that Creed And to this notion of Church Catholick See in Disc 1. § 37. 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting § 37 2ly This Acceptation in respect of the Catholick Church i e. of those Prelates that be not formerly by any Herefie or Schisme shut out of it cannot rationally be required absolutely universal of all but only of the considerably Major part of them for in a Government not simply Monarchical whether Ecclesiastical or Civil no Laws can be promulgated nor Unity preserved if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part and it hath been shewed at large Disc 2. § 25. which I desire the Reader to review and consider well because much weight is laid upon it that the Decrees of the first 4 General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule and Warrant to posterity Nor otherwise can any new Heresie patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick as the most pernicious Heresies have ever been he ever legally suppressed so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest See what hath been said of this in Disc 1. § 28 38 39. Disc 3. § 11 37. That strict condition therefore which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize and ratifie the Definitions and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation seems not reasonable Namely That after their promulgation at least if not before they should be accepted by each Provincial Council and acknowledged to agree with that Faith which they had originally received of Her § 6. n. 8 12. Or That such Conciliar Declarations should be universally received by all Churches Her § 14. n. 4. because such are saith he Christians and Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome and consequently their Negatives as evident prejudices to and as utterly unreconcileable with an universal affirmative as the Popes can be c. Like to which § 12. n. 6. he argues thus concerning the absence or dissent of any Bishops from a Council That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council I add or when met do consent for if there be any left out why may not the promise be good in them though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council And § 5. n. 3. That if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places it is not qualified for our belief as Catholick in respect of place because the Faith being one and the same and by all and every of the Apostles deposited in all their Plantations what was ever really thus taught by any of them in any Church will also be found to have been taught and received in all other Apostolical Churches And § 10 n. 2 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th General Council not obliging because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council that of Eliberis which is not true yields saith he an irrefragable proof that the Doctrine of the 2 d. Nicene Council was not testified by all the Churches of all ages to be of Tradition Apostolical I say such an universal acceptation as this of every Church or Province seems upon any such pretence unreasonably exacted 1 st Because all Conciliary Definitions are not as he saith there they are only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches planted by them but are many times Determinations of points deduced from and necessarily consequential to such clear Traditionals whether written or unwritten 2ly Because if the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition yet it is possible that some particular Church may in time depart from such a Tradition entrusted unto them else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition and so when their acceptance is asked may refuse to acknowledge what all the rest justisie And all this clearly appears in those Bishops or Churches that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Councils and in the opposition of S. Cyprian and his Bishops concerning Rebaptization § 41 3ly For the manner of this Approbation of such major part It is thought sufficient if it be a tacit and interpretative Approbation only and not positive or express 3. for who can shew this to most allowed Councils Namely when such Decrees being promulgated they signifie no opposition thereto Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ System fidei c. 23. p. 262 Neque tamen dubitandum est quin statim obligare incipiant actus Conciliares si non appareat Ecclesiarum non dico hujus vel illius vel aliquorum protervorum hominum reclamatio nam praesumendum est omnes consensisse si non constet oppositum ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula ubi post alia dicit Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit necessariò credendum est And thus Dr. Hammond of Heres § 6. n. 15.16 When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on it is then promulgated to all and the universal though but tacit approbation and reception thereof the no considerable contradiction given to it in the Church is a competent evidence that this is the judgment and concordant Tradition of the whole Church though no resolution of Provincial Synods which was used before some General Councils hath preceded But if their Acts are contradicted and protested against this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council And Archbishop Lawd § 26. p. 195. saith It is a sufficient confirmation to a General Council if after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The whole Church admit it saith he And the whole say we or such a major part of the whole as ought to conclude the rest Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity to such Decrees in mens profession and practice For it is all reason that where we cannot have Quod creditum est ubique ab omnibus semper by reason of some divisions in the Church we hold to what is nearest it quod creditum est in pluribus locis à pluribus diutius or antiquiùs For the plures pluribus locis joined in one Communion with the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church here on earth are the securest Expositors to us of quod antiquius or quod creditum semper See Disc 3. § 11. 4ly For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council or only to some § 42 whilst some other Decrees are disclaimed as sometimes happens Here also 4. so far as a due Acceptation is extended so far is our Obligation nor can any reasonably argue that if some Acts of a Council are by some after-opposition rendred invalid therefore no other things pâ—ssed in that
