pretence there could be to settle from other parts Appeals to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of Rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome And before speaking of the Eastern Arrians desiring to be heard at Rome by Julius Shall I believe saith he as some Learned men i. e. Protestant conjecture That Pope Julius is meerly an Arbitrator named by one party whom the other could not resuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot Thus Mr. Thorndike I fear I have tired you with the same things so often repeated by several Authors but this may serve the more to confirm the verity of that wherein they agree As for the Obedience acknowledged by them due to the Church according to these Subordinations I shall have occasion to give you a further account of it hereafter § 17 Now this Subordination not only of the lower Ranks of Clergy Presbyters and Bishops of the same but of these higher Primates and Patriarchs of several Nations ending its ascent in a Primacy not of order ineffective but also of Power placed in the Prime Patriarch especially conduceth to the necessary coherence of the always one-only-Communion of the Church Ca-National and to the suppression of Heresies and Schismes oftner tholick than Diocesan only or Provincial § 18 A thing which the moderate spirit of Grotius well observed and spared not often to speak of Quae verâ— est causa saith he in his first Reply to Rivet ‖ Ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholices maneant in eodem corpore non ruptâ Communione contrà qui inter Protestantes dissident idem sacere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraternâ loquuntur Hoc qui rectè expenderit inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus which brings to mind that of S. Jerom †Adversus Jovin l. 1. c. 14. concerning S. Peters Primacy Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constitute Schismatum tollatur occasio Capite constituto but Prâ—macy of Order without power helps no schisms And again the same Grotius in the close of the last Reply to Rivet ‖ Apol. Discussio p. 255. written not long before his death Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque Corpus semper optatam à Grotio sciunt qui eum norunt Existimavit autem aliquando incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione Postea vidit id planà fieri nequire quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia sermè omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima Protestantes nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt cur sactae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur partes aliae atque aliae sint exsurrecturae Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit causae divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canonas fatente Melancthone qui eum Primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retimendam unitatem Thus Grotius Which passageis taken notice of by Dr. Hammond in Schism p. 158 and seemingly allowed the Dâ—ctor there seeming to admit the Popes authority so far as it is justifiable by the ancient Canons which authority you have seen how far it is by other Protestants out of the same Canons advanced And indeed to exclude this supreme Patriarchal authority and constitute such an Aristocratical or rather so many several Monarchical absolute equal independent Covernments in regard of any spiritual Superior as there are Primates several Monarchical Governments I say for the Aristocratical Government consists in one Council or Court having its constant and set Meetings such as are not those Meetings of the Highest Ecclesiastical Synods and therefore they cannot bear this Stile seems most destructive of the Churches Vnity and Peace And then to make amends for this the subjecting all these distinct Monarchical Governments to a General Council proves no sufficient Remedy when we reflect how many and frequent are Clergy-differences how few such Councils have hitherto been how difficult such a Council since the Division of the Empire to be convened or rather how impossible according to the Protestants Composition of it who as they frequently appeal to it so load it with such conditions as they may be sure such Court can never meet to hear their Cause Thus much is contributed by Learned Protestants toward the confirmation of the two last the 3 d. and 4 th Constitutions § 20 5ly After such a Regular and well-compacted Government thus setled in the Church Next it was strictly ordered by the Church-Laws and by her greatest Censures imposed on Delinquents That no Clergy in any maâ—ters of meerly Spiritual Concernment should decline the Authority or Judgment of these their Ecclesiastical Superiors or their subjection to the Church-Canons by repairing or appealing to any secular Tribunal from which Tribunals some in those days sought relief either that of other inferior Lay Magistrates or of the Emperor himself Nor should seek new Ecclesiastical Dâ—gnities erected by the Emperors Pragmatick contrary to the Canons Decreed also it was that in such case any Church-authority or priviledges attempted to be so alienated should still continue to the former Possessors For which see Conc. Antioch c. 11 12. Conc. Sardic c. 8. Conc. Chalced. c. 9 12. Conc. Milevit c. 19. Conc. Tâ—let 3 c. 13. 8 Gen. Conc. c. 17 21. § 21 Which Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they may appear no way unjust or infringing the Rights of Temporal Soveragnty It is to be noted and therefore give me leave to spend a few lines in the hand That the Church from the beginning was constituted by our Lord a distinct Body from the Civil State and is in all such States but one visible Society Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam all the parts of it having one and the same interest through those several Dominions and regulated within these Territories by its own Laws without which Laws no Communion can consist independently as to matters purely spiritual on the State and the exercise of these not lawfully to be inhibited or altered by it whilst all the Civil Rights of such States mean while doremain unviolated by these Church-Laws and the secular Sword is left where it was before in the hand of the Secular Governors so that the Church in any difference cannot be the invading but only the Suffering party § 22 Now if you would know more particularly what those Rights are which the Church hath from the begining practised and vindicated as belonging to her independently
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
same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And the 8 th General Council Can. 17. upon occasion of some Metropolitans qui ne secundum vocationem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant à mundi Principibus se detineri sine ratione causantur declares also thus against such Princes Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat impium esse ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant And all these things are justified and allowed by Protestants Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason That the calling of a General Council i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs and their Patriarchies should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs or Bishop of the chief See though we suppose that he claim no more than a preeminency of order as Primates do over Metropolitans § 49 Of this matter therefore some Learned Proteâ—â—rnts seem to speak more moderately 1 st Thus Mr. Thorndike concerning the Right of Calling Councils its belonging to the Church Epil p. 33. I must saith he here not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles He accounting that Assembly Act. 1. at the election of Matthias a General Council and again that Act. 15. And then thus B. Bramhal concerning the Prime Patriarch's calling such Council Schism-guarded p. 356. If the Pope saith he hath any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of Vnity or of his Protopatriarchate we do not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. confesseth that power which we acknowledge that is that though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs yet the Right to convocate General Councils should pertain unto him So B. Bramhal Dr. Field speaks yet more distinctly and copiously †Of the Chur. p. 697. The State of the Christian Church saith he being spiritual is such that it may stand though not only forsaken but grievously oppressed by the great men of the world and therefore it is by all resolved on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of convocating these her spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her weâ—fare though none of the Princes of the world do favour her And there is no question but that this power of convocating these Pastors is in them that are first and before other in each company of spiritual Pastors and Ministers Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop of Provincial to the Metropolitan of National to the Primate and of Patriarchal to the Patriarch And of these he saith That they neither are so depending c. quoted before § 48. Lastly Concerning the Calling of General Councils In times of persecution saith he and when there are no Christian Princes i. e. to assist the Church as he saith afterward If there be any matter of Faith or any thing concerning the whole State of the Christian Church wherein a common deliberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary he that is in order the first among the Patriarchs with the Synods of Bishops subject to him may call the rest together as being the principal part of the Church whence all actions of this nature do take beginning Instancing in Julius and Damasus Bishops of Rome with their Councils practising this So Dr. Field § 50 Only here you see two limitations or bars put in by him for the Reformation to make some advantage of The one In times of persecution or when the Church hath not Princes to assist her then the power of Calling General Councils to belong to the Clergy The other That then it belongs in the Clergy to the prime Patriarch yet not singly but joined with his Council for saith he ‖ p. 668. the first Patriarch hath not power singly to call together the other Patriarchs and their Bishops because none of them is superior to another in degree as Bishops are to Presbyters nor so in Order Honour and Place as Metropolitans are to Bishops or Patriarchs to Metropolitans Now to the first of these his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution see what hath been said already ‖ and his own instances prove against it for Julius § 47 and Damaâ—us summoned the Oriental Bishops to such a Council the one of them in the Reign of Constans the other of Theodosius both of these being Christian Orthodox Catholick Emperors Though if this be allowed that in any non-assistance of the secular powers Heathen or Christian it matters not the Church hath power when she judgeth it requisite to assemble such Councils more needs not be desired Concerning his second Limitation In the reason he gives for it he omits one Superiority among the rest which would have fitted the purpose namely the Superiority that Primates have to the other Meropolitans in their calling a National Synod and that without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops first consulted I ask therefore why not the Primate of the Patriarchs do the like 2 ly If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs neither hath he joined with his Synod his Synod having no more power over other Patriarchs then himself As for the Instances Julius sent to the Orientals singly concerning a Council to be joined of both the East and West Damasus indeed sent when a Western Council was sitting but this called for other matters and not for this to give him a Commission for such a Summons or to join with him in it as if the first Patriarch cannot when need requires call a General Council without first Summoning and convening a Patriarchal Council to give their consent to the calling of this General A thing to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council a matter of so great trouble and delay as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council either for this or for much other Church-business as hearing Appeals of less account c. which come to the Patriarchs hands And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much where he saith ‖ p. 513. That in time causes growing many and the difficulties intollerable in coming together
