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-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
§ 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
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
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
before the sitting of this Council and condemning most of the points which this justifies the Sacrifice of the Mass Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Purgatory Indulgences and some others were condemned and declared to be against Gods Word by the Articles of the Church of England many years before the same were either imposed to be sworn to by Pius or defended and justified by the Articles of Trent the one done in 1549. the other in 1562. 2 ly Who leave as little liberty to their Subjects to hold the Roman tenents as the Roman Church doth to hold theirs For as the Roman Church doth Anathematize those who affirm the contrary to her Articles to be true so doth the Church of England in the Synod held under King James 1603. can 5. excommunicate those that affirm any of her Articles to be erroneous And for this Churches requiring also not only an external non-contradiction but internal assent I desire you to weight the proofs produced in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †wither §. 83. n. 1. to avoid Repetitions I remit you And if we look into the Protestant Churches abroad we find the National Synod of Dort assembled A. D. 1618. touching some differences among their Divines in those high and dark points of Divine Predestination Co-operation of Grace and Freewill c. where were present also some Divines sent from all the other Protestant-Churches following the Doctrine of Calvin except the French We find it I say in those five Points * to have passed partly in asserting Truths partly in condemning errors no less than 91. Articles or Canons What might their Canons have amounted to had they discussed so many Points of Controversie as that of Trent did And then * to enjoyn all the Pastors their Subjects the teaching to the people of these Truths and therefore the believing of them and * to excommunicate all those holding the contrary as corrupters of the Truth till they shall give satisfaction to the Church in professing the true Doctrines The words of the Synod Sess 138. are these Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Faederato Belgio Ecclesiarm Pastoribus c. ut banc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five Points in Controversie sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which publick teaching of them required includes assent to them Then against the Remonstrants pronounceth thus Synodus suae Authoritatis ex verbo Dei probe conscia omnium legitimarum tum veterum tum recentiorum Synodorum vestigiis insistens declarat atque judicat Pastores illos c. the Remonstrant Ministers corruptae Religionis scissae Ecclesiae unitatis reos teneri Quas ob causas Synodus praedictis omni ecclesiastico munere interdicit eisque ab officiis suis abdicat donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam ecclesiae satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur Then orders Vt Synodi Provinciales neminem ad sacrum Ministerium admittant qui doctrinae hisce Synodicis constitutionibus declaratae subscribere eamque docere recuset § 201. Only this main difference there is between these two Churches That the one requires assent to her Articles telling her Subjects that in necessaries she cannot erre the other requires assent declaring to her followers that she may erre even in points Necessary The one requires assent in obedience to her Authority delegated to her by our Lord the other seems to require assent only from the Evidence in Scripture or otherwise of the matter proposed Therefore so many of her Subjects as see not such Evidence in equity me thinks should be freed from her exacting their assent And then such obligation to assent would fail of its end expressed before her Articles viz. the hindering diversity of Opinions and the establishing of consent touching true Religion § 202 10. Lastly to shut up all Whatever offence either this strict Profession of Faith summ'd up by Pius 10. or Anathemas multiplied by the Council of Trent may have given to the Reformed yet neither the one nor the other can justly be charged to have given occasion to their discession and rent from the former Catholick Church Which Division and as I have shewed †§. 200. their Censure also of the Roman Doctrines preceded both the times of Pius and the sitting of this Council and on the contrary their Departure and such Censure first occasioned the Churches standing upon her Defence and the setting up these new fences and Bars for preservation of her ancient Doctrine invaded by them and for hindering her sheep from stragling out of her fold and hearkning after the voice of Strangers CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome § 207. 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218 Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices 220. 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to Pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy § 209. 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non Residence § 235. 