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
any Point after defined necessary explicitly to be believed not only this one condition of the Churches having defined them is required for none is obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal made to us of the Churches having defined them And then indeed so many Articles are necessary to be explicitly believed as to the doing of our duty in order to our salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as to acquiring some knowledge necessary to our salvation without which knowledge it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is See what hath been already said of this whole matter much what to this purpose in Disc 3. § 85. n. 4. c. § 197 There are then as Catholicks to undeceive Protestants do frequently inculcat and cannot be heard Points or Articles of Faith necessary to our Salvation to be believed or extra quae credita nemo salvus in a tripple sence 1. Some necessary ratione Medii Such as are necessary so absolutely as that an invincible ignorance of them is said to fail of Salvation which are a very few of the many Articles of our Christian Faith 2. Others necessary ratione praecepti which are necessary to be believed only conditionally And they are of two sorts 1. Either such which I am not only obliged to believe when known to me to be Divine Truths but the knowledge also of which as Articles of high concernment I am bound according to the different quality of my condition to seek after wherein my ignorance and neglect when by using a due diligence I might have known them being thus in an high degree culpable doth unrepented of destroy my salvation Such are some other chief Principles of Religion and Piety the ten Commandements and some Sacraments c. delivered in the common Creeds and Catechisms such as are not absolutely necessary ratione Medii 3. 2 Or such as though I am not obliged to such a diligent search of them as of the former yet a belief of them I am to embrace so often as these two things precede 1 st that they are defined by my spiritual Guides to be Divine Revelation c 2 ly that this Definition is sufficiently evidenced to me Where though not my meer ignorance in such Points yet my denial or dis-belief of them thus proposed is to be judged wilful and obstinate and this unrepented of destroyes my salvation § 198 8. This of the Seventh The Eighth consideration is That the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined 8. or made de Fide in the Council of Trent to repeat here what hath been said formerly in the first Disc § 50. were made so by sormer Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The law fulness of communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Popes Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council Lateran Veneration of Images in second Nicene Council Adoration of Christs Body and Blood as present in the Eucharist in the Council of Frankfort if Capitulate Caroli may be taken to deliver the sence of that Council †See Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. Veneration of the Cross †Ib. l. 4. c. 16. and of Relicks ‖ Ib. l. 3. c. 24. in the same Council only this Council condemned the Adoration of Images in such a sence as they mistook the second Council of Nice to have allowed it †See Capitulare prefat Dr. Hamnâ—ond o Idol § 57. Thornd Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Monnastick vows Celibacy of Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead Sacrifice of the Mass and many other apparent in the publick Liturgies of the Church preceding the Council of Trent and unaltered for many ages Protestants being Judges Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practise And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before made them not de Fide or if the Council of Trent or Pius the 4th were first faulty herein But if Councils before Trent have defined such things then by these first were all hopes of peace except by yielding to their Decrees cut off and not by Trent because these Councils are by the Roman Church accepted and held obligatory as well as that of Trent And here I may repeat those words of Bishop Bramhal recited in Disc 1. § 52. in answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon who urged the separation of Protestants from the Church long before the Grievances of Trent or Pius These very Points saith he †p. 263. which Pius the Fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded on us before by his Predecessors i. e. then when Luther and his Followers forsook the Church as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion This is the only difference that Pius 4. dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and be bound them up into a bundle They fashioned the rods i. e. in the Synods held in the Church before Luthers appearance For these Rods only require submittance as being necessary Articles of her Communion and such are only the Definitions of her Councils § 199 9. Consid That the Protestants who accuse seem as guilty in making new definitions in matters of faith and enjoyning them to be believed or assented and subscribed to 9. by those of their Communion as the Council of Trent or Roman Church that is here taxed for it For as the one is said to make new affirmatives in Religion so the other new Negatives all or most of which as hath been shewed in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †§. 85 n. 2. are implicitly new affirmatives Neither can the Church of Rome be more justly questioned in her not leaving points in universals only § 200 and their former indifferency but anew-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation Invocation c. than the Reformed and particularly those of the English Church for new-stating the contrary to these 1. Who as hath been shewed in the 3d Disc c. 7. †§. 85. n. 3. 1. do not suspend their judgment concerning those new points which they say the Roman Church presumes to determine but do in the main Articles handled in the Council of Trent as peremptorily state the one side as the Roman Church the other and as to several points the reformed also were the first I mean in comparison of the Council of Trent in determining them and condemning the doctrines and practises of the other side So to say nothing here of the Augustan Confession composed many years
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
charity either to our selves or to them or to some others obligeth us to the contrary And this for many good ends as to preserve our selves from all contagion and infection from their vices or partaking of their punishments or giving suspicion of our consentment with them in their errors or scandal to others who by our example may use the same converse to their hurt To produce some shame and confusion and so perhaps amendment in them Upon this we read St. Austins Holy Mother Monica forbare sitting at table or eating with her Son when addicted to the Manichean Heresie †Austin Confess l. 3. c. 11. Matt. 18.17 If any Brother i. e. in Christianity refuse to hear the Church we to carry our selves to him as to an Heathen who were Idolaters or a Publican with whom the religious Jews forbare to eat or converse Rom. 16.17 Those Christians that cause divisions contrary to the Doctrine which we have received to mark and avoid them Titus 3.10 An Heretick after admonition to be rejected 2. Thess 3.14 If any man obey not our word be a Separatist from the Church and her Doctrine note that man and have no company with him 2 Joh. 10. If there come any unto you and bring not this Apostolical Doctrine receive him not into your house nor say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God save you to him For he that saith so to him communicates with his wickedness And it seems this Apostles practice was according to his rule For Irenaeus ‖ l. 3. c. 3. saith S. Polycrap related of him That going into a Bath to wash himself he presently leaped out of it and departed when he saw Corinthus there who denied our Lords Divinity § 284 The same may be gathered from our glorified Lords own vehement expressions after his Ascension Apocal. 2d and 3d. chapter against those new Sects that indeavoured to mingle themselves with and to seduce the Catholicks by tempting them to compliance when in persecution where he calls them the Synagogue of Satan Profunda Satanae Jesebels followers of Balaam c. Praiseth the Churches of Ephesus and Philadelphia for trying them and not suffering them and not complying and denying him with them but hating their deeds as himself did See Apocalyps 2.2 6. 3.8.9 and censureth others of the Churches for doing the contrary Apoc. 2.14 15 16 20. and especially reprehendeth that of Laodicea for her lukewarmness and neither being cold nor hot and then urgeth her to be zealous Apoc. 3.15 16 19. The same also seems to appear by his severe censure upon occasion of the Samaritan Woman's consulting him about her Religion of the Samaritan Schismatical worship in a Temple built in opposition to that in Jerusalem some 250. years before our Lords coming in Mount Garisim Which one Manasses the High Priest expelled from the function of his Office in Jerusalem procured to be erected and afterward officiated there our Lord telling this woman That the Samaritans knew not what they worshipped and that salvation was of the Jews And before this the same appears * from Gods great displeasure against the Division made by Israel in setting up the Calves though 't is probably imagined worshipping still the same God in the same Representation of Cherubims only in another place And afterward * from Elias his expostulation with the people 3 King 18.21 Vsque quo claudicatis in duas partes which holds as well for separating Sects as false Religions God having so established the Oeconomy of his Church as to be worshipped therein in unity as well as verity Vnus Dominus Caput unum Corpus una fides Eph. 4.4 From all these Texts prohibiting Communication in our daily converse with particular persons so affected I argue how much more we not to communicate 1 with whole Congregations of them and 2 with such Congregations separated from the Church and 3 this in holy things lastly 4 so communicating with them in these as to forbear the same Communion with the Church Catholick § 285 Yet some of these and several other Texts See 1 Cor. 10.20 21. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 13. 