originally belong to Princes yet since the Civil Governments that are contained within the Precincts of one Patriarchy are now in the hands of many several Soveraigns the repeal of any Patriarch's former authority as it relates to the convening of such Councils must be an act at least of the Major part of these Princes as being a thing which equally concerns them all Nor can the Doctor produce an instance of a former fact in this kind And if the Prince can thus free his National Clergy from a Patriarch and his Synod why not also from a General Council that neither it shall oblige his Subjects without his consent Again Doctor Heylin's Plea ‖ Reformation justified p. 84. touching the English Clergy in their Reformation their conferring all their power on the Prince which they formerly enjoyed in their own Capacity A power saith he not only of confirming their Synodical acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity comparing it there to the Roman Senat 's transferring all their power on Caesar I say this Plea as it contains very strange Doctrine so it reacheth not our present matter for if a National Clergy can at pleasure transfer their own spiritual authority over others and that authority too for reforming Errors in matters of Religion to a Lay person or also to his Delegates which authority was intrusted to them by our Lord in a Personal Ordination yet can they not hence transfer to the same Lay-person their Superiors whether persons or Councils spiritual authority over them so that this superior's authority for the future shall not oblige but when such Lay-person first admits it § 64 This from § 53. of Obedience due from the Reformed and particularly from the Church of England to the Council of Trent if this were only a free and Legal Patriarchal Council The true Rights of which also it may not be thought to forfeit by its further pretensions to be a Council Oecumenical As we may not withdraw our due obedience from our Prince when he exacts some other not due or withhold a just debt where more is unjustly demanded But not to stay here § 65 2ly Our Obedience may yet further be rightly challenged to this Council 2. as General if it shall be proved though not so General as several formerly have been yet so General as now in such an alteration of States can be had and it being such the same divine assistance as to ampler formerly may be presumed to be afforded to it for such Controversies as are necessary to be decided And a submission to a Council only so comprehensive several Protestant Divines think reasonable Thus B. Bramhal in Preface to Reply to Chalced. I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so General as can be procured And Schism-guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as General as may be And p. 351. I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had See more in Disc 1. § 35. Dr. Field freely confesseth ‖ Of the Church p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these have no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and his Council as appears Ib. d. 39. p. 563. Where he quotes the Emperor's Law Novel 223. c. 22. confirming the 9 th Canon of Council Chalced. Nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente Consequently these Councils bind so the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith †Answ to Catholick Gent. p. 30. That General Councils are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many Communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled But mean while he saith ‖ Of Schism c. 9. p. 163. We acknowledge the due authority of our Ecclesiastical Superiors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things secundum Deum And Answ to Cathol Gentleman p. 17. A Congregation saith he that is fallible may yet have authority to make decisions and to require Inferiors so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions All which seems to amount to his acknowledging an external obedience of non-contradiction at least and such as Protestants contend for to their National Synods to be due to a Patriarchal or the highest Assembly of Church-Governors which the present or future times in the moral impossibility of having General Councils are capable of § 66 3ly The absence in it of the Representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches 3. the thing principally urged seems no just hinderance why this council of Trent may not be stiled General For evidencing which I desire you to consider with me these Reasons in part cleared before 1st That a Council may be stiled General without the presence in it of some considerable Churches ‖ See before §. 36 43. either 1. When these called by a lawful Authority by reason of poverty and distance of place 1. or persecution c. cannot come and afterward acquainted with the Councils proceedings express no dissent to the Acts thereof See before § 36. the four first Councils as convened for the suppressing of Heresies that chiefly afflicted the Eastern parts so mostly confisting of Oriental Bishops scarce any of the West being present in some of them Or 2. When invited and no way justly letted they refuse to come Or 3. When by some former General Council condemned of Heresie and Schism they are not invited at all to come or coming are repelled For the Church Catholick may be much narrower than Christianity †See before § 39. and Councils are General and obligatory as such if they consist of the Church Catholick though it should be reduced only to one Patriarchate 2. 2 ly Concerning the Calling of the Eastern Churches not entring here into that Controversie whether these Churches do not maintain an Heresie in the Procession of the H. Ghost and
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
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
which are set down in these two Historians as likewise the Writings of several of them now extant may best inform you of their Abilities As for the matters decided in this 4th Session though Soave represents here the people of Germany as much aggravating them yet as if he had forgotten himself in the next page ‖ p 164. he brings in the Pope as much sleighting them and admonishing his Legates That they should not spend time in matters not controverted as they had done in those handled the last Session i. e. the Fourth wherein all agree that they are undoubted Principles The Decision therefore only of points amongst Catholicks universally received as it had not so needed not the confluence of so great a Body 5. But 5ly Let the paucity of the Bishops there or the absence of the Representatives of some whole Nation Catholick § 75 be never so prejudicial to the Acts of some former Sessions of this Council under Paul or Julius yet an amends is made for it in the times of Pius when a much fuller body of Fathers in all of those who subscribed in the end of the Council 255. the Seven Generals of the Religious Orders and the Seven Abbots being included and amongst them a Mission of Bishops from those Catholick Princes who were formerly deficient and these Bishops assisted with a very great number of the most Learned Divines selected out of all Christian Countries and Religious Orders the Catalogue of whom is printed at the end of the Council did review and ratifie all that those fewer had formerly enacted and by their reading first and then subscribing-to the Acts of the whole Council from the beginning thereof 1545 added that strength to those Acts which they may be thought from such a paucity formerly to have wanted Of which Ratification even by the French among the rest thus Soave p. 804. Afterward a Proposition was made for the Reading in Session the last Session of all the Decrees made under Paul and Julius to be approved which Modena opposed saying it would be a derogation to the authority of the Council of those times if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers and would shew that this and that was not all one because none can confirm his own things Others said it was necessary to do it for that cause that authority might not be taken from them by saying they were not of the same Council And the same Frenchmen who before did so earnestly desire that it might be declared that the Council was new and not continuated with that under Paul and Julius did now labour more than others that there might be taken away all cause of any doubting that all the Acts from the year 1545. until the end were not of the same Synod Thus iâ— happeneth as in humane Affairs so in Religion also that one's credulity is changed with his interest Therefore now all aiming at one mark it was determined simply to read them and say no more for so the unity of the Council was most plainly declared and all difficulties removed which the word Confirmation might bring leaving every one to think what he listed whether the reading of them did consequently import a Confirmation or Declaration of their validity or an inference that it was one Synod which made with that which read them and therefore being owned as Acts of the same Body they needed no more confirmation in the 25 th Session thereof than the Acts of the 23d or 24th Session did Here then we see either confirmed or owned those Acts were by all none opposing any of them as erroneous or faulty and then the controversie whether they were thus approved and acknowledged as the acts of one and the same Council or as the Acts of several as the Emperor signified to his Embassadors apud Pallav. l. 24 c 8. n. 7. is not much material And indeed the former indeavours of the French not Prelates but Ministers of State as also of the Emperor's at the first opening of the Council under Pius That this Council then might not be declared a Continuation of the former Council was not at all from any Dislike of the former Decrees But partly that by this the Protestants whose reduction these Princes much intended might not be discouraged from appearing in this Council under Pius ‖ Soave p. 434. Pallav. l. 15. c. 1. n. 6. and the French also partly for maintaining the honour of the Protestation of the French King Henry 2. against the sitting of this Council under Julius though this also out of no quarrel to any thing done in the Council then but the pretence of no security in sending his Bishops to it by reason of the Pope's warring upon Parma which he endeavoured by all means to divert †Soave p. 315 321 819. After this saith Soave p. 813 the Secretary going into the midst did interrogate whether in the name of the Council a Confirmation should be demanded of Pius of all things decreed under Paul Julius and His Holiness And they answered not one by one but all together Placet So saith Soave But Pallav. l. 24. c. 8. n 8. proves by several veral testimonies that the Votes were here given as usually one by one One only the Archbishop of Granata a Spaniard dissenting as holding the Acts of the Council valid without any further confirmation And the great unanimity of the Council when drawing toward an end is elsewhere sufficâ—ently intimated by Soave p. 782. a little before the 24 th Session where he saith Here I must make a great mutation of stile For whereas in the former Narration I have used that which is proper to describe variety of minds and opinions one crossing the designe of another c. hereafter I must make relation of one aim only and uniform operations which seem rather to fly than run to one only end c. § 76 Here then we see this numerous Body of Bishops exceeding that which hath been convened in several former Councils confessedly General 1 Rehearsing 2 Subscribing-to 3 Requesting from the Chief Pastor of the Church Catholick a Confirmation of the Decrees of the Council not only those last under Pius but the former under Paul and Julius from the beginning they not particularly re-voting indeed those former Decrees lest so those should seem the Acts of another Body the reason given for it but acknowledging them rather as their own Acts and themselves the same continued Body with those that made them and in this the French Bishops as forward as any and all this testified by Soave no friend to the Council And after all this is it not strange that any one should attempt to perswade his Reader ‖ See Mr. Stil linfl Râ—t Acc. p. 496. that these Bishops indeed using some Artifice caused the former Decrees to be read but did not ratifie or accept them But something was
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
§ 83. 3. Or the want of Safe conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. 6 ly THis said from §. 66 That there is no prejudice done this Council 6. for its bearing the Title of General and its obliging as such § 80 from the absence of Bishops Oriental or Occidental Protestant or Catholick or also from the very small numbers of the Bishops present in some Sessions considering so plenary a post-acceptation of it as hath been shewed Next Neither seems this any just exception against it that it was called by an Ecclesiastical Person the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of Rome leftblank In defence of which perhaps that may suffice that is said before at large § 47. c. But here it is to be added That this Council was called by him after First having had the consent both as to the place and time of the Emperour and all the other Christian Princes except those that were Protestants and Henry the Eighth who being a much minor part of these Princes were either to be concluded by the contrary vote of the rest or I see not since that Christianity is divided amongst so many Soveraign and Independent States and no Heresie or Schisme can be so molestful to the Church as to need the Remedy of a General Council save such as first finds patronage from some Christian Prince I say I see not how any such Counc l can ever be lawfully convened because if every such Prince be allowed a negative voice herein against the rest there will never be wanting some Prince or other extravagant in matters of Religion as Henry 8th was then obnoxious for his new assumed Title of Supreme in Spirituals and the Protestant Princes for many other Innovations and so such Prince also averse from the meeting of such a Council wherein he foresees that his party will be much the weaker and over-voted § 81 Called then this Council was by the Pope but not without the consent of the Emperour and the most of Christian Princes nay if we may believe Soave not without their great solicitation and importunity necessitating him to call it against his own inclinations as if he much dreaded some â—ffâ—ct thereof prejud cial to his present greatness Especially for the later pâ—rt of it hâ—ld under Pius and confirmâ—ng all the rest that had passâ—d before Soave saith ‖ â—hat the actions of this Counâ—il were thâ—n in a greater expectation than in the foâ—mer tiâ—es in enâ—gard all Princes had agreed in demanding it and sent Emâ—â—ssâ—dours to it and also that the mâ—mber of Prelates then assâ—mbled were fâ—iâ—r times as many as before Called also by him it was but aâ—ter the Protestant Princes had declared a great necessity thereof and afâ—er that both Luther himself and his followers had of en from the jâ—stice of the present Church-Governours appealed to it †Soave p. 8. 12. All which considered and supposing that all other things stand right That neither the necessity of such a Convention at this time can be denied nor the place we weighing a general convenience justly excepted against Nor that any persons are called to this Council save such and also all such called to it as have been the usual constitutive Members of all other former allowed General Councils nor any new rule or way proposed to be observed in this Council but that which hath been formerly from the very beginning of the first General Councils which proposal made to the Protestants by the Pope then calling it See in Palavic l. 3. c. 13. And in Soave p. 65 Nor the Pope or the Bishops constituting it become any other way a party in this than they have been formerly in them nor the lawâ—ul and Canonical freedom of its Members appear any way abridged by any precedeâ—t Oath or Ingagements made to the Pope or others nor the want of a safe conduct and freedom of access and recess can be justly complained of I say all these offences voided and their circumstances abstracted from I suppose the simple allegation of thâ—s Council its being called by the Pope will not be thought by Protestants the just subject of any quarrel and therefore leaving this spoken of before †§ 47. c. I proceed to the considering of the other particulars so many of them as shall need any Discâ—ssion 7. Next then as this Council is not hence to be esteemed as any way defective 7. from its being called by the Pope especially when this done with the concurring consent of the much-major part of Christian Princes sect 82. So neither are any of these The non-generality of the Summons or the non-freedom of the Place or the want of safe-conduct justly pretended for the condemning of this Council as illegal and non-obliging For first 1. 1. For the summons and invitation see in Soave p. 101. how universal it was in Paul the thirds time who began the Council and again how punctual it was in Pius the Fourths time who renewed the Council * In his sending several Nuncio's inviting them to it to all Protestant Princes and States and amongst the rest to Elizabeth the Queen of England which made B. Bramh. Reply to Chalc. p. 352. say As we have in horrour the treacherous and tyrannical proceedings of Paul the Third So we acknowledge with gratitude the civilities of Pius the Fourth * In his sending also an invitation to the Greek Church under the Christian Emperour of Moscovy and Baptist Romanus a Jesuite to the Patriarch of Alexandria to invite him to the Council †See the Preface to the Acta Council Ni caen which Jesuit brought from thence the Arabian copy of the Nicene Canons in number 80. and Soave acknowlegeth †p 482. that some deliberation there was of sending and granting a safe-conduct unto the Greek Churches under the Turk But it was presently seen saith he that these poor men afflicted in servitude could not without danger and assistance of mony think of Councils See the part cular persons sent to these Princes and the success of their Embassies in Soave l. 5. p. 435 439.440 Where also he saith that Although the Pope was put in mind that to send Nuncii into England and to Princes elswhere who do profess open separation from the See of Rome would be a disreputation to him yet he answered that he would humble himself to Heresie in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ did become that See For the same reason also saith he he sent Canobius into Polonia with design to make him to go into Moscovy to invite that Prince and Nation to the Council though they have never acknowledged the Pope of Rome Now here note one thing which I shall have reason to apply to many other particulars and shall often remember
se non deposituros eum si haereticum esse couvincant as Bellarmin †answered long since to this scruple only they swear to defend and promote all De Concil l. 1. c. 21. not to be in any action or plot against any of his legal and Canonical for this is alwaies understood in oaths Rights Authority Priviledges c Now what offence here what restraint of any lawful liberty For an Oath taken in general to all the Canonical rights of the Pope and not specifying any in particular leaves the Bishops and the Council in perfect liberty to dispute examine and determine what are his Canonical and rightful priviledges what not leaves them liberty to question his Supremacy so far as he seems to them to claim any such in causes or over persons Ecclesiastical not appearing by divine right or Church-Constitution due unto him and generally in liberty to question as Bellarmin observes his commanding or practising things they think unlawful And indeed the Bishops in Trent sworn to maintain all his lawful yet did dispute some of his pretended Rights and Priviledges and after much debate left them unstated Nor did the Pope or his Legats though willing enough to have prevented such agitations yet plead any obligation in the Episcopal Oath against them This Oath therefore obliging only to the observation of the former Divine and Church-Laws concerning the Papal Dignities can be no more prejudicial to the liberty of Councils than the former Laws and Canons are prejudicial thereto § 109 4 ly Bishops not sworn yet still remain obliged to the observance of all such Canons so that such Oath is not the addition of a new but the confirmation of a former obligation which 4. when our Superiors for their greater security call for we cannot justly deny 5 ly Yet neither do such obligation nor such Oath laid on Bishops taken singly restrain their liberty § 110 when met in a Council but that they with the present Popes consent 5. may then altor and change those Canons and so their obligation to them No more than a Princes or his Subjects swearing to the observance of the civil laws of a Nation hinders these when met in Parliament to abrogate any law or enact the contrary all oaths to laws have this tacit limitation viz. till those who have the authority shall think fit to repeal them And in the consecration of the Reformed Bishops in England the Oath imposed upon them of obedience to the Archbishop is conceived to be unprejudicial to the liberty of their Synods § 111 6 ly If in this Oath any thing was sworn that was unlawful the Bishops 6. so soon as this unlawfulness appeared to them from that moment without any dispensation were discharged from the observance thereof as Luther and Bucer so soon as it seemed to them unlawful thought themselves quitted from the same or the like Oath formerly taken when they first entred into a religious Order but if nothing was sworn in it but what was lawful why complain the Reformed of this Oath § 112 7 ly Did this Oath of the Bishops lay some restraint upon their liberty it would be only in one point of the Protestant Controversies 7. that concerning the Popes Supremacy but would leave it free as to all or most of the rest Neither see I what influence their swearing to maintain the Popes just Priviledges could have upon their votes in the points of Justification Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and the like For if this be named one of his privileges that their decrees in these points are invalid unless by him confirmed yet there is no reason that this should incline them at all to vote in these contrary to their own judgment 1 st Because omitting here the obligation they have to promote Truth upon whatever resistance they have no cause to presume his Judgment in such points especially after their Consultations would be different from theirs Or 2 ly Because if they knew it would differ yet they understood also that without the Concurrence of their Judgments his likewise is rendred invalid and not able to establish any thing wherein they dissent As in some affairs of this Council it so happened This for the Oath to pass on to others § 113 9 ly Whereas it is pretended that the Bishop of Rome who presided and those Bishops who sat in the Council were a party and Judges in their own cause 9. As for instance the controversies that were to be decided being between these two parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that those of the Council were all Roman Catholicks and the Protestants not permitted to have with the rest any decisive vote Again the Protestants accusing the Roman and other Western Churches of many corruptions both in their doctrine and in their discipline yet that this Council was made up of the Bishops of those Churches which were thus accused Again one controversie being against the superiority of the Order of Bishops to the Presbytery that therefore in this the Bishops were clearly a party Another controversie being against the Popes Supremacy and particularly against his authority of calling and presiding in Councils that therefore in this the Pope was a party Besides that his stiling the Protestants hereticks before the Council renders him in it no impartial nor unprejudiced Judge in their cause I say neither do these pretences hinder this Council supposing it composed of so many Bishops of the Catholick Church as are necessary to the constitution of a General Council or of so many Bishops of the Western Churches as are necessary to the constitution of a Patriarchal from being a lawful Judge in these controversies and the acts therof obligatory to all nor hinder not the Pope from presiding there Where 1 st To consider the legality of the Synod as it consists of such Bishops § 114 And 1 st Here we find that all Heresies and Schismes have had the same plea against the former Councils 1. as the Reformed against this of Trent namely that the contrary party the accuser or the accused was their Judge All the Christian Clergy was once divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians or Nestorians and Anti-Nestorians as in the times of the Council of Trent it was into the Protestants and Roman-Catholicks and the Arrians then accused the Catholick Bishops of their corruption of the doctrine of the Trinity as the Protestants did now the Roman Catholicks of several corruptions in doctrine and discipline Yet so it was that the Arrians were condemned by the Anti-Arrian Bishops as being the major part neither were they allowed any other Judge save these and this a Judgment approved by the Protestants Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople on the one side and Celestine Bishop of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria on the other side counter-accuse one another of Herâ—sie yet was Nestorius sentenced and condemned in the 3d. G. Council by Celestine presiding there by Cyril his Substitute Dioscorus Bishop