4 Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. And the Divine Service not in the vulgar tongue § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. § 203 THus much from § 173. of the 4th Head Concerning the multitude of the Canons Definitions and Anathemas of this Council in points of Doctrine The fifth succeeds touching the Acts for Reformation of several corruptions and disorders in the Churches Government and Discipline which was so much petitioned for by Christian Princes and also from its first sitting undertaken by this Council But with such a contrary and unexpected issue saith Soave †l. 1. p. 2. That this Council being managed by Princes for Reformation of Ecclesiastical Discipline hath caused the greatest Deformation that ever was since Christianity did begin and hoped for by the Bishops to regain the Episcopal Authority usurped for the most part by the Pope hath made them lose it altogether bringing them into greater servitude on the contrary feared and avoided by the See of Rome as a potent means to moderat the exorbitant power mounted from small beginnings by divers degrees unto an unlimited excess it hath so established and confirmed the same over that part which
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
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 the Greek and to continue the Divine Service still in the same language and words without any alteration in which their Ancestors had delivered it to them and in which it had descended to these from all former ages as for this Western Church ever since that next to the Apostles times Neither doth this or the following Ages seem imprudently to have chosen for this service the most common language in the understanding whereof all these Nations are united and concur So that however any removed their Station they might still find the Divine Service both in matter and words the same and any Priest however he changed his Residence be able to serve the people in it § 238 To ξ. To ξ The Clergies being restrained from Marriage and living continently 1st The Council retaining the antient doctrine of the Church so expounding the Scriptures †Matt. 19.11 1. Cor. 7.78 c holds That Continency is a Grace or Gift which though not actually possessed by all yet is denied by God to none who with using due means and preparations thereto seek it of him the using of which means is a thing in every ones power in such ordinary sence as other humane actions are said to be 2ly That Continency being thus by every one either possessed or attainable the vow of perpetual Celibacy is lawful which is a thing seconded by the universal practice of the Religious or Monasticks as well in the Eastern as Western Church all of them making such a vow 3ly Holds That such Celibacy attainable and observable by all may be injoyned and imposed by the Church on some viz. such as shall desire to enter into the Priestly Function for many weighty reasons and particularly for those given by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.28 32 34 35 38. Vt non habeant tribulationem carnis ut sint sine mundanâ solicitudine ut sint sancti corpore spiritu ut faciant non bene sed melius Whilst mean while none at all are compel'd absolutely either to become Priests or in order to it to profess Celibacy but only that if they are desirous of the one they must undergo the burden of the other nor none instructed that God's law but only the Churches Constitution doth require it of them 4ly The Council had also in this matter the warrantable Precedent of former ages both in the Occidental and Oriental Churches so far as that none at all entring into the holy Order of Priesthood in either Church hath been hitherto permitted after to marry 5ly The Council injoyning this doth not deny this Celibacy of the Clergy as being only Ecclesiastical Constitution to be dispensable And though the Council it self thought not fit to give such dispensation especially since those Princes and their Prelats in the Council whose Kingdoms remained untainted with Protestanisme opposed it See Soave p. 688 and 690. Where he saith That the King of Spain and his Prelats had neither Interest i.e. out of any necessary compliance with Sects nor affection to prosecute the three Instances of the marriage of Priests communion of the Cup and use of the vulgar tongue Yet neither doth the Council prohibit any such dispensation if at any time circumstances considered it shall so seem good to the Pope And so he after the Council ended was both by the Emperour and the Duke of Bavaria much sollicited for it †See Soave p. 823 824 Pallav. l 24. c. 12. n. 9. I mean for a toleration of it in their Dominions being in hopes of reclaiming thereby some of the Sectarists But both the Emperours death following shortly after hindred the further prosecution of it and the Pope seemed very averse from gratifying any Prince with such an indulgment of which he knew not where it would stop nor how far it might draw on Petitions from other places in the same or also in other matters and those perhaps of much more prejudice to the Churches welfare In which thing Soave also †p. 690. is pleased to â—â—commend the Popes prudence therein § 239 A Dispensation therefore in this matter though lawful neither the Council