and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints and Appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And the Protestant-Primates saith Bishop Bramhal †Vind. c. 1. p. 257. use the same customs of judging Church-Causes without calling Synods Now what is in this kind conceded to Metropolitans much more ought to be to Patriarchs whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial nor ever was a set time appointed for these as for the other This said concerning the Calling of General Councils its belonging of right to the Church and in it to the Supremest Prelate § 49 3ly It is not denied but that the Emperor had and since the dissolution of the Empire other Princes joined 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Prelates as being their Subjects of calling these both in assistance to the Church in her necessities and also in order to their own Civil affairs when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church Provided this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent consent either before or at least after the Indiction of them Of which thus Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt fic tainen ut possit etiam alius Pontifice consentiente Conciliâ—m indicere quinetiam satis sit si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat confirmet at si nec ipse indicat Concilium nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem illud non Concilium sed Conciliabulum fore § 52 And this thing is made good by the ancient practice where As the Emperors being by their secular power much more effectual promoters thereof were prevailed with to call the first General Councils so this was not done but either from the first Motion or with the consent of the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Head of the Church as appears concerning all the first 6. General Councils in the acclamatory speech of the 6 th Council at the conclusion thereof to the Emperor Arius Divisor c. They naming 1 Sylvester 2 Damasus 3 Caelestinus 4 Leo 5 Vigilius 6 Agatho Bishops of Rome joined with the Emperor in the promoting all these Councils And to come to some particulars Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus and to the Council assembled with him at Rome Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae i. e. of Damasus singly this Council not then sitting when the Orientals met first in Council though it did when they writ literas missas Theodosio summâ pietate Imperatori Concerning the 3 d. Council thus Prosper in Chronico Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ Coelestini authoritate Concerning the 4 th Thus the Emperor to Leo in the Epistles pertaining to that Council Superest ut si placuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire c. Synodum celebrare hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur nostris utique desideriis vestra Sanctitas satisfaciet Sacrae Religioni quae utilia sunt decernet Si verâ— hoc onerosum est ut tu ad has partes advenias hoc ipsum nobis prâ—priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum ubi nobis placuerit omues sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire quae Christianorum Religioni atque Catholicae Fidei prosint sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit suâ dispositione declarent To which add * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister to the same Pope Propterea tua Reverentia quocunque modo prospexerit significare dignetur ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi Thraciae atque Illyrici sicut etian nostro Domin piâ—ssimo Imperatori placuit in unani Civitatem velociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire illic facto Concilio de Catholicâ confessione c. te authore decernant And * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the first Act of that Council Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam factum est nec fieri licuit The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Oriental Bishops against John Bishop of Constantinople And that of Gelasius who lived about some 40. years after in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum i. e. the second Ephesin non consentiendo sola summovit authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Lastly If the ancient Canon that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum stand good the calling such Councils by Emperors without the Mandate or confent also of this Bishop will be to no purpose because nothing can be established therein without his concurrence Thus much of the power of Calling General Councils CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy § 67. § 53 THese things touching Church-Government from § â—9 being premised in general a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent as occasion requires I proceed to a more particular consideration of the first Head proposed before ‖ §. 8. concerning the Generality and just Authority of this Council to oblige all the Churches Subjects especially those of the West 1. Where in the first place it is to be noted That supposing this Council of Trent no legal and free General yet if it be a free and legal Patriarchal Council thus it will stand obligatory at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction to the Reformed and particularly to the English Church For 1 st It hath been formerly cleared both by the Church-Canons ‖ See before §. 11 12. c. and the Concessions of Protestants †§. 16. n. 4. c. That as a Diocesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses or to a Provincial where the Metropolitan presides and again a Provincial or Metropolitan Synod to a National or that composed of many Provinces
Catholicae detrimentum a Concilio supremo ejus Rectore Desensore auxilium sperandum Neque vero saith he tergiversationis locus est * quod pars altera ad faedus ineundum per vim injustam adacta sit cum paciscentes superiorem Judicem non habeaut qui causa cognita ipsis jus dicat * Nor Quod soedus publica authoritate initum Principi aut Reipublicae paciscenti perniciesum esse appareat Nor * Quodcunque incommodum sen detrimentum Ecclesiae Catholicae ex faederis observatione inferendum and his reason is because if such prejudices to Church or State be once admitted as just causes for voiding the publick Faith Nulla pax aut Societas inter humanum Genus consistere possit This concerning the publick Faith given to Infidels Hereticks Rebels or others in matters where no common Superior is acknowledged to have Right of disposing them otherwise § 97 But as to private Contracts Faith or Oaths where there is a common Superior to both parties who may restrain or moderate these upon all occasions according to the publick and private good here several Laws and Constitutions and common Customs grounded on a moral equity and necessity do give him a power in several cases which may happen such as these where such Contract or Oath is extorted by some injury first done to the party as by force fraud fear or where such engagement made in some great perturbation and transport of mind or where the contract though in a matter lawful yet brings some great unexpected and unforeseen damage to the publick or privat good Spiritual or Civil or also is a hinderance of some considerable greater good of the Church or State which the Contractors ought to prefer before their private when these are judged not by the party but by the Superior to be such the laws I say do give Him power in such cases to relax such pacts or Faith and to oblige the party to whom they are made being subject to him and such laws to remit them And the parties in making any such pact may and ought to know this superintendent power or also all such Oaths and Contracts when they are made are supposed to include a tacit Exception of such cases to be stated by the Arbitrement of such Superiors And indeed what thing better can be contrived within the limits of a settled Government than that such engagements should be transacted with such a reserve of capability of relaxation by the Superior where otherwise either by the difficulty of the observance of them the circumstances being changed they will probably be broken or some great damage by them publick or private inferred But in the publick or private Faith passed between persons that are joyned together in no such society no such thing can be admitted but the matter of such oath or promise being jure Divino lawful and diminishing no third Persons legal Rights all damages whatever are to be sustained in a strict and undispensable observance thereof so far as the party to whom such engagement is made shall exact it And so in some sence Faith is maintained to be kept by Catholicks to Enemies Heretickâ— Infidels c. when not so by one Catholick to another because the constitutions or customs of the Government Ecclesiastiacal or Civil under which Catholicks live do not extend to these other Covenants and the excuse of damage fear force c. hath here no place or consideration where is to be had no common umpire and Judge of such matters § 98 If it be said here That Secular Princes are made by Roman Divines inferiour and subordinate to the Ecclesiastical suprem the Pope or General Council and so that the Sanctions and laws of the Church by what is said before § 97. will void at pleasure the Oath and engagement of Princes to what ever Confederat in whatever matter as this being contrary to the law of a Superior whose Constitutions they are obliged to observe It is answered that the Roman Church owns no such Doctrine nor do the Ecclesiastical Governours claim any Supremacy or Legislative power save in Spiritual matters Contrary to which therefore if any of the Churches Subjects though a Prince make any oath or promise such Faith given is not to be kept by vertue of the former subjection of such person to the Churches Laws But as for any Oaths or engagements of Princes in other matters Secular or also any use of the Secular Sword whether