of Alexandria and the Eutychian party had great contest with the rest of Christian Bishops Anti-Eutychians proceeding so far that Dioscorus with his party presumed to excommunicate Leo yet was he and his party judged and condemned by the Anti-Eutychian party being a major part in the 4th G. Council the same Leo presiding there by his Legats and Dioscorus though the 2d Patriarch being not permitted to sit or vote in the Council And these Judgments approved by the Protestants Arius an Alexandrian Presbyter and Alexander the Bishop there had much controversie between them and accused one another before the Council of Nice yet Alexander in that Council sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest and gave his definitive vote against him And doubtless had Arius been a Bishop and the major part of that Council Arian Arius should have judged Alexander in the same manner Allowed examples in this kind might be alledged infinite 2 ly Now to shew §. 125. n. 1. that such judgments are lawful and obligatory notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party 2. formerly accusing and accused by the other of corruptions errours usurpations c. I beg these three things to be granted me having elsewhere sufficiently secured them 1 That the Church is delegated by Christ as the supream Judge on earth for all â—heological and Spiritual matters secure for ever not to erre in necessaries and that as a Guide 2 ly That the judgment of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church as being at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution and common practice of former Councils as appears by the subscriptions to them established the Representative thereof is to be taken for that of the Church or else the judgement of all former Councils even of the four first may be questioned 3 ly That the vote of the major part where all consent not in the same judgment must conclude the whole both for those Bishops sitting in the Council and those Bishops absent that accept it Which Judge §. 115. n. 2. that hath been of all former ages by whom Christians have been settled in truth against all former Heresies Arianism Nestorianism Pelagianism c. if any because he finds it not to suit with the late Reformation will now reject let him tell us what other Judge he can put in their place For if this ancient and former Judge must be supposed contrary to our Lords Promise deficient in necessaries and incident into Heresie Blasphemy Idolatry and then if a few of these ecclesiastical Governours surmising this against many a few Interiors against many their Superiors only after they have first made their complaints to them and propounded their reasons and been rejected may then apply themselves to procure the assistance and power of the temporal Magistrate one who may be seduced also and assist in a wrong cause and so may first sit down in the Chair and judge of the wilfulness and obstinacy of these others in defence of their supposed errors and crimes and then may proceed to a reforming of the Church or some part thereof against them things which a late opposer of this Council †Mr. Stillings p. 478.479 is necessitated to maintain will not thus the revolution of judging and governing in ecclesiastical affairs proceed in infinitum and necessarily bring in a confusion of Religion's as some Countreys have had late experience For This second Judge and Reformer and this Secular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries And then how is there any remedy of these crimes and errours unless there may be also a third Judge allowed to reform against them and then may not the Superiors and major part again take their turn to reform these Reformers And where will be an end of this Controversie who shall last decide Controversies Every Judge that we can set up being also a party and so to leave his Chair after that there appears another to question his judgment But if we are to stay in some judgment to avoid such confusion where more reasonably can we rest than in the three former Proposals § 116 And from them it will follow 1. That those who are no Bishops must be content not to be Judges or to have definitive votes in Councils and if any such have a controversie with or against Bishops must be content after their best informations preferr'd to the Order to be judged by the same Bishops who 't is probable upon some new evidence may alter their former sentences But yet suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes I see not what the Protestants can advantage themselves thereby as long as if any inferior Clergy all must have so and the greater number give law to the fewer For the inferior Catholick-Clergy in the time of the Council of Trent far out-numbred the Reformed § 117 2. Again from them it follows That if the Bishops are appointed the sole Judges of such matters and causes they do not cease to be so upon any either interest or siding which they may be shewed to have in the cause And indeed if we consider * their former common Tenents and practises in those things which upon some opposition they meet afterward to judge * to what side of a controversie the major part of them hath formerly inclined or also declared for it something of what they judge tending to their Honour another to their Profit another to their Peace in some sence they may almost alwaies be said to judge in their own cause or on their own side So when ever they are divided into two opinions or parties who ever of them judgeth here and none may judge beside them judgeth in his own cause And so it is when any one opposeth the Church in any of her Traditions or Doctrines formerly owned by her For instance when one opposeth the Order of Bishops the just obligation of the Churches Decrees questioneth * whether the Church-Governours succeeding the Apostles hold such or such their authority immediatly from Christ independent on secular Princes * Whether the receiving of Holy Orders be necessary for administring the Sacraments * Whether Tithes be due jure divino In all these we must say that the Church is appointed by God Judge in her own cause Or if in some of these things not the Clergy but the Laity be the right Judge yet so we still make him who judgeth to judge in his own cause and in a matter wherein he is interessed whilst he so much againeth in those things as the other loseth Of this matter thus Mr. Chellingw †p. 60. In controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Controversie whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party § 118 But now suppose judging in their own cause must by no means be allowed to any and so the Church about any difference being divided
For if the were twice so many Italians as others a major part of the Council could not vote against the Popes inclinations without some of the Italian Bishops concurring But to dispel clearly these doubts §. 151. n. 2. you may understand that the Bishops voted nothing against the Protestants in the chief points at least but what was their own belief and practice before they came to the Council and what had been the practise and belief of many former ages even the reformed being Judges And that the chief question to be decided in the Council was whether such and such practices lawful viz. whether Communion in one kind only Adoration of Christs corporal Presence in the Eucharist offering the sacrifice of the Mass veneration of Images Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead as better able thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgment Indulgences Monastick Vows enjoyning Celibacy enjoyning Sacerdotal Confession in case of mortal sin c. be lawful And seeing the chief question in opposition to the new Lutheran Doctrines was whether these things lawful which were then and in many former generations Protestants not denying it daily practised what need of force of new Mandats from Rome of hiring Suffrages creating more titular Bishops Oaths of strict obedience to the Pope such a multitude of Italians to procure a prevalent vote or to invite the Prelats in the Council to establish those things several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries As the Sacrifice of the Mass Adoration of Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner by compulsion how came both the Catholick Bishops in the German Diets where free from such fears or force in the time of the Council to vote the same things and also after the Council the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches and of France with the rest so freely and voluntarily to accept them and to continue till their death in the constant observance of them But if it be said that though such things were generally believ'd and practised before yet by Art and violence were now the Fathers brought to advance them into matters of Faith I ask concerning many of these Points what Faith required save of those Truths which are necessary to render them lawful beneficial c. All practice lawful being grounded on some speculative Proposition that must be true Or if more be required yet more than this viz. the lawfulness of such practise wherein these Fathers voluntarily concurr'd was no way necessary for overthrowing the Protestants contrary Doctrine § 152 4 ly Obierve that no violence was used upon the Council for other points debated between the Catholicks themselves no violence so far as that any thing favourable or advantageous to the Pope was at any time passed in the Council when any small number thereof opposed it Concerning which Pallavicino in the close of his History l. 24. c. 14. n. 9 hath these words There was not in this Council established one point of faith nor one canon of discipline for the advantage of Popes but amongst the second the canons of discipline very many to their detriment and of such a thing indeed Soave himself brings not so much as one example so much is there wanting to him any sign or shadow thereof But not to rest in the testimony of a partisan The chief points agitated in the Council wherein the Popes pre-eminence and priviledges are said to be much concerned were besides the matters of Reformation these three 1. Whether residency of Bishops at their Bishopricks was jure divino which if established it was conceived that it would take away from the Pope the power of giving Dispensations Administrations and Commendaâ—â—â—s Pluralities c. by which amongst other things the Popes Attendents and the dignity of his Court would be much lessened See Soave p. 647. 2. Whether the Jurisdiction of Bishops was jure divino which if established it was conceived that it would infer that the keys were not given to Peter only that all Bishops were equal to the Pope and the Council above him c. see Soave p. 609. 3. Whether the Pope was superior to Councils In never a one of which was any thing decreed on the Popes side § 153 1. Concerning Residency of Bishops it was not determined according to what was conceived to be the Popes inclination viz. that Residency was not jure divino but 1. that which was determined being Sess 23. de reform cap. 1. seeemed rather to favour jure divino upon a jealousie of which Pall. l. 21.6.12 saith some few excepted against the decree Pope Pius though he desired the question were omitted yet shewed much moderation in it He did not condemn saith Soave p. 503. the opinion of those who said that Residency was de jure divino yea he commended them for speaking according to their conscience and sometimes he added that perhaps that opinion was the better and ordered that the Council might have its free course in it As you may see in Pall. l. 24. c. 14. n. 11. and l. 16. c. 7. n. 19. where he quotes the French Embassadors testimony and partly in Soave p. 504 505. where he saith That the Pope having well discussed the reasons concâ—â—â—ing Residency settled his opinion to approve it and cause iâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 executed upon what law soever it were grounded whether Canonical or evangelical And 2. of his Legats were thought to favour the determining of it jure divino ‖ Pall. l. 24. c. 14. Soave p. 496 623. and when it was put to the vote whether this controversie should be stated by the Council or no a major part were for the affirmative Soave p. 496 which being supposed contrary to the Popes desire shews that amongst the rest some Italians also who made the greater part of the Council took liberty to relinquish his interest Though in fine this point whether Jure divino was left undecided because taking in those who referred to the Pope almost an equal part as Soave but Pallavi ‖ l. 16. c. 4. â—â— 21. correcting him saith a major part drew the contrary â—way and to what else was stated about residence Sess 23. Refer cap. 1. In the Session all agreed save only eleven See Pall. l. 21. c 12. n. 9. and Soave p. 742. And in the General Congregation held before the Session all save 28. saith Soave †p. 737 Pallav. l. 21. c. 11. n. 4. i. e. some of the Spanish Bishops 2. Concerning Episcopacy jure Divino of which the 6. Can. de Sacram. Ordinis Sess 23. speaks thus Si Quis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholic â non esse Hierarchiant divinâ ordinatione institutam quae constat ex Episcopis § 154 Presbyteris Ministris Anathema sit where the Spanish Bishops would have had 2.
Divinâ Ordinatione changed into per institutionem Christ The great dispute in the Council was not whether the Order or Bishops as superior to Priests and as including the power of ordination and confirmation but whether the Jurisdiction of all Bishops especially as to some points thereof was jure divino viz. as to the just extent and subject matter of such Jurisdiction and the exterior and forensick exercise thereof wherein some Bishops enjoy a much larger power and compass which extent of power seems to depend on superiors as doth also the exercise of Absolution in Priests and is liable to be suspended taken away transferr'd diminished and this necessary for avoiding confusion †See Soave p. 623 734. And here as nothing was determined against the Pope in this matter so nothing for him And that no more in it should be decided than was decided all the Council consented in the Session and in the Congregation held before it all save the Spanish Bishops and therefore more consented to this than only the Italians and the Popes party see what Soave saith p. 737 738 725 735. where he relates That the Cardinal of Lorraine and the other French Prelats did not hold the â—â—â—itution and Superiority of Bishops de sure divino to be necessary to 〈…〉 mined in Council but rather that it ought to be omitted Now 〈…〉 the Pope if he had a major part of the Council on his 〈…〉 hinder the rest for carrying any thing against him by their votes yet could he not over-aw the rest thus to vote for him who having much more dependence for their Estates on their Temporal than their Spiritual Supream and backed by their Princes and their Embassadours in the Council these also generally much more favouring the Bishops than the Popes rights were secure enough against his power even the Italian Prelats also except that much smaller part of them whose preferments lay in the Popes Dominions § 155 3. Concerning the Popes Supremacy in the Church or Superiority to Councils though the Spaniards 3. and all the rest of the Council consented in as full terms as the Council of Florence had expressed it to decree and insert it in this Council also and though only the French Bishops who were not above the tenth part of the Council resisted yet the Pope for peace sake because there was not a full accord ceased to prosecute the determination thereof and the Article drawn was laid aside See these things more fully related in Pallavic History l. 19. and l. 24. c. 14. n. 12 and see there †l. 19. c. 15. n. 3. the contents of Carlo Borrhomeo's Letters to this purpose But the same thing of the Spanish consenting with the Italians for declaring the Popes authority according to the form of the Council ef Florence appears in Soave p. 737 738. though he much more compendious than Pallavicin in this part of the History perhaps for want of intelligence of which he complains in the beginning of his seventh book p. 583 And the same Author saith elsewhere p. 732. That an order came from the Emperour to his Embassadors to use all means that the authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council because he saw the major part was inclin'd to enlarge it Yet we see the Pope did not prosecute such advantage Neither doth that phrase accidentally used in Sess 25. Reform 1. cap. Sed ad S. Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales pertinere decernit quorum consilio apud Sanctum Romanum Pontificem cum universalis Ecclesiae administratio nitatur c. which the French Embassador Ferrieres so highly aggravated that it yielded to the Pope superiority over Councils †Sorve p. 818. truly prove any such thing neither passed it from the Council as any Decree neither in the reading in the Congregation of this 1 cap. of Reform wherein were some things corrected did the French Bishops except at this †Soave p. 803. which certainly they would have done had they apprehended such danger in it For also the French were not such opposites to the Popes pre-eminency of authority but that their Leader the Cardinal of Lorraine proposed in the Council this Article for it Pallav. l. 19. c. 6. condemning any that should say That Peter by the institution of Christ was not the Prime amongst the Apostles and his supreme Vicar Or that it was not necessary that there should be in the Church a chief Bishop Peters Successor and equal to him in the authority of Government and that his lawful Successors in the See of Rome have not the right of Primacy in the Church And the French Bishops though they disallowed this form Datam esse à Concilio Pontifici Romano potestatem pascendi regendi universalem because Ecclesia universalis here if taken collectively would prejudice the French Churches opinion of the Councils superiority to the Pope †Pall. l. 19. c. 13. n. 6. c. 12. n. 11. l. 21. c. 14. n. 12. Soave p. 657. yet they yielded to this form potestatem regendi omnes fideles omnes Ecclesias or pascendi omnes Christi oves if omnes be not taken conjunctionl And for that Supremacy of the Pope over the Church that is denied by Protestants Soave giving reasons why Henry the 8th prudently declined a Council thus secures this Supremacy Papal from any censure of the Bishops saying †§. 〈◊〉 70. That it was impossible that a Council composed of Ecclesiastical Persons should not maintain this his power which is the main pillar of their Order Because this Order saith he by the Papacy is above all Kings and the Emperour but without it is subject to them there being no Ecclesiastical Person that hath superiority but the Pope Thus he usually exstracting the Original of all mens actions not out of Conscience but Policy Yet in these points we see the Popes supposed major party in the Council carried nothing for his advantage But how much the former bounds of the Episcopal Authority were enlarged by several Decrees of this Council that were confirmed and ratified by the Pope wherein at least they are substituted his perpetual and standing Delegats for transacting many things of great consequence formerly dispatched by Himself and his Officers See below 205 211. c. Mean while whether or how much the Pope or his party when stronger there might be faulty in hindering any points to be determined which the rest of the Fathers in the Council desired should be so I cannot say because I cannot judge whether such things are necessary to be determined as some of the Council said they were a few or better not as others the most But if the Pope be culpable for having abstracting here from Protestant-Controversies as hath been shewed †hindred by his Italian adherents something § 150 that otherwise would have passed He seems to make an amends for it in the not passing in Council several other matters which
would have served much for his ad-advantage when but a few seem'd discontented therewith § 156 But in the next place let us now suppose that the Council un-oppressed the contrary party there had carried all these points against the Pope there could have followed that I discern no such great advantage to Protestantisme thereby as some boast of You may see the consequences endamaging the Pope set down by Soave p. 609 645. some of which are of no great moment and others not truly consequent Certainly the Bishops who contended for their Jurisdiction jure divino intended no such thing as to equal every one himself with the Pope in the Government of the Church or to overthrow thereby * the former Church-discipline * the pre-eminent authority of Primats and Patriarchs conceded by former Councils and * all the jus Ecclesiasticum This may be seen in their argumentations wherein some pleaded a Jurisdiction belonging to all Bishops jure divino and received immediatly from Christ but this not equal with the Popes others their Jurisdiction received jure divino but the use application and matter thereof received from the Pope Soave p. 597 607. 618. 637. Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 3. The French allowing from Christ the Popes superiority as was shewed but now †§. 155. only confining his authority within the Canons Soave p. 640. and the Spaniards who most stickled for Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino yet willingly conceding to the Pope all the power that was acknowledged by the Council of Florence and desiring that both these might be established together as hath been shewed above insomuch as Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 6. saith It seemed to some that the contention was reduced to meer words whilst the one would have the Jurisdiction of Bishops to be immediatly from the Pope the others from Christ yet so that the use and matter of such Jurisdiction depended on the Pope And therefore I see no weight in those words of B. Bramh. schis guarded 10. Sect. p. 474. who to S. Ws. asking whether if the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces had been present in the Council to counterpoise the Italians he would pretend that they would have voted against their Fellow-Catholicks in behalf of Luther and Calvin answereth thus I see clearly that if the Bishops of other Countreys had been proportioned to those of Italy they had carried the debate about Residence yet is not Residence even amongst Protestants voted jure divino the divine Right of Episcopacy and that had done the business of the Western Church and undone the Court of Rome Done the business of the Western Church what meaneth he So as the Pope would have ceased to have had any Supremacy over them why those also allow and submit to it who still hold Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino as none in the Roman Church are obliged to hold the contrary But suppose the Pope disarmed of Supremacy are thus all the other main differences in points of faith between Protestants and these Western Bishops stated on the Protestant side Or will the Reformed now declare them controversies of small moment as Bishop Bramh. in a vehement assaulting of the Court of Rome seems to relax other quarrels with that Church and yield them to their Adversaries But had any the art first to accord these speculative points of difference which the Protestants have with the Western Churches he need not fear that the Popes supremacy could put any bar between the two Religions Which supremacy those Catholick Bishops or Churches that do most abridge and have their free liberty to maintain what in the Council they would have voted concerning this matter do yet continue in the other points as violent and stâ—ff against the reformed as any § 157 5. Thus much of the Popes and Councils proceedings in those three great points of contention Next concerning the Popes carriage toward the Council for other matters of Reformation 5. wherein he is so much accused to have made unjust obstructions Pallavicino in vindication of Pius the 4th in whose times these Reformations were most agitated and proceeded in hath these words l. 24. c. 12 n. 13. Pius the 4th frequently enjoyned his Legats that a Reformation should be made of his Court and of his Tribunals and especially of the Cardinals which reformation he attempting first at Rome in vain remitted it the more earnestly to the Council as may be seen in C. Borrom letters Pall. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 6 7. without any acquainting him first with it frequently grieved and complained that it was not done commended whatever was determined in the Sessions concerning it though unlooked for contrary to his expectation and most damageful to his treasury and to his Court Which words of his are verified both by the frequent Letters to this purpose written to the Council by Carlo Borrhomeo according to the Popes order †Apud Pallav l. 20. c. 5. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 1 2 6 7. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5 12 13. which you may read at your leasure and by the testimony of Lorraine and others in the Council And indeed how could this be otherwise since Carlo Borromeo that holy man was his chief Adviser and chief Minister to the Council in this and all other affairs who was himself one of the severest Reformers yet not besides the Canons that ever the Church of Christ hath known as the history of his life written by Giussano sheweth § 158 And that actually by this Council a great and severe reformation was decreed the Court of Rome much rectified the Popes Revenue much diminished the Jurisdiction of Bishops whether held immediatly or mediatly from Christ here it matters not much enlarged Residency of Bishops whether it be jure divino or Ecclesiastico strictly enjoyned former dispensations and appeals much restrained I refer you to what the Articles themselves especially in the five last Sessions under Pius make appear and to what is said below in the five Head †concerning them §. 207. c. and * to the testimony of the French Bishops set down above § 77. with whom it was a chief motive to request of the King the accepting this Council because the French Church stood in so much need of the reformations established therein than which say they they could find none more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the body Ecclesiastical and * to the testimony of Soave himself recited above § 124. and below § 204. touching the heavy complaint of the Roman Court concerning this reformation and their endeavours with the Pope to hinder for this cause the confirmation of the Council If its laws are not since every where so well observed I desire that the Council or the then Pope may not be indicted for this fault Neither are we for trying the benefit of that Council so much to