nor Pope to whom such power was left thought expedient But the Parochial Clergy by reason of their Secular Imployment and converse being much more exposed than Regulars to the breach of this holy Resolution of perpetual continency in a single life and by their fall herein highly offending God and also bringing great scandal on their sacred Profession the Council Sess 25 c. 14. made the strictest laws that could well be devised against any such miscarriage prohibiting Priests to keep any women of whom might be reasonable suspicion either in their house or abroad or to have any converse with such Among which suspitious persons saith the third Canon of Conc. Nice are to be reckoned all Nisi Mater aut Soror aut Avia aut Avita vel matertera sit In his namque solis personis harum similibus omnis quae ex mulieribus est suspitio declinatur which Canon the 3d. Carthag Council thus expoundeth or inlargeth Sorores filiae fratrum aut sororum quaecunque ex familia domesticâ necessitate 〈◊〉 antequam ordinatis Parentibus uxores acceperunt aut servis non habitantibus in domo quas ducant aliunde ducere necessitas fuit § 240 Next the Council ordaineth That the faulty herein after the first admonition by the Bishop should lose the third part of the profits of their Benefice and after the second not amending it all and further should be suspended from officiating And after disobeying a third admonition should be ejected out of their Living and made incapable of another And the Bishop to proceed herein without any formal Conviction in Court so the verity of the fact were sufficiently proved to him Their Concubines also by the aide of the Secular Power to be expelled the Town or the Diocess And Sess 21. c. 6. the same power of Ejection of the Clergy when found incorrigible the Bishops have as to any other great and scandalous faults without the relief of any Exemptions or Appeales But if a Bishop were so faulty after an admonition from the Provincial Synod if no amendment he was to be suspended and still continuing so the same Synod to inform the Pope thereof and he to proceed to the Deposition of him from his Bishoprick the Council providing also that this their Constitution should not hinder the force and execution of any former Laws or Canons made for the correction of such crime § 241 To Ï€. To Ï€. With-holding the Communion of the Cup. 1st The Council Sess 21. c. 1. following the custom and judgment of former Churches declares That there is no divine Precept that obligeth all Communicants to receive in both kinds since the frequent practice of Antiquity to some persons in some places administred it only one kind when yet there was a possibility though not convenience of doing it in both and
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-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-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.
entirely his To these may be added all those Texts requiring the glorifying of God in our publick worship of him in the Society of his true Church and in the Confession of Christ before men Confession of him with the mouth as well as believing on him with the heart Rom. 10.9 10. of all persons with one mouth as well as with one mind Rom. 15.6 Which Texts seem in a special manner to imply that Confession which is made in the publick Assemblies of the Church Which Assemblies therefore were never intermitted in its greatest persecutions from the Civil Magistrates To these again may be added those many precepts of Vnity and Charity injoyned amongst all the fellow-members of Christ Eph. 4.3 11 12. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. Phil. 1.27 28. Jo. 10.4 5. which Texts seem to extend and oblige to all the external as well as internal acts thereof especially for what concerns Gods publick service and worship And that Article of our Creed that we believe one Church Catholick and Apostolick ie One external visible Communion upon earth united in its members that alwaies is and shall be such seems not sufficiently asserted and professed by any who forbears to joyn himself openly unto it Such a denial before men of the Body of Christ his Church seems not to fall much short of the crime of denying before men the Head Christ Himself But chiefly there where this Church the Spouse of Christ happens to be under any disgrace or Persecution here our taking up the Cross with her and the Doxology of Confessing him and her seems yet more zealously to be imbraced and no such opportunity of so highly promoting our Eternal reward upon any Secular inductive whatsoever to be omitted For which consider Heb. 10.25 § 286 2. This of the remaining in any such separated Congregation prohibited in Scriptures and the contrary also there required Next It is also both prohibited by the ancient Canons of the Church and disallowed by her practice For the Canons see those early ones Can. Apost 11 12 13. 