2 Cor. 6.14 17 seem more chiefly to prohibit Communion with such in the Sacraments especially that of the Holy Eucharist and the publick Divine Worship and this upon some other yet higher reasons Namely the duty of the publick owning and professing our Religion and the keeping it pure from and unmixt with any unbelieving Heretical or Schismatical Societies For this Holy Sacrament of feeding at the Lords Table being instituted as for a sacred instrument of our Communion with the Deity so also for a publick tessera and mark of a strict league and amity between all those who together partake it so that as the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.17 by being made partakers of that one bread and Body of our Lord we though being many become one bread and one Body and so in this Body members of one another things I say standing thus in this Grand Sacrament of Union neither will the honour we owe to God the Father who dwelleth in us and adopts us for his children 2 Cor. 6.16.18 Nor to God the Son of whose Body we are members 1 Cor. 6.15 16. Nor to the holy Spirit whose Temples we are 1. Cor. 3.16 17. suffer us by such a sacred and solemn tye to link and unite our selves to any Congregations that are once estranged from him or disclaimed by him This is mingling light with darkness 2 Cor. 6.14 †joyning the members of Christ to a Spiritual Harlot by which they two become one Body 1 Cor. 6.15 16. For such a vertue hath this Sacrament as that they become one Body amongst themselves that partake it ‖ 1. Cor. 10.16 17. And by touching the unclean our selves also becoming unclean Lev. 5.2 3. For all those separations under the law of the corporally unclean from the Congregation of the Lord because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord and holy as he is holy Lev. 11.43 44. were only types of the separation which ought to be from such notorious sinners and such false worshippers of him as we here speak of To which the Apostle makes application of them 2 Cor. 6.17 Be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing saith the Lord taken out of Esa 52.11 And hence also taketh he strict order for the separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church especially from the communicating the Sacraments thereof as of a piece of Leaven from a lump unleavened that our Christian Passeover may not be celebrated with such a meslange See 1 Cor. 5.2 5 7 13. Ejection I say or casting them out where the Church hath the power Or her going out from them 2 Cor. 6.17 where they have the power but still a separation there must be else in consorting with them we provoke our Lord to jealousie 1 Cor. 10.22 as if we are not a true and loyal Spouse to Him and
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
fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should erre in matter of Faith I adde to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without Idolatry practice and therein find approbation and reception amongst all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the general approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation Thus he But if here the Doctor be asked why upon these considerations he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents For example all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation held before Luther I suppose his answer is ready because these were not General nor universally accepted But since these were the most General that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction and had also the most universal acceptation that those times could afford unless he would have also the Berengatians the persons condemned in them to accept them an acceptation most unreasonably demanded why do not here also Gods Providence and Promises stand ingaged in compassion to the meek and pious Subjects of the Church that these Councils erre not nor the Christians of those times fall into such a temptation as it must needs be if these the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence as is the committing of Idolatry ever since See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to this it is saith he that Christ is said Eph. 4.12 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i. e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting the Saints into a Church for the building up of the body of Christ confirming and continuing them in all truth that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages 't is every where apparent by Ignatius his Epistles that the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that form of wholsome words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted c. And in his Treatise of Schisme chap. 2. § 10. he speaks in this manner A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due For the Church where his lot is fallen may by Heresie or Schisme stand divided from the Church-Catholick Here he allows depositing of our judgment in deference to our Superiors where the Fundamentals of Faith c. are not concerned But would not one think rather that in these points especially a person to be safe should adhere to the Churches judgment rather than his own Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality Doctor Jackson on the Creed §. 295. n 3. l. 2 § 1 c. 6. p. 175. in stating the Question ‖ p. 170. Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any opinion or action goes on thus Superiors saith he are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine or not of capacity to discern or not of power or place to determine whether they be lawful or no. Again p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion he argues thus Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill that may ensue a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice either for doing or omitting it The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent for here is an indifferency of perswasions But suppose we have not such indifferency yet p. 172 Whilst men of skill and judgment saith he appointed by God to advise in such matters are otherwise perswaded than we in private are the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action wherein heretofore we thought was not And the performance of obedience it self is a good and acceptable action in the sight of God Now what he saith here concering the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion Again Ibid p. 174. True spiritual obedience were it rightly planted in our hearts would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake than to disobey authority for the private dislike of them Both our disobedience i. e. dissent or non-submission of judgment to the one and dislike of the other are unwarrantable unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors and express law of the most High And. c. 4. p. 165. Sundry saith he in profession Protestants in eagerness of opposition to the Papists affirm that the Church or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed then only be obeyed when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart and consciences of such as must believe and obey them And this in one word is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors and to deprive them of all obedience unto whom doubtless God by his word hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars unto which he demands belief or obedience what obedience do men perform unto him more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever he be that can shew us the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all But
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 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 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. 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. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to Church-Authority § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
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
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-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
the Catholick Universe met together there never hath been any but in those which are generally by Protestants as well as Catholicks reputed and admitted for such sometimes we find a greater sometimes a smaller number according to the propinquity of the place the peace of the times the numerosity of Sects c. So the four first General Councils all held in the East by reason of the Heresies they opposed chiefly reigning in that Coast consisted mostly of Oriental Bishops The first General Council of Nice had present in it only 2. Presbyters the Bishop of Rome's Legates and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches The 2d General Council of Constantinople had in it no Occidental Bishop at all but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Council assembled in Rome not long after it The 3d. General Council of Ephesus had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Synod The 4th of Chalcedon had only 4. Legates sent thither from the Bishop of Rome after that the Western Bishops assembled in several Provincial Synods had communicated their judgment to them in the Controversie then agitated and besides these 2. Affrican Bishops and one Sicilian Where note That the 3d. also of these Councils transacted most of their business and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch and his Bishops who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius though afterwards he and his consented also to his Condemnation And that the 4th Council acted all things without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch whom also they deposed for his favouring the Heretical Party and for his Contumacy against the See of Rome See Conc. Chalced. Act 4. Yet all these Councils whether the Bishops personally present were fewer or more were accounted equally valid § 34 from the After-acceptation and admittance of their Decrees by the Prelates absent i. e. the acceptation of such persons as if present had had a Vote in them All which Prelates were they personally present in the Council or the much major part of them there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Catholick or of any other Members thereof to confirm its acts nor are they any way capable thereof because the remainder of the Church diffusive I mean of those