which though advanced by the Clergy all the Embassadours and Orators unanimously opposed †See Soave p. 760 766 769. was stopped by the Legats power though I grant several times diverted or dissuaded by their advice and that proposals also were not unusually made in the Council by others if we may believe Soave proposals both most contrary to the Popes interest and most displeasing to his Legats To name some Such were * those concerning the two great questions about the Institution and residency of Bishops whether jure divino * Articles of Reformation to be joyned in their consultations with those of Doctrine and Religion * The abrogating or moderating of the priviledges and exemptions of Regulars from the Episcopal power * the abrogation or moderating of Commendams Dispensations Union of Benefices Of pensions and reservations of profits out of Ecclesiastical Benefices * Ordination of Titular Bishops Appeales to the Pope * The Councils representing the universal Church All which and many more were agitated in the Council the Legats as Soave represents them relucting yet not offering to infringe the liberty of the Council where they saw the inclinations of a considerable part bent that way So concerning residency and exemptions Soave tells us the truth of the History frequently constraining him to contradict those maximes which are elsewhere laid down by him to infer the slavery of the Council That the Legats were inforced to consent that both should be considered of and that every one speak his opinion of them and that some Fathers should be deputed to frame the Decree that it might be examined Concerning the Articles handling Reformation p. 144 145. he saith The number contending for them was so great that the Legats were confounded And that they yielded to their desire being constrained thereunto by meer necessity Concerning abrogating the exemption of Regulars p. 761 and 167 170. he saith It was a thing moved by the Bishops and that the Pope and Legats desired to maintain the Regulars Priviledges Concerning admission of the Protestant Divines to disputation p. 365. he saith That this opinion being embraced frist by the Germans then by the Spanish Prelats and at last somewhat coldly by the Italian the Legat remained immoveable and shewed plainly that he stood quiet being forced by necessity And concerning the reformation of Princes p. 769. he saith That the Legats gave forth this Article being forced thereunto by the mutiny of the Prelats If you would see more instances in Soave of the Councils bridling and over-ruling the Legats I refer you to Quorlius l. 2. first and second Chapters a diligent Collector of them So p. 656. concerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Emperour and by the French †Soave p. 513 652. which were thought to intrench too much upon the Popes priviledges Soave brings him in giving such instructions to his Legats That they should defer to speak of them as long as was possible That when there was necessity to peruse them they should begin with those that were least prejudicial c. That in case they were forced to propose them imparting their objections to the Prelats their adherents they should put them in discussion and controversie So very frequently in his History you shall find him as if he had forgot himself concerning what he affirms elsewhere of the domineering and tyranny of the Pope and his party revealing the distractions the fears the complaints and upon this the subtile Artifices of the Pope and of his Legats probably such as his own wit could contrive who with his fancy presumes to enter into all their secrets and speaks as if he had the Art of discerning thoughts and intentions as clearly as others do actions and Records and many times as you have seen after all these he represents the Legats yielding and going along with the stream because they could with no Art withstand it But if indeed the proponentibus Legatis was intended or executed in such a manner as Protestants affirm so as that nothing could be moved in the Council but what they pleased though a major part desiring it nor any thing pleased them that it should be moved which was prejudicial to the Popes interest or Grandeur this surely would have remedied and prevented all these fears and jealousies of the Pope and Court of Rome supposing his Legats as Soave alwaies represents them still true and faithful to him But I ask what matter of moment was there how much soever distastful to the Pope or Court of Rome that being presented once in Trent was strangled before it came to be proposed and agitated in the Council The Articles of Reformation that were exhibited by the Imperial and French Embassadors were after some delay taken into consideration in the 24. and 25. Sessions †Soave p. 751 759. And here when some Embassadors proposed that Deputies might be elected for each Nation to take care in the Council of the special interest of it The Cardinal of Lorraine and the other Embassadors both the French and Emperours contradicted it saith Soave alledging that every one i. e. in the Council might speak his opinion concerning the Articles proposed and propose others if there were cause so that there was no need to give this distast to the Pope and the Legats Such a Liberty then de facto there was used in the Council But I say not whether alwaies with that discretion that was needful or whether not with some Contradiction of some persons of a sounder judgment than the rest Or whether the Legats did not well in putting such bounds to this liberty as they well could either by using perswasions to the contrary or by interposing delaies till the first fervour was a little cooled as to many points which they saw unprofitable difficult and apt to divide the Council into parties and not tending to those end for which this Council was chiefly assembled Especially whilst they endeavoured to win the relucting party though this were not very numerous with reason and treating rather than force or overvoting them in Council § 163 4 ly Such a sole priviledge of proposal to be appropriated to the Legats of the Apostolick See further than for order sake seems needless to be contended for For if as Soave often saith the major part of the Council being Italians were at the Popes devotion for deciding all matters what mattered it who or what was proposed 5 ly You may observe That no such prescription as proponentibus legatis was made to the Councils proceedings till Pius his time and yet that all things there run in the same course before as after it Neither do any Protestants esteem the Council more free or equitable unto them under Paul's or Julius's than under Pius's conduct 6. Lastly which must be often said as to the most or all the Protestant Controversies concerning doctrine the Legats proposal could be no disadvantage in condemning which doctrines
the whole Council hath been shewed †to be so unanimous § 150 § 164 To the 2d The Consultation in every thing made with the Pope 1 st Whereas it is usually urged by Protestants out of Soave †Seep 481 507. That as none could propose any thing in the Council save the Legats so the Legats might propose nothing till they had received a Commission from Rome That nothing was resolved by the Fathers but all in Rome and the Council guided by the Holy Ghost sent thither from time to time in a Cloak-bag from Rome †p. 497. much more is charged than is true For a proposal of the matter◠from time to time to be discussed in Council was made and digested in Trent by a general agreement of the Fathers unknown to the Pope as appears throughout this History After which resolved 1 st some Congregations of Divines disputed the point and considered the matters proposed at which any of the Fathers that would might be present 2. After this arguing followed the Congregations of the Prelats for framing the heads of Doctrine and Reformation according to the most common opinion 3. Then a General Congregation of the same Prelats for giving their votes concerning them and 4 lastly the Session when they were voted again and so published See Soave p. 167. Now all or most part of these saving the last the Session were usually passed without the Popes knowledge or concurrence and the Legats themselves are sometimes found differing from one another in their votes as they were in that of residence †Sav. p. 518. and 496 at which time also some other Bishops gave their vote with reservation to consulting of the Pope which shews the Popes mind though in a matter so much concerning the Apostolick See was not then known But after these General Congregations was usually notice of such Decree as was passed therein sent to Rome before its being voted again and published in the General Session And of this a charge is also given to his Legats by Pope Paul the Third in Soave p. 164. though I find not that Pius required it Nay if we may believe this Historian he seemeth in some places to decline it as appears in the quotations here following The Decree thus sent to Rome was there also by the Popes Council examined and his judgment returned to the Legats concerning it which when differing from that of the Council which thing seldom happened except in the questions between the Episcopal and Papal Rights the Legats endeavoured to procure by common consent either some alterations or at least an omission of such Decree in the following Session but this with all freedom of the Council still observed a good part of whom was also still animated against the Popes interests by the Embassadors of Secular Princes nothing being done against the satisfaction of any considerable part of the Council the uttermost of the Legats attempts then extended to procure an omission of that to which the Pope would not consent not any determining of what he approved when thereby was feared the alienating of some Nation from the Roman Faith and if thus something was hindred by their intermise from being passed by the Council which otherwise would have been so yet nothing was advanced to be passed which otherwise would not have been and so the Conciliary Acts have suffered no prejudice by it Nor any hurt done save that thus men are left to their former Liberty still in some points wherein the Council would have restrained it a thing I hope the Reformed will not complain of you may at your leisure particularly view in Soave the liberty the Council took to examine the Popes proposals in the Institution of Bishops †p 657. 723. and Papal Supremacy and the alterations which were made in them § 165 2. In the next place I will give you the Pope's plea for himself against those 2. who accused him for thus abridging the freedom of the Council To this matter then friendlily complained of by the Emperor in a letter to him thus answered Pius the 4th in another See Pall. l. 20. c. 8. n. 7. That he never gave any such command as that nothing should be decreed in the Council without consulting him first That in things more difficult the Delegats demanded his advice nor could or ought he to deny it them That it crossed not their liberty was not undecent or unusual that the Council it self should desire the judgment of the Apostolick See Nor was it unfitting that the Pope being to give Counsel to his Legats should first take it with the Cardinals men of great judgment and learning especially be not intending that his advices should impose any necessity on the Council to follow them Thus Pius me thinks with much reason And it is manifest that the Council in many things did not follow them And though little was decreed by the Council against that which came from Rome yet both all that came from Rome was not decreed and much decreed that came not from Rome the Pope often desiring them especially for reformations to proceed without consulting him and in Soave p. 503. complaining to his Cardinals of those in the Council who referred themselves unto him because saith he the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his own opinion and not lay the things of difficulty upon the back of another i. e. the Pope that themselves might avoid hatred and envy As also the same Author †p. 723. relates That his Legats sending to Rome the Articles that were drawn up in the Council of the Institution and residence of Bishops the Pope reprehended the Legats for sending them Because he knew that the major part in the Council were good Catholicks and devoted to the Church of Rome and in confidence hereof he was content that the proposition and resolution should be determined in Trent without his knowledge The same Author †p. 684. makes him further in defence of his Instruction from time to time sent to his Legats and to the Council answering the same letter of the Emperour on this manner plausibly enough though as Pallavicino taxeth him misrelating in several things the contents of the letter †l. 20. c. 8. n. 9. That no Council was ever celebrated in absence of the Pope but that he hath sent instructions which the Fathers have also followed That the Instructions do still remain which Pope Celestine sent to the Ephesin Council Pope Leo to that of Chalcedon Pope Agatho to that in Trullo Pope Adrian the first to the second of Nice Pope Adrian the second to the eighth General Council of Constantinople And thus also he makes him to plead his cause at Rome before the Cardinals †p. 503. That he could not chuse but be troubled with that which was spoken concerning the liberty of the Council and that to consult of the matters at Rome
st It is a new way never used in any Council save two late ones Constance and Basil and in Constance upon an extraordinary occasion the election of a lawful Pope * when they were affraid this Election would receive some disturbance from the multitude of Italians brought to the Council by Pope John 23th and when several Nations also adhering to several persons for there were then no fewer than three Anti-Popes residing in several places probably would not have united in any new choise that would be made without their particular consent Therefore also in the Council of Constance for the Election of a new Pope Martin 5th there were joyned with the Cardinals some other chosen Prelats out of each Nation See Sess 41. And this extraordinary way was then used not as the best for condemning of Heresies but as pro tempore the most expedient for curing a Schism Mean while see in Spondanus ‖ A.D. 1415. n. 14 16. taken out of the Acts of this Council conserv'd in the Library of St. Victors at Paris the complaint and exceptions made by Pope John against this new course Vna natione saith he alteri aequiparata abs ullâ meriti vel numeri ratione cum de Anglicanâ essent tres tantum Praelati coeteri Cleriri novem numero And then see the Council thus clearing it self Formam à Synodo majoris causâ ordinis Compendii statutam comprehendere utrumque modum deliberandi per Nationis per singula Suffragia Cum Viz per Deputatos sive Delectos Nationum primo separatim post ad invicem communicato Consilio Dehinc per ipsas Nationes ubi singuli liberi erant tandem collectis omnibus in unum Nationibus ac Cardinalibus in Sessione publica quaerebatur palam de singulis praemeditatis examinatis Articulis utrum placerent permissâ cuililet ex priscâ Conciliorum forma faclutate dicendi quae vellet We have the manner of it more clearly described in Spondanus out of Patricius in the beginning of the Council of Basil ‖ A. D. 1431. 11. thus Out of the four Nations was a certain number chosen to sit by themselves and prepare matters the four Nations having four Convents or meetings Again out of every one of these Convents were chosen three twelve in all called Deputati who sate together and better digested what any of the other four meetings represented to them afterward their Judgment was return'd to the several Convents and then when all or any three of these Convents consented in any thing it was sent to the President of the Council and by Him proposed to all the members of it in a General Congregation where all had their free nnd personal vote and what was in this Congregation generally agreed on was at last reduced into the Form of a Decree and afterward recited and confirmed in a Publick Session Where we see in the General Congregation all things are passed by personal votes which proceeding also the former words of the Council intimate and justifie Only the other National Consultations are premised for the more expedition and better examination of things and nothing could be proposed to the General Congregation but which the Deputies of three of the four Nations had first stated and agreed to Now setting aside such a distinction of and prevoting by Nations the preparation and examination of matters before every publick Session by certain select Congregations or meetings seems not much different from that afterward used in this Council of Trent 2. But this whether previous or final Decision by the number of Nations how few soever the Representatives of some of them be as it is new so 2 ly seems very dangerous for raising emulations and factions between Nations to the rending of the Churches peace and leaveth not the Prelats of every Nation so much at their own liberty to joyn their vote with aliens nor permits the same scope for men of more spirit learning or judgment of whatsoever Nation to guide the rest 3 ly It would render the Councils deserted and unfrequented and consequently the affairs thereof not so well discussed whilst one Representative sent from one Nation will suffice and equal in vote and authority an hundred sent from another as here only three Prelats sent from England did 4 Again either all Nations shall be allowed to have an equal vote in the Council or unequal if equal then since the Bishops of three or four lesser Kingdoms or States do not equal the Bishops of one greater thus a much smaller part of the Church may overvote and conclude the greater if unequal how shall a just proportion be prescribed 5. Add to this that the multitude in Council of the Prelats of some Nation more than of another is without this new device already remedied for this being once agreed on that the decrees of the Prelats present in a Council oblige not unless accepted by the major part of Nations and by their Prelats that are absent the greater number of one Nation in the Council than of another cannot oblige the absents if more to the observance of their decrees 6ly Such an Innovation could not be made in Trent without the consent of the Council and those Nations of which the Council mostly consisted would never have consented to have the vote of one or two Bishops from some other Countries perhaps much inferior in their natural or spiritual parts and their Co-Patriots unconsulted to counterpoise all theirs 7. Lastly as to the points of doctrine the same thing in effect was observed in the Conncil or something more For nothing can be shewed to have been passed in the Council as to matter of doctrine from which the Bishops how few soever they were of any one Nation esteemed Catholick and so rightly challenging a vote declared their dissent and though perhaps few yet they were looked upon as the representative of a Body considerable against which as hath been said the Council concluded no Article of faith as in stating which Articles they guided themselves by former evident Tradition or most clear Consequences thereof § 170 To the 4 th The Popes giving Pensions The thing is confessed but hath two handles To 4. by which as it is taken it is rendred commendable or culpable On the one side it might be a great charity and argue a desire only that the Council might be numerous and full and assisted with many able persons some of which not minding these so much are not unoften low in their estates On the other side it might be a great policy and argue a desire to have many in the Council his Dependents Whether out of one or both of these respects such pensions were allowed I cannot say but by an act that may be lawfully done and justified none can prove the Council illegal And also in favour of the former pretence we may consider * That poorer Bishops in former Councils have had their charges born
at least by the Emperor one not without Designs * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods the charges of continuing there great not a few Bishops and other Divines poor great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council especially in its first beginning the more necessitous without some maintenance of their charges threatening to depart as Soavo himself acknowledgeth p. 124 and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them before they had his leave and saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7. these pensions were so small being but 25 Crowns a month that the Bishops so reliev'd staid not without murmuring that thus they were deprived of a just pretence to go away and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated attendance than thanks for his allowance and often complaining of their want some of them saith he in the consultations gave more molestation than some others both to the Legats and to the Pope But if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service it had been easie for Christian Princes by the like allowances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions to have countermined such policies § 171 To the 5th The admitting Titular Bishops 'T is true that some Titular Bishops were in the Council To 5. but they are justified by their allowed ordination of Priests to be true Bishops and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council and vote therein without asking any ones leave I find not any said to be in the Council who were not made Bishops before it Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope as some others do either of erecting any new Bishopricks or creating Titular Bishops during the sitting of the Council nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope save two and those at the first beginning of the Council nor these meerly Titular laus Magnus and Robert Venants waucap One Archbishop of Vpsali in Sweden the other of Armagh in Ireland both excluded from their Sees by Princes enemies to the Catholick Faith Of whom as you may read what is said in Soave p. 140. to their disparagement so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their commendation The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts so chiefly for their Country one being a Swede the other a Scot that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them Lastly if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope the same may be said of them as hath been †§. 167. of the Italians in general * That the Pope found but little assistance from them where he most needed them nor was any advantagious thing done for Him in the Council by their help * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs and passed several Acts against †Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 4. de Deform Sesss 14. c. 2 them when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council some of them would have spoken there in their own defence especially that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bishop without his licence But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress for the future the creating any such Bishops for the reasons given in Soave p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops or of those who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches or of Prelats imployed in greater affairs § 172 To the last The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations and had in them a vote with the rest but were not admitted to have a definitive vote in the Council for this reason least so whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence these their Substitutes coming abundantly from all parts might overbear the Bishops in the Council these being men of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption as they might of the Bishops themselves and this being a thing which those Prelats who afforded their own personal attendance would be much offended with Yet was it attempted to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent as to some of the German Bishops but that this could not be easily done exclusively to others †See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8. l. 21. c. 1. n. 3. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason alledged by Protestants viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted I cannot judge But those Bishops who sent Proxies themselves afterward accepting the Council did what was equivalent to their own or their Proxies definitive voting in it But to conclude this matter suppose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly and to the prejudice of the Council in some things yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above § 148 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things which were therein actually and unanimously established which is enough to overthrow the Reformation CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3. That all General Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new Divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in some former Councils § 198. 9. That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10. That a Discession from the Church and declaration against its Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. § 173 THus much from § 147.