12. Si quis cum damnato Clerico veluti cum Clerico simul oraverit iste damnetur 11. Si Quis cum Excommunicato saltem in domo locutus fuerit iste communione privetur Which Canon calls to mind again 2 Jo. 10. And ‖ l. 6 c. 13. Eusebius reports of Origen when yet a youth that necessitated by reason of poverty to live in the same house with Paulus one not Orthodox in the Faith yet he forbare to be present at Prayers with him Quippe qui ab ineunte aetate Ecclesiae Canonem obnixe observasset probably those Apostolick ones before named See Concil Laodicen held by the Catholicks in the time of the reigning of Arrianisme before the Second General Council Where as it is decreed Non oportere cum Paganis festae celebrare c. 39. And Nonoportere à Judaeis azyma accipere c. 38. So Non oportere cum Haereticis vel Schismaticis orare c. 33. And non oportere Haereticorum benedictiones accipere can 32. See Concil Carthag 4. held A. D. 436. a little after S. Austins death can 72. Cum Haereticis nec orandum nec psallendum And c. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excommunicato sive Clericus sive Laicus excommunicetur So it is then that all Hereticks and Schismaticks such as make Congregations and celebrate the publick Divine Worship separate from the Church stand Excommunicated and Anathematized by the supreme Church-Authority in several Canons of Councils And hence all those stand so too who communicate with them in such their service For This freequenting and joyning with them in their service is an external profession of such separation which external Profession alwaies it is that the Church not knowing Hearts proceeds against in her Censures And the Church in her expelling such Congregations from being members any longer of her Communion may be imagined much more to prohibit any pretender to her Communion from being or appearing a member of theirs And though the modern Church laws in several cases may perhaps have remitted some of the ancient rigor that restrains our presence with known and declared Hereticks in the Catholick Divine Service or Sacraments and hath admitted some limitations Yet the communicating with any of a separated external communion in their Divine Service or in such Holy things or Divine Worship as are commonly understood and taken for a distinctive note of such separation from that Church which is the Catholick such a dissembling of ones Religion is at no hand lawful but is a denying before men of Christs Church and so of Christ since who thus denies conjunction with the Body denies it with the Head also that is joyn'd to this Body Nor was there in any times the least dissimulation in any thing required as an external Tessera and Touch-stone of their Religion I say not a non-professing of our Religion but a professing against it ever suffered or excused in the greatest Persecutions Though other usual ceremonies and practices of the Church not distinguishing so essentially and properly her Communion nor this communion made a necessary consequent of them but instituted and performed for other ends may amongst Separatists be dispensed with and omitted As fasting or abstinence on daies appointed for them Provided no great scandal happen thereby But whatever compliances with Separatists for our Secular conveniences may be lawful yet since all suffering for the Catholick Religion is a degree of Martyrdome it is much nobler by keeping the strictest distance to aspire to what is most perfect than by seeking inlargements to hazard the doing of some thing unlawful § 287 Next For the Churche's ancient Practice piz the Catholicks neither going to the Prayers or Sacraments of Sectarists nor admitting these to their own Their Letters Commendatory mentioned Câ—n. Apost 13. called Epistolae formatae sufficiently shew how cauâ—â—ous and strict it was Which Letters from the Churches careful avoiding all mixture with Sectaries were procured so often as any had occasion to travel from one Church to another Without which Testimony they could not be admitted to their prayers c. The same also appears from the strict separation of Catholicks from the potent division of the Arrian Sect. Which Arrians though in many of their Councils they required subscription of no positive Heresie brâ—â—only an omission in their Creeds of some Truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet were the Catholicks even when much persecuted by the Secular Princes and by the banishment of their Pastors in some places destitute of the Sacraments strictly prohibited to come at the Arrian Assemblies though these had the same Sacraments with them and possession of the Cathedrals and other Churches and chose rather to relinquish their Temples to pray at home to live without the Sacraments nay to be without these in their sickness and at their death than to receive them from the Arrians See for these things S. Athanas Epist
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