in matters Temporal or Spiritual the Church claims no Superiority herein The Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrate have their distinct and independent Rights and Jurisdictions freely confessed by Cardinal Bellarmine to be both held from Christ and nor from one another Ex Scripturis saith he †De Rom. Pontis l. 5. c. 3. nihil habemus nisi datas Pontifici claves regni caelorum de clavibus Regni Terrarum nulla mentio fit Traditio Apostolica nulla Quando Rex fit Christianus non perdit Regnum Terrarum quod jam obtinebat And quoting a passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus Quicquid saith he Imperatores habent dicit Nicolaus a Christo eos habere Peto igitur rel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus Imperatoribus hoc tanquam summus ipse Rex Imperator aut non potest si potest ergo est major Christo Si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem Regiam Neither is any such Power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals without the exercise of which power the Primitive Church though most grievously oppressed by Secular States yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire as to all things essentially necessary thereto Their proper and distinct Rights then both these supremes have And their oaths and engagement passed in matters of their proper right to what persons soever are denied generally by Catholick Divines to be dissolvable by one another § 99 Of this particular of keeping faith with Hereticks in such matters thus P. Layman a learned Jesuite †Theol. Moral l. 2. Tract 3. c. 12. Dico 4 to Si Catholici cum Haereticis publicum foedus ineant non potest per authoritatem Pontificiam solvi aut relaxari where he quotes also Molanus saying †De fid Haeret servand l. 5. c. 14. Neque ullum hactenus extitit aut unquam extabit hujus rei exemplum And thus Becanus 〈◊〉 de fid Haeret. servand c. 7. Virtutes illae ex quibus oritur obligatio servandae fidei in promissis aeque nos obligant sive apud Catholicos sive apud Haereticos versemur Nusquam enim licet mentiri nusquam jus alterius violare nusquam injustitiam committere nunquam perjurum esse Quando fidelâ—â— paciscuntur cum Gentilibus Idolatris debent issi servare fidem in rebus licitis honestis ergo etiam quando paciscuntur cum Haereticis An oath of fidelity therefore taken by a
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
482. Most of these Objections you may find after Soave urged by Archbishop Lawd § 27 c. and reinforced in his Defence by Mr. Stillingfl p. 2. c. 8. By B. Bramh. Vind. c. 9. By Dr. Hammond of Her § 11. and many others whether with more force and advantage than is here set down I must desire you to consult the Authors § 7 These are the principal Exceptions occurring in later Protestant-Writers against the Council of Trent Now I desire your patience to hear on the other side what may be said for it Which Council being by reason of the subjection of the Clergy to so many supreme and independent Princes with so much difficulty conven'd not finally concluded till 18 years after its first sitting interrupted by sickness interrupted by wars managed under several Popes of several inclinations and under often-changed interests of most warlike and rival Princes according to their several advantages or disgusts who now sent now withdrew their Bishops and desired to model its Decrees to the content of their Subjects and secular Peace in their Dominions It must needs encounter great diversity of Accidents and not always retain the same face security frequency splendor and reputation nor the same purity and dis-engagement from secular affairs and national obligations Again * Sitting in the time and for the composing of the greatest and the most powerful considering the engagement of the common people as well as of Princes separation and division that ever was in the Christian Church which departed also from the former unity in so many points of Doctrine and Discipline as never did any before and * driving two main designs at once the reformation of manners in the Church and its Governors and the confutation of errors in the Sectaries It must needs be liable to many Intestine as well as External affronts and hinderances from all sides and in so many decisions seem to some to commit not a few oversights But yet notwithstanding all these Intrigues and all that is produced against it I see not but that both its Authority and Integrity may be rationally and justly vindicated § 8 The Considerations upon it for the more orderly proceeding in them I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Concerning the Generality 1. Liberty and just Authority of this Council or of the persons constituting it to oblige the Churches Subjects 2. or especially those of the West 2. Concerning the Invalidity and also probably the uneffectiveness of such a General Council as the Protestants in stead thereof demanded and as should be limited with all the conditions they proposed 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent 3. especially as to those matters which respect the Protestants 4. 4. The many Definitions and Anathema's of this Council and its pretended-new Articles of Faith 5. 5. Concerning the many Constitutions and Acts of great consequence passed in this Council and confirmed by the Pope for the Reformation of several corrupt practices and disorders observed in the Churches Government or Discipline CHAP. II. Of Councils inferior to General The due Subordinations and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precidents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be Her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. § 9 COncerning the first Head to discern more clearly the true State of this Council assembled at Trent It seems necessary that I first give you a brief account of some things more generally appertaining to these Ecclesiastical Courts Of Councils then assembled as need required for deciding Controversies enacting Laws and preserving the Peace of the Church Catholick which is but one throughout the world there have been always used in the Church these several Kinds or Compositions subordinate in Dignity and Authority one to another 1 Episcopal or Diocesan 2 Provincial 3 National 4 Patriarchal and 5 Oecumenical or General Of which Councils the first Pattern under the Gospel was that held at Jerusalem Act. 15. A. D. 51. Amongst these the lowest Synod or Ecclesiastical Council for governing the Church was Episcopal or Diocesan taking the word in its modern sence consisting of the Bishop of any particular Diocess and his Presbyters the Bishop calling them together and moderating the Assembly the Actions and Decrees of which Synod were appealable from and liable to the Judgment and Censure of an higher Council The next Council was Provincial consisting of all the Bishops of a Province in which were many Diocesses called and moderated and its Decrees executed by the Metropolitan The next Synod to whom also the Actions and Decrees of this Provincial were subject was National consisting of the Metropolitans of several Provinces with their Bishops called and moderated by the chief Primate in such a Nation such were several of the Affrican Councils and particularly that held under S. Cyprian de Baptizandis Haereticis there being of these Provinces or greater Circuits six in Affrick and so many Primates or primae Sedis Episcopi of whom the Chief was the Bishop of Carthage The next a Council Patriarchal consisting of the Metropolitans c. of divers Kingdoms and Countries which were contained under the same Patriarchy this called and moderated by the Patriarch The last and supremest is a Council Oecumenical or General to which I should proceed next to shew you of what persons it is to consist who is to call who is to preside in to regulate and ratifie it c. But this I shall defer till § 34. And because the Regulation and Government that is for the necessary preserving of the Churches firmer Peace and Unity established and observed in these lower Councils is by their being more frequently held much better known and also freely acknowledged by Learned Protestants I will first give you some further Account of this that so you may make
and notwithstanding any opposition of the Secular Powers These are some if not the chief of them * Namely The entrance of these Ministers of Christ without Arms into whatever Princes Dominions and their preaching there the Gospel of Christ and administring the Sacraments to his Subjects though against his Prohibition * Determining Controversies arising in matters of Faith and Religion and publishing such their Determinations to all the Churches Subjects within any Princes Realms * Making Ecclesiastical Laws for Government and Discipline as need requires * Receiving Accusations examining Witnesses correcting Offenders against the Laws of Christ or of the Church I do not name here the Churches judging of Civil Causes between Christians though this a thing most usual when the Princes and their Courts were Heathen because this is a Right of the Prince to judge all such Causes when brought before him and on that account the practice thereof did return to the Prince when Christian when it had been disused before only because Christians in any contest chose rather or also were enjoined it being a thing not only lawful but in those times very expedient for them to stand to the Arbitration of their Ecclesiastical Governors than to go to the trial of the Civil Law and Secular Magistrate * Declaring Heresie Suspending criminous sinners from the Sacrament Imposing Penances Reconciling Penitents and Excommunicating and casting out of the Church the incorrigible and obstinate * Ordaining Church-Officers in a due Subordination with a strict dependance of the lower upon the higher Clergy so that an Ecclesiastical Function is unlawfully exercised by the one if he enter upon it without the consent or confirmation of the other and that not only of Presbyters without the Bishops and of Bishops without the Metropolitans or Primates but of Primates themselves also without the Patriarchs as hath been shewed * Holding Religious Assemblies both for the Publick Service of God and for the forementioned Church-Affairs * And for this again the respective Superiors Calling and appointing these Meetings in certain places and times which also must be within the Territories of some secular Prince only all these things done by Lawful and Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors without Arms unless it be those of the Prince for their protection and in order to ends purely spiritual In which proceedings therefore they remain questionable and to be restrained by the same Temporal Authority when in any exceeding of such limits found to transgress § 23 All these things were practised by the Church in the Apostles times See for several of them 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 1.10 11 13. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 12 13. 4.19 21. 