touching the third Head the legal proceedings of this Council Now we come to the Fourth Touching the many Decrees and Canons Definitions and Anathema's of this Council much exceeding those of former and some of them said to be in very slight matters by which this Council is charged to have multiplied and imposed on all Christians so many new Articles of Faith and Pius his Bull that followed it to have added twelve new ones to the Creed Thus when as the Reformation as Mr. Thorndike complains in Conclusion to his Epilog might have been only Provisional till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this Council cutâ—â—â—â— off all hopes of Peace except by yielding to all their Decrees In this matter therefore for the Councils Defence I shall propose to you these ten Considerations following The 1st That all Anathemas in Councils are not passed 1. for holding something against matter of Faith but for other misdemeanours and Trespasses against Obedience and good manners Amongst which this may be reckoned one If any one raiseth Factions and Sects and disturbeth the Churches peace in contradicting her common Doctrines of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be or spreadeth abroad propositions schismatical and scandalous and apt to corrupt good manners or be made ill use of by the simple though the matter of them be not properly Heretical or opposing an Article that is De fide Again Anathemas that are inflicted by the Church for holding something contrary to the Faith are not alwaies or most usually denounced for those more fundamental and necessary points of Faith an error in which ruines Salvation but also and more commonly because these are more for some lesser matters of faith viz any whereby some damage smaller or greater comes as to the Author from holding them so to others from his maintaining and divulging them abroad The Church being very vigilant contrary to Sects to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith which are observed by the Apostle to be of the nature of a Cancer 1 Tim. 2.17 still eating further into the bowels of Truth she not knowing how far they may enlarge themselves and by little and little invade higher Points and lay the Foundation for more pernicious errors Nor doth the punishment of Anathema in these eye so much the greatness and malignity of the error as the pertinacy and obstinacy of its Abettor refusing submittance to the Churches authority the violating of which Authority may be a great fault and of very ill consequence though in a small matter If he will not hear the Church saith our Lord let him be to thee Mat. 18 17. as an Heathen †an excommunicated â—rn anathematized person where the censure lies upon his not hearing the Church be the matter in which small or great § 174 And the great guilt of the obstinacy against the Definitions of Superiors though in the maintaining only of some small errors in the Faith some Protestants seem to acknowledge and confess it well to merit so high a Censure Of which thus Dr. Fearn †Considerations on the Church of Engl. Preface We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus this Doctor Only he would have the Church to distinguish between pertinacious and modest gain-saying which is to know Hearts and this latter he would have to pass free from this censure and such he would have that of the Reformers to be Was that of Luther then so modest Or doth not the weight and venerableness of the Churches Authority render all known contradiction whatever truly guilty of Pertinacy and Pride Again Thus Bishop Brambal †Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27. When inferior questions not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church for such a point non-fundamental deserve to be punish't as Hereticks i. e. Anathematized And Cardinal Bellarmin saith †De Concil l. 2. c. 10. of Provincial Councils That Judicium non-infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And Debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes vel Concilium Universale these two it seems only do set at liberty our tongues from the obligations of Inferiour Councills si secus egerint merito excommunicantur Notwithstanding though an Anathema in such cases in well deserved from the wilful adherence of such persons to their own fancies against their Superiors yet it is never inflicted meerly for this but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent if spread abroad to others the remedy of which danger of infecting others seems chiefly to be intended in the Churches using ordinarily in such Canons Si quis dixerit rather than senserit § 175 2. Concerning the Extent of matter of Faith You must know That all Divine Revelations whatever 2. and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith could they proceed in infinitum are also when known the matter or objects or Articles of our faith as well as the more chief necessary points thereof unless we may dis-believe something that we grant to be God's Word And are all Traditional from the Apostles times either in their own express terms or in their necessary Principles since new Divine Revelations none pretend And consequently the contrary error to any of these Deductions when ever it seems very hurtful may be Anathematized § 176 And amongst these Divine Revelations and matter of our Faith are to be reckoned these two Propositions of no little consequence viz. the Doctrine of Christian liberty namely That all things are lawful unto us which God's Word hath not prohibited And again this That the Church hath authority committed to Her by our Lord in such lawful things to make Constitutions and Decrees obliging all her subjects to obedience So that one that affirms something to be prohibited in God's Word or unlawful that is not so prohibited or one that denies obedience to the Precepts of the Church made in things not contrary to God's Word offends against the Faith and on this account is liable to an Anathema And in these things our Belief according to the several objects thereof is required of us in a several manner 1. In pure speculatives If it be a thing made known to us to be revealed by God the Faith that is required of us upon such Revelation is to believe it a certain Truth 2. In practicals if it be a thing by God commanded or
more necessary and dignified than some others And then as for this expression equalling at least those Books called Apocryphal with some Canonical fore-named and its accepting them all as equally penn'd by the direction of the H. Spirit I ask What new Discerner of Spirits will assume to himself so much skill as clearly to discover the language and character of the Spirit in the one sort of these Books that is not in the other For Example in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes that is not in Ecclesiastions Especially 1. When as the Churches ancient reading them all promiscuously in her publick service for the Instruction of her children shews that she held the doctrine of them all sound 2. And again when as in those Books which all sides allow canonical yet the II. Spirit pens them in so many various and unlike stiles and some of these much more rude and unpolished than others and speaks sometimes in a much higher sometimes in a much lower key as if it condescended to receive a mixture with or tincture from the natural parts and Elocution of its Scribe and only the Truth being entirely preserved admitted also sometimes his Infirmities as to Language Method Perspicuity c. In which Canon also some of the Historical books though preserved from error seem not penned from immedint Divine Revelation so as the Prophetical but by using such humane industry and diligence as other Histories are compiled with For which see St. Lukes Preface to his Gospel 3. And lastly when as there are some seeming Antilogies and incongruities produced in the one sort of these books called Apocryphal so are there others as many as great urged in those receiv'd by all for canonical especially in the Historical § 188 Therefore it seems a great inadvertency if nothing more in Bishop Cosin writing so large a Treatise on this subject Where he saith †c. 7. §. 81. That this Council commanded all the Books recited in their Canon to be equally accepted and taken with the self same veneration as having all a like absolute and divine authority annexed to them without preferring one before another and damned all the Churches of the world besides that will not thus receive that Canon of Scripture upon their own terms Quoting in the same place for justifying this charge these words as the words of the Council Concil Trid. Sess 4. Omnes libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro Canonicis receperit Ibid. Si quis autem non susceperit c. Anathema sit whereas there are no such words in the Council so put together Si quis non susceperit or receperit omnes hos libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro canonicis Anathema sit which words will only serve the design of his Book But only these words there used with relation to Anathema Si quis hos libros integros c. pro sacris canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit And I hope in this Decree as to any words or expressions used therein stiling them only Sacri Canonici the Council proceeds no further in affirming any thing concerning them than the Bishop will concede the Affrican Council †Conc. Carthag 3. c. 47. Innocentius Austin and other Fathers to have done and than himself also in a large sence will acknowledge them to be For he in giving answer to the Fathers § 82. writes thus of them In a large and common sence as they be books appointed to be read in the Church for the more ample direction and instruction of the people c. in which sence that Council viz. of Carthage took them or as they are to be preferr'd before all other Ecclesiastical Books in which sence St. Austin took them and as they are opposed to suppositions Apocryphal and rejected Books in which sence both St. Austin and this Council besides divers others of the Fathers took them all these waies they may be called Canonical Thus he And then for the sence of these words since he also advanceth thus far toward the Councils pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit as to acknowledge these books to have been as read in the Church like as other parts of Scripture so cited and termed by sundry of the Fathers Sacred and Divine and Holy Scriptures and Prophetical writings †Ibid. §. 77. Epithites common to these with other Scriptures Why may not these infer also in a large and common sence a parity If the Bishop will be pleased to mollifie the Councils expressions so as he doth those Fathers By which Tradition and testimony of the Fathers Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta †Conc. Trid. Sess 4. Decret de caâ—eâ— script the Council as it saith was guided in making this Decree A 2d inadvertency of the same Reverend Bishop seems to be § 189 that which he urgeth much †See in him §. 194. of the small and inconsiderable number which that Council had to give a suffrage to this their Synodical Decree and that forty Bishops of Italy assisted peradventure with half a score others should make up a General Council for all Christendom c. Whilst he takes no notice * that by how few soever this Decree was passed at the first yet it was afterward by the great Body of this Council under Pius confirmed and ratified and this Ratification again by the most of Christian Churches accepted of which see before § 72 75 77. And again * That not one Book more was voted sacred and canonical by these Fathers in Trent than had been voted before as high as St. Austins times by the third Council of Carthage to which St. Austin amongst others subscribed and than were in those times also generally received for such in the Western Church and lastly * that as several of these books are declared Canonical by this Council after some doubt formerly had concerning them so are others not only declared Canonical by Protestants but as fully believed as the rest and in every respect equalled with them as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the second of St. Peter the second and third of S. John the Apocalypse which were formerly viz. till fourth age See Chemnie Exam. conc Trid. 4. Sess subject to the like disputes ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo and as St. Jerom ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo saith of one of them Paulatim procedente tempore authoritatem obtinuerunt Paulatim viz. as the conformity of these books with the rest of the Canon and the slightness of the objections made against them and the former Tradition was clearlier discovered after the vanishing of those Sects that chiefly opposed them As therefore several pieces of the new Testament once disputed have since been declared and generally received into the Canon so may those pieces of the old Testament be by the following Christian Church admitted for such though formerly rejected by
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
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
if so inclin'd For religious Houses of Women * That none either receive the Habit or profess without first being examined by the Bishop concerning her willâ—ngness and free inclination thereto * That in such Houses most strict clausure be observed None to go forth on what occasion soever without the Bishop be first acquainted therewith and licence it None of what sex or age soever to enter in without the licence of the Bishop or Superioress All such Votaries enjoyned to Confess and Communicat at least once a month Vt eo salutari praesidio se muniant saith the Council †De Reform Reg. c. 10. ad omnes oppugnationes Daemonis fortiter superandas These and many other like Constitutions were passed by this Synod of Bishops for the reforming of Monasticks the effect of which Decrees since the time of this Council hath been very great both as to removing much former scandal and restoring Discipline relaxed And perhaps if some Religious Houses that now lâ—e in ashes had but stood till these Decrees of Trent might have been applied to their great distempers these severe remedies might have healed those Corruptions for which still more and more putrifying and increasing it is to be feared the hand of God's Justice cut them off To Ï„. To Ï„. Correction of the Breviary and Missal See §. 243. n. 3. Sess 25. Decret de Brev. Where the Council having committed this affair to certain Selected Fathers and being necessitated to conclude before it was finished leave the care of it to the Pope after which the some Fathers with some others joyned to them still prosecuting it in Pius the Fourth's daies Both the Missal and Breviary thus corrected and reduced to a greater uniformity were licenced and published by his Successor Pius Fifth § 244 Thus I have run through many particulars wherein the wisdom and diligence of this Council joyned in the later and Principal actions thereof with a Pope much inclined the same way and also much sweyed by his holy Nephew Carlo Borromeâ— indeavoured to repair the defects observed and scandals complained of in the former Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline By which it is clear that many things are reduced into a much better order since this Council than they were in before and the opposition of many enemies searching into the faults of those times by the Divine Providence bringing good out of evil conduced much to the rectifying of them and the pretended Reformation from the Church produced a true one in it And if after all this some blemishes do still remain 1st It must be considered * That some things the Council could have wished amended and altered which yet were too difficult to be brought about without hazarding schisme amongst the National Churches or Prelats long inured to different Customs And * That several things also had dependence on the Reformation of the Secular Governours which when the Council touched upon though very tenderly and drew up some Articles concerning it but such as were decreed both by former Church-Canons and the Imperial Laws ‖ See Soave p. 769. Pallav. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6. presently the Princes grew displeased and so for fear of alienating their minds to whose favours otherwise the Church stands much obliged and by whose sword under the Divine Providence she is upheld the Council was forced to bear with their weakness and desist from its purpose Review the Councils complaint set down before § 210. Adeo dura difficilisque est Praesentium temporum conditio c. 2ly Again It may be considered That several things that were well ordered by the Council yet are not so well executed nor ought the Council to be charged at all with this but its Ministers who as they shall happen to be more or less active or piously disposed so its constitutions in all future ages will receive vigor or languish And in this Its laws do only suffer the common Fate of all others made heretofore either in the Ecclesiastical or Civil States No Court hitherto having been able to devise a law that could infallibly promote the execution of their Laws or of It self 3 ly After this to be considered yet much more that if every thing which private judgments amongst which every one is to reckon his own do think fit to be corrected was not thought so by the Council they ought rather with an undisputing humility to submit these to that of so Reverend an Assembly than to censure it as not conformable to theirs and that too as to matters not received or rejected by this Council but after that all sides had been much disputed and weighed Especially they ought to ponder well these two things § 245 The one Concerning the Council of Trent its differing in some practices from what was observed in the antient Church That all the same Constitutions do not fit all times where the circumstances of things are much varied the former manners much relaxed the Christian Profession much inlarged the Civil Governments much altered c. Nor is one age of the world no more than of a man in every thing to be treated as the precedent Nor are the Distempers of Christianity in all times so agreeable in their nature as to be cured still with the same Medicines And several projects that seem very beneficial in the Speculation yet in the Experience and Practice by not finding such an indifferent matter to work upon as is supposed would have a quite contrary effect and instead of better order bring in Confusion in removing what good was before and being unable to establish any thing better A thing often pressed in the Council in answer to those who would have every thing restored according to the Model of Antiquity § 246 2 The other concerning that Supereminent-power in several particulars which as it was found so was left still by the Council in the hands of the Bishop of Rome That as by the Church-Canons anciently he hath possessed it so it ought if either rather to be increased than any way diminished in these later times when the Christian Churches now much more inlarged and extended and seperated under so many several Secular Heads and so both by their bulk and different temporal Interests more subject to divide and to fall a sunder one from another therefore we have much more need of a firm union in one Spiritual Head and such Jurisdictions and Priviledges to be enjoyed by him whereby He may have some influence upon the whole Body and It some necessary recourse to and dependance on Him As we see in Civil States how strictly upheld and unviolably kept are the Prerogatives Legislative Dispensative Donative Power of Princes to keep the whole Body in a due dependance on a Supreme and to secure the publick peace and happiness in the best of Governments a Monarchical Regency CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief answers to the Protestant Objections made before § 3. c.