against themselves A consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age saith Mr. Chillingw ‖ p. 376. * Allowing certain Tradition hardly of any thing save of the H. Scriptures And few or no Traditive interpretations thereof I have the words from Mr. Chillingw No Tradition saith he †p. 376. but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain our Lord and his Apostles but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in And Traditive Interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found So he * Alledging that the Fathers tranferred several conceits and customs into the Church from their new-deserted Paganism Platonick philosophy And Divinity of the Sybils or at least out of compliance with such new Heathen Converts And then that the more prudent and sober Fathers through timorousness and despair of a reformation have complied with the rest and been carried down with the stream Thus Zuinglius †De verâ fallâ Religione p. 214. of S. Austin touching Corporal Presence in which point many Protestants would have him their Patron Facile adducimur saith he Augustinum prae aliis acuto perspicacique ingenio virum suâ tempestate non fuisse ausum diserte veritatem proloqui quae jam casum magnaâ parte dederat Vidit omnino pius Homo quid hoc Sacramentum esset in quem usum esset institutum verum invaluerat opinio de Corporeâ carne And thus Chemnitius ‖ Exam. Con. Trid. 3. part p. 197. of the same Father touching Invocation of Saints Haec Augustinus sine Scripturâ temporibus consuetudini cedens And Bochart Origin de l' Invoc p. 488. St. Austin who seems to have been of a disposition wonderfully sweet and courteous suffers himself often to comply with the common errors and superstitions indeavouring rather to put a good sense upon them than to cross them c And Tantae vir authoritatis in negocio Dei libere loqui non audebat Cum praesumptionibus omnia impleri videret schismatis metu aperte damnare non audebat saith Vossius †Thes de Invocat S. Again * saying they held many things only as probabilities which later times have advanced into matters of faith and that necessary He finds them also in Appeale to this Antiquity ascending rather to the 3 first ages thereof ages wherein the Church was persecuted and few Records are left of her general Doctrines or Practices and more willingly declining the later where the Records many and the Church in her flourishing condition more fully displaying to the world all her Government and Discipline these men confessing some appearances of several of the Tenents and Customâ— they oppose in the fourth age Lastly he finds them apt to change the phrase and language of the Ancients and bogling at many of their terms such as those of Merit Satisfaction Altars Priests Sacrifices c. which novelty of words often argues a new conceit of things This the Protestants behaviour to Antiquity in relating which those who are versed in their books of Controversie especially the writings of the French know that I falsifie nothing whereas on the other side the opposite party to this he finds usually defending those works of the Fathers which the others question and not discarding Records certainly ancient because perhaps some of them mis-entitled as to the Author or somewhat antidated as to the time Again stating their Theological questions and extracting their Comments on Scripture controverted out of their writings Covering their defects and charitably interpreting what in them is any way capable thereof and reconciling their seeming Contradictions Lastly Sainting the Fathers and solemnly commemorating them in their publick service Often urging and laying much weight on ancient Tradition and so keeping stable and firm from generation to generation the Doctrine and Faith of the Church and out of this Tradition convincing Heresies Defending the legal authority of those Councils which the other oppose and gathering their Canons into certain Heads for the standing Laws and Rules of present-present-Church Government Not looking back with such rigor and jealousie upon their supreme Judges and examining their numbers their Commissions Elections if these free from Simony Ordinations nay Baptism nor holding them of more virtue authority or illumination as to the deciding of Controversies or enlarging Creeds in one age than another but in all ages alike necessary alike assisted § 305 4. But yet further He may discover the pretence to the Fathers that is made by this party of late not to have been so much in that beginning of the Reformation See before § 104. and 128. in the times of the Council of Trent their plain refusing to be tried by the Councils Fathers Church-Tradition but as these are first proved to have founded their Doctrine in the Scriptures See the two heads thereof Luther and Calvin their plain dealing in this matter in the many Quotations cited out of them before Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. c. Quanti errores saith Luther in omnium Patrum scriptis inventi sunt ‖ In assertiâ—â—ne Articul Quoties sibi ipsis pugnant Quis est qui non saepius scripturas torserit c. And contra Regem Angliae Non ego quaero saith he quid Ambrosius Augustinus Concilia usus saeculorum dicunt Miranda est stultitia Satanae quae iis impugnat quae ego impugno And lib. de ministris Eccl. iâ—stituend Non habent Papistae quod his apponant i. e. to his private sence and exposition of Holy Scriptures nisi Patres Concilia Consuetudinem Is not that enough Calvin De Ecclesiae reformandae ratione c. 19. to the judgement of Antiquity urged against him in the point De sacrificio Missâ returns such general answers as these not unfrequent with him also concerning many other points Veterum sententias non moror quas ad obruendam veritatem hic congerunt Moderatores Solemne est nebulonibus istis you must pardon his heat like that of Luther quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur corradere And below Desinant boni Moderatores veterum sententiis pugnare in malâ causâ Again Non est quod vel Ambrosium vel alium quemp iam ex totâ veterum cohorte acutius vidisse putemus quam ipsum Apostolum Again Vt millies clament Papistae oblatum olim fuisse panem veteres ita solitos facere non novam esse censuetudinem toties excipere nobis licebit Christi mandatum inviolabilem esse regulam quae nullâ hominum consuetudine nullâ praescriptione temporum convelli aut refigi debeat And Quod ad veteres spectat non est quod in eorum gratiam ab aeterna inflexibili Dei veritate i.e. his own fancies concerning God's Truth recedamus And