3 John 9.10 Mat. 18.17 18 20. and their holding a Council at Jerusalem Act. 15 and in the primitive times before Constantine though the secular Powers as yet Heathen opposed prohibited executed the chief Actors of them and therefore much more they may be continued and acted by the same Authority when Princes for the gaining of eternal Crowns have subjected their mortal ones to Christianâ—ty and are become Sons of the Church who surely by bringing in their persons under her obedience do not gain any such new Soveraignty over her as by this to take away those former Rights which Heathen Potentates could not justly deny or withhold from her For note here That whatever Prerogative or Priviledge is challenged by a Christian Prince as naturally belonging to the Civil Power cannot be denied also to an Infidel or Heathen Prince when possessed of the same power For example If a Christian Prince may lawfully restrain the Bishops his Subjects from meeting in Synods from executing the Church-Canons or publishing their definitions in matter of Doctrine I mean such as no way concern the State within his Realm without his leave upon this account because he is the Politick Supreme so may a Heathen as having the very same Title to do it And therefore none such must be hastily challenged by the one which if exercised by the other would both have ruined the Government of the Primitive Church and rendered its ordinary practice guilty of a most high Rebellion If these Christian Princes therefore now assist the Church to call her Councils if they adopt her Canons amongst their Laws and use their secular sword much more effective and dreaded by many for the present than her Spiritual one to force their Subjects and hers to a more ready obedience to her Laws we may not therefore argue her former power is now lost for calling Councils or for executing her Canons unless these first be made also their Laws because a secularly-stronger Power is joined with hers for the more advancing the same effect and hence perhaps to some may seem to eclipse Hers. But though in such a Conjunction the Princes Authority seems to have the stronger influence on Church-affairs yet so often as any such Prince in Profession Christian but addicted to some Faction apart withdraws such assistance from his true Mother and leaves Her again as the Heathen Princes did destitute of his aid or also restrained with his Interdicts so often she is forced to renew the Churche's former behaviour in the Heathen times and goes on acting the same things singly by her self armed only with that sword of Justice which Christ hath put into her hands of shutting the Rebellious out of the Kingdom of Heaven Else if we suppose any one Branch of the former Church-Authority in such a case as this to be lost by the Princes being Christian any Heretical Prince will now have the same power to ruine the Orthodox and Catholick Religion within his Territories as a Heathen Prince would then have had to destroy the Christian § 24 As you may easily discern if you will suppose such a Prince as Constantius one that professeth Arrianisme to claim as being a Christian Prince the exercising of some of those Powers forementioned which were managed by the Church her self before the times of Constantine Namely a Power To change the Subordinations of the Ecclesiastical Authority established by the Church to translate Patriarchs or erect new ones and to free the Primates such as are Arrian from obedience to Them and their Synods to introduce new Clergy or depose the former as to the Function of their Office in any place of his Dominions when yet these no way obnoxious to secular Justice for transgressing his Civil Laws in which case should the Prince deprive any such Clergy of life or liberty as Salomon did Abiathar yet the Clergy not the Prince is to supply another and all this without their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors consent and allowance * To hinder the Calling of Ecclesiastical Synods without his Consent as a thing rightly appertaining to him and other Christian Princes not them the Church men * Or these called at least to hinder his Clergy from assisting there and to deny their Decrees obligatory at least within the Circuit of his Government * When Synods are
you of That if the Acts of Pius the Fourth if the proceedings of that Council in his time be justifiable though those of and under Paul and Julius should be proved some way faulty the number of Prelates insufficient their decisions factiously carried c. yet this Tridentine Council will stand universally in force as to all the decrees thereof because this Council under Pius reviewed and ratified and made their act all the Decrees made before with what supposed defect or culpableness of their proceedings you please for that may be right that is not done rightly under Paul and Julius So that who so justifieth this Council save only for Pius his times doth somewhat more than what is necessary 2ly For the place I desire these things may be considered § 83 1 st That no place can be chosen any where so absolutely free but that he under whose temporal Dominion it is 1. may infer some violence to the Council or to some party therein with whom he is offended and so whereas the Church and the Pope as well as Temporal Princes have their rights and priviledges which may be violated the place of the Council in any Secular State may seem not free enough for the Pope and the Church and again since the Secular Princes have often differences and several interests as it happened frequently in the time of the Council of Trent the place of the Council in ones Dominions will not seem free enough to another Unless it may be thought a sufficient remedy for such unavoidable inconvenience that when such violence appears the Council may cease acting or be suspended or dâ—ssolved or injured States withdrraw from it their Bishops § 84 2 ly That the place of former Councils appointed at Rome or in some other City in Italy as it was in the Roman Lateran Florentine Pisan Councils was not accounted therefore to render them not free because of the nearer influence from Pope though in all those Councils there was something to be decided wherein the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio but was inclined more to one side than another and wherein one side might pretend him a Party as in the controversies of the Waldenses of Beâ—engarius of the Grecians c. § 85 3 ly That the Imperour took sufficient care that thâ—s Council should not be coâ—vâ—â—ed in any place of Italy 3. which was under the Temporal Dominâ—on of the Pope or where himself had not the câ—â—ef command He consented indeed that the Council should be kept in Mantua but see what he declared first to the Protestants concerning this place in Soave l. 1. p 80. That the Duke thereof was vassâ—l to the Empire so that the Pope had no power there and that if they desired any further caution himself was ready to give it them To which they answered how rationally I leave it to you That no safe-conduct could there free them from danger for the Pope having adherents throughout all Italy who bitterly hated them there was great danger of treachery and sâ—cret plots †Sâ—â— Soavâ— p. 77. And as little reason as these had Henry the Eight to protest against the Council at Mantua for fear of the Pope § 86 4 ly That the Pope had indeed no reason to allow the Council to be kept in any City of Germany 4 that was near the Protestants not to avoid their pleas but * for fear of their Arms of which fear whether he had any just cause we shall see more by and by as likewise * for the too great distance from Rome whereby he could not so easily from time to tâ—me give directions to his Legats in those many controversies which were likely to be agitated in that Council and in all which it was impossible for him to give them a precedent information with a sufficient foresight § 87 5 ly That this Council was celebrated in a place to which the Emperour and the major part of Christian Princes namely all the Catholick 5. gave their consent and sent some sooner some later their Bishops and Embassadours too which was enough to legitimate it though perhaps they would rather have chosen another and not all the same See Soave p. 101 and p. 702. Where the King of France desiring a translâ—tion of the Council form Trent to Constance Wormers c. for the more convenience of the Dutch English and part of the French Prelats Soave reports the King of Spain returning this answer That the Council was assembled in Trent 〈◊〉 all the solemnities with consent of all Kings Princes and at 〈…〉 â—â—nce of Francis the French King that the Emperour had superiority in that City as in the others that were named and might give full security to all in case the former safe conduct were not sufficient § Again celebrated in a place confining on Germany and nearer to the Protestants there than it was to the Catholicks of France or Spain and of which the Emperour was the châ—ef Lord. § Therefore Soave p. 309. represents the Emperour dâ—scoursing thâ—s to the Protestants concerning this City That they should leave all to his care who knew how to handle the business that they should suffer other Nations to mâ—et and that himself would go in person if not thither yet to some near place and would take ordâ—r nâ—t by words but dâ—eds that all should pass with goâ—d termâ— And below that he as Advocate to the holy Chuâ—ch and Dâ—fender of the Councils will do what â—elongeth to his charge as he hath promis d. And p. 669 reâ—â—tâ—s How the Cardinal of Lorraine sent a Gentleman to the Empercur to desire him that he would not remove further from the Council in regard of the fruit which thâ—y hoped forby means â—f his vicinity which will kâ—ep every one in his duty and hinder the attempts of thosâ— who would translate it into another place c. And p. 30â— relates the Popes fears That he could not take all suspicion from the King of France if the Council should be celebrated in Frent a place subject to the Emperour and near unto his Army Again a place it was * not accessible by the Popes Forces unless marching first through anothers Dominions and trespassing on the Emperour who was in Italy it self a Prince much more powerful than he and a place which either the Emperours or Protestant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march And therefore was not the Pope free from fears concerning it though he had more of Germany as may be seen in Soave l. 5. p. 436. where he saith That the Pope was troubled because the Protestants of Germany unto whom a great part of France was united would demand exorbitant things which he could not grant them and doubted they might be able to disturb the Council with Arms that He confessed that the dangers were great and the remedies small and was perplexed and troubled in mind Thus Soave § 90 Nor