§ 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church Definitions § 264. § 247 HAving thus dispatched the five Heads which I intended to speak of I desire you now to review the objections which were proposed in the beginning of this Discourse § 3. c. against this Council which for the most part I think now will appear to you to have their main force and sting already solved and taken away To α. To α. The words of Bellarmine who is quoted here by the Archbishop are not Vt ex omnibus Provinciis or which is more from all particular Churches which the Archbishop saith But Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui conveniant See touching this matter what is said before § 35. c. 65 66 67 69. Whether a Council be General or in its obligation equivalent thereto much matters not that Council is equivalent to a General whose Decrees are accepted by the much major part * of the Church-Catholick or * of all particular Churches in it Now the Greek Churches do agree with the Council of Trent in the chief points determined therein against the reformed †See 3. Disc §. 158 c. Their Prelats also were invited in the General Summons and the Council or those who called it no causers of their absence but their great distance their Present secular poverty and oppression The open wars then between the Turk and Christendome Lastly the general accord and peace in their Churches as to the Trent Controversies § 248 To β. β. See before § 70 75 77. The paucity of Prelats in some Sessions occasioned by the long duration of the Council by the wars and jealousies of Princes by the Bishops necessary defence of their several charges at home against the reformed in France and Germany was abundantly recompenced * by the ratification of the Decrees of those Sessions by a very numerous and unanimous Body assembled in the later end of the Council and * by the acceptation of the absent Prelats after the Council § 249 To γ. To γ. See what hath been said § 47. c. 80 81. It was called as General Councils ought and use to be namely by the Prime Patriarch and chief Ecclesiastical Person of Christianity presiding in such Councils as other inferiour Councils are also usually assembled by the Ecclesiastical Prelats presiding therein the Emperour and much major part of Christian Princes consenting to it desiring it and sending their Bishops and Orators to it § 250 To δ. To δ. This title representing the Church Vniversal never used by any General Council save only by Constance and Basil who also decreed a General Council its superiority to the Pope was opposed by the Pope or his Legats not because he held not this Council to be General or Oecumenical for the title of it every where with the Pope's approbation runs Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica Generalis Tridentina Synodus but because he held no General Council whatever neither that of Trent nor that of Nice to represent the Vniversal Church exclusively to him i. e. so as to have authority to conclude and oblige the whole Church by its Acts without these Acts first receiving their confirmation from the See Apostolick That this only was the Controversie see witnessed by Soave p. 138. Now this whether the Acts of a General Council unconfirmed by the Prime Patriarch of the Church be valid the Dr. knows hath alwayes been a question among Roman Catholicks and so hath that Proposition in him Haeres 11. s 9. n. 10. Whether the Vniversal Church Representative understood so as not including the Apostolick See may erre Or Whether the testimony of an Oecumenical Council understood exclusively to the Apostolick See be the testimony of the whole Church Which question as some of the French Church seem to affirm so other Churches deny neither was it decided in the Council of Trent of which see what is said before § 155. but yet de facto the Pope's Confirmation was desired by this Council see the last Act Sess 25. Neither doth this thing concern the Council of Trent more than any other General Council Nor is the deciding of this question material to the Protestants concerning any such Council whose Acts are confirmed by the Pope in which the stating of this question surely is needless whether such acts are also of force without the Pope § 251 To ε. To ε. See what is said § 67 64. Neither doth the absence of Protestant Clergie such as are not Bishops disauthorize the Council for such have no right to sit or vote in it Nor the voluntary absence of Protestant Bishops if invited if secured as they were n = †See §. 68.82 c. 92. Nor lastly the exclusion or non admittance of them if guilty of Tenents censured and condemned by former lawful Councils as many of the former Protestant Doctrines were n = ‖ See §. 198. The several causes alledged by Protestants for absenting themselves have been shewed in this discourse not sufficient or satisfactory from § 82. to § 122. and from § 159. to § 172. To ζ. To ζ. review the answer to See the reason of the absence of the French Bishops in some Sessions no way chargable on the Council or on the non-freedom thereof before § 70 c. § 252 To To See what is said § 167. where is shewed that the nearness and non-impediment of the Italian Bishops by reason of the freedom of that Country from Lutheranisme and not any particular interest of theirs thwarting the proceedings of the Council was the true cause of their being so numerous That the absence of other Bishops was culpable but no way their presence that the much major part of them were Subjects to other Princes the Emperor King of Spain Duke of Florence the State of Venice c. not the Pope and did manifestly in the Council follow and adhere to their Interests and Instructions in several matters That as to the Protestant Controversies the Pope had no need of their assistance against the rest the whole Council in these unanimously according and that as to the contests between the Episcopal and Papal Rights many of them sided against him which is every where shewed also in Soave's History describing the great perplexities and Artifices of the Pope and his Legats in preserving his pretended priviledges and not that they might be confirmed or asserted by the Council but that not diminished or voted down by it Lastly that however such a number of Italian Bishops might hinder something prejudicial to the Pope from being voted in the Council yet were they insufficient alone to vote any thing or to pass any Decree at least in matter of Doctrine against the rest because no such things were valid a considerable part dissenting as the non-Italian or also the Bishops of any one greater
fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should erre in matter of Faith I adde to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without Idolatry practice and therein find approbation and reception amongst all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the general approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation Thus he But if here the Doctor be asked why upon these considerations he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents For example all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation held before Luther I suppose his answer is ready because these were not General nor universally accepted But since these were the most General that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction and had also the most universal acceptation that those times could afford unless he would have also the Berengatians the persons condemned in them to accept them an acceptation most unreasonably demanded why do not here also Gods Providence and Promises stand ingaged in compassion to the meek and pious Subjects of the Church that these Councils erre not nor the Christians of those times fall into such a temptation as it must needs be if these the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence as is the committing of Idolatry ever since See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to this it is saith he that Christ is said Eph. 4.12 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i. e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting the Saints into a Church for the building up of the body of Christ confirming and continuing them in all truth that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages 't is every where apparent by Ignatius his Epistles that the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that form of wholsome words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted c. And in his Treatise of Schisme chap. 2. § 10. he speaks in this manner A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due For the Church where his lot is fallen may by Heresie or Schisme stand divided from the Church-Catholick Here he allows depositing of our judgment in deference to our Superiors where the Fundamentals of Faith c. are not concerned But would not one think rather that in these points especially a person to be safe should adhere to the Churches judgment rather than his own Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality Doctor Jackson on the Creed §. 295. n 3. l. 2 § 1 c. 6. p. 175. in stating the Question ‖ p. 170. Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any opinion or action goes on thus Superiors saith he are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine or not of capacity to discern or not of power or place to determine whether they be lawful or no. Again p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion he argues thus Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill that may ensue a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice either for doing or omitting it The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent for here is an indifferency of perswasions But suppose we have not such indifferency yet p. 172 Whilst men of skill and judgment saith he appointed by God to advise in such matters are otherwise perswaded than we in private are the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action wherein heretofore we thought was not And the performance of obedience it self is a good and acceptable action in the sight of God Now what he saith here concering the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion Again Ibid p. 174. True spiritual obedience were it rightly planted in our hearts would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake than to disobey authority for the private dislike of them Both our disobedience i. e. dissent or non-submission of judgment to the one and dislike of the other are unwarrantable unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors and express law of the most High And. c. 4. p. 165. Sundry saith he in profession Protestants in eagerness of opposition to the Papists affirm that the Church or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed then only be obeyed when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart and consciences of such as must believe and obey them And this in one word is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors and to deprive them of all obedience unto whom doubtless God by his word hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars unto which he demands belief or obedience what obedience do men perform unto him more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever he be that can shew us the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all But
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
Body not by a meer joyning it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by his first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there Thus Greeks and Latines ormer and latter times §. 321. n. 20. will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Tranubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Vnion Hypostatical * Christ s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lords or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivisicating virtue of Christs natural body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only not to the Symbols * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lords Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same Body this with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say But this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated But only in the former sence i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it the same If such be their sence the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sence this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8 th Observation M. Claud's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it 9 ly After this §. 321. n. 21 He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neithâ—r Believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presâ—â—ce is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to Him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latines nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines p. 375. because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latines never to have accused the Greeks as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Teneâ—t which they never formerly contested and of an errour in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latines and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very begining of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons 10 ly Hitherto §. 321. n 22. from § 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1 st He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claud's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2 ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8 p 416. The Author
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
pretence there could be to settle from other parts Appeals to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of Rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome And before speaking of the Eastern Arrians desiring to be heard at Rome by Julius Shall I believe saith he as some Learned men i. e. Protestant conjecture That Pope Julius is meerly an Arbitrator named by one party whom the other could not resuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot Thus Mr. Thorndike I fear I have tired you with the same things so often repeated by several Authors but this may serve the more to confirm the verity of that wherein they agree As for the Obedience acknowledged by them due to the Church according to these Subordinations I shall have occasion to give you a further account of it hereafter § 17 Now this Subordination not only of the lower Ranks of Clergy Presbyters and Bishops of the same but of these higher Primates and Patriarchs of several Nations ending its ascent in a Primacy not of order ineffective but also of Power placed in the Prime Patriarch especially conduceth to the necessary coherence of the always one-only-Communion of the Church Ca-National and to the suppression of Heresies and Schismes oftner tholick than Diocesan only or Provincial § 18 A thing which the moderate spirit of Grotius well observed and spared not often to speak of Quae verâ— est causa saith he in his first Reply to Rivet ‖ Ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholices maneant in eodem corpore non ruptâ Communione contrà qui inter Protestantes dissident idem sacere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraternâ loquuntur Hoc qui rectè expenderit inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus which brings to mind that of S. Jerom †Adversus Jovin l. 1. c. 14. concerning S. Peters Primacy Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constitute Schismatum tollatur occasio Capite constituto but Prâ—macy of Order without power helps no schisms And again the same Grotius in the close of the last Reply to Rivet ‖ Apol. Discussio p. 255. written not long before his death Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque Corpus semper optatam à Grotio sciunt qui eum norunt Existimavit autem aliquando incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione Postea vidit id planà fieri nequire quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia sermè omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima Protestantes nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt cur sactae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur partes aliae atque aliae sint exsurrecturae Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit causae divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canonas fatente Melancthone qui eum Primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retimendam unitatem Thus Grotius Which passageis taken notice of by Dr. Hammond in Schism p. 158 and seemingly allowed the Dâ—ctor there seeming to admit the Popes authority so far as it is justifiable by the ancient Canons which authority you have seen how far it is by other Protestants out of the same Canons advanced And indeed to exclude this supreme Patriarchal authority and constitute such an Aristocratical or rather so many several Monarchical absolute equal independent Covernments in regard of any spiritual Superior as there are Primates several Monarchical Governments I say for the Aristocratical Government consists in one Council or Court having its constant and set Meetings such as are not those Meetings of the Highest Ecclesiastical Synods and therefore they cannot bear this Stile seems most destructive of the Churches Vnity and Peace And then to make amends for this the subjecting all these distinct Monarchical Governments to a General Council proves no sufficient Remedy when we reflect how many and frequent are Clergy-differences how few such Councils have hitherto been how difficult such a Council since the Division of the Empire to be convened or rather how impossible according to the Protestants Composition of it who as they frequently appeal to it so load it with such conditions as they may be sure such Court can never meet to hear their Cause Thus much is contributed by Learned Protestants toward the confirmation of the two last the 3 d. and 4 th Constitutions § 20 5ly After such a Regular and well-compacted Government thus setled in the Church Next it was strictly ordered by the Church-Laws and by her greatest Censures imposed on Delinquents That no Clergy in any maâ—ters of meerly Spiritual Concernment should decline the Authority or Judgment of these their Ecclesiastical Superiors or their subjection to the Church-Canons by repairing or appealing to any secular Tribunal from which Tribunals some in those days sought relief either that of other inferior Lay Magistrates or of the Emperor himself Nor should seek new Ecclesiastical Dâ—gnities erected by the Emperors Pragmatick contrary to the Canons Decreed also it was that in such case any Church-authority or priviledges attempted to be so alienated should still continue to the former Possessors For which see Conc. Antioch c. 11 12. Conc. Sardic c. 8. Conc. Chalced. c. 9 12. Conc. Milevit c. 19. Conc. Tâ—let 3 c. 13. 8 Gen. Conc. c. 17 21. § 21 Which Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they may appear no way unjust or infringing the Rights of Temporal Soveragnty It is to be noted and therefore give me leave to spend a few lines in the hand That the Church from the beginning was constituted by our Lord a distinct Body from the Civil State and is in all such States but one visible Society Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam all the parts of it having one and the same interest through those several Dominions and regulated within these Territories by its own Laws without which Laws no Communion can consist independently as to matters purely spiritual on the State and the exercise of these not lawfully to be inhibited or altered by it whilst all the Civil Rights of such States mean while doremain unviolated by these Church-Laws and the secular Sword is left where it was before in the hand of the Secular Governors so that the Church in any difference cannot be the invading but only the Suffering party § 22 Now if you would know more particularly what those Rights are which the Church hath from the begining practised and vindicated as belonging to her independently
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
wherein the Primate of the Metropolitans presides so again is this National Synod the Catholick Church in many Nations being but One subject to that composed of several Nations and their Primates called and presided-in by one of the principal Patriarchs Neither whatever Superiority such Patriarch really hath needeth he for the subjection of such Primates and their respective Churches to this Patriarchal Council any other power over these Primates save what these Primates are granted to have over the Metropolitans whose Proyincial Synods we see are subjected to a National or the Primate's Synod Neither if it could be proved that the chief Patriarchs have over National Primates no superiority of power or at least that some particular Provinces as to Ordinations or some other Jurisdictions are utterly exempt from Patriarchal authority may therefore such Provinces pretend freedom from any obedience to the Decrees of a Council Patriarchal wherein some one of these Patriarchs presides no more than they can justly pretend freedom from a Council Oecumenical on the same account in which Council Oecumenical or General though the same Primates should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical Person their Superior yet could they not deny the Council to be so Subject then are National Synods and Churches to Patriarchal and to this end every Church as Dr. Field observes p. 513. cited before § 16. n. 5. is subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporated into the Vnity of it Of the necessity of which Union of Churches in Patriarchal Synods in the so much more difficult and chargeable assembling of such as are absolutely Vniversal see before § 16. n. 4. § 54 2. Next The Church of England one of those the most anciently professing Christianity 2 which it is clear it did before Tertullian's time ‖ See Tertullian Apol. ad versus Judaeos c. 7. Origen in Ezech. Hom. 4 Bede Hist Angl. l. 1. c. 4. never pretended subjection to any other Patriarch or his Council than this of the West to whom also it ascribes its Conversion without dispute as for the Saxons or English if not also as for the Britains And accordingly both in ancient and latter times if the mos antiquus obtineat in the 6 th Canon of Nice be of any force it hath always ranged it self and appeared in the Western Councils as a Member of this Patriarchy and of the Latine Church and from time to time concurred in the passing of those Canons which have established the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and of these Patriarchal Councils § 55 After several Christians suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's time In the Council at Arles in France 10. years before that of Nice assembled by Constantine who being born in England and his Mother an English woman and a Christian and being after his Father's death here also first declared Emperor by his Army may be presumed to have had some particular respects for the Brittish Clergy we find the presence and subscription of several Brittish Bishops acknowledged by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schism p. 110. and B. Bramhal †Vindic. of the Church if England p. 98. and of which thus Sir Henry Spelm. A. D 314. Aderant è Britanniâ celebriores ut videtur tres Episcopi Surely in dignity much preceding and much ancienter than the Bishop of Caerleon nempe Eboracensis Londinensis de Civitate Coloniae Lodunensium quae aliàs dicitur Camelodunum una cum Sacerdote Presbytero Diacono qui Canones assensu suo approbabant in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos The first Canon whereof setleth the matter of Easter to be kept through all the Churches on the same day and the divulgation of this through all Churches was committed to the Bishop of Rome the Western and Prime Patriarch secundum consuetudinem saith the Canon Again at the Council held at Ariminum and before this in that of Sardica assembled A. D. 347. some 20. years after that of Nice is found the presence of the Britain amongst other Western Bishops witnessed by Athanasius who was present there himself in his second Apology And therefore may the Canons of that Council be presumed among the rest to be ratified by them or at least being passed by the major part of that Occidental Council to oblige them Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop how they allow and ratifie his supreme Decision of Appeals c. Protestants are not ignorant and therefore to evade it make such exceptions as these ‖ B. Bramhal Reply to S. W p. 24. 1. That it doth not appear That the British Bishops did assent to that Canon But this matters not the major part in Councils concluding the rest and neither doth it appear on the other side but that they did approve it which also is to be presumed where appears no contradiction 2 Again urged That it was no General Council But it sufficeth for the Britains if it were at least a compleat Occidental Council 3. Pleaded That these Canons of Sardica were never incorperated into the English Laws and therefore did not bind English Subjects But Church-Canons and Decrees in matters Ecclesiastical do oblige all the Members of the Church though Princes oppose Oblige Princes also if Christian and so the Churches Subjects And the Author that requireth this incorporation of Church Canons into the Princes Laws explains himself elsewhere ‖ Schism guarded p. 160. to mean only that Church-Decrees oblige not as to the using any coactive power in his Realms for the execution of them without the Princes leave because saith he such external coactive Jurisdiction is originally Political a thing granted him so that before such leave or enrolment the Churches Decrees oblige both Prince and People if Christian in foro Conscientiae the disobedient justly incurring the Churches censures the thing we here contend for Lastly The 9 th Canon of Chalced. a subsequent General Council is pretended to contradict these of Sardica in giving the Supremacy in Appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople But I need not tell him that this Constantinople Supremacy is not for the West but East which is for the Controversies of those Provinces there subject to that Patriarch § 56 And from the presence of the Britain Bishops in these ancient Councils if I may make here a little digression appears the ignorance of the Abbot of Bangor if the Relation be true in being such a stranger to the Popes Person Authority or Titles after A. D. 600. after all that power exercised by him for so many Ages in the Western Provinces conceded by Protestants see Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. from c. 32. to c. 40. after so many missions of several holy Bishops from the Pope of Rome either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland or to reform it * Of Fugatius and Damianus very early sent by Pope Eleutherius in King Lucius his days which King