of Learning in the modern Greek and other Oriental Churches as also that of the Moscovites ‖ l. 5. c. 1. even amongst their Monasticks Priests and Bishops which industrious disparaging of their Science shews he hath no mind to stand to their Judgement He relates their many Superstitious and ridiculous Rites and Ceremonies in Religion their extreme Poverty and so how easily they are to be gained to say or do any thing with the Money or to speak it in better Language with the Charities which the Latines frequently bestow on them Hence these Nations being so ignorant their sentiments in Religion are less to be valued 2. He proceeds ‖ l. 2. c. 2. c. to tell us the many opportunities §. 321. n. 4. the Latines have had of introducing Innovations and propagating the Roman Faith in those Countreys 1. By so many Western Armies that have passed thither for the Conquest of the Holy Land and have settled there to maintain their Victories and so kept the Orientals in Subjection for near 200 years By the inability of the later Grecian Emperours to defend their Dominions and so their often endeavouring to accommodate Religion after the best way for their Secular advantages and that was by a Conformity in it with the West 3. By the continual Missions of Priests and Religious of all Orders each of them striving to have some plantation in the East especially the Missions of Jesuites thither who by their manifold diligence in instructing their children educating their youth distributing many charities to the necessitous playing the Physitians teaching the Mathematicks c. insinuate also into them their Religion having corrupted also several of their Bishops Hence we may imagine these Missions of the Latines having thus overspread the whole face of the East and practising so many Acts to change its Faith it will seem a hard task to prove concerning any particular Testimony procured from thence that the persons subscribing it are no way Latiniz'd no way tainted in their judgement and that they are not already circumvented and won over in some Points though perhaps they may still stand out in some others All this He doth to shew the great industry of these Missions to pervert the Truth there But indeed manifests their indefatigable zeal and courage through infinite hazards to advance it negociating the Conversion of Infidels as well as the instruction of ignorant Christians And Roman Catholicks are much indebted to M. Claude for his great pains in giving so exact an account of their Piety 3. Having premised such a Narration as this §. 321. n. 5. to be made use of as he sees fit for invalidating the Testimonies of the modern Greeks 3ly He declares that he doth not undertake at all to shew that the Greeks concur with Protestants in their Opinion concerning our Lords presence in the Eucharist and much complains of his Adversary for imposing such an attempt upon him L. 3. c. 1. It is not our business here saith he to shew whether the Greeks have the same Faith which we Protestants have on the subject of the Holy Sacraments This is a perpetual Illusion that M. Arnauld puts upon his Readers but whether the Greeks believe of the Sacrament that which the Church of Rome believes And l. 3. c. 13. He saith He would have none imagine that he pretends no difference between the Opinion of the Greeks and Protestants and he thinks that none of the Protestant Doctors have pretended is And Ibid. after his stating of the Greek Opinion To the censure that he makes it peâ—â— raisonnable he saith * p. 336. That to this he hath nothing to answer save that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere That both the Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity p. 337. and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1st as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it †Epist P. Melancthoni à toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christs Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christs natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2. Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again †l. 3. c. 13 p. 326. l. 4 c. 9. p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctifyed Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Fathers words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 321 4. Having said this n. 6. That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christs Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Articles of their Faith His words upon D. Arnaud's resenting it That whereas he contented himself only to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these *
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.