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
against themselves A consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age saith Mr. Chillingw ‖ p. 376. * Allowing certain Tradition hardly of any thing save of the H. Scriptures And few or no Traditive interpretations thereof I have the words from Mr. Chillingw No Tradition saith he †p. 376. but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain our Lord and his Apostles but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in And Traditive Interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found So he * Alledging that the Fathers tranferred several conceits and customs into the Church from their new-deserted Paganism Platonick philosophy And Divinity of the Sybils or at least out of compliance with such new Heathen Converts And then that the more prudent and sober Fathers through timorousness and despair of a reformation have complied with the rest and been carried down with the stream Thus Zuinglius †De verâ fallâ Religione p. 214. of S. Austin touching Corporal Presence in which point many Protestants would have him their Patron Facile adducimur saith he Augustinum prae aliis acuto perspicacique ingenio virum suâ tempestate non fuisse ausum diserte veritatem proloqui quae jam casum magnaâ parte dederat Vidit omnino pius Homo quid hoc Sacramentum esset in quem usum esset institutum verum invaluerat opinio de Corporeâ carne And thus Chemnitius ‖ Exam. Con. Trid. 3. part p. 197. of the same Father touching Invocation of Saints Haec Augustinus sine Scripturâ temporibus consuetudini cedens And Bochart Origin de l' Invoc p. 488. St. Austin who seems to have been of a disposition wonderfully sweet and courteous suffers himself often to comply with the common errors and superstitions indeavouring rather to put a good sense upon them than to cross them c And Tantae vir authoritatis in negocio Dei libere loqui non audebat Cum praesumptionibus omnia impleri videret schismatis metu aperte damnare non audebat saith Vossius †Thes de Invocat S. Again * saying they held many things only as probabilities which later times have advanced into matters of faith and that necessary He finds them also in Appeale to this Antiquity ascending rather to the 3 first ages thereof ages wherein the Church was persecuted and few Records are left of her general Doctrines or Practices and more willingly declining the later where the Records many and the Church in her flourishing condition more fully displaying to the world all her Government and Discipline these men confessing some appearances of several of the Tenents and Customâ— they oppose in the fourth age Lastly he finds them apt to change the phrase and language of the Ancients and bogling at many of their terms such as those of Merit Satisfaction Altars Priests Sacrifices c. which novelty of words often argues a new conceit of things This the Protestants behaviour to Antiquity in relating which those who are versed in their books of Controversie especially the writings of the French know that I falsifie nothing whereas on the other side the opposite party to this he finds usually defending those works of the Fathers which the others question and not discarding Records certainly ancient because perhaps some of them mis-entitled as to the Author or somewhat antidated as to the time Again stating their Theological questions and extracting their Comments on Scripture controverted out of their writings Covering their defects and charitably interpreting what in them is any way capable thereof and reconciling their seeming Contradictions Lastly Sainting the Fathers and solemnly commemorating them in their publick service Often urging and laying much weight on ancient Tradition and so keeping stable and firm from generation to generation the Doctrine and Faith of the Church and out of this Tradition convincing Heresies Defending the legal authority of those Councils which the other oppose and gathering their Canons into certain Heads for the standing Laws and Rules of present-present-Church Government Not looking back with such rigor and jealousie upon their supreme Judges and examining their numbers their Commissions Elections if these free from Simony Ordinations nay Baptism nor holding them of more virtue authority or illumination as to the deciding of Controversies or enlarging Creeds in one age than another but in all ages alike necessary alike assisted § 305 4. But yet further He may discover the pretence to the Fathers that is made by this party of late not to have been so much in that beginning of the Reformation See before § 104. and 128. in the times of the Council of Trent their plain refusing to be tried by the Councils Fathers Church-Tradition but as these are first proved to have founded their Doctrine in the Scriptures See the two heads thereof Luther and Calvin their plain dealing in this matter in the many Quotations cited out of them before Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. c. Quanti errores saith Luther in omnium Patrum scriptis inventi sunt ‖ In assertiâ—â—ne Articul Quoties sibi ipsis pugnant Quis est qui non saepius scripturas torserit c. And contra Regem Angliae Non ego quaero saith he quid Ambrosius Augustinus Concilia usus saeculorum dicunt Miranda est stultitia Satanae quae iis impugnat quae ego impugno And lib. de ministris Eccl. iâ—stituend Non habent Papistae quod his apponant i. e. to his private sence and exposition of Holy Scriptures nisi Patres Concilia Consuetudinem Is not that enough Calvin De Ecclesiae reformandae ratione c. 19. to the judgement of