in the greater nearness of several Christian Bishops in France yet addressed himself to the Pope as the common Father of the Western Church Afterward * Of S Germanus about A. D. 430. sent by Pope Celestine saith Prosper †In Chronico one who lived also in these times accompanied with Lupus another French Bishop who also consecrated Dubritius that was the first Archbishop of Caer-Leon * of Palladius and Nenius and Patricius all made Bishops at Rome and sent thence to the Picts Scots and Irish Concerning which see the Church-History in Bede Baronius Spelman And besides this * when the Irish Bishops yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time that the British are said to deny it as appears both for that they are said by Bede ‖ l. 3. c. 3. the South Irish at least to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter * ad admonitionem Apostolicae Sedis Antistitis and also for that about this time they sent Letters to S. Gregory then Bishop of Rome to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianisme to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo caeteris Episcopis in Hiberniâ Catholicis l. 9. Epist 61. § 57 Hence also is discovered the unreasonableness of the said Abbot's denial of his obedience to the Pope or pleading subjection only to the Archbishop of Caerleon exclusive to any other superior whatever For waving here the Question whether the Pope by his single authority could subject the Archbishop of Caerleon and his Province to S. Austin Archbishop of Canterbury done afterward in Henry the first his time with the approbation of Protestants and therefore which might have been done in S. Austin's yet subjected was this Britain-Clergy to the Canons of Arles and Sardica of which Councils their Representatives were Members and so subjected to the Western Patriarch also for any authority which these Canons peclare to be invested in him and from the same obligation of obedience was their Conformity in the celebration of Easter with the rest of the Western Churches which was required by the first Canon of the Council of Arles in this Abbot's time most unjustly refused § 58 Mean while whatever independence can be shewed to have been challenged or Unconformity practised by the Abbot of Bangor and others within the Province of the Archbishop of Caerleâ—n yet there is no reason that the same should be extended or applied to the Nâ—tional Church of the Britans in General For the first Archbishop of Caerleon is Dubritius who being a Disciple of S. German sent from Rome and being consecrated Archbishop of this City by him and Lupus it is probable was for his time conformable to the Customs of the Roman See and contrary to those owned in Austin's t me by these Britains But however This of Caerleon was but an Archbishoprick of a late erection the 3 d. or 4 th from which Duâ—ritius probably must possess that Chair when Austin came But the Britains had long before Dubritius his time other Bishops much preeminent to Caerleon * The Archbishop of York the chief Bishop of the whole Nation as that City then was the principal City the Roman Praetorium being there see Spelm. Appar p. 22. â—a Bishop of London and Bishops of some other places appearing formerly in several Councils Of which Bishops Todiacus Archbishop of York and Theonus Bishop of London being persecuted by the Saxons fled into Wales with their Clergy A. D. 586. within eleven years after whose flight thither Augustine came into England and upon it their persecution in part ceased Now there being no mention of any opposition made by any of these Bishops or their Clergy which in eleven years space could not all be deceased to Austin but only by the Welsh under Caerleon what can be imagined here more reasonable than * That they conformed to the rest of the West in such submission to its Patriarch as was due to him by the Canons of those Councils which their Predecessors had allowed and as was rendered to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland see Greg. l. 9. Epist 61. as likewise * That they celebrated Easter according to those Conciliary Canons and the Roman manner and lastly * That returning into some of those parts of Britain from whence they fled they assisted Augustin in the conversion of the Saxons § 59 From the presence then of the Britain Bishop in these ancient Councils also appears the insufficiency of that Argument which would prove the ancient Britains former non-subjection to or conversion by the Western Patriarch or his Missives from their having at Austin's arrival a different observation of Easter from the rest of the West For 1 st It is manifest 1. that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein manifest both from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles which Council determined this matter of whom Sir Henry Spelman saith ‖ A.D. 314. Qui Canones assensu suo approbabant in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos And also from Constantine's Letter †Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 6. to perswade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world in the observation of it He naming there among other Churches particularly this of Britain unless any will say that whilst the most eminent Provinces of Britain kept it after the Roman manner yet the Welsh and Scots then kept it otherwise But since S. German and Lupus who came hither two several times and from whom Dubritius their first Archbishop of Caerleon received his education solemnly kept their Easter here with the Britain Clergy See Bede l. 1. c. 20. it follows either that their observation of Easter was then altogether Catholick or that if it was otherwise yet by reason that the difference happeneth not in every year it was that year by these Bishops not taken notice of § 60 2 ly It is clear also That as these Britains varied from the Roman Custom in this so did they from the Easter Quartodecimans in Asia and therefore may not for this 2. be thought to have derived their Christianity from thence The Britains keeping their Pasch constantly on the Lord's Day only when the Lord's Day happened on the 14 th day of the Moon they kept it with the Jews and Quartodecimans contrary to the Roman Custom that observed it in such year on the Sunday following for which see Bede l. 3. c. 4. 25. 3. Lastly Bede ‖ Hist l. 2. c. 19. speaks of this Errour in the Scotch Nation and the same may be presumed in the British Nuperrimè temporibus illis hanc apud eos haeresin exortam 3. non totam corum gentem sed quosdam ex iis hâc fuisse implicitos Which Honorius and other Roman Bisheps with their Letters Se Bede Ib. endeavoured as soon as
now you may see the reason of what Soave said above and the great point the Protestants had gained if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil though that Form names with the Scriptures Concilia Doctores praxin Apostolicam primitivae Ecclesiae for the judge of Controversies But why is the Tridentine Council so averse you will say that Scripture only should be the Judge or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion For this reason because when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture as mostly it is it is fit the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein or else what end can be of such Controversie when those against whom the Councils declare shall so often say the Councils declare against the Scriptures i. e. their sense of them But here it is sufficient that though the Safe-conduct as to the way which the Protestants demanded of the trial of their Doctrines was excepted against of which more by and by yet as to the security of their persons it was unquestioned Thus much from § 82. that no deficiency in the Summons place or Safe-conduct hath rendred this Council illegal or non-obliging CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishops or Popes being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Popes being Judge § 122. § 105 8 ly NEither doth the Oath 8. that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope hinder this Council consisting of those Bishops from being a free legal and obliging Council The sum of which Oath is Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae Domino meo Papae N. ejusque Successoribus Canonice intrantibus Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae Regulas Sanctorum Patrum adjutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnem Hominem Regulas Sanctorum Patrum or Regalia Sancti Petri as it is in later Pontificals which Regalia I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in or near them as also non ero in Consilio ut vitam perdat and several other Passages in the Oath seem to be Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere angere promovere curabo Nec ero in Consilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliquae sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris status potestatis eorum machinentur § 106 1. Where note first That it is the ordinary 1 and customary Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Council and that it is for substance the same oath as hath been usually sworn in former ages precedent to many other Councils without being complained of or conceived any way to abridge their Liberties Nor is it now a grievance save to such as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights § 107 2 ly That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours 2. is required by the Reformed themselves and every Bishop in the Church of England at his Consecration takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop and the Metropolitan Church and their Successors And though in a thing so far as it is granted lawful it matters not how new is the practice yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patriarchy hath been also anciently used See the order in Conce Tolâ—t 11. can 10. Omnes Pontifices Rectoresque Ecclesiarum tempore quo ordinandi sunt sub cautione promittant ut fidem Catholicam custodiant atque obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi dependant where why omnes Pontifices praeeminenti sibi may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch as of the Metropolitan I see nothing to hinder And see apud Baron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man and other Bishops of those times at their Ordination Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps vicarioque tuo B. Gregorio Papae successori ejus me omnem fidem puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibere in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere Again Fidem puritatem meam atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae i e. Petri cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi solvendique data est praedicto vicario tuo atque Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist l. 10. ep 31. Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus sub anathematis Obligatione promitto sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus vicario Beato Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem haec Sancta 4or Evangelia c. where though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it ‖ See Stillinsl p. 490. yet the word promitto sancti Petri Apostolorum Principis vicario me in Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum in this as also me fidem atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturumâ— in the precedent Form include a fidelity and subjection to St. Peter's Chair and that the Bishops in those ancient dayes sware no less to continue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome than in the unity of the Catholick Church Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable and therefore in the same Form it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae and those who desert it are said to depart à radice unitatis Now this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case why may it not be so at another time And if this Council of Trent by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope may not be thought Free to proceed against any disorders in this See neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths since that Toletan Council since Gregories or Winfrids times be thought so § 108 3 ly Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience only to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require Donec Pontifex est dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum sacros Canones jubere potest sed non jurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in Concilio vel
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
therein obliged to believe the Articles §. 195. n. 1◠or Canons of Trent or of other Councils in any other sense 3. than that which we have but now mentioned †§. 192. For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession Haec vera Catholica fides extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest cannot be understood distributively in such a manner as if every Canon of every lawful Council is necessary explicitly to be known and assented to that any one may attain Salvation which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith See Bellarmin de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14. Multa sunt de fide quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem I add nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur But either * it is to be understood collectively In hac Professione continetur vera Catholica Fides c. that all the fides extra quam nemo salvus is contained in that profession which expression respects chiefly the Apostles or Nicen Creed set in the front of the profession as appears by a like expression Fundamentum firmum unicum applied to that Creed alone in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess For if only some part of that profession of faith which is made in that Bull be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation this phrase is sufficiently justified extra quam i. e. totam i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved non est salus As saying that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God without believing which there is no Salvation argues not that every thing delivered in these Scriptures is necessary to be believed for Salvation but that some things are Or * It is to be understood distributively but this conditionally in such a sence as extra quam nemo salvus esse potest i. e. if such person opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths †See before For in so doing though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith § 192 he becomes therein obstinate and Heretical and disobedient to his spiritual Guide declared by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries and so in this becomes guilty of a mortal sin which unrepented of exlcudes from Salvation Where also since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary hence though all her Definitions are not in such yet his obstinacy in not yielding assent to all matters defined runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull §. 195. n. 2 when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter crediderit salvus esse non poterit which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew That some Points may become necessary for salvation to be believed when once defined by the Church that yet are not absolutely so necessary or fundamental according to the Importance of the matter All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental or necessary ratione Medii to Salvation that none can possibly attain it without an explicit belief of them Here a late Protestant Writer †Stillingf p. 70 71. in answer to this can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss than that we have now given viz. That as to some of the Athanasian Articles Haec est fides Cathol c. neither infers that they are necessary to be believed from the matter nor yet from Church-Definition but necessary only if there be first a clear conviction i. e. not from Church-Authority but from Scripture that they are Divine Revelation Where the authority of the Church in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed as to any obligation of her Subjects to conform to it seems quite laid aside since upon a clear conviction that those Articles are Divine Revelation from whatever Proponent one stands obliged to believe them and without such conviction neither stands he so obliged by the Church Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition from the Quam nisi quisque fideliter c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scripture Since Protestants then take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles it is but reason that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius § 196 4. Lastly If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence as Protestants fetter them with Namely 4. That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles as absolutely necessary to salvation As Bishop Bramhal †Rep. to Chalced. p. 322. Which whether true or false one is to swear to as much as to his Creed As Mr. Thorndike †Epilog Conclus p. 410. That whereas the Church of England only excommunicates such as shall affirm that her Articles are in any part erroneous the saine Church never declaring that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith by the Church of Rome every one of them if that Church hath once determined them is made fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens belief As Bishop Laud ‖ §. 15. p. 51. That supposing the Churches Definition one passed that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation i. e. by this Proposal or Definition as what is necessary from the matter And That an equal explicit faith is required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to salvation of believing both of them As Mr. Stillingf †Rat. Account p. 48. If I say Pius his Haec est Bides Catholica must be taken in such a sence and then it be considered also that by the Bull this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it but to all other Definitions also of all other former allowed Councils the Consequent is that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation and that for want of necessary faith the far greater part not only of Christians but of Roman Catholicks viz. all that do not explicitly believe and therefore that do not actually know every particular Definition of any precedent Council when as who is there among the vulgar that is not ignorant of the most of them who amongst the learned that knows them all Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words and that they only declaim against their own Fancies When as indeed to render