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
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
in Pius the Fourth's time there was held a Colloquy at Poissy in France 1561. the King and Queen of France being present thereat and fourteen Protestant Divines selected for it with Safe-conduct and here after much disputing at large five of a side were chosen to see if they could compose differences These assayed saith Soare p. 454 to frame an Article concerning the Eucharist the chief point of controversie in general terms taken out of the Fathers which might give satisfaction to both parties which because they could not do they concluded the Colloquy § 144 In this year also the Princes of the Augustan Confession in Germany which Confessionists also were at variance among themselves assembled at Neumburg where Being ashamed saith Soave p. 439 that their Religion should be esteemed a confusion for the variety of doctrines amongst them they did propose that they might first agree in one and then resolve whether they ought to refuse or accept the Synod that under Pius 4. now ready to be opened And here after some things had been proposed for a covering at least of their differences which could not be closed for though here they had sole Scripture for their Rule and themselves for their Judges yet it seems they could not agree them The Duke of Saxony saith the same Author answered that they could not stop the eyes and ears of the world that they should not see and hear their differences and that if they would make shew of union where they were at variance they should be convinced of vanity and lying and so saith Soave after many contentions they remained without agreement in this matter § 145 These Diets and Colloquies about settling Religion I have been the more willing particularly to relate * partly to remove that conceit of many that if the Protestant-Divines had but had a fair hearing of their cause in the Council of Trent a major part would have consented to them whereas we see many a free and fair hearing of them here was in so many Conferences and yet none of their Antagonists of the Catholick party removed thereby from their former principles * And partly to shew you what is most likely to have been the issue of such a General Council as the Protestants called for i e. where an equal number chosen on both sides suppose Lay-persons should have sitten the Presidents and Judges and to make appear that if once we take away the authority of Councils as constituted and composed in the manner alwaies formerly used there is no hope of settling Divinity controversies by Arbitrators For men will submit to nothing against their private reasons or judgment i. e. against their Conscience as many call it unless it be when such persons have detided such a point whose authority they are obliged in conscience to obey § 146 This is said to the Conditions of a General Council which the Protestants of those times demanded But if those conditions only were required which Archbishop Lawd mentions § 30. though § 27. he seems to exact much more who there saith That any General Council shall satisfie him that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observed in the primitive Church Where he refers in the margent to Bellarmins four Conditions de Concil l. 1. c. 17. namely 1. Vt Evocatio sit generalis ita ut innotescat omnibus majoribus Christianis provinciis 2. Vt ex episcopis non excommunicatis nullus excludatur 3. Vt adsint per se vel per alios quatuor praecipui Patriarchae praeter summum Pontificem quia istis subsunt omnes alii Episcopi but to this Bellarmin adds some limitations 4. Vt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui adveniant then I say as these conditions are most reasonable so I think they have been already shewed to agree to the Council of Trent excepting the third of the dispensableness of which in several cases see both what Bellarmin there saith and what is said above § 65.66 Neither if men would be content with Bishop Bramhal in prefac to Repl. to Chalc. to submit themselves to so General a Council as can be procured as things now are can there be any debate about this Condition CHAP. IX III. Head Of the Legalness of the proceedings of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts when not in others § 147. 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 148. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon the 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 Controversies 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. § 147 THus much from § 127 of the second Head proposed the Conditions of a General Council which the Protestants required Now let us consider the third concerning the legal proceedings of the Council of Trent Where first you must remember That a Council proved illegal or not free in some of its proceedings cannot therefore justly be rejected in all other its acts whatsoever but only in those that are first proved to be illegal and not free and to be reputed as such or at least not accepted as the contrary by that Ecclesiastical Authority which legally concludes the whole For the same Council may become obligatory in some of its Acts when not in others as those shall consent to some Act dissent from others without whose acceptance none are ratified And so it was in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon Whose Decrees though for other matters confirm'd yet its 27th Canon in the preference of the Bishop of Constantinople before the 2d Patriatch of Alexandria being disallowed by the Roman and the other Western Bishops doubtless hence was of no force till afterward this was also by them consented to Neither if we can shew in some Council that the Prime Patriarch presiding in it or the major part of Church-Governours who were absent have rejected some particular Canons thereof can we here plead our selves free from obedience for all the rest see such arguing in Dr Hammond of Heresie § 9. n. 6. and § 11. n. 3 7. which both he and the major part of the Church have allowed and conform to For thus the Eutychian might plead his freedom from any obligation to those Canons of Chalcedon that were universally agreed on by East