who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs must be concluded in their Judgment and Sentence by this supposed much-major part thereof that are personally present in the Council But this wanting the other compleatsits defect And upon such Acceptation it is that the 2d. and the 5th of the Councils called General held at Constantinople without the Pope or his Legat's presence therein yet bear the name of General because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus and his Occidental Council convened not long after it and the latter after some time accepted by Vigilius and his Successors with the Western Bishops as on the contrary for want of such Acceptation the 2 d. Ephâ—sin Council though for its meeting as entire and full as most of the other called Oecumenical yet was never esteemed such because its Decrees though passed by a major part of the present Bishops were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council and by Him and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates out of it § 35 And upon this General Acceptation also inferior Councils may become in their Obligation equivalent to Generall since however the Churches Testimony is received whether conjunctly De Concil l. 2. c. 28. or by parts yet Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis So Bellarmine observes ancient Councils less than General very frequently to have determined matters of Faith Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum paucorum Episcoporum Euseb l. 7. c. 24. nec alii multò plures in toto mundo conquesti sunt sed ratum habuerunt Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum in quo nullus fuit Latinorum Latini probaverunt Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia Milevitanum Carthaginense Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum antequà m adessent Latini Latini voluerunt cognoscere rem gestam cognitam approbaverunt All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them Neither did or ought such inferior Councils when necessitated by contentions and disputes define any such thing hastily or rashly but as they well knew before any such Resolution the common Sentiments of the Church Catholick herein Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts. § 36 Next Concerning the just quality measure and proportion of this after-Acceptation several things are to be well observed 1. 1 st That it is not to be extended in a Latitude of Christianity much greater beyond the bounds of the Church Catholick Which Catholick Church is many times of a narrower compass than the Christian Profession all Heretical and Schismatical Churches I mean such as have made a former discession in Doctrine or external Communion from their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors and being but a part have separated from the former whole standing contradistinct to it So after the Nicene Council in Constantines time the Arrians and in S. Austins time the Donatists were esteemed though Christians yet no Catholicks and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity opposite to them Of which thus S. Austin †Contra Episc Fuâ—d c. 4. Tenerme justissimè in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen quod nomen non sine causâ inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit Therefore upon the growth of many Heresies after the Heathen persecutions ceased instead of these words of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints i.e. in it we read in this Creed as explained by Councils I believe One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church 1. One to distinguish it from many varying Sects pretending also to be true Churches of Christ 2. Holy i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith Manners Sacraments Government Discipline delivered by our Lord and his Apostles and in particular Holy as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness but not Holy so as that some external Members thereof may not be by their own default internally unholy and unsanctified and no true Members of Christ 3. Apostolick i. e Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinations and preserving their Traditions for Doctrine Government and Discipline And therefore here the other Clause the Communion of Saints is omitted as sufficiently included in the former Explication which is observed also by Dr. Hammond of Fundamentals p. 69 83. So in the yet more enlarged Athanasian Creed we find the Catholick Faith used in a restrained sence opposed to all those Heresies that are rejected by
that Creed And to this notion of Church Catholick See in Disc 1. § 37. 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting § 37 2ly This Acceptation in respect of the Catholick Church i e. of those Prelates that be not formerly by any Herefie or Schisme shut out of it cannot rationally be required absolutely universal of all but only of the considerably Major part of them for in a Government not simply Monarchical whether Ecclesiastical or Civil no Laws can be promulgated nor Unity preserved if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part and it hath been shewed at large Disc 2. § 25. which I desire the Reader to review and consider well because much weight is laid upon it that the Decrees of the first 4 General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule and Warrant to posterity Nor otherwise can any new Heresie patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick as the most pernicious Heresies have ever been he ever legally suppressed so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest See what hath been said of this in Disc 1. § 28 38 39. Disc 3. § 11 37. That strict condition therefore which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize and ratifie the Definitions and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation seems not reasonable Namely That after their promulgation at least if not before they should be accepted by each Provincial Council and acknowledged to agree with that Faith which they had originally received of Her § 6. n. 8 12. Or That such Conciliar Declarations should be universally received by all Churches Her § 14. n. 4. because such are saith he Christians and Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome and consequently their Negatives as evident prejudices to and as utterly unreconcileable with an universal affirmative as the Popes can be c. Like to which § 12. n. 6. he argues thus concerning the absence or dissent of any Bishops from a Council That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council I add or when met do consent for if there be any left out why may not the promise be good in them though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council And § 5. n. 3. That if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places it is not qualified for our belief as Catholick in respect of place because the Faith being one and the same and by all and every of the Apostles deposited in all their Plantations what was ever really thus taught by any of them in any Church will also be found to have been taught and received in all other Apostolical Churches And § 10 n. 2 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th General Council not obliging because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council that of Eliberis which is not true yields saith he an irrefragable proof that the Doctrine of the 2 d. Nicene Council was not testified by all the Churches of all ages to be of Tradition Apostolical I say such an universal acceptation as this of every Church or Province seems upon any such pretence unreasonably exacted 1 st Because all Conciliary Definitions are not as he saith there they are only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches planted by them but are many times Determinations of points deduced from and necessarily consequential to such clear Traditionals whether written or unwritten 2ly Because if the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition yet it is possible that some particular Church may in time depart from such a Tradition entrusted unto them else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition and so when their acceptance is asked may refuse to acknowledge what all the rest justisie And all this clearly appears in those Bishops or Churches that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Councils and in the opposition of S. Cyprian and his Bishops concerning Rebaptization § 41 3ly For the manner of this Approbation of such major part It is thought sufficient if it be a tacit and interpretative Approbation only and not positive or express 3. for who can shew this to most allowed Councils Namely when such Decrees being promulgated they signifie no opposition thereto Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ System fidei c. 23. p. 262 Neque tamen dubitandum est quin statim obligare incipiant actus Conciliares si non appareat Ecclesiarum non dico hujus vel illius vel aliquorum protervorum hominum reclamatio nam praesumendum est omnes consensisse si non constet oppositum ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula ubi post alia dicit Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit necessariò credendum est And thus Dr. Hammond of Heres § 6. n. 15.16 When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on it is then promulgated to all and the universal though but tacit approbation and reception thereof the no considerable contradiction given to it in the Church is a competent evidence that this is the judgment and concordant Tradition of the whole Church though no resolution of Provincial Synods which was used before some General Councils hath preceded But if their Acts are contradicted and protested against this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council And Archbishop Lawd § 26. p. 195. saith It is a sufficient confirmation to a General Council if after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The whole Church admit it saith he And the whole say we or such a major part of the whole as ought to conclude the rest Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity to such Decrees in mens profession and practice For it is all reason that where we cannot have Quod creditum est ubique ab omnibus semper by reason of some divisions in the Church we hold to what is nearest it quod creditum est in pluribus locis à pluribus diutius or antiquiùs For the plures pluribus locis joined in one Communion with the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church here on earth are the securest Expositors to us of quod antiquius or quod creditum semper See Disc 3. § 11. 4ly For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council or only to some § 42 whilst some other Decrees are disclaimed as sometimes happens Here also 4. so far as a due Acceptation is extended so far is our Obligation nor can any reasonably argue that if some Acts of a Council are by some after-opposition rendred invalid therefore no other things pâ—ssed in that