without cure given in Commendam a superintendence over which the Council hath committed for ever either to the Superiors of such Orders or to the Bishops as the Popes Delegates to take care that in the one all religious observance be maintained with all necessaries supplied and in the other the care of souls faithfully discharged and the Vicar sufficiently provided for See Sess 21. c 8. And Sess 25.20 Reform Regul And further c. 21. That for Monasteries Commendatary they for the future shall be conferred only on Regulars A Constitution which in France where very many Monasteries are given by the Prince in Commendams to great Personages hath been one of the chief obstacles of that Princes refusing to accept this Council as to its Acts of Reformation § 220 To ζ. The uniting of Ecclesiastical Benefices As the Council doth allow such an union to be made by the Bishops To ζ. as Delegates of the Apostolick See where one single is not a sufficient maintenance of the Pastor Sess 21. c. 5. Sess 24. c. 15. And allows the same to be done in Bishopricks by the Pope upon Testimonials received from a Provincial Synod of such a necessity Sess 24.13 So on the other side Sess 7. c. 6. It impowers Bishops for ever as the Popes Delegates to inquire into all former unitings of Livings passed within forty years and to void them Nisi eas ex legitimis aut alias rationabilibus causis coram loci Ordinario vocatis quorum interest verificandis factas fuisse constiterit And c. 5. and 7. Constitutes the Bishops likewise visitors of all those having cure that are annexed to Chapters or Monasteries that the incumbent Vicars do their duty and be provided of a sufficient Revenue all manner of priviledges or exemptions being repealed See more below λ § 221 To η. Exemptions This Council hath ordered 1 st That all Churches whatever To η. though formerly exempted those also that are annexed to Colledges or Monasteries be subjected to the yearly visitation of the Ordinary as Delegate of the See Apostolick to see to that the Cura animarum be rightly discharged all things kept in a due repair c. Sess 7 8. 2 ly Sess 22. c. 8. Bishops as Delegates of the Apostolick See are made Executors of all pious Disposures as well Testamentary as of the living Hospitals also and whatever Colledges Confraternities of Laicks Schooles the Almes of the Mounts of Piety c. whatever Exemptions they might have had formerly are subjected to their visitation where it is not otherwise ordered by the Founders to take knowledge of and see executed therein whatever is instituted for God's worship salvation of souls or sustentation of the poor and the Administrators thereof tyed to give to them a yearly account c. 9. 3. Again All Secular Clergy that had formerly any exemption and all Cathedral Chapters formerly exempted under the notion of Regulars which many of them anciently were are likewise submitted for the future to the visitation and correction of the Bishop Sess 6.4 Sess 14. c. 4. Sess 25.6 4. As for Regulars All such living out of their Monasteries and other persons whatever relating to them or otherwise priviledged may be visited corrected punished by the Bishop as are others Sess 6.3 Sess 29.11 Nor may any Regulars preach in any Church not belonging to their Order without the Bishops licence first obtained Nor in Churches of the Order without first shewing to the Bishop a licence from their Superiors and receiving his Benediction 5. Lastly for the Monasteries and Religious Houses themselves exempted from the Episcopal Visitation it is ordered that if the Regular Superiors to whom this is committed omit their duty the Bishop after a Paternal admonition and their six moneths further neglect may proceed to visit and reform them Notwithstanding whatever Exemptions or Conservators appointed of their Priviledges Sess 21.8 § 222 But an universal subjection of Monasteries Universities Colledges to the Ordinary of the place though motioned in the Council was not approved by it Not that such whose publick profession was a stricter life than that of all others should injoy more liberty from Government or at least from that of subordinate and immediate superintendents But because it seemed much more proper that as their Profession was more severe so they should be committed rather to the care of such Superiors who themselves had the same obligations which it was feared that the Ordinary living himself after a Secular way would be more prone to mitigate and relax or some way by contradicting their Orders disturb their Peace And therefore such exemption tended not to an enlargement of their liberty but a confirming their restraints and a quiet and undisturbed observance thereof And such Exemptions and Priviledges we find anciently grated to Religious Houses by Popes famous in Sanctity Of which see many in St. Gregories Epistles not only conceded by himself but mentioned to have been so by his Predecessors See l. 7. Ep. 33. and Ep. 18. And see l. 11. Ep. 8. such Priviledges granted at the request of the Queen of France Yet still as was said but now the Episcopal power is admitted by the Council of Trent in these Houses also upon any continued neglect of their other Superiors when first admonished hereof § 223 To θ. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses It was ordered Sess To ◠21. c. 9. That the Office of the ordinary former publishers of such Indulgences and Spiritual Favours and the Collectors of such Charities having given so much scandal after the indeavour of three several precedent Councils to reform them and all their priviledges should be taken quite away and hence forward that the Ordinary of the place assisted with two of the Chapter should publish the one and collect the other Gratis § 224 Thus much of this Councils rectifying those things which seemed to minister any just cause of complaint concerning the Pope or his Court where also you see how much the Episcopal Authority is inlarged by the Pope's free Concession to them of so many former Reservations and Exemptions So that Lainez the General of the Jesuites in his speech before the 24. Session †observes That the hand of the Council had fallen heavy upon others without touching at all the Bishops that there was contained in those Articles of Reformation much against the Pope against the Cardinals against Arch Deacons against the Chapters against Parish Priests against the Regulars but against the Bishops nothing And Soave †See Palla l. 23. c. 3. n. 30. p. 343 〈◊〉 on Sess 13. produceth the Priests of Germany complaining of the Reformation and saying That the Bishops authority was made too great and the Clergy brought into servitude And †p. 568. on the 22th Session saith That points of Reformation were proposed favourable to the Authority of Bishops that the Legats proceeding might not be hindered by the opposition of
great a multitude to admit and maintain so many other Priests assistant as may be sufficient and also where the Bishop finds an illiterate Rector who is otherwise of a good life may add a Coadjutor partaker of the Profits See Sess 21. c. 6. § 230 5ly Ordered also Sess 23. c. 18. That for the better supply of the Ecclesiastical Ministry in all Cathedral Churches be erected a Seminary for the educating a certain number of children of poor people or also of rich if maintained by themselves arrived to twelve years of age in studies and a discipline fitting them for the Ministry Which children at their first entrance shall receive tonsure and alwaies wear a Clergy habit for the maintainance of whom the Bishop with four of the Clergy joyned with him are to detract a certain portion from the Bishops Revenue and all the Benefices of the Diocess and the care of seeing this Order executed by the Bishop committed to the Provincial Council § 231 6. Again It is ordered Sess 5. c. 1. Ne Coelestis ille sacrorum librorum Thesaurus quem spiritus sanctus summâ liberalitate hominibus tradidit neglectus jaceat saith the Council that Divinity-Lectures for the expounding of the Holy Scriptures where these yet wanting should be set up in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches in the Convents of Regulars and publick Schooles of learning and in poorer Churches at least a School-Master founded to teach Grammar All such Lectures to be approved by the Bishop And for their Maintainance the first vacant Prebend or a simple Benefice or a Contribution from all the Benefices of such City or Diocess to be applied to this use All these Constitutions made for a better Provision for the future of a learned and vertuous Clergy 7. Lastly For introducing amongst this Clergy a greater strictness and Holiness of Life This Council revives and gives vigour to all the former rigid ancient Canons notwithstanding whatever present contrary customs with the same or greater penalties to be inflicted on offenders at the arbitrement of the Ordinary and that without admitting any appeales from his Censures See Sess 22 c. 1. de Reform Statuit S. Synodus ut quae alias à summis Pontificibus à sacris Conciliis de Clericorum vitâ honestate cultu doctrinâque retinendâ ac simul de luxu comessationibus choreis aleis lusibus ac quibuscunque criminibus nec non saecularibus negociis sugiendis copiose ac salubriter sancita fuerunt eadem in posterum iisdem paenis vel majoribus arbitrio Ordinarii imponendis observentur nec Appellatio executionem hanc quae ad morum correctionem pertinet suspendat Si qua vero ex his Sancitis in desuetudinem abiisse compererint Ordinarii ea quamprimum in usum revocari ab omnibus accurate custodiri studeant non obstantibus consuetudinibus quibus cunque ne subditorum neglectae emendationis ipsi condignas Deo vindice paenas persolvant This heavy charge have the Bishops in this Council laid upon Bishops concerning reformation of the inferior Clergy § 232 To λ. To λ. Pluralities and possessing superfluous wealth It is ordered Sess 24. c. 17. That no person for the future Cardinals themselves not excepted shall hold two Bishopricks or other Ecclesiastical Benefices either simple if one of them sufficient to maintain him or with Cure and requiring residence on any terms whatever and that all having such Pluralities shall within six moneths quit one all former Dispensations or unions for life notwithstanding and if this not done within such time they to lose both pronounced then to be vacant and disposed of otherwise A rule in Benefices requiring Residence still Religiously observed saith Pallavic †23. c. 11. n. 8. one who well knew the Popes Court replying to Soave †p. 792. who saith this Canon was too good to be kept save in the poorer sort And for other simple Benefices without Cure as it is granted that many are still possessed by one and the same Person so is this a thing permitted by this Rule where one such living is insufficient for his maintainance § 233 Mean while For the Moderation also of this Clergy-maintenance the Council Sess 25. c. 1. layes a charge ascending from Parish Priests to Bishops and Cardinals that according to the ancient Canons †Conc. Car. 4. c 15. Can. Apostol 39 40.75 con Antioch c. 21 Gratian Caus 12 9.1 2. De Rebus Ecclesus dispensandis none spend more of the Church-Revenue upon themselves than their Condition necessarily requires nor bestow the remainder thereof on any of their Secular Relations further than the relieving them when and as poor but expend it on those pious uses viz. for maintainance of Holy Persons and things and the poor to which it is dedicated Its words there are Sancta Synodus exemplo Patrum nostrorum in Concilio Carthaginensi non solum jubet ut Episcopi modestâ supellectile mensâ ac frugali victu contenti sint verum etiam in reliquo vitae genere ac tota ejus domo caveant ne quid appareat quod à sancto hoc Instituto sit alienum quodque non simplicitatem Dei zelum ac vanitatum contemptum prae se ferat Omnino vero eis interdicit ne ex reditibus Ecclesiae consanguineos familiaresve suos augere studeant cum Apostolorum Canones prohibeant ne res Ecclesiasticas quae Dei sunt consanguineis donent sed si pauperes sint iis ut pauperibus distribuant Eas autem non distrahant nec dissipent illorum causa Imo quam maxime potest eos sancta Synodus monet ut omâ—â—â—â— humanum hunc erga fratres nepotes propinquosque carnis affectum unde multorum malorum in ecclesia seminarium extitit penitus deponant Quae vero de Episcopis dicta sunt eadem non solum in quibuscunque Beneficia Ecclesiastica tam saecularia quam regularia obtinentibus pro gradus sui conditione observari sed ad sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales pertinere deâ—cornit c. And see Sess 22. c. 11. Therefore also it was anciently decreed ‖ Canon Apost 40. Concil Agatheni c. 48. Gratian caus 12. q. 1. That a Clergiman having an Estate of his own It and the profits thereof should be kept distinct from their Church means That in leaving their own to their Secular Heirs the rest whether Lands Rents Tithes or Oblations should be preserved for the uses of the Church Where occasionally may be considered the great difficulty married Priests would undergo to be faithful in such a trust and to spend no more of the Churches Revenue on so near Relations as Wife and Children than what may relieve their necessities in such a manner as he doth those of the poor § 234 To the same end the Council Sess 14. c. 6. prescribes to the Clergy not to wear any Laical Habit Pedes in diversis ponentes unum in divinis alterum
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
Nation were granted to be To θ. To θ. See what is said § 39. c. 67. An universal Acceptation by all Churches of the Acts of a Council to render them obliging is not necessary for so none would be valid wherein the Doctrines of any Church are censured § 253 To To See what is said § 77. Both the Ecclesiastical and Civil State of France accepted the Trent Decrees as to matter of Doctrine the things wherein Protestants chiefly oppose it The Ecclesiastical State of France accepted and petitioned the King and Civil State to receive this Council also in points of Discipline And if the Civil State received it not in every thing I mean so far as it medled not with their temporal rights I think it appears from the former Justification of the Legality of this Council that they cannot be freed from fault Neither if that State refuse these Canons of Discipline will it just fie the Protestants for refusing the rest of Doctrine unless the French plead the Council totally illegal as they do not neither will it justifie the Protestants at least in refusing these if the French do faultily refuse them To λ. To λ. See what is said §. 254. n. 1. from § 113. to § 127. where is shewed 1st As to the Bishops That the same plea hath been usually made against former Councils by the Hereticks they condemned That the Christian world was divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians before the Council of Nice as it was into Catholicks and Protestants before that of Trent and the Arrians were many waies proceeded against before the assembling of that Council by some of those Bishops who yet afterward sat in Council as their Judges and the Anti-Arrian Bishops only as the major number condemned the other That the Church-Governours whatever their perswasions are formerly known to be in the controversie proposed cannot be removed from the Tribunal for the deciding purely ecclesiastical and spiritual matters and this is only necessary not to see whether they side any way or own a party but only to see on which side is the major part That in causes of Religion in which all men are concerned and the Clergie especially stand obliged earnestly to defend the truth and oppose Novelties and are culpable in remaining neuters and omitting this duty to use Mr. Chilling-worths words it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but that the Judge must be some way or other a party if he may be called a party who hath formerly declared himself of such an opinion But if their being questioned of judging in their own cause relate not here to matters of opinion but of honour or profit then for most matters defined in the Council of Trent its judgment cannot be declined on this later account being given in matters meerly speculative or at least far remote from such Secular concernments 2ly As to the Pope That the same things may be repeated for him as for the Bishops That Popes have often presided by their Legats in former allowed Councils when they were accused and excepted against by those persons for the judging of whose cause the Council was convened As Celestine excepted against by Nestorius presided in the Third and Leo by Dioscorus in the Fourth General Council That it is thought most reasonable that the supreme Civil Judge either by himself or his Substitutes be the Judge of all those causes which concern his own Rights when there is a controversie in these between him and some of his Subjects That if the Pope for defects in his Office or other personal faults be Table to any other Judge it must be to the Council Now by this Council he remaineth either cleared or not condemned as to the Accusations of Protestants This having ever been the chief plea for those §. 254. n. 2. who foresee that they shall be over-numbred and over-voted in a Council to alledge it to consist of a contrary Party and so to decline its judgment for usually no Council happens to be called for suppressing any new Doctrine till a considerable opposition is first made by those Pastors of the Church against such Doctrine who also are the proper Judges of it I think it not amiss in the last place to give you the judgment of Protestants themselves touching the insufficiency of such an excuse when by God's providence it happened afterward to be their own case in I think the most noted and general Synod that hath been held amongst them since the Reformation I mean the Synod at Dort assembled A. D. 1618. Wherein were present Delegates from the King of England Elector Palatine Landgrave of Hess the four Protestant-Cantons of the Swisses the Commonwealth of Geneva c. For some time great Controversie had been in the Low-Countries concerning the high points of Predestination Grace and Freewill the Pastors there divided into Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants the contest proceeding so far in several places as to a seperation of Communion Upon it this National Synod is called and the Remonstrants in this of Dort foreseeing themselves in the same condition as the Protestants did in that of Trent defencâ—d themselves with the same Arts and Excuses †See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 25. Alledged that the Synod excepting the Forrainers did mostly consist a thing which could not be denied of an already declared contrary Party who it was unreasonable that they should sit Judges in their own cause a party too who had before also separated themselves from communicating with the Remonstrants and amongst other things those Remonstrants did particularly insist upon this very plea we are now speaking to of the Protestants against the Council of Trent which was held justly to exempt them from any obligation to its Decrees They required also a Synod as the Protestants did in the time of that of Trent In which a set and equal number on either side might be chosen to consider how to accommodate rather than decide these Controversies After which any Clergy dissenting being only removed from their places might still enjoy the same liberty of conscience as others For that since the Apostles there was no such infallible Guidance of the Holy Spirit but that Modern Synods might erre as several Ancient had done †See Synod Delf Sess 26. In answer to this the Synod defends it self all the forrain assistants thereof concurring in their judgment with such replies as these §. 254. n. 3. Than which only changing the name I cannot imagine a better justification of the Council of Trent 1st Concerning the members of the Synod their being of a contrary perswasion and so a Party and Judges They say see Acta Synod Dordr Sess 26. p. 84. Nunquam praxin hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse ut Pastores quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio sese opponerent as the Tridentine Bishops before that Council did propterea jure suffragiorum aut de illis ipsis erroribus judicandi potestate exciderent
Ita enim omnem everti judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem efficique ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant Again p. 88. Eos qui in doctrinâ aut moribus scandalorum authores sunt semper Censores suos Consistoria Classes Synodos seu partem adversam rejicere Ad eum modum Arrianis aliisque olim haereticis adversus Orthodoxos Pastores semper licuisset excipere And Quo pacto say they iis Pastores se neutros ut loquuntur praebebunt Quando praesertim tam multi anni intercedunt priusquam legitimum publicum Ecclesiae judicium obtineri potest quum Deus illis praecipiat ut serio Doctrinae sinceritati attendant The English Divines there deliver their judgment also in the same case very solidly Non valet say they ad Synodi hujus but suppose they had said Tridentinae authoritatem enervandam quod causentur Remonstrantes maximam Synodi partem constare ex adversariis suis Neque naturale jus permittere ut qui adversarius est in causâ suâ judex sedeat 1. Nam huic sententiae refragatur primo perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum Nam in Synodis Oecumenicis Nicaeno c. ii qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt ab illis qui eandem sibi traditam admiserunt approbarunt examinati judicati damnati sunt 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit Theologi enim in negocio Religionis neque esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae neque esse debent Si igitur soli neutrales possunt esse Judices extra Ecclesiam in quâ lites enataesunt quaerendi essent 3. Ipsa aequitas hocsuadere videtur Nam quae ratio reddi potest ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi Pastores qui ex officio receptam Ecclesiae doctrinam propugnantes secus docentibus adversati sunt Si hoc obtinuerit nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisleret ne ipso facto jus omne postmodum de illis controversiis judicandi amitteret Enough of this 2. Again §. 254. n. 4 For the just and obliging authority of this Council and the Credibility at least of it s not erring they urge †See Sess 26. Syn. Delf Christum Dominum qui Apostolis promisit spiritum veritatis Ecclesiae quoque suae pollicitum esse se cum eâ usque ad finem saeculi mansurum Matt. 28.20 And Vbi duo aut tres in ipsius nomine congregati fuerint se in eorum medio futurum Matt. 18.20 They urge the precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.29 31. Vt judicetur de iis quae Prophetae loquuntur And Prophetarum Spiritus prophetis subjecti sint And the Geneva Divines Sess 29. urge also Dic Ecclesiae and Si Ecclesiam non audiverit c. 3 ly In defence of the Protestants refusing submission to the Judgment of the Council of Trent §. 254. n. 5. because it was a party without their allowing the same priviledge to the Remonstrants for that of Dort they answer ‖ Sess 25. p. 82. Valde disparem esse hanc comparationem Illos enim the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants eidem subesse Magistratui And Remonstrantes membra esse Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Reformatarum See the same said again Sess 26. p. 85. But according to this answer the reason why the Protestants denied their submission to the Council of Trent must not be because it consisted of an adverse party but because all its members were not Subjects of the same Prince a thing never alledged before But here I ask Is there then no preservation of the Churches unity by Synods no subordination of Clergy no rule of one party the Superior and Major judging another the Inferior and Minor any further than only in such little parcels of the Church as happen to live under the same Secular Governours Are our Lords Promises and Dic Ecclesiae all confin'd to these What will become of the Authority of Oecumenical and Patriarchal Councils Why not in these also one Ecclesiastical major Party judge another as well as in that of Dort Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam How this Church One if united in no one common Government and Subjection But if it be here also one party must judge another and so the Protestants alledging the Council of Trent an adverse Party availes them nothing as to the annulling of its Judgment But as the Remonstrants yet further replied †See Synod Delf Sess 26 If at least of the Clergy living under the same Secular Government one adverse Party may judge the other then may a Synod of the Catholick Clergy in France oblige the Protestant Clergy there to stand to their sentence To this therefore the Synod shapes another answer as me seems no better than the former That all Protestants are freed from being tryed or judged by the Popish party in Synods Conc. Delf in Acta Dordrecht Sess 6. For that †Primi Ecclesiae Reformatores pro Doctoribus Ecclesiae Pontificiae haberi noluerunt sed contra ab iis secessionem fecerunt Again Ibid Isti nunquam Ecclesiae Pontificiae Doctores censeri voluerunt sicuti Hi i. e. the Remonstrants pro Ecclesiae Reformatae Doctoribus habert cupiunt So also the Geneva Divines Sess 29. deliver their judgment Licuit say they nostris protestari adversus Concilium Constantiense Tridentinum quia non profitemur unionem cum illis Imo ill am aspernamur aversamur But I say doth our renouncing and professing to have no communion with a lawful Superior Ecclesiastical Authority presently in justice free us from it For example the Presbyter Arius his renouncing communion with the Bishop of Alexandria or the Presbyter Luther with his Ecclesiastical Superiors in Saxony Is there not a due subordination both of persons and Synods from the lowest to the highest as well in several as in the same secular Governments to preserve the unity of the Church not only Belgick or Brittannick but Catholick Which gradual Authority all those are obliged to obey and conform to and are liable to its censures not who voluntarily profess obedience but who truly according to the Churches Canons do owe it as the Protestants did to that of Trent and owe it not a whit the less for their declaring against it Else so many as will venture to be schismaticks and divide will put themselves out of the reach of the Churches Spiritual Courts And had the Remonstrants to their supposed innovation in doctrine added a separation in communion from the rest of the Belgick Clergy the Contra-Remonstrants they had by this second fault freed themselves from having been either justly tryed or censured by the Synod and their declaring once Non profitemur unionem cum vobis immo illam aspernamur aversamur would have voided all the counter-actings of the Synod of Dort as these Dort-Divines say the Reformed's like Protestation did those of Trent § 255 To μ. See what is said § 125. Leo. the Tenth did no wrong in declaring the