of Alexandria and the Eutychian party had great contest with the rest of Christian Bishops Anti-Eutychians proceeding so far that Dioscorus with his party presumed to excommunicate Leo yet was he and his party judged and condemned by the Anti-Eutychian party being a major part in the 4th G. Council the same Leo presiding there by his Legats and Dioscorus though the 2d Patriarch being not permitted to sit or vote in the Council And these Judgments approved by the Protestants Arius an Alexandrian Presbyter and Alexander the Bishop there had much controversie between them and accused one another before the Council of Nice yet Alexander in that Council sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest and gave his definitive vote against him And doubtless had Arius been a Bishop and the major part of that Council Arian Arius should have judged Alexander in the same manner Allowed examples in this kind might be alledged infinite 2 ly Now to shew §. 125. n. 1. that such judgments are lawful and obligatory notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party 2. formerly accusing and accused by the other of corruptions errours usurpations c. I beg these three things to be granted me having elsewhere sufficiently secured them 1 That the Church is delegated by Christ as the supream Judge on earth for all â—heological and Spiritual matters secure for ever not to erre in necessaries and that as a Guide 2 ly That the judgment of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church as being at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution and common practice of former Councils as appears by the subscriptions to them established the Representative thereof is to be taken for that of the Church or else the judgement of all former Councils even of the four first may be questioned 3 ly That the vote of the major part where all consent not in the same judgment must conclude the whole both for those Bishops sitting in the Council and those Bishops absent that accept it Which Judge §. 115. n. 2. that hath been of all former ages by whom Christians have been settled in truth against all former Heresies Arianism Nestorianism Pelagianism c. if any because he finds it not to suit with the late Reformation will now reject let him tell us what other Judge he can put in their place For if this ancient and former Judge must be supposed contrary to our Lords Promise deficient in necessaries and incident into Heresie Blasphemy Idolatry and then if a few of these ecclesiastical Governours surmising this against many a few Interiors against many their Superiors only after they have first made their complaints to them and propounded their reasons and been rejected may then apply themselves to procure the assistance and power of the temporal Magistrate one who may be seduced also and assist in a wrong cause and so may first sit down in the Chair and judge of the wilfulness and obstinacy of these others in defence of their supposed errors and crimes and then may proceed to a reforming of the Church or some part thereof against them things which a late opposer of this Council †Mr. Stillings p. 478.479 is necessitated to maintain will not thus the revolution of judging and governing in ecclesiastical affairs proceed in infinitum and necessarily bring in a confusion of Religion's as some Countreys have had late experience For This second Judge and Reformer and this Secular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries And then how is there any remedy of these crimes and errours unless there may be also a third Judge allowed to reform against them and then may not the Superiors and major part again take their turn to reform these Reformers And where will be an end of this Controversie who shall last decide Controversies Every Judge that we can set up being also a party and so to leave his Chair after that there appears another to question his judgment But if we are to stay in some judgment to avoid such confusion where more reasonably can we rest than in the three former Proposals § 116 And from them it will follow 1. That those who are no Bishops must be content not to be Judges or to have definitive votes in Councils and if any such have a controversie with or against Bishops must be content after their best informations preferr'd to the Order to be judged by the same Bishops who 't is probable upon some new evidence may alter their former sentences But yet suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes I see not what the Protestants can advantage themselves thereby as long as if any inferior Clergy all must have so and the greater number give law to the fewer For the inferior Catholick-Clergy in the time of the Council of Trent far out-numbred the Reformed § 117 2. Again from them it follows That if the Bishops are appointed the sole Judges of such matters and causes they do not cease to be so upon any either interest or siding which they may be shewed to have in the cause And indeed if we consider * their former common Tenents and practises in those things which upon some opposition they meet afterward to judge * to what side of a controversie the major part of them hath formerly inclined or also declared for it something of what they judge tending to their Honour another to their Profit another to their Peace in some sence they may almost alwaies be said to judge in their own cause or on their own side So when ever they are divided into two opinions or parties who ever of them judgeth here and none may judge beside them judgeth in his own cause And so it is when any one opposeth the Church in any of her Traditions or Doctrines formerly owned by her For instance when one opposeth the Order of Bishops the just obligation of the Churches Decrees questioneth * whether the Church-Governours succeeding the Apostles hold such or such their authority immediatly from Christ independent on secular Princes * Whether the receiving of Holy Orders be necessary for administring the Sacraments * Whether Tithes be due jure divino In all these we must say that the Church is appointed by God Judge in her own cause Or if in some of these things not the Clergy but the Laity be the right Judge yet so we still make him who judgeth to judge in his own cause and in a matter wherein he is interessed whilst he so much againeth in those things as the other loseth Of this matter thus Mr. Chellingw †p. 60. In controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Controversie whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party § 118 But now suppose judging in their own cause must by no means be allowed to any and so the Church about any difference being divided
examine whether there be not still some distempers left unprovided therein of a cure as whether many which were before are not remedied thereby and whether the times preceding this Council were not much more depraved than the present Which I think you will not doubt of if you read both in the narrations of Catholicks and Protestants the gross corruptions of those dayes So that I may say the unhappy reformation from that Church occasioned a happy one in it and a schisme by divine providence bringing good out of evil served much to purifie the Catholick Religion But of this Reformation as to the particulars I shall speak more fully in the fifth Head § 203. c. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing 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 â—oting by Nations but 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. § 169 6. NEither seem those things which are so frequently objected * to infer any violence or make any trespass as they were used 6. upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to its general Approbation or * to be in themselves unjustifyable Namely these 1. The Popes Legats proposing in publick the things to be handled in the Council 2. Their consulting in all matters and receiving directions from the Bishop of Rome and his entertaining also a Council at Rome to advise with 3. The presence in the Council of such a multitude of Italian Bishops and the voting there not according to the plurality of Nations but of their Representatives present in the Council 4. The Popes giving monthly pensions to several Bishops 5. Admitting titular ones in the Council 6. The prohibition of Bishops proxies to give definitive votes To the first To 1. The Popes Legats proposing the things to be handled there § 160 1. For the lawfulness and necessity of certain persons to direct what things shall be handled what order in them observed c. in such great Assemblies I desire you to read Soave's discourse p. 135. where speaking of Councils he goes on thus After a certain time passions of men and charity being mingled together and there being a necessity to govern them with some order the chiefest man amongst those that were assembled in the Council either for learning or for greatness of the City or Church whereof he was c. took upon him the charge to propose and guide the action and collect the voices After that it pleased God to give peace to Christians c. the action was guided by those Princes which did call them together proposing and governing the treaty and decreeing interlocutorily the occurring differences but leaving the decision of the principal point for which the Council was congregated to the common opinion of the assembly as also it cannot be denied the Legats did themselves giving their vote last †Soave p. 138. This was done * in the first Council of Ephesus before the Earl Candidianus sent President by the Emperour and more clearly * in that of Chalcedon before Marcianus and the Judges by him appointed * in that of Constantinople in Trullo before Constantine Pogonatus where the Prince or Magistrate that was President commanded what should be handled what order observed who should speak and who be silent so much not practised in the Council of Trent and so did decide and accommodate the differences in these things Yet closer p. 330. The judgment of the Church saith he as was necessary in every multitude was fit that it should be conducted by one who should preside and guide the actions propose the matters and collect the points to be consulted on This care due to the most principal and worthy person was alwaies committed to the Bishop and then by consequence in a multitude of Prelats to the most Principal Bishop among them Thus Soave In this matter therefore you see the same things were done in former Councils as in Trent and when this done by a Bishop the doing justified can the same practice then in both leave those Councils free and render this inslaved § 161 2. After this of Soave see the Popes defence in his Letters written to the Emperour and King of Spain upon their complaint of it Apud Pallav. l. 20. c. 8 n. 4. and c. 10. n. 17. That the words proponentibus Legatis were composed by the Synod it self without his knowledge approved first unanimously in a general congregation and afterward in the first Session †Sess 17. Decret de Celebrand Conc. i. e. under Pius which is the 17 th Session of the Council with the opposition of two only Soave saith of four two more desiring a qualification of it That since Princes desired the Councils freedom from this he was content it should be so though he well foresaw the unbridled licentiousness that would come thereof See the Legats defence likewise in answer to the King of Spain Pall. l. 16. c. 6. n. 5. and Pallavicino's in answer to Soave l. 23. c. 12. n. 7. Lastly if you desire more satisfaction see the unanimous explication of this clause proponentibus legatis both by the Legats and Council importun'd thereto by the King of Spains Letters to whom the Proposals of Princes to the Council as well as of other Prelats in it seemed by this clause to receive some obstruction Sess 24. c. 21. de Reform S. Synodum explicando declarare mentis suae non fuisse ut in praedictis verbis solita ratio tractandi negocia in Generalibus Conciliis ullâ ex parte immutaretur neque novi quidquam praeter id quod sacris canonibus vel generalium Synodorum formâ hactenus statutum est cuiquam adderetur vel detraheretur By which Declaration saith Soave †p. 781. that difficulty so much agitated received an end with satisfaction of all And a Comment on this Decree may be the free practise of the Fathers of this Council and also of the Agents of Princes not less after it than before it § 162 3. Again Though the proposal of matters to be considered in the Council were necessary for order-sake to be committed to the care and super-intendence of some particular members and of whom rather than the more dignified yet it may be observed through Soaves whole relation of the actions of this Council that no matter whereof the proposal was desired or prosecuted by the major or a considerable part of the Bishops unless perhaps the Councils proceeding in the reformation of Secular Princes the Articles whereof are set down in Soave p. 760