now you may see the reason of what Soave said above and the great point the Protestants had gained if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil though that Form names with the Scriptures Concilia Doctores praxin Apostolicam primitivae Ecclesiae for the judge of Controversies But why is the Tridentine Council so averse you will say that Scripture only should be the Judge or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion For this reason because when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture as mostly it is it is fit the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein or else what end can be of such Controversie when those against whom the Councils declare shall so often say the Councils declare against the Scriptures i. e. their sense of them But here it is sufficient that though the Safe-conduct as to the way which the Protestants demanded of the trial of their Doctrines was excepted against of which more by and by yet as to the security of their persons it was unquestioned Thus much from § 82. that no deficiency in the Summons place or Safe-conduct hath rendred this Council illegal or non-obliging CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishops or Popes being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Popes being Judge § 122. § 105 8 ly NEither doth the Oath 8. that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope hinder this Council consisting of those Bishops from being a free legal and obliging Council The sum of which Oath is Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae Domino meo Papae N. ejusque Successoribus Canonice intrantibus Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae Regulas Sanctorum Patrum adjutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnem Hominem Regulas Sanctorum Patrum or Regalia Sancti Petri as it is in later Pontificals which Regalia I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in or near them as also non ero in Consilio ut vitam perdat and several other Passages in the Oath seem to be Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere angere promovere curabo Nec ero in Consilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliquae sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris status potestatis eorum machinentur § 106 1. Where note first That it is the ordinary 1 and customary Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Council and that it is for substance the same oath as hath been usually sworn in former ages precedent to many other Councils without being complained of or conceived any way to abridge their Liberties Nor is it now a grievance save to such as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights § 107 2 ly That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours 2. is required by the Reformed themselves and every Bishop in the Church of England at his Consecration takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop and the Metropolitan Church and their Successors And though in a thing so far as it is granted lawful it matters not how new is the practice yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patriarchy hath been also anciently used See the order in Conce Tolâ—t 11. can 10. Omnes Pontifices Rectoresque Ecclesiarum tempore quo ordinandi sunt sub cautione promittant ut fidem Catholicam custodiant atque obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi dependant where why omnes Pontifices praeeminenti sibi may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch as of the Metropolitan I see nothing to hinder And see apud Baron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man and other Bishops of those times at their Ordination Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps vicarioque tuo B. Gregorio Papae successori ejus me omnem fidem puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibere in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere Again Fidem puritatem meam atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae i e. Petri cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi solvendique data est praedicto vicario tuo atque Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist l. 10. ep 31. Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus sub anathematis Obligatione promitto sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus vicario Beato Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem haec Sancta 4or Evangelia c. where though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it ‖ See Stillinsl p. 490. yet the word promitto sancti Petri Apostolorum Principis vicario me in Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum in this as also me fidem atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturumâ— in the precedent Form include a fidelity and subjection to St. Peter's Chair and that the Bishops in those ancient dayes sware no less to continue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome than in the unity of the Catholick Church Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable and therefore in the same Form it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae and those who desert it are said to depart à radice unitatis Now this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case why may it not be so at another time And if this Council of Trent by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope may not be thought Free to proceed against any disorders in this See neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths since that Toletan Council since Gregories or Winfrids times be thought so § 108 3 ly Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience only to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require Donec Pontifex est dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum sacros Canones jubere potest sed non jurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in Concilio vel
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
partly by other abuses not provided against by any former laws and now growing intolerable In all which matters a much better face of Ecclesiastical affairs appears at present through the Influence which this Council hath had upon the succeeding times And much have those ungrateful Detractors to answer to God by whom the Good of this great Body of the most sacred of Magistrates hath been not only so little acknowledged but so evil spoken of § 207 It would be too tedious to recite to you all the particular Acts of this Council wherein it hath repaired the former decayes but perhaps not unnecessary in such an ungrateful age to relate and clear some of the chiefest The manners and customs of the Church that chiefly in those times were imagined to give cause of just complaint seem to be 1 st Concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. α. The Avocation of so many Causes and admission of so many Appeales without ascent as formerly through inferior Courts especially those of Diocesan and Provincial Synods β. And the reservation of so many Licences and Dispensations to the Apostolick See and Court of Rome These not to be prosecuted or procured without great charge Nor the Judge at so great a distance capable of so true and exact informations either touching the person or cause 2. γ. The Popes Collation of Bishopricks and other spiritual Benefices in forraine States where the Merits of such persons as are most fit and capable of them are little known to him 3. δ. The imposing of Pensions on such spiritual Benefices ε. or giving them in Commenda ζ. Or uniting many of them into one without any necessity So to furnish Favourites with a superfluous wealth and hidden Pluralities 4. η. The Exemptions of so many persons and Societies from Episcopal Jurisdictions which Bishops by their vicinity of Residence are the fittest rectifiers of all disorders 5. θ Several abuses committed by the Persons publishing Indulgences and collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses § 208 I name not here amongst these Grievances the Popes Annats in lieu of the Tenths of Tithes or other constant supports received from the inferior Clergy out of the several States of the Westerne Church because it neither seemed just to the Council to deprive him of them nor to the Secular Princes in their many Articles of Reformation proposed to request it See those of the Emperor Soave p. 513. of the King of France p. 652. as they well seeing that it was necessary for this General Father of the Church both to have wherewith to maintain so many Officers in his service whether at home or abroad as the Church affairs passing through his hands required and wherewith also to reward their pains And if the ancient Bishops of Rome managed these great affairs with a much smaller Revenue yet it must be granted 1. Both that much less was then necessary by reason as well of the much narrower extent of Christendome as also of the union of most of it in those times under one Secular Power the Emperour whereas now the preservation of the unity of Catholick Faith and necessary correspondence between the Members of this Church so much more diffused and residing in so many States of a contrary temper gives much more trouble and charge to the supream Head thereof And 2ly Must be granted also That by the want then of the present subsistence whilst the Pope was the Emperors temporal Subject both many inconveniences and injuries were suffered and many Benefactions hindered This of the Complaints concerning the Pope and his Court. 