praestituta ac praescripta est à Sanctis Patribus qui in Nicenorum urbe in which Creed the additions also of the Constantinopolitan Council are here supposed to be included cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre volentibus converti ad agnitionem veritatis sive ex Gentilitate sive Judaismo c. to be professed by them at their admission into the Church ut hi si quidem Episcopi sint ab Episcopatu removeantur sin autem Laici sint ut extromâ detestatione execratione percellantur This being the Canon To α I say 1 st That § 179. n. 2. R. To α. this Canon being pressed by the Greeks against the Latines in the Florentine Synod to prove the unlawfulness of the Latines addition to the Creed of Filioque either the Reformed must approve the sense the Latines gave of that Decree namely R. To α. that the Ephesin Council prohibited only that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing or contrary in any thing to the doctrine of the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his wicked Creed was which occasioned this Decree or must confess that the Latines unjustly retain and mention Filioque in their Creeds which was added to the Creeds after the Ephesin and the four first Councils †See Conc. Florent 7. Sess being first mentioned and found in the Creed in the fourth Toletan Council about A D. 680. as the Roman Writers themselves confess 2 ly That supposing the Council prohibits not only the composing or addition of any thing contrary to the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his Nestorian Creed the occasion thereof may perswade it did but the addition thereto or alteration in expression of any thing whatsoever though never so conformable to the Nicen Creed yet this prohibition extends not to Councils but only to private persons and Church-Governours according to that Hi si quidem Episcopi sunt ab Episcopatu removeantur for who shall execute this sentence upon a General Council Or how can one General Council justly limit or prescribe to another of equal authority 3 ly Supposing that they extend this Act to Councils also either they prohibit to them not the making new definitions in matters of Faith but only the adding of such definitions made to the body of the Nicene Creeed but then this act concerns none who afterward make new Definitions so they add them not to the Creed Now no additions at all have been made to that Creed since the fourth General Council save Filioque which the Protestants also allow of and use Or 4 ly If the Ephesin Fathers prohibit to the Councils any such Definitions also as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice they condemn themselves in the first place who though they added not to the Creed yet defined Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the Ephesin Canon be taken in either of these sences thus it will be found not to be observed by the very next General Council that of Chalcedon who made another new definition or Creed against Eutyches in which also they altered some expressions of the Nicene Creed as is noted by the Latines Concil Florent § 6. altered natum ex Patre 1. ex Substantiâ Patris into Consubstantialem Patri secundum Divinitatem nobis autem secundum humanitatem and added many other things as appears in their Confession of faith Sess 5. which Confession they conclude and seal up just after the same manner as the Ephesin Council before them did Decrevit sancta atque universalis haec Synodus aliam fidem nemini licere proferre sive conscribere aut exponere vel sentire Sed eos qui audent vel componere vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se convertere c. si Episcopi sunt alienos esse ab Episcopatu c. si Laici Anathematizari 5 ly That both Leo Bishop of Rome and Flavianus and Eusebius being charged by the Eutychian faction as offending against this Decree of Ephesus in their asserting as a part of their Faith Christum ex duabus in duabus simul naturis esse an Article not contained in the Nicene Creed were cleared by the Council of Chalcedon as not guilty thereof who some of them probably the same who sate in the Ephesin Council that being only twenty years before this understood it in the sence of the Latines and urged the necessity of additions as appears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Emperor †See below § 183. n. 1. 6 ly Taken in such a sence as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed but also the defining any new thing in matter of faith it is as was said before not only null by an equal authority reversing it in this sense but most irrational since the like occasions of making such new definitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council as it did before and also in it § 180 To β. To â— If the Grecians meant imperfection in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith then both the authority of the Latine Church and all the reasons given above may be produced against them but if they mean imperfection in respect of containing all Credends in respect of salvation necessary to be explicitly known it s granted that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice †See Conc. Florent Sess 1. § 181 To γ. To γ. The Latines joyn contrary also to it when they name different and mean only such difference as is also contrary as is clear every where by their words in that Synod Sess 11. Julianus Cardinalis thus Quae quidein verba i. e Concilii Ephesini nos credimus hoc solum significare ut fas sit nulle Nicaenorum Patrum fidei contrarium proferre Is the addition filioque which Protestants justifie nothing diverse then neither shall any other new definitions of Councils be so § 182 To δ. To δ. Celestines words which are spoken of the Apostles Creed either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions or do condemn Nice for it But see this testimony explained by the Latines Sess 10. that he meant only denying any thing delivered in the Apostles Creed or asserting or adding any thing contrary to it To conclude this matter §. 183. n. 1. see the defence which the Fathers of the fourth General Council following the Ephesin made to Marcianus the Emperor in the Conclusion of that Synod †Allocut ad Marcianum concerning the necessity of making from time to time new Definitions and Additions to explicate and corroborate the former Faith as new errors arise to debilitate or pervert it returned in answer to the Eutychians aâ—d others who to obtain liberty to their own opinions accused Leo's Epistle and also the Council of Innovations in matters of Faith
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
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
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