Antiquity urged against him in the point De sacrificio Missâ returns such general answers as these not unfrequent with him also concerning many other points Veterum sententias non moror quas ad obruendam veritatem hic congerunt Moderatores Solemne est nebulonibus istis you must pardon his heat like that of Luther quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur corradere And below Desinant boni Moderatores veterum sententiis pugnare in malâ causâ Again Non est quod vel Ambrosium vel alium quemp iam ex totâ veterum cohorte acutius vidisse putemus quam ipsum Apostolum Again Vt millies clament Papistae oblatum olim fuisse panem veteres ita solitos facere non novam esse censuetudinem toties excipere nobis licebit Christi mandatum inviolabilem esse regulam quae nullâ hominum consuetudine nullâ praescriptione temporum convelli aut refigi debeat And Quod ad veteres spectat non est quod in eorum gratiam ab aeterna inflexibili Dei veritate i.e. his own fancies concerning God's Truth recedamus And
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
Yet remain they still fettered with the Bonds of a third Obedience I mean Passive in a meek submittance to the Church's Censures And if they shall happen to be excommunicated by the Church and externally disjoyned from its Society yet is it by no means lawful for them after their publishing new Doctrines to proceed also to erect a new Altar or Anti-Communion against it But patiently undergoing its sentence and longing for their peaceable restorement to the former Catholick Communion which is alwaies but One and may not be divided they are to expect from God the vindication of his Truth and their Innocence Which so long as any suffers for he remains still internally a member of this former Society from which externally he is excluded Now by this third Obedience if the Churches Faith in some manner suffers yet its Unity at least will remain unviolated and not divided or torn by Schismes These things I have endeavoured to represent and perswade to the pious Reader in the former Discourses as also in the beginning and conclusion of this present Work have further pressed them Now from such a submission to a legal Church-Authority once gained the same is rightly demanded to that of Trent if this Council proved Legal And then by this Council once received and submitted to is an end put to the most and chiefest of the modern Theological Controversies and present Church-distractions This then is the Task of the following Discourse Of which I implore the Divine Majesty for a prosperous success only so far as it maintains a right and just Cause and so commit the Reader to the gracious Illuminations of his Holy Spirit THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council OBjected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its Proceedings § 5. 4. That Several of its Decisions are without or contrary to Scripture to Primitive Tradition and Tyrannically Imposed § 6. 5. That the Decrees of this Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. n. 2. CHAP. II. Some General Considerations pre-posed 1. Of Inferior Councils The due Subordination and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precedents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. CHAP. III. 2. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the Acceptation of them Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 45. 3. And Calling of them § 47. CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from the subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant-Clergy § 67. CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nation § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by reason of 1. The pretended Non-generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place § 83. 3. Or the want of Safe-Conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishop's or Pope's being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several waies of judging Ecclesiastical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Pope's being Judge § 122. CHAP. VIII II Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonablness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies CHAP. IX III Head Of the Legalness of the proceeding of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 128. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon this Council for the condemning of the Protestant Opinions in condemning which the Fathers of this Council unanimously agreed § 150. 4 That no violence was used upon the Council for defining of Points debated between the Catholicks themselves § 152. Where Of the Councils proceedings touching the chief points in debate Touching 1. Episcopal Residency Jure Divino § 153. 2. Episcopal Jurisdiction Jure Divino § 154. 3. The Popes Superiority to Councils § 155. That these three Points of Controversie however stated are of no great advantage to the Reformed § 156. 5. That no violence was used upon the Council for hindring any just Reformations § 157. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218. Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices § 220 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non-Residence § 235. 4. Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to Church-Authority § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former church-Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