2. Concerning the Clergy 1. unfit persons elected into Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Benefices § 209 without a sufficient pre-examination of their learning and manners 2. λ. Pluralities of Benefices where these singly afford a maintenance sufficient whilst other worthy persons are destitute and the mis-expence of such ample Church-Revenue on their Secular Relations 3. μ. Non-Residence where having the care or charge of souls 4. ν In their Residence Neglect of frequent Preaching and Catechising And Their not celebrating at least part of the Divine Service nor teaching the ignorant the Mysteries of Religion in the vulgar tongue 5. ξ. Their being restrained from marriage and in Celibacy their frequent incontinency and violation of Chastity 6. Ï€ Their withholding the Communion of the Cup both from the Laity and themselves when not officiating 7. Ï. Their too common use of Excommunication applying many times the severest of the Churches Censures to the smallest Delinquencies 8. σ. To which may be added the many disorders then observed in Regulars and Monasticks 9. Ï„. The correction necessary of several things in the Missals and Breviaries and bringing them to a greater uniformity § 210 Concerning these and several other grievances see the Articles of Reformation proposed by the Emperors Agents before the 21. and 24. Sessions in Soave p. 513 and 751 and by the French before the 23. Session in Soave 632. These therefore the Council took into due consideration and rectified what they judged amiss * so far as that Iron-age would permit of which the Council thus complains Sess 25. De Reform Regul c. 21. Adeo dura difficilùque est praesentium temporum conditio ut nec statim omnibus nec commune ubique quod optaret remedium posset adhiberi and * so far as the National parties in the Council inured to several customes and injoying different priviledges without the making of a schisme could agree upon rectified I say so far as their Ordinations strengthened with severe penalties could do it But the constant execution of these depends on others whose diligence or supineness herein must needs produce in the Church contrary effects and also the necessity of leaving their Canons upon just occasions all which no law can fit dispensable must also leave open a passage to such Governours as are corrupt or negligent of doing this without a reasonable cause § 211 1st Then for those matters that concern the Pope and Court of Rome See the many Decrees in this Council wherein the Bishops are substituted as perpetual and standing Delegates of the Apostolick See for the Execution of them and the former Reservations remitted though this to the great diminution of the Revenue of the Pope and his Officers as hath been said †Such Decrees are § 205 Sess 5. c. 1 2. De Reform Sess 6. c. 4. Sess 7. c. 6. Sess 13. c. 5. Sess 21. c. 5 8. Sess 22. c. 5.8 Sess 24. c. 11. And very many others In which matter though the Bishops are impowred as Delegates of the See Apostolick because the point whether Bishops hold their Jurisdictions as to the exterior and forensick exercise thereof in and over such particular things and persons immediatly from Christ or from the Pope was indeed much agitated in the Council but on no side determined Yet so it is that a possession they have now of several branches of such Jurisdiction since
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
esteemed this a sufficient and lawful Communion and no way offending against any command of our Lord enjoying the contrary 2ly It is a thing not denied by Protestants that Christ now no more divisible is totally contained in or exhibited by every particle of either Symbol 3ly These things supposed the Council maintains Ib. c. 12. that the Church did not change the former ordinary custom of receiving in both kinds without great and just cause moving her thereto 4ly But yet the Council grants also That some just Motives there may be for restoring the use of the Cup especially as to some particular places or persons and lastly referreth the judgment of these and Concession of it to the Pope's prudence the impediment that no such Dispensation was conceded by the Council it self upon so much importunity used by several Princes who having their States much imbroiled with new Sects hoped by this way to give them some satisfaction being this That the Fathers in the Council did not unanimously concur in the same judgment but the Spanish Bishops chiefly made great opposition to it as they not having the same motives which others for such an alteration and much fearing least some Division might happen between National Churches from the Communion celebrated in a several manner †See Soave p. 459 Neither were the rest willing to pass such an act with the displeasure of so considerable a party Though if we may believe Soave the Legats of the Pope then Pius Fourth who of himself also was well inclined to grant it ‖ See Soave p. 459. laboured much for the Concession of it †Soave p. 567. Of which Concession these conditions also were proposed by some in the Council †Soave p. 525. That the Cup should never be carried out of the Church and that the bread only should be sufficient for the sick that it should not be kept to take away the danger of its sowring that they should use little pipes to avoid effusion as was formerly done in the Roman Church And when it could not be passed in the Council Pro being strongly opposed as was said by the Spanish Bishops and others where the Reformed Religion had taken no root it was with much diligence by the same Legats procured that it should not be voted contra but referred to the Pope and this reference also first was drawn up with a clause of the Councils approbation of the Concession thereof if he so pleased in this manner ‖ Apud Pallav l. 18 c. 7. n. 13. That since the Council could not at present determine such affair They remitted it to the judgment of his Holiness who premising the diligences that he thought fit should either with the Conditions forementioned or some other according to his prudence allow the use thereof if it should seem good to him with the vote and approbation of the Council But neither would such clause pass See Soave p. 569. But to the Pope at last it was referred unbyassed any way by the Council to do that in it Quod utile Reipublicae Christianae salutare petentibus usum Calicis fore judicaverit †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. fin § 242 And so it was that after the Council ended the Pope upon the Petition of the Emperour and some others ‖ Soave p. 823. granted the use of the Cup to some parts of Germany Though this practice not having such effect as was hoped for reducing Sectarists as who differed from Catholicks in so many other points for which though they seem to have less pretence yet they did retain in them no less obstinacy neither did it continue long amongst the Catholicks who desired in this matter to conform to the rest of the Church The same practice was likewise indulged formerly by the Popes to the Greeks in Polonia to the Maronites and others reconciled to the Church of Rome that they should still receive the Sacrament in both kinds after their former manner viz. the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood and both delivered them out of the Chalice in a Spoon Indulged also by Pope Paul the Third †Soave p. 293 â—â—4 in the Cessation of the Council to those in Germany who should humbly demand it nor did condemn the Churches contrary practice and so that it were done neither in the same time nor place with that Communion which is given by decree of the Church this caution I suppose being inserted to avoid the offence which others communicating only in one kind might take thereto Indulged also formerly to the Bohemians and Moravians by the Council of Basil See Histor Bohem. apud Aeneam Silvium c. 52. His Boemis Moravis qui consuevissent sub binâ specie panis scilicet vini divinae Eucharistiae communicare licebit And should any Pope or Council restore the use of the Cup generally to the whole Church yet can this no way infer any variation of the Churches Faith or Confession of her former Error For in such matters of practice where no divine precept confineth us to any side the doing one thing is far from inferring a confession of the unlawfulness of having done the contrary unless the Pope or Council should restore the Cup upon this reason because our Lord hath expresly commanded it But then as this would shew a fault so it would no less condemn the practice of antiquity than the present §. 243. n. 1. To To The too much frequency of Excommunication See the Provision made by the Council against it Sess 25. De Reform Gener. c. 3. Excommunication to be forborn where any other punishment effective can be inflicted To σ. To σ. Disorders of Monasticks See the reformation of them delivered Sess 25. in 22. Chapters Wherein amongst other things it is ordered * That frequent Visitations be made of such Houses for the strict obâ—ervance of their Rule and for this purpose those Houses formerly subjected immediatly to the Pope are submitted to the Bishop as his Delegat * That none living in any such Houses retain any Propriety nor any superfluous expence be made therein not suiting to the vow of Poverty * That Monasticks never depart from their Convent for the service of any place or person or any pretence of other imployment whatsoever without a Licence obtained in writing from their Superior otherwise to be punished by the Bishop as Desertors of their Profession * That none shall have leave to wear their habit secretly None be permitted to depart from an Order more strâ—ct to one of more liberty * That the Bishop take care That any offending scandalously out of his Convent receive due punishment * That all Superiours and Officers be elected by secret scrutiny * That no Estate or Goods of any Novice save for his food and apparel be received by any Monastery before his Profession that so after his Noviceship ended he may retain a perfect freedom to depart