of Heresie yet the maintainer thereof now first by his pertinacy against the Churches Authority begins to be an Heretick †See Disc 3. §. 18. And though the ignorance of such point of faith before might bring some damage as to our salvation yet now doth it more when a contrary error begins to corrupt our practice I say such Point begins to be necessary in a new Degree of necessity to be believed or assented to or not to be dissented from or denied or not the contrary of it to be believ'd so soon as we have had a sufficient proposal of the Councils defining it And necessary it is then to be believ'd not out of an obligation or duty of belief we owe to such a Credend as that without believing it we cannot attain salvation but out of the duty of obedience we owe to the Church when defining it as that without yielding this obedience to Her we become guilty of such a sin as unrepented of ruins salvation Especially when as this our Holy Mother doth not enjoyn to us the belief of such a Divine Truth but upon some considerable Motive for the repelling and suppressing of some error that is less or more dangerous and for the preservation of some part of necessary truth or good life Concerning which Proposals the Churches pronouncing Anathema to the non-Submitters seems secur'd as by ancient practice so by our Lord's order Matt. 18 17. He that will not hear the Church let him be to us as an Heathen though otherwise the pure nescience of such a Doctrine abstracting from such Proposal harms no man as to exclusion from salvation any more after the Churches Definition than before it See what hath been said of this matter in the third Disc § 18. and § 85. n. 6. § 193 Thus to express if I can yet more clearly though with some repetitions a thing whereat so many of the Reformed and those not of the meanest sort seem to stumble and take offence an Article of Faith as to a more universal Proposal of it and general obligation to believe it so sufficiently proposed may be said new and then in respect of this new Declaration and Obligation a Divine Truth may be an Article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means so ever knows now that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new Article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or condemne but assented to and believed by him 1 When therefore a thing is said to be no Dogma Fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is either that in such express terms it is so now as it was not formerly by some fuller explication or new Deduction Or that it is now rendred necessary to be believed by all persons by whom it was not so formerly for want then of so evident a proposal 2 Again when a Point is said thus to be rendred by the Definition of a Council necessary to be believed which was not so formerly It is meant necessary to be believed not for the matter thereof Either 1st As if the actual knowledge and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to salvation at all or now more then formerly For thus a few points only some think not all those of the Apostles Creed are necessary and nothing is thus necessary at any time that is not so alwaies Or 2ly As if the actual knowledge thereof is beneficial to our salvation now and was not so at all formerly For as it is now perhaps beneficial in more respects so in some respects was it alwaies and therefore if we knew it not before so much imperfection there was then in our faith as to something revealed though not a deficiency thereof in absolutely necessaries But necessary to be believed now more than formerly ex accidenti because 1st we have a sufficient Proposal thereof by the Church-Definition now that it is a divine Truth which Proposal perhaps we had not before in so express terms and so universally discovered by the former Tradition and 2ly Because we have also a sufficient proposal or notice that such a Definition hath been made by the Church And so in not believing it we are now defective in our obedience and acceptance of some divine Truth which is made known to us by the Church as some way profitable to our salvation some way advangious to God's Glory some way conducible to Christian Edification to the peace of the Church and suppression of Heresie or to some other good end By whose Definitions from time to time the Rule of our faith is made still more compleat and conspicuous both as to the registring and solemn inrolling of her former Traditions and as to the express knowledge of several Consequences necessarily issuing from the former Principles of the Christian Belief more compleat I say to the end of the world as to several points in some respect or other beneficial to be known Though from the first the Christian Faith was ever perfect as to any knowledge simply necessary or also as to all that were fundamentally useful And therefore the chief Duty that the Church now requires to many of her Decisions made from time to time as counter-works against Hereticks and extracted alwaies out of the former Materials of Original Traditions is not so much an actual knowing of them for every Christian though this also-she desires as esteeming the knowledge of them some way contributing to Christian perfection but that they be not dissented from or opposed when made known to him and that the Contradictory of them be not believed by Him § 194 As for the profession of the Roman faith required in the Bull of Pius wherein are said to be 12. new Articles added to the Apostolical I wonder why they say not 12. score or a 1200. rather for if it adds any it adds omnia à S. Tridentinâ Synodo ab Oecumenicis Conciliis à sacris Canonibus tradita definita declarata as it runs in the same Bull though it expresseth only some few of them 1st All the order that the Council of Trent gave concerning this Profession of Faith was Sess 24. de Refor cap. 12. Provisi etiam de beneficiis teneantur Orthodoxae suae fidei publicam facere professionem in Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientià se permansuros spondeant So that Haec est Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus is a Declaration of the Pope not of the Council not can it have any more authority than other Papal Decrees 2. And again what ever profession of faith is made in that Bull or if it oblige further therein than the Canons of the Councils do bind yet it concerneth not any persons save those who enter into religious Orders or into some Ecclesiastical Benefice as appears in the Preface 3. These persons are not
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
without cure given in Commendam a superintendence over which the Council hath committed for ever either to the Superiors of such Orders or to the Bishops as the Popes Delegates to take care that in the one all religious observance be maintained with all necessaries supplied and in the other the care of souls faithfully discharged and the Vicar sufficiently provided for See Sess 21. c 8. And Sess 25.20 Reform Regul And further c. 21. That for Monasteries Commendatary they for the future shall be conferred only on Regulars A Constitution which in France where very many Monasteries are given by the Prince in Commendams to great Personages hath been one of the chief obstacles of that Princes refusing to accept this Council as to its Acts of Reformation § 220 To ζ. The uniting of Ecclesiastical Benefices As the Council doth allow such an union to be made by the Bishops To ζ. as Delegates of the Apostolick See where one single is not a sufficient maintenance of the Pastor Sess 21. c. 5. Sess 24. c. 15. And allows the same to be done in Bishopricks by the Pope upon Testimonials received from a Provincial Synod of such a necessity Sess 24.13 So on the other side Sess 7. c. 6. It impowers Bishops for ever as the Popes Delegates to inquire into all former unitings of Livings passed within forty years and to void them Nisi eas ex legitimis aut alias rationabilibus causis coram loci Ordinario vocatis quorum interest verificandis factas fuisse constiterit And c. 5. and 7. Constitutes the Bishops likewise visitors of all those having cure that are annexed to Chapters or Monasteries that the incumbent Vicars do their duty and be provided of a sufficient Revenue all manner of priviledges or exemptions being repealed See more below λ § 221 To η. Exemptions This Council hath ordered 1 st That all Churches whatever To η. though formerly exempted those also that are annexed to Colledges or Monasteries be subjected to the yearly visitation of the Ordinary as Delegate of the See Apostolick to see to that the Cura animarum be rightly discharged all things kept in a due repair c. Sess 7 8. 2 ly Sess 22. c. 8. Bishops as Delegates of the Apostolick See are made Executors of all pious Disposures as well Testamentary as of the living Hospitals also and whatever Colledges Confraternities of Laicks Schooles the Almes of the Mounts of Piety c. whatever Exemptions they might have had formerly are subjected to their visitation where it is not otherwise ordered by the Founders to take knowledge of and see executed therein whatever is instituted for God's worship salvation of souls or sustentation of the poor and the Administrators thereof tyed to give to them a yearly account c. 9. 