too much verified in this our Nation But Dudithius the famous Bishop of Quinquecclesiae in his disconsolate Letter to Beza when Dudithius now a Protestant and married and beginning to stagger in his new Religion that had dispensed with his Celibacy much more deplores these their intestine discords and schismes in a scisme There †Apud Becaw Epist 1. Si quae aliquando saith he inter eruditos ex quodam disputationis quasi calore Controversiae extiterunt illis statim Concilii sive etiam Pontificis decreta finem imposuerunt At nostri quales tandem sunt palantes omni doctrinae vento agitati in altum sublati modo ad hanc modo ad illam partem differuntur Horum quae sit hodie de Religione sententia scire sortasse possis sed quae eras de eadem futura sit opinion neque ille neque tu certo affirmare queas Again Ecclesiae ipsae pugnant inter se capitalibus odiis horrendis quibusdam Anathematismis perhaps looking at the Dissentions then between the followers of Futher Zuinglius Oecolampadius Calvin c. not yet healed Ipsi qui summum haberi volunt Theologi à seipsis indies dissident fidem cudunt à suá ipsius quam paulo ante professi fuerant ab aliorum omnium fide abhorrentem denique menstruam fidem habent perhaps looking at the often varyings of Luther Melancthon Bucer and others from their own former opinions and doctrine Thus Dudithius For though the Churches make some particular standing Articles to bind together their own Subjects yet both the Articles of the several Churches do not accord one with another in some principal Points as appears in the Lutheran Calvinist Belgick French English reformed Churches and the Subjects of each Church do upon the reforming Principles without scruple break these Bonds upon any new greater verisimilities thinking their Christian liberty infringed by them And certainty whatever deviation from Truth and former Tradition we may suppose the first Reformers to have made yet if they could have restrained the people their Subjects from following their example and from taking that liberty of dissenting from them which they being also Subjects took of dissenting from their Superiors both the whole Body of the Reformation would have had much more unity and peace and such persons much less error § 298 2. 2 Advanced thus far learned Protestants consenting That all such persons as we here speak of are to conform to and to suffer themselves in matters of Religion to be guided by Church Authority Next a Judgment freed from the interests of the Will may easily further add That where these Ecclesiastical Governours happen to differ amongst themselves and guide a contrary way here since these are placed for avoiding schismes in a due subordination such persons in such case owe their obedience to the Superiors of them To which in all regular Governments the inferior Magistrates if they do not ought to give place Si aliquid saith St. Austin †De verbis Dom. Serm. 6. Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator nunquid dubitatur isto contempto illi esse serviendum i. e. in things which our Ecclesiastical Guides do not instruct us to be contrary to the Divine Laws So as to spiritual matters and the sence of Scripture a Provincial and a National Synod guiding such persons several waies their obedience is due to the National again a National and a Patriarch Council of all the West or a General determining matters in a diverse manner the obedience of such persons is due to the Patriarchal or General not the National Council And the same it is in any Patriarchy or Province in the intervals of Synods as to the subordinate Pastors and Prelats See the obedience required by the Church of England from all inferior Clergie or Synods to a National Council in the Canons made 1603. Can. 139. and 140. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said sacred Synod are to be subject to the decrees thereof c. let him be Excommunicated And as of persons so Churches That Church saith Bishop Bramhal †Schism guared p. 2 which shall not outwardly aquiesce after a legal determination i. e. of its Superiors and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And elsewhere †Vindic of Church Engl. p. 12. If a Superior presume to determine contrary to the determination of the Church i. e. of his Ecclesiastical Superiors it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him and obey them And I acknowledge saith Dr. Hammond †Knew to Cath. Gentl. c. 8. §. 1. as much as C. G. or any man the Authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And in his Book of Schisme p. 54. and 66. He grants it Schism for the Bishop to withdraw his obedience from the higher power of the Metropolitan or Primate as well as for Presbyters from the Bishop Now from these I collect that if these inferior Synods or Clergy are to yield such external obedience to their respective Superiors Then are the Subjects of these when ever a lower Church-Authority clasheth with an higher either in submission of their judgment or of their silence to adhere to the higher nor are the one freed from this duty because the other neglect it So some National and a Patriarchal Council dissenting or some Metropolitan and his Patriarch here the forenamed persons being the Subjects of both owe their submission of judgment only to the higher Church-Authority of the two which Authority if the forecited Protestants allow the lower to dissent from yet not to gain-say § 299 Nor is it reasonable for any to decline here the present Supreme Authority that is extant and in being and transfer such his obedience and submission to a future that hath no being as to transfer it from his Primate or Patriarch or so large and universal Councils as have been convened in his own or in former times to a future absolutely General Council For thus so many only are subject to the present supreme Powers as are content to be so if an appeale to a future Authority streight unties them from it And yet more unreasonable this if this appeale is to such a future Council as probably can never be namely where either the Assembly or the approbation of it must be absolutely Vniversal either as to the whole Body of Christian Bishops or at least as to some Bishops of every Province an usual demand of the Reformed For such Provinces as are censured or condemned by the Council which thing often happens it cannot be presumed that they will ever accept it No more than the Council of Trent supposed
concerning the ignorance or negligence of the Fathers in the main points of our salvation Mans servitude under sin Reconciliation to God Justification the effects of Christs Death and Intercessions thus he in his answer to Cassander's offic pii viri ‖ Apud Cassand p. 802. Si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi ceres si absque Traditionis i. e. Patrum subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit Quid jam fiet praecipuis fides nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causâ preferam 1 Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati tyrannide 2 Gratuita Justificatio 3 Christi sacerdotium apud vetusissimos scriptores it a obscure attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Satan callide spinosis quaestionibus pios Doctores intricabat ut negligentiores essent in hac parte Quomam vero errores quibus profligandis tunc circumagebantur magna ex parte sunt obsoleti mediocrem duntaxat fructum percipimus ex eorum libris Interea si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omnis fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur à spiritu Sancto formemur in obsequium Justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continuae pro nobis intercessio c. The knowledge of such things surely the chief principles of our salvation not to be learnt out of the Fathers And that you may not think that herein Calvins censure stands single before this man Melancthon speaking of Luthers new discovery to the world of the Apostolical Doctrine in the very same points in his Preface to the second Tome of Luthers works thus pleaseth himself in the rare invention thereof Eruditis saith he gratum erat quasi ex tenebris â—duci Christum Prophetas Apostolos conspici discrimen Legis Evangelii promissionum legis promissionis Evangelicae Quod certe non extabat in Thoma Scoto similibus This throws off the Schoolmen the Disciples of the Fathers But he stayes not here till he hath hunted up the same error and mistake in these matters in the Fathers too as high as Origens time Origenica aetas saith he effudit hanc persuasionem mediocrem rationis disciplinam mereri remissionem peccatorum c. And Haec aetas paene amisit totum discrimen Legis Evangelii sermonem Apostolicum dedidicit Now who here could have the boldness to imbrace a way of Justification or Salvation though pretended never so rational or scriptural yet which is withal confessed if not also boasted of after so many ages of the Church that it is a new Discovery Descend we to others of the same more free and open times Peter Martyr in his common Places writing De Patrum Authoritate ‖ Class 4 c. 4. alledgeth Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus capisse errores Quum ergo volumus saith he instaurare Ecclesiam nihil consultibus est quam omnia revocare ad prima ecclesiae principia religionis primordia Quamdiu enim eonsistimus in Conciliis Patribus versabimur semper in iisdem erroribus ' Again Quid fecerunt Antiquissimi illi scriptores cum nulli adhuc essent Patres Si tum ecclesia judicabat ex verbo spiritu cur nunc quoque ita non potest judicare which Question is soon answered that the Fathers Fathers were the Apostles and that they judged ex verbo spiritu Traditione Apostolorum for the sence of the same Scriptures where dubious Again Provocare à Scripturis he must mean for what is the true sence of Scripture ad Patres est provocare à certis ad incerta à claris ad obscura à firmis ad infirma Et aliud quod dixi potissimum spectandum est Patres non semper congruere inter se interdum ne unum quidem ipsum convenire secum Would any thus prejudice the witnesses he intends to bring into the Court for his own cause Again Objiciunt nobis Paulum in Ep. ad Tim. appellare ecclesiam Columnam veritatis Fateor Est quidem Columna veritatis Sed non semper Verum quando nititur verbo Dei But thus is the most ignorant person that can be named Columna veritatis So Peter Martyr Bishop Juel our Countryman as the English Divines who have departed less from Antiquity than other forrain Protestant Churches seem also more desirous of being reputed to keep a fair correspondence with it in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's daies in his challenge at Pauls Cross proposed no less than 27. Articles of Religion wherein he offered to be tried by the Fathers of the first six hundred years But then it is very observable that this learned man hath chosen them so warily that of the twentyseven twenty two are concerning the Eucharist and again most of these only about circumstantiels therein and in these concerning the Eucharist he omits the Oblation of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice to God the Father only contends Art 17. no offering up therein of Christ unto his Father omits also the reservation of the Euhcarist after Communion ended Omits also the most if not all the other principal points that are in Controversie As Invocation of Saints Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead Veneration of sacred Relicks Evangelical Councils Monastick Vows Celibacy of the Clergy The Roman Doctrine concerning Justification Freewill and Merits concerning Penances and Satisfactions Concerning Auricular Confession Distinction of venial and mortal sin c. His silence in which arguing the Fathers not for but against Him seems to have done much more prejudice to his cause than his confident challenge for the other hath done it credit This thing Dr. Cole then a Prisoner observed and in a Letter expostulated with him Quod minutiora attigerit graviora praetermiserit †See Dr. Humphrey vita Juelli p. 132. who return'd this answer Quaestiones se primum leviores movisse ut post ad alia dogmata veniretur Alia i. e. the points he omitted esse ejusmodi ad quae probanda Conciliorum Patrum authoritates quaedam obtendi possint Haec quae ab ipso sunt posita nullum colorem probabilitatis habere c. And Dr. Humphrey Vita Juelli p. 212. seems not very well pleased with this challenge of Juels where he saith Tamen utmiam largitus est vobis plus aequo concessit sibi nimium fuit injurius quod rejecto medio i. e. the Scriptures quo causam suam facilius firmius sustentare potuisset seipsum ecclesiam quodammodo spoliavit Satis enim erat Christrano sic dixisse Sic dicit Dominus Satis erat opposuisse Vestra dogmata Scripturis edversantur Siquidem Daemoniacorum quaestio est Quid nobis tibi Jesu fili David At sanctorum
that place suffered himself and so those under his charge to be wrought upon by the ordinary commerce they had with the Latines Urge the Oriental Liturgies which though not denyed to be different in several Regions or perhaps several also used in the same as both S. Basil's and S. Chrysostom's are by the Greeks yet have a great congruity and harmony both amongst themselves and with the Greek and Roman as to the Service and Ceremonies of the Eucharist His answer is †His last Answer l. 5. c. 5.606 608. That we have not any certainty that these Pieces are sincere or faithfully translated or some of them not corrected by the Missions As for the Liturges and other witnesses produced for the Faith of the Jacobites of Syria the Armenians Cophtites or Egyptians Ethiopians or Abyssines agreeing in this Point with the Roman he thinks them all sufficiently confuted from Eutychianism being held by these Eastern and Southern Churches For saith he †l. 5. c. 6. p. 604. What can one find more directly opposite than to maintain on one side that Jesus Christ hath no true Body that there is nothing in him save only the Divine Nature that all that which hath appeared of his Conversation in the World of his Birth Death Resurrection were nothing but simple appearances without Reality and on the other side to believe that the substance of the Bread is really changed into the proper substance of his Body the same he took of the Virgin Thus He for his advantage applying the extremities of that Heresie to all these Nations contrary to the Evidence of their publick Liturgies But Entychianism taken in the lower sence as Entyches upon the mistake of some expressions of former Fathers Athanasius and Cyrill Patriarchs of Alexandria which perhaps also induced the engagement of Dioscorus their Successor on his side maintained and the Ephesin Council i. e. above 90 Bishops under Dioscorus allowed it affirms no more than that the two Natures of our Lord the one Divine the other Humane Consubstantial with us and received of the Bl. Virgin after their conjunction become one yet this without any confusion or mixture or conversion of the two Natures into one another Now that these Nations adhere to Eutychianism only in this latter sence not well distinguishing between Nature and Personality I refer him that desires further satisfaction to the Relations of Thomas à Jesu l 7. c. 13 14 17. and Brerewoods Enquiries c. 21 22 23. and Dr. Field on the Church l. 3. c. 1. p. 64. c. and of the several Authors cited by them and to the testimony of Tecla Mariae a Learned Abyssin Priest cited by M Claud. †l. 5. c. 6. who saith They hold after the Union only Vnam Naturam sine tamen mixtione sine confusione i.e. of those two Natures of which the One afterward is compounded Which Testimony may serve either to expound or to confront one or two of the other he brings that seem to say otherwise Urge to him the Confession of Protestants Grotius Bishop Forbes and others though themselves of a contrary perswâ—sion that the Modern Greek Church believes Transubstantiation for which they cite their late Writers the Reading of whom convinced them in this though it cannot M. Claude Of these two Grotius and Forbes he replies †l. 4 c. 4. That they are persons who permitted themselves to be pre-possessed with Chimerical fancies and designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuò tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgement ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Greacos Armenios seu â—ujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur habere cited by Dr. Arnaud He answers †p. 361. That Pre occupation renders his Testimonie nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their oÌ„wn opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and partâ—cularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He †l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Dicourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceived or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony lees credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decryed where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and so for Example in the Narration of another Countreys Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Readers Judgement § 321 But n. 10. 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the 11 th or the 8 th to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and al the testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith †l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Churches former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually
utilitate Cred. c. 1. that he was enticed by the Sect of the Manichees on this account because they promised Se terribili authoritate separatâ merâ simplici rations or as afterward magna quadam praesumptione pollicitatione rationum cos qui se audire vellent introducturos ad Deum erroreomni liberaturos And Se nullum premere ad fidem nisi prius discussâ enodatâ veritate And again †Ibid c. 9. Eos Catholicam Ecclesiam eo maxime criminari quod illis qui ad eam veniunt praecipitur ut credâ—nt se autem non jugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriari And therefore he saith in his Retract l. 1. c. 14. That upon this he writ against this presumption of their's his Book De utilitate Credendi Or Of the benefit of ones believing Church-Authority This from § 318. of the weak Grounds Protestants have of pretending Certainty against Church Authority § 330 2 But next Suppose a person may be infallibly certain of and can truly demonstrate something the contrary of which Church-Authority delivers as certain yet if this certainty be only of such a Truth from the knowledge of which ariseth no great benefit to Christians or to the Church or at least not so much benefit as weighed in the ballance will preponderat this other benefit of conserving the Churches peace Here again these Demonstrators Protestants also being Judges are to yield to Church-Authority the obedience of silence and non-contradiction and are to keep such Truth to themselves and not to disturb the publick peace after any thing defined to the contrary by divulging it to others § 331 In vindication of such obedience thus Dr. Potter ‑ It is true when the Church hath declared her self in any matter of opinions or of rites her Declaration obligeth all her children to peace and external obedience nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Where he saith also That by his factiously opposing this his own judgment to the publick he may become an Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false After him Bishop Brambal thus †Schism guarded p. 2. That Church and much more that person which shal not outwardly acquiesce after a legal Determination and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And Vindic. of Church of England p. 27. When inferior Questions saith he not fundamental are â—nce defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience and they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Doctor Fern Division of Churches p. 81. requiring conformity of Sectaries to the Church of England argues thus If Sectaries shall say to us You allow us to use our reason and judgement in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction not to abuse it against the Church But we do not abuse it say they but have consulted our Guides and used all means we can for satisfaction We tell them You must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church and next having modestly propounded it attend the judgment thereof But what if after all this go against them To which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yield an external peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it Thus he states the point Now such an external peaceable subjection and obedience as hath been often said if it were well observed stops all Reformations as to these points that are found of less consequence the Demonstrators Truth must die with him Nor thus will any Disciples be drawn from the Church or their Pastors to follow Strangers § 232 Next To know whether the truth they are so certain of be also of so great weight as that the Churches peace and external unity is to be broken rather than such a Truth strangled or lost what less thing also can secure them for this that it is a Truth of much importance than that which secures them of their certainty that it is a Truth namely a Demonstration hereof Now the Evidences Protestants have brought either of the one or the other either that such Church-Doctrines are errors or if so errors of great consequence have been heard and considered by Church-Authority And these by it neither thought errors intollerable nor errors at all But if Church-Authority may not interpose here and every one may rely on his own particular Judgment when truths or errors are of moment when not who is there when his thoughts are wholy taken up with a thing and he totus in illo and perhaps besides troubled with an itch that that knowledge of his which he esteems extraordinary should be communicated and that se scire hoc sciat alter will not thus induce himself to think the smallest matters great Lastly concerning truths of much importance let this also be considered Whether that which is so much pretended by the Reformed that the Holy Scriptures are clear in all Divine Truths necessary doth not strongly argue against them that none of those things wherein they gain-say the Church are matters much important or necessary Because all these Scriptures clear in necessaries will surely be so to the Church as well as to them As they grant these Scriptures to be generally as to all persons perspicuous in all those common points of faith that are not at all controverted § 333 3. But let this also be allowed That the error of Church-Authority is not only manifest but that it both is and is certainly known to be in a point most important and necessary and that neither the obedience of assent nor yet of silence or non-contradiction ought to be yielded to Church-Authority therein yet all this granted will not justifie or secure any in their not yielding a third obedience meerly passive viz. a quiet submission to the Churches censures however deemed in such a particular case unjust Whereby if this censure happen to be Excommunication he is patiently to remain so as who in such case injoyes still the internal communion of the Church though he want the external till God provide for the vindication of Truth and his Innocency But by no means to proceed further to set up or joyn himself to an external communion apart and separated from that of his Superiors and such a communion as either refuseth any conjunction with them or at least is prohibited and excluded by them which must alwaies be schismatical as being that of a Part differing from the Whole or of Inferiors divided from their Canonical Superiors by which now that Party begins to lose that internal Communion of the Church also which when unjustly excommunicated and acquiescing therein he still