the Catholick Universe met together there never hath been any but in those which are generally by Protestants as well as Catholicks reputed and admitted for such sometimes we find a greater sometimes a smaller number according to the propinquity of the place the peace of the times the numerosity of Sects c. So the four first General Councils all held in the East by reason of the Heresies they opposed chiefly reigning in that Coast consisted mostly of Oriental Bishops The first General Council of Nice had present in it only 2. Presbyters the Bishop of Rome's Legates and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches The 2d General Council of Constantinople had in it no Occidental Bishop at all but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Council assembled in Rome not long after it The 3d. General Council of Ephesus had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Synod The 4th of Chalcedon had only 4. Legates sent thither from the Bishop of Rome after that the Western Bishops assembled in several Provincial Synods had communicated their judgment to them in the Controversie then agitated and besides these 2. Affrican Bishops and one Sicilian Where note That the 3d. also of these Councils transacted most of their business and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch and his Bishops who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius though afterwards he and his consented also to his Condemnation And that the 4th Council acted all things without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch whom also they deposed for his favouring the Heretical Party and for his Contumacy against the See of Rome See Conc. Chalced. Act 4. Yet all these Councils whether the Bishops personally present were fewer or more were accounted equally valid § 34 from the After-acceptation and admittance of their Decrees by the Prelates absent i. e. the acceptation of such persons as if present had had a Vote in them All which Prelates were they personally present in the Council or the much major part of them there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Catholick or of any other Members thereof to confirm its acts nor are they any way capable thereof because the remainder of the Church diffusive I mean of those who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs must be concluded in their Judgment and Sentence by this supposed much-major part thereof that are personally present in the Council But this wanting the other compleatsits defect And upon such Acceptation it is that the 2d. and the 5th of the Councils called General held at Constantinople without the Pope or his Legat's presence therein yet bear the name of General because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus and his Occidental Council convened not long after it and the latter after some time accepted by Vigilius and his Successors with the Western Bishops as on the contrary for want of such Acceptation the 2 d. Ephâ—sin Council though for its meeting as entire and full as most of the other called Oecumenical yet was never esteemed such because its Decrees though passed by a major part of the present Bishops were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council and by Him and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates out of it § 35 And upon this General Acceptation also inferior Councils may become in their Obligation equivalent to Generall since however the Churches Testimony is received whether conjunctly De Concil l. 2. c. 28. or by parts yet Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis So Bellarmine observes ancient Councils less than General very frequently to have determined matters of Faith Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum paucorum Episcoporum Euseb l. 7. c. 24. nec alii multò plures in toto mundo conquesti sunt sed ratum habuerunt Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum in quo nullus fuit Latinorum Latini probaverunt Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia Milevitanum Carthaginense Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum antequà m adessent Latini Latini voluerunt cognoscere rem gestam cognitam approbaverunt All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them Neither did or ought such inferior Councils when necessitated by contentions and disputes define any such thing hastily or rashly but as they well knew before any such Resolution the common Sentiments of the Church Catholick herein Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts. § 36 Next Concerning the just quality measure and proportion of this after-Acceptation several things are to be well observed 1. 1 st That it is not to be extended in a Latitude of Christianity much greater beyond the bounds of the Church Catholick Which Catholick Church is many times of a narrower compass than the Christian Profession all Heretical and Schismatical Churches I mean such as have made a former discession in Doctrine or external Communion from their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors and being but a part have separated from the former whole standing contradistinct to it So after the Nicene Council in Constantines time the Arrians and in S. Austins time the Donatists were esteemed though Christians yet no Catholicks and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity opposite to them Of which thus S. Austin †Contra Episc Fuâ—d c. 4. Tenerme justissimè in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen quod nomen non sine causâ inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit Therefore upon the growth of many Heresies after the Heathen persecutions ceased instead of these words of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints i.e. in it we read in this Creed as explained by Councils I believe One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church 1. One to distinguish it from many varying Sects pretending also to be true Churches of Christ 2. Holy i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith Manners Sacraments Government Discipline delivered by our Lord and his Apostles and in particular Holy as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness but not Holy so as that some external Members thereof may not be by their own default internally unholy and unsanctified and no true Members of Christ 3. Apostolick i. e Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinations and preserving their Traditions for Doctrine Government and Discipline And therefore here the other Clause the Communion of Saints is omitted as sufficiently included in the former Explication which is observed also by Dr. Hammond of Fundamentals p. 69 83. So in the yet more enlarged Athanasian Creed we find the Catholick Faith used in a restrained sence opposed to all those Heresies that are rejected by