3. Again All Secular Clergy that had formerly any exemption and all Cathedral Chapters formerly exempted under the notion of Regulars which many of them anciently were are likewise submitted for the future to the visitation and correction of the Bishop Sess 6.4 Sess 14. c. 4. Sess 25.6 4. As for Regulars All such living out of their Monasteries and other persons whatever relating to them or otherwise priviledged may be visited corrected punished by the Bishop as are others Sess 6.3 Sess 29.11 Nor may any Regulars preach in any Church not belonging to their Order without the Bishops licence first obtained Nor in Churches of the Order without first shewing to the Bishop a licence from their Superiors and receiving his Benediction 5. Lastly for the Monasteries and Religious Houses themselves exempted from the Episcopal Visitation it is ordered that if the Regular Superiors to whom this is committed omit their duty the Bishop after a Paternal admonition and their six moneths further neglect may proceed to visit and reform them Notwithstanding whatever Exemptions or Conservators appointed of their Priviledges Sess 21.8 § 222 But an universal subjection of Monasteries Universities Colledges to the Ordinary of the place though motioned in the Council was not approved by it Not that such whose publick profession was a stricter life than that of all others should injoy more liberty from Government or at least from that of subordinate and immediate superintendents But because it seemed much more proper that as their Profession was more severe so they should be committed rather to the care of such Superiors who themselves had the same obligations which it was feared that the Ordinary living himself after a Secular way would be more prone to mitigate and relax or some way by contradicting their Orders disturb their Peace And therefore such exemption tended not to an enlargement of their liberty but a confirming their restraints and a quiet and undisturbed observance thereof And such Exemptions and Priviledges we find anciently grated to Religious Houses by Popes famous in Sanctity Of which see many in St. Gregories Epistles not only conceded by himself but mentioned to have been so by his Predecessors See l. 7. Ep. 33. and Ep. 18. And see l. 11. Ep. 8. such Priviledges granted at the request of the Queen of France Yet still as was said but now the Episcopal power is admitted by the Council of Trent in these Houses also upon any continued neglect of their other Superiors when first admonished hereof § 223 To θ. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses It was ordered Sess To ◠21. c. 9. That the Office of the ordinary former publishers of such Indulgences and Spiritual Favours and the Collectors of such Charities having given so much scandal after the indeavour of three several precedent Councils to reform them and all their priviledges should be taken quite away and hence forward that the Ordinary of the place assisted with two of the Chapter should publish the one and collect the other Gratis § 224 Thus much of this Councils rectifying those things which seemed to minister any just cause of complaint concerning the Pope or his Court where also you see how much the Episcopal Authority is inlarged by the Pope's free Concession to them of so many former Reservations and Exemptions So that Lainez the General of the Jesuites in his speech before the 24. Session †observes That the hand of the Council had fallen heavy upon others without touching at all the Bishops that there was contained in those Articles of Reformation much against the Pope against the Cardinals against Arch Deacons against the Chapters against Parish Priests against the Regulars but against the Bishops nothing And Soave †See Palla l. 23. c. 3. n. 30. p. 343 〈◊〉 on Sess 13. produceth the Priests of Germany complaining of the Reformation and saying That the Bishops authority was made too great and the Clergy brought into servitude And †p. 568. on the 22th Session saith That points of Reformation were proposed favourable to the Authority of Bishops that the Legats proceeding might not be hindered by the opposition of
in the Greek and to continue the Divine Service still in the same language and words without any alteration in which their Ancestors had delivered it to them and in which it had descended to these from all former ages as for this Western Church ever since that next to the Apostles times Neither doth this or the following Ages seem imprudently to have chosen for this service the most common language in the understanding whereof all these Nations are united and concur So that however any removed their Station they might still find the Divine Service both in matter and words the same and any Priest however he changed his Residence be able to serve the people in it § 238 To ξ. To ξ The Clergies being restrained from Marriage and living continently 1st The Council retaining the antient doctrine of the Church so expounding the Scriptures †Matt. 19.11 1. Cor. 7.78 c holds That Continency is a Grace or Gift which though not actually possessed by all yet is denied by God to none who with using due means and preparations thereto seek it of him the using of which means is a thing in every ones power in such ordinary sence as other humane actions are said to be 2ly That Continency being thus by every one either possessed or attainable the vow of perpetual Celibacy is lawful which is a thing seconded by the universal practice of the Religious or Monasticks as well in the Eastern as Western Church all of them making such a vow 3ly Holds That such Celibacy attainable and observable by all may be injoyned and imposed by the Church on some viz. such as shall desire to enter into the Priestly Function for many weighty reasons and particularly for those given by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.28 32 34 35 38. Vt non habeant tribulationem carnis ut sint sine mundanâ solicitudine ut sint sancti corpore spiritu ut faciant non bene sed melius Whilst mean while none at all are compel'd absolutely either to become Priests or in order to it to profess Celibacy but only that if they are desirous of the one they must undergo the burden of the other nor none instructed that God's law but only the Churches Constitution doth require it of them 4ly The Council had also in this matter the warrantable Precedent of former ages both in the Occidental and Oriental Churches so far as that none at all entring into the holy Order of Priesthood in either Church hath been hitherto permitted after to marry 5ly The Council injoyning this doth not deny this Celibacy of the Clergy as being only Ecclesiastical Constitution to be dispensable And though the Council it self thought not fit to give such dispensation especially since those Princes and their Prelats in the Council whose Kingdoms remained untainted with Protestanisme opposed it See Soave p. 688 and 690. Where he saith That the King of Spain and his Prelats had neither Interest i.e. out of any necessary compliance with Sects nor affection to prosecute the three Instances of the marriage of Priests communion of the Cup and use of the vulgar tongue Yet neither doth the Council prohibit any such dispensation if at any time circumstances considered it shall so seem good to the Pope And so he after the Council ended was both by the Emperour and the Duke of Bavaria much sollicited for it †See Soave p. 823 824 Pallav. l 24. c. 12. n. 9. I mean for a toleration of it in their Dominions being in hopes of reclaiming thereby some of the Sectarists But both the Emperours death following shortly after hindred the further prosecution of it and the Pope seemed very averse from gratifying any Prince with such an indulgment of which he knew not where it would stop nor how far it might draw on Petitions from other places in the same or also in other matters and those perhaps of much more prejudice to the Churches welfare In which thing Soave also †p. 690. is pleased to â—â—commend the Popes prudence therein § 239 A Dispensation therefore in this matter though lawful neither the Council nor Pope to whom such power was left thought expedient But the Parochial Clergy by reason of their Secular Imployment and converse being much more exposed than Regulars to the breach of this holy Resolution of perpetual continency in a single life and by their fall herein highly offending God and also bringing great scandal on their sacred Profession the Council Sess 25 c. 14. made the strictest laws that could well be devised against any such miscarriage prohibiting Priests to keep any women of whom might be reasonable suspicion either in their house or abroad or to have any converse with such Among which suspitious persons saith the third Canon of Conc. Nice are to be reckoned all Nisi Mater aut Soror aut Avia aut Avita vel matertera sit In his namque solis personis harum similibus omnis quae ex mulieribus est suspitio declinatur which Canon the 3d. Carthag Council thus expoundeth or inlargeth Sorores filiae fratrum aut sororum quaecunque ex familia domesticâ necessitate 〈◊〉 antequam ordinatis Parentibus uxores acceperunt aut servis non habitantibus in domo quas ducant aliunde ducere necessitas fuit § 240 Next the Council ordaineth That the faulty herein after the first admonition by the Bishop should lose the third part of the profits of their Benefice and after the second not amending it all and further should be suspended from officiating And after disobeying a third admonition should be ejected out of their Living and made incapable of another And the Bishop to proceed herein without any formal Conviction in Court so the verity of the fact were sufficiently proved to him Their Concubines also by the aide of the Secular Power to be expelled the Town or the Diocess And Sess 21. c. 6. the same power of Ejection of the Clergy when found incorrigible the Bishops have as to any other great and scandalous faults without the relief of any Exemptions or Appeales But if a Bishop were so faulty after an admonition from the Provincial Synod if no amendment he was to be suspended and still continuing so the same Synod to inform the Pope thereof and he to proceed to the Deposition of him from his Bishoprick the Council providing also that this their Constitution should not hinder the force and execution of any former Laws or Canons made for the correction of such crime § 241 To Ï€. To Ï€. With-holding the Communion of the Cup. 1st The Council Sess 21. c. 1. following the custom and judgment of former Churches declares That there is no divine Precept that obligeth all Communicants to receive in both kinds since the frequent practice of Antiquity to some persons in some places administred it only one kind when yet there was a possibility though not convenience of doing it in both and
if so inclin'd For religious Houses of Women * That none either receive the Habit or profess without first being examined by the Bishop concerning her willâ—ngness and free inclination thereto * That in such Houses most strict clausure be observed None to go forth on what occasion soever without the Bishop be first acquainted therewith and licence it None of what sex or age soever to enter in without the licence of the Bishop or Superioress All such Votaries enjoyned to Confess and Communicat at least once a month Vt eo salutari praesidio se muniant saith the Council †De Reform Reg. c. 10. ad omnes oppugnationes Daemonis fortiter superandas These and many other like Constitutions were passed by this Synod of Bishops for the reforming of Monasticks the effect of which Decrees since the time of this Council hath been very great both as to removing much former scandal and restoring Discipline relaxed And perhaps if some Religious Houses that now lâ—e in ashes had but stood till these Decrees of Trent might have been applied to their great distempers these severe remedies might have healed those Corruptions for which still more and more putrifying and increasing it is to be feared the hand of God's Justice cut them off To Ï„. To Ï„. Correction of the Breviary and Missal See §. 243. n. 3. Sess 25. Decret de Brev. Where the Council having committed this affair to certain Selected Fathers and being necessitated to conclude before it was finished leave the care of it to the Pope after which the some Fathers with some others joyned to them still prosecuting it in Pius the Fourth's daies Both the Missal and Breviary thus corrected and reduced to a greater uniformity were licenced and published by his Successor Pius Fifth § 244 Thus I have run through many particulars wherein the wisdom and diligence of this Council joyned in the later and Principal actions thereof with a Pope much inclined the same way and also much sweyed by his holy Nephew Carlo Borromeâ— indeavoured to repair the defects observed and scandals complained of in the former Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline By which it is clear that many things are reduced into a much better order since this Council than they were in before and the opposition of many enemies searching into the faults of those times by the Divine Providence bringing good out of evil conduced much to the rectifying of them and the pretended Reformation from the Church produced a true one in it And if after all this some blemishes do still remain 1st It must be considered * That some things the Council could have wished amended and altered which yet were too difficult to be brought about without hazarding schisme amongst the National Churches or Prelats long inured to different Customs And * That several things also had dependence on the Reformation of the Secular Governours which when the Council touched upon though very tenderly and drew up some Articles concerning it but such as were decreed both by former Church-Canons and the Imperial Laws ‖ See Soave p. 769. Pallav. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6. presently the Princes grew displeased and so for fear of alienating their minds to whose favours otherwise the Church stands much obliged and by whose sword under the Divine Providence she is upheld the Council was forced to bear with their weakness and desist from its purpose Review the Councils complaint set down before § 210. Adeo dura difficilisque est Praesentium temporum conditio c. 2ly Again It may be considered That several things that were well ordered by the Council yet are not so well executed nor ought the Council to be charged at all with this but its Ministers who as they shall happen to be more or less active or piously disposed so its constitutions in all future ages will receive vigor or languish And in this Its laws do only suffer the common Fate of all others made heretofore either in the Ecclesiastical or Civil States No Court hitherto having been able to devise a law that could infallibly promote the execution of their Laws or of It self 3 ly After this to be considered yet much more that if every thing which private judgments amongst which every one is to reckon his own do think fit to be corrected was not thought so by the Council they ought rather with an undisputing humility to submit these to that of so Reverend an Assembly than to censure it as not conformable to theirs and that too as to matters not received or rejected by this Council but after that all sides had been much disputed and weighed Especially they ought to ponder well these two things § 245 The one Concerning the Council of Trent its differing in some practices from what was observed in the antient Church That all the same Constitutions do not fit all times where the circumstances of things are much varied the former manners much relaxed the Christian Profession much inlarged the Civil Governments much altered c. Nor is one age of the world no more than of a man in every thing to be treated as the precedent Nor are the Distempers of Christianity in all times so agreeable in their nature as to be cured still with the same Medicines And several projects that seem very beneficial in the Speculation yet in the Experience and Practice by not finding such an indifferent matter to work upon as is supposed would have a quite contrary effect and instead of better order bring in Confusion in removing what good was before and being unable to establish any thing better A thing often pressed in the Council in answer to those who would have every thing restored according to the Model of Antiquity § 246 2 The other concerning that Supereminent-power in several particulars which as it was found so was left still by the Council in the hands of the Bishop of Rome That as by the Church-Canons anciently he hath possessed it so it ought if either rather to be increased than any way diminished in these later times when the Christian Churches now much more inlarged and extended and seperated under so many several Secular Heads and so both by their bulk and different temporal Interests more subject to divide and to fall a sunder one from another therefore we have much more need of a firm union in one Spiritual Head and such Jurisdictions and Priviledges to be enjoyed by him whereby He may have some influence upon the whole Body and It some necessary recourse to and dependance on Him As we see in Civil States how strictly upheld and unviolably kept are the Prerogatives Legislative Dispensative Donative Power of Princes to keep the whole Body in a due dependance on a Supreme and to secure the publick peace and happiness in the best of Governments a Monarchical Regency CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief answers to the Protestant Objections made before § 3. c.
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
whilst it is thus obeyed it only not he that sheweth it unto us is obeyed And if this were all the obedience that I owe unto others I were no more bound to believe or obey any other man than he is bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastors than the Pastors them Yet certainly God who hath set Kingdoms in order is not the Author of such confusion in the spiritual regiment of his Church Thus Doctor Jackson tying all to obedience or submission to the judgment of their spiritual Guides save only those who are certain of a formal contradiction between God's Laws and their Injunctions To this may be added that much noted place of Mr. Hooker in his Preface to Ecclesiastical Policy §. 295. n. 4. § 6. commenting there on Deuteron 17.8 c. where it is said ver 11. According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left God was not ignorant saith he that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversie he ordained should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment However better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily to some end And here he answers the objection that men must do nothing against conscience saying Neither wish we that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do But we say this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn à parte rei to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending And yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment seemed ' yea and perhaps truly seemed that the law did disallow For if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace c And again Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe these laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the law of God But their perswasion in this case i. e. where their Superiors have determined otherwise they are bound for the time i. e. till the same Authority reverse it and release them to suspend c. unless they have an infallible Demonstration Thus he Where you see he grounds their yielding to Authority and changing their former perswasion upon an non-certainty of such perswasion As for his limited expression before in litigious and controverted causes of such quality whatever he meaneth thereby the Commission and Injunction Deut. 17. extends to all litigious and controverted causes whatsoever As also it is more clearly drawn 2 Chron. 19.5 8 10 11. Where it runs What cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood between law and commandment statutes and judgments ye shall c. And note also that the command Deut 17.10 Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee requires not only a passive willingly paying mulcts or undergoing punishments but active obedience Again an active obedience not only in doing something thought by me lawful but to which I think I am not obliged but in doing also of something where the lawfulness of it is questioned by me which thing also here by the text I am to do if they command me And therefore after such Injunction I ought to alter my former perswasion concerning it and to believe either that in general it is lawful to be done or at least lawful to be done by me not certain of the contrary rebus sic stantibus and such sentence past § 296 To all these testimonies concerning the obligation which illiterat and ignorant or also though learned after much examination doubting and unsatisfied persons have to submit their judgment to Church-Authority I may add the apparent mischiefs which follow the contrary observed amongst Protestants neglecting this duty from the beginning of the Reformation Luther himself much lamenting the divisions he saw among his Disciples even in his own daies Ego saith he †Prefat comeut in Galat. qui jam sum in ministerio Christi viginti annis quanquam nihil sum vere possum testari me plus quam viginti sectis esse petitum c. And in Gen. c. 6. published not long before his death Quantum sectarum excitavit Satan nobis viventibus Quid futurum est nobis mortuis Profecto tota agmina Sacramentariorum Anabaptistarum Antinomorum Servetianorum Campanistarum c. And himself also is much noted for his varying from himself in his opinions often changed But still these divisions are more apparent in the longer course of his Schisme which daily multiplies and brancheth its self into more and more clefts and sects and some of them most gross and ridiculous and for which it is hard to find names and which their forsaken Leaders are much ashamed of whilst the Plebeians will neither study truth themselves nor follow the learned The mistakes of these persons in such high and Divine matters being greater as their science less and their opinions since weakly grounded floating and unconstant and from the usually prevailing interests of the flesh inclined to liberty and sensuality § 297 Of which Divisions Grotius in several of his writings sadly complains as caused by this that they will pitch upon no Superior and common authority by which they will be content to be guided and regulated in their Faith Protestantes saith he in his last reply to Rivet †Apolog. Discussio p. 255. nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt Cur factae partes in unam Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur Partes aliae atque aliae sint exurrecturae And in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace speaking of their primitive Dissentments Confessiones saith he factae sunt variis in locis variae atque inter se pugnantes non modo quae factae erant partes non potuere unquam inter se coalescere sed novae quotidie exortae sunt particulae tot ut nemo sit qui earum inire possit numerum ut faecunda est ista seges unoquoque sibi licere credente quod alius ante usurpavit credibile est novas quotidie extituras A presage at this time