Synodica ad Antiochenses And Epist. ad ubiq Orthodoxes S. Austin De verâ Religione c. 5. S. Hilary lib. contra Arrian S. Basil Epist 293. to some Egyptian Bishops And see in Theodoret ‖ Hist l. 2. c. 17. the jealous deportment of the Romans towards Felix who substituted by the Arrian Emperor in Liberius his place sent into banishment Tametsi saith Theodoret fidem in Concilio Nicaeno expositam ipse servavit integram tamen quia cum illis qui eandem labefactare studebant libere communicarit nemo ex Romae habitatoribus in Ecclesiam dum ille intus erat ingredi voluit And this resolution signified to Constantius happily procured the return of Liberius This of the Declaration of the Church against any such liberty of Christian Communion where soever our Secular interest or Education may be apt to fix us 3. But were there no such bars put in against it by the Scriptures or H. Church yet this were enough to disswade it § 288 that by remaining in any such separated Society either we are put to practice several things contrary to a right Faith and good manners and offensive to a a good Conscience or at least necessitated to forego the practice of many other things beneficial not to say necessary which are to be injoyed only in the Communion of this Catholick Church not so in others For a particular Catalogue of which not to be here too tedious I refer you to the Preface before the former Discourses touching the Guide in Controversies and to the conclusion of the third Discourse § 155 c. Lastly as for that internal Communion with the Church which it granted some who want the external may nevertheless injoy or the security of a votum where is an actual defect of the participation of its Sacraments that some may have they seem no way to such persons as those who are not by force hindred of her Communion but invited to it do voluntarily deprive themselves And partaking the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing to us where de facto we may have them and de facto do refuse them And then what other advantages can there be that can make us satisfaction for such a loss I will conclude this point with the Declaration sent to the followers of the Donatists some of whom for their stay in that Sect urged this very excuse we are now speaking to Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit by S. Austin and the rest of the Provincial Council at Cirta in Numidia presently after that famous Conference with them at Carthage A. D. 411. †S. August Epist 152 Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesia fuerit separatus amongst whom they reckoned the Sect of the Donatists quantumlibet laudabiliter se vivere existimet hoc solo scelere quod à Christi unitate disâ—unctus est non habebit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum And as for the Sacraments received in that separation Sacramenta Christi say they though celebrated in the same manner with them as in the Church in sacrilegio schismatis ad judicium habetis quae utilia salutaria vobis erunt cum in Catholicâ pace habueritis Caput Christum ubi charitas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Thus much I fear not needlesly I have taken occasion from § 283. to set down in opposition to that irrational Fancy Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit not knowing but that this Discourse may meet with some Readers not much averse from such a perswasion For by the foresaid Arts of the Will mens Judgments are too apt to digest opinions very gross where the Secular advantages by these are very great 2. Thus much considered by a Judgment set at liberty in order to the first Art of the Will to deceive it Viz. It s keeping the Judgment in much ignorance as to the Divine matters and to a cold indifferency as to parties and diverting it wholy to other matters Next as to the Second mentioned before § 275. namely applying it indeed to the learning of these Truths but this only from those Authors and Instructors that are of its own party a rectified Judgment will as freely conclude and resolve That all those who are not well settled upon this Basis of Church Authority and so by a resign'd obedience have prevented all disputes ought rather in making such a quest after Divine Truth in so many Controversies agitated between parties and in chusing their Religion to apply themselves for learning it to the reading of those Books and Authors and discoursing with those persons who oppose the tenents in which they have been educated and to which all Secular or carnal advantages do incline them that thus they may bring things to some equipoise and having first heard the plea of both sides be able to make a truer Judgment And if in the issue neither side do seem to preponderate should chuse rather that to which their interest seems more averse for they may well imagine that men are ordinarily so far partial to their own sides that they would not think both equal unless that against 〈◊〉 were over weight and that a crooked staff to be made streight must be bent the contrary way And upon this such Judgment also will consider That since our first perswasions in Religion and the particular sect thereof wherein we live are not taken up upon our own choice but anothers who having some command over us anticipate our judgment and educate us in what opinions they please hence it is that our constancy and perseverance even sometimes to the loss of Estate and Life to whatever we thus casually first light on called by the name of Fidelity and love of Truth and the contrary perfidiousness and Apostacy is indeed before we have examined things better only a rash and inconsiderat Obstinacy and that on the contrary in prudence every one ought to put himself in a great indifferency to change those first principles he is thus seasoned and possessed with as he shall by new experience find cause and to esteem that only Constancy in his Religion i. e. in his true serving of God to alter every day and that through a thousand Secular obstacles to any thing wherein he conceives he may serve him better As in our manners when any way deficient we do this without reproach Yet further will consider since as hath been shewed there is but one Communion of all those various Sects in which promiscuously the Education of Christian Youth happens to be moulded namely that which adheres to the Supreme Church-Authority that is Catholick and truly disingaged of Schism That all those who find themselves to live under such Superiors as are broken off and stand divided from their Superiors and condemned by them ought to entertain a great jealousie of their present state and not acquiesce in any such Government at adventure but presently to reduce their subjection to
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
called God and shewed himself as though he were God if we may understand these expressions of the Apostle coucerning this later enemy of God and his Church as we do those of the Prophets whence they were borrowed concerning those ancient ones The King of Babylon and the King of Tyre and Antiochus Epiphanes of whom like things are spoken there Of the King of Babylon thus the Prophet Esay †c. 14.13 14. Thou didst say in thine heart I will ascend into heaven above the Stars of God will I exalt my throne I will sit in the Mount of the Testament the Temple I will ascend above the height of the clouds and be like to the Highest Of the King of Tyre thus the Prophet Ezech. †c. 28.2 Thou hast said I am God and have sitten in the chair of God c. and ver 6. Thy heart is elevated as the heart of God And of Antiochus thus the Prophet Daniel †c. 11.36 37. That he should elevate and magnifie himself against every God and against the God of Gods speak magnificent things That the God of his Fathers he should not account of neither care for any of the Gods Yet in the fulfilling of these Prophesies their exaltations and blasphemies who still had some Deity whom they externally professed to adore their Empires and Tyrannies over the Saints are no way comparable to those of the present Mahometan Empire and this Son of Ismael's presuming to exalt himself above the Son of God Christ our Lord who is over all things God Blessed for ever Lastly ‖ Rom. 9.6 * who hath effected all his Projects with the greater success and less disturbance or jealoufie of Christians because one part of them out of a particular interest and intestine quarrels misapply the Prophesies to another Person Another part from the high expressions of them which are usually very Hyperbolical expect yet greater matters than have been discovered in him or probably shall be in any other However I think He that soberly weighs the things said before will see what little reason Protestants have had to arraigne and condemn the Bishop of Rome the chief Pastor of Christs Flock for this great false Prophet and mean while to absolve and dismiss this Barrabas To whom the New Testament Prophesies seem to agree with much exactness but no way to suit to the other CHAP. XVI Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. § 316 I Have spoken hitherto of the first of the two Guards mentioned before § 27◠which Protestants use to defeat obedience to the Council of Trent or any other though proved never so legal or supreme viz. the obligation to follow their Conscience against any humane Authority even though this Conscience be erroneous To which hath been replied That such obligation granted yet there is no general security to any one in this practice because of another obligation precedent to this namely his duty first rightly to inform his Conscience so that whensoever the first is neglected the latter excuseth not And then For the rectifying this information of Conscience which requires our greatest care I have set down § 274 275 277. the three common deceits the interested Will useth to corrupt or misguide the Conscience or Judgment as it pleaseth namely 1. Either by hindring the Judgment from any search of such matters of Religion and wholy diverting it to other imployments whereby it may become more pliable to any impression in these spiritual matters which secular interest recommends 2. Or by indulging a search into such matters but this preingaged and confined to a Party 3. Or by admitting an impartial search into all sides But this only as to arguments drawn from seeming Reason but not as to those other drawn from the just weight of present or past Church-Authority All which Arts and Deceits of the Will have been seriously reflected on and censured the first in § 281 c. The second § 289 c. The third § 291 c. And so a well-informed Conscience reduced to obedience of Church-Authority in all spiritual matters at least such or so many wherein it acknowledgeth no absolute Certainty of its own opimions § 317 Now of the second Guard or Defence mentioned before § 271. against obedience to a legal Church-Authority used by those Protestants who see the weak plea of a misinformed conscience which every gross error makes use of and who seem more respectful and wary to preserve their duty to their spiritual Superiors viz. Where persons have a certainty that such Church-Authority manifestly errs Which certainty they say any one may presume of so often as he can demonstrate the contrary of what is mainteined by this Authority The trial of which Demonstration also whether it be a true one they say is thus certainly discovered if so many others as hear it and understand the terms are also satisfied and convinced by it for such a fence against false Demonstrations the more judicious Protestants have made against the Puritans and those who have pretended manifest errors in and so refused obedience to their own Provincial or National Synods § 318 In answer to this Second Defence First It may be noted here That all persons not-certain are by this plea left to Church-Obedience Secondly These things concerning Certainty shall freely be granted unto them 1. That who is certain of any thing neither ought nor indeed possibly can yield the obedience of Assent to any Authority whatever proposing the contrary nor may profess to yield it for this is lying and acting
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in
Body not by a meer joyning it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by his first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there Thus Greeks and Latines ormer and latter times §. 321. n. 20. will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Tranubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Vnion Hypostatical * Christ s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lords or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivisicating virtue of Christs natural body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only not to the Symbols * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lords Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same Body this with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say But this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated But only in the former sence i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it the same If such be their sence the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sence this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8 th Observation M. Claud's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it 9 ly After this §. 321. n. 21 He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neithâ—r Believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presâ—â—ce is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to Him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latines nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines p. 375. because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latines never to have accused the Greeks as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Teneâ—t which they never formerly contested and of an errour in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latines and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very begining of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons 10 ly Hitherto §. 321. n 22. from § 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1 st He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claud's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2 ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8 p 416. The Author
is equivalent to this Let all those eat my flesh and drink my blood that will have life It seems most reasonable 1. That such Precept be extended to all Communions whatever as well those private or domestick as the publick since in both possible to be observed For there occurs nothing in our Lords words distinguishing these Communions one from another or ordering a receit of the Cup in the one which shall be left at liberty in the other And so by such sence of Scripture as we have said the practice of Antiquity is condemned 2. That it be extended as to the receiving in both kinds so to the receiving them apart and to the drinking of the one as the eating of the other For the Scripture is no more express for the receiving of the blood than it is for receiving it separated by it self and for drinking of it By which the practice of the Eastern Churches is condemned who receive the Symbole of Christs Body only intinct in the Blood 3. Especially from that text in c. 6. John 53. That this precept be extended to all persons for whom we expect eternal life and so to Infants Therefore the communicating of them also in both kinds or one at least was a custom used in Antiquity Yet such a necessity by vertue of any Scripture-precept Protestants together with Catholicks deny and both desist from such a practice § 326 Again several other Texts we find in Scripture that may seem to have the force of Universal Precepts as much as any concerning communicating in both kinds As Act. 15.29 for abstaining from Blood and things strangled Luke 6.30 Of him that takes away your Goods ask them not again and Give to every one that asketh Matt. 6 17. When you fast wash your face and anoint your head c. 5.34 Swear not at all Matt. 23 9. Call no man your Father on the earth neither be ye called Masters The Quakers Precepts Salute one another with a kiss of charity or an holy kiss frequent in the Apostle Rom 16.16 1 Cor. 16 20. 2 Cor. 13.12 1 Thess 5.26 I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Jo. 13.14 for the Clergies washing feet before the Communion Do this unlimited in St. Luke 22.19 for any Christian whatever his breaking bread or consecrating and distributing the communion If any be sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up not that every sick person that the Apostles prayed over should be cured and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him James 5.14 15. urged as enjoyning extreme unction § 327 Now notwithstanding the shew of strict and universal Precepts yet in the understanding and practising of all these save the last Protestants conform to the judgment of former and present Church And in the last though Catholicks think themselves obliged to receive it as a Precept and accordingly practice yet Protestants deny the one and forbear the other Lastly some Protectants there be and those of note that deny any peremptory precept or command in Scripture as in these so in those urged for Communion sub utraque species * Vbi jubentur in Scripturis saith Bishop Montague †Origin Eccl. p. 396. Infantes baptizari aut Caenam Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare Sexcenta sunt ejusmodi c. de quibus possumus profiteri Nil tale docet scriptura * Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are receiv'd and honoured by us Now such are these which follow The historical Tradition concerning the numbers and dignity of the Books of Canonical Scripture The Catholick exposition of many sentences of holy Scripture Which indeed unless received there will be no conviction or cure of Heresies and Schismes Baptism of Infants observation of the Lords day The service of the Church in a known tongue the tongues used by the Apostolical times for God's publick Service the Church still continues unchanged The delivering of the Holy Communion to the people in both kinds i. e. for publick communions For as for private ancient Tradition many times practised otherwise * Spalatens de Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 6. Dico non esse adeo sub praecepto ut Eucharistia in cibo in potu semper à fidelibus sumatur quin ex gravi seu privatâ privatorum causâ possit cum fructu licite etiam sub solo pane sumi c. And indeed in the omnes added to Bibite Matt. 26. it seems clear that our Lord had no particular intention thereby to prescribe what every Christian was necessarily to practice because the Manducate as necessary as the Bibite is pronounced without an omnes But only to shew what he would have to be done at that time by all the other Apostles as well as by him whom he first delivered the Cup to For whereas several portions of the bread were severally given to every one of them Yet the Cup was delivered only to one from whom it was to be handed successively to all the rest and divided amongst them all Therefore St. Luke instead of omnes hath Take this and divide it among your selves § 328 In this point then the main Trial seems to be Whether Antiquity did indeed use such a practice as on several occasions where inconveniences happened of giving it in both to communicate persons in one kind only Which if found true it would be too great a temerity and boldness in a Protestant to alledge certainly or pretend Demonstration of the sense of any Text of Scripture contrary to that wherein both the present and ancient Church hath understood and interpreted it Especially as I said when these they stile Demonstrations do not convince others or if notwithstanding this they be good and sufficient Demonstrations then must they be so too for mâ—â—y other Texts named before as well as for these touching communion to impose the same sence and universal preceptive force on them Yet against which sence Protestants are necessitated to concur in their judgment with Catholicks nay proceed further to deny some to be Precepts which Catholicks accept for such § 329 This Digression from § 320. I have made as hoping it might be beneficial to shew in some Controversies of consequence what small Foundation Protestants have to pretend Certainty and Demonstration against the former Church's Doctrine To which in the last place I may add that such pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority suffers a greaâ— prejudice from that which S. Austin hath observed that it is a plea used by all Hereticks Hoc facium saith he †Enarrat in Psal 8. Haeretici universi vetant credere Ecclesiâ proponente incognita certam scientiam pollicentur And he saith †De
utilitate Cred. c. 1. that he was enticed by the Sect of the Manichees on this account because they promised Se terribili authoritate separatâ merâ simplici rations or as afterward magna quadam praesumptione pollicitatione rationum cos qui se audire vellent introducturos ad Deum erroreomni liberaturos And Se nullum premere ad fidem nisi prius discussâ enodatâ veritate And again †Ibid c. 9. Eos Catholicam Ecclesiam eo maxime criminari quod illis qui ad eam veniunt praecipitur ut credâ—nt se autem non jugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriari And therefore he saith in his Retract l. 1. c. 14. That upon this he writ against this presumption of their's his Book De utilitate Credendi Or Of the benefit of ones believing Church-Authority This from § 318. of the weak Grounds Protestants have of pretending Certainty against Church Authority § 330 2 But next Suppose a person may be infallibly certain of and can truly demonstrate something the contrary of which Church-Authority delivers as certain yet if this certainty be only of such a Truth from the knowledge of which ariseth no great benefit to Christians or to the Church or at least not so much benefit as weighed in the ballance will preponderat this other benefit of conserving the Churches peace Here again these Demonstrators Protestants also being Judges are to yield to Church-Authority the obedience of silence and non-contradiction and are to keep such Truth to themselves and not to disturb the publick peace after any thing defined to the contrary by divulging it to others § 331 In vindication of such obedience thus Dr. Potter ‑ It is true when the Church hath declared her self in any matter of opinions or of rites her Declaration obligeth all her children to peace and external obedience nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Where he saith also That by his factiously opposing this his own judgment to the publick he may become an Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false After him Bishop Brambal thus †Schism guarded p. 2. That Church and much more that person which shal not outwardly acquiesce after a legal Determination and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And Vindic. of Church of England p. 27. When inferior Questions saith he not fundamental are â—nce defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience and they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Doctor Fern Division of Churches p. 81. requiring conformity of Sectaries to the Church of England argues thus If Sectaries shall say to us You allow us to use our reason and judgement in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction not to abuse it against the Church But we do not abuse it say they but have consulted our Guides and used all means we can for satisfaction We tell them You must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church and next having modestly propounded it attend the judgment thereof But what if after all this go against them To which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yield an external peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it Thus he states the point Now such an external peaceable subjection and obedience as hath been often said if it were well observed stops all Reformations as to these points that are found of less consequence the Demonstrators Truth must die with him Nor thus will any Disciples be drawn from the Church or their Pastors to follow Strangers § 232 Next To know whether the truth they are so certain of be also of so great weight as that the Churches peace and external unity is to be broken rather than such a Truth strangled or lost what less thing also can secure them for this that it is a Truth of much importance than that which secures them of their certainty that it is a Truth namely a Demonstration hereof Now the Evidences Protestants have brought either of the one or the other either that such Church-Doctrines are errors or if so errors of great consequence have been heard and considered by Church-Authority And these by it neither thought errors intollerable nor errors at all But if Church-Authority may not interpose here and every one may rely on his own particular Judgment when truths or errors are of moment when not who is there when his thoughts are wholy taken up with a thing and he totus in illo and perhaps besides troubled with an itch that that knowledge of his which he esteems extraordinary should be communicated and that se scire hoc sciat alter will not thus induce himself to think the smallest matters great Lastly concerning truths of much importance let this also be considered Whether that which is so much pretended by the Reformed that the Holy Scriptures are clear in all Divine Truths necessary doth not strongly argue against them that none of those things wherein they gain-say the Church are matters much important or necessary Because all these Scriptures clear in necessaries will surely be so to the Church as well as to them As they grant these Scriptures to be generally as to all persons perspicuous in all those common points of faith that are not at all controverted § 333 3. But let this also be allowed That the error of Church-Authority is not only manifest but that it both is and is certainly known to be in a point most important and necessary and that neither the obedience of assent nor yet of silence or non-contradiction ought to be yielded to Church-Authority therein yet all this granted will not justifie or secure any in their not yielding a third obedience meerly passive viz. a quiet submission to the Churches censures however deemed in such a particular case unjust Whereby if this censure happen to be Excommunication he is patiently to remain so as who in such case injoyes still the internal communion of the Church though he want the external till God provide for the vindication of Truth and his Innocency But by no means to proceed further to set up or joyn himself to an external communion apart and separated from that of his Superiors and such a communion as either refuseth any conjunction with them or at least is prohibited and excluded by them which must alwaies be schismatical as being that of a Part differing from the Whole or of Inferiors divided from their Canonical Superiors by which now that Party begins to lose that internal Communion of the Church also which when unjustly excommunicated and acquiescing therein he still
enjoyed Of which persons thus S. Austin †De vera Relig. c. 6. Saepe sinit divina Providentia expelli de congregatione Chrstianâ etiam bonos virâ—s quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum paticuâ—â—ssime pro ecclâ—siae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel schismatis i. e. segregationis conventiculorum as he explains it afterward vel haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quam vero affectu quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns And De Baptism l. 1. c. 17. of such persons he saith Ibi magis probantur quum si intus permaneant only with this exception Cum adversus ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur sed in solidâ unitatis petrâ fortissimae charitatis robore radicantur Thus he in the defence of such § 334 But If an unjust Excommunication should further warrant any to erect Anti-communions and then a private person may also pass sentence of such injastice against the Church who sees not that this pulls down the whole structure of Church-Government and fills it full of schisms and is the same in the Church as this would be in the Civil State if a Subject unjustly condemned to some mulct or imprisonment should presently raise and head an Army against the Prince and with it detain from him some part of his Dominions No man is authorized by suffering injustice to do it § 335 See Christian Reader how many bars are set to keep us within such a degree of subjection to the Church as prevents Schism 1 If we are of those that do not profess certainty of the contrary to that which the Church teacheth as the most of Christans are such here Protestants †See §. 295 agree that we owe the obedience of assent and submission of judgment to the supremest known Church-Authority that presides over us 2 But next suppose we pretend certainty of a Truth against this Authority yet in case this truth be not of much concernment Here Protestants ‖ See §. 331. consent that we are to yield the obedience of silence and non-contradiction to it 3 But if the Truth be of moment and so supposed that neither silence may be used herein yet are we still tied at least to yield a third sort of obedience a passive one to the Churches censures even to that of Excommunication though supposed unjust without erecting or resorting to any Anti-Communion to that of our Superiors and of the whole i. e. the Communion Catholick 4 And then whatever degree of obedience a Person well considering these things shall judge due to be yielded to Church-Authority in General I hope the former Discourse by clearing the Legality of it hath justly vindicated to the Council of Trent 5 And this Council once submitted to infers as to all the principal modern Controversies an universal Settlement and Peace Now the great Pastor and Bishop of Souls in an accptable time â— Pet. 2.25 bring home all those Sheep that are yet going astray and hearken to the voice of Strangers into the happy Communion of all his Saints That there may be one Fould and one Shepherd unus Dominus una Fides unum Corpus Jo. 10.16 Eph. 4 â— 5 To Him Allpowerful and Good and the constant lover of his Spouse the Church be given all Glory and Praise in the same his Church forever Amen FINIS ERRATA Page 8. line 19 dele 9. 2. read formed 16. marg r Milevit 28.40 r Catholick 41. r. National 36 marg r. § 34. c. 37 marg r. § 37. 38 marg r. § 38. 39 marg r. § 40. 47 marg r. 667. 79 marg r n. 102. â—6 23 r. Trent 128.3 r. would 136.20.1 obstructions 137.6 r. fifth 149.29 r. Politician 153.25 r. Olaus 26. r. Vpsal 160.23 r. which was established 171.26 r. Hebraei 198.5 r. testimonialibus decimam tantum unius aures Ib. 8. r. Emolumentum ex eisdem ordinum 200. marg r. Agathens 216.13 r so both a 220.40 r. To aâ— 1 see 221. 6. r. To â— 2 § 164. 239.9 r. Rusticks those p. 240. 33. r. Ceriuthus 241.22 r. Caput unum 242.31 dele if we are 245.40 r. it is 246.31 r. to divine 246.19 t schismatis 249.34.34 r. 1st That 251.4 r. Terentianum Maurum 257. marg r Bezam 258.1 r. summi 259. marg r. guarded Ib. marg r. Answ to 264.29 r. in the 164.41 r. iis me 265.23 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi cerei 265.26 r. proferam 266.21 r. consultius 268. marg dele § 207 and § 297. Ib. 19. dele Praestantium virorum Epistolae 273.32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 281.40 r. Censurer 283. marg Forbearance 284.42 r. them As 287.26 r. or Divine l. 32. r. we kneel before and embrace kiss c. 288.32 r. and there the Churches doctrine The Reader is desired to correct with his pen the Errata page 128-287 line 32-and -288.