12. And indeed such an Eye to and Reverence of the Orientals had the Council of Trent that in several passages it seems to take great care * of Anathematizing any such Doctrines as were in those parts commonly received Of which see something besow § 186. or of giving them any occasion to protest against it This said of the absence of the Greeks * § 67 4 ly Neither doth the absence of the Protestant-Clergy hinder this of Trent from being a Lawful and obliging Patriarchal 4. or also General Council 1. First Not the absence of so many of them as were no Bishops because they had no right to sit 1. or vote there if we may be suffered to model that of Trent according to former General and approved Councils 2. 2. Nor the voluntary and un-necessitated absence of such of them as were Bishops though those of a whole Province or Nation be so absent if invited if secured as the Protestants were See below § 92 c. and yet not coming For as hath been shewed in Councils as the Vote so the Presence of some Bishops from a major part of Christian Provinces and a like Acceptation of its Acts after the Council concluded is sufficient to nominate the Council General and render its Acts obliging or else farewel General Councils and their power For these being ordinarily assembled for the rectifying of some part peccant when will not such Bishops as are heterodox fearing some censure or ill success from the rest out-numbring them purposely absent themselves or such Princes as are any way obnoxious as Hen. 8. was having assumed a new Church-Supremacy not prohibit them Of this thus Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 4. Such a promulgation as is morally sufficient to give notice that such a Council is called is sufficient in case of Contumacy and where they who are called and refuse to come have no just cause for their not coming And D. Field ‖ p. 651. forbears not to pronounce the 5 th Council held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian A. D. 553 General when as yet the Prime Patriarch and his Western Bishops were neither present in it at least any considerable number of them nor in absence had approved it General i. e. in case saith he of their wilful refusal See his words set down before § 43. Some other cause therefore must be urged and not this barely of their absence why the Council is not without them Legally General or obliging 3. Nor doth the involuntary absence of some Bishops if hindered by some secular power or also if not admitted 3. or excluded by the Council hinder it from being Legitimate if the excluded be proved such as profess and own those Opinions that have been condemned and the defenders thereof anathematized by former lawful Councils Now whether the Protestant party might justly have been excluded upon this Title see below § 198. Nay further For those Bishops who are not yet condemned by any former Church-Decree yet if they be accused or suspected of some new dangerous Errour it hath not been unusual in former allowed Councils the major part thereof so agreeing to deny them the liberty of sitting or giving their vote therein till first by the judgment of the Council they be cleared of it For which see the Proceedings against Dioscoruus Bishop of Alexandria and his chief Adherents in the 4 th General Council Act. 1. Yet §. 86. n. 1. notwithstanding such just pretensions of excluding the Protestant Divines from the Council of Trent de facto they were not so But had granted to them Plenissimam securitatem as their Safe-Conduct Sess 18 expresseth it Veniendi proponendi loquendi Articulos quoslibet tam scripto quam verbo liberè offerendi cosque Scripturis Sacris Beatorum Patrum Sententiis rationibus astruendi ad objecta Concilii Generalis respondendi c. See also that Safe Conduct before this Sess 13. And some Protestant Divines appeared in this Council upon such security ‖ See Soave p. 374 375. But behold within three Weeks after their arrival there the Protestant Princes that had sent these to treat here an Vnion of Religion and the Peace of Christendom appear in Arms on a sudden invade the Emperor secure and wholly unprovided and narrowly saving himself from their Hands by flight from Ispruck at midnight And their victorious Armes now not far distant from Trent and a rumor spread that they would suddenly possess themselves of the Alpes to hinder the entrance of forreign Forces struck the Council with such a terror that they were necessitated to suspend it for some time and seek their safety by a dispersion of their Members Nor did the Council by reason of the tumults in Germany and wars in Italy and France †Conc. Trid. Bulla cel brat Coâ—e Sess 17. meet again till ten years after this in the beginning of Pius the fourth after that the Reformed Religion had received an incredible growth in those troublesom and distracted times wherein by the Emperor's being constrain'd to grant a Toleration the Evil One had much more advantage to sow his Tares as also at its first birth Protestantism was cherished with a like Toleration by reason of the Invasions of the Turk and the Aids against Him necessary from the Protestant party No sooner had Pius renewed the Council but there was another Safe-Conduct for Protestants published like that under Julius but not made use of But let us now suppose the Council undisturbed in the manner before related §. 68. n. 2. and these Protestant Divines that came to the Council still continuing there and indulged not only 1 the freedom of Disputing but 2 their Decisire Vote Touching which thing see the Caution premised by the Council ‖ Apud Binnium Conc. Trid. Sess 15. That if for that time the Protestants were permitted to give a Placet it should be no prejudice to the Rights or Honour of the present or future Councils which shews the Council not resolved to deny this to them if much stood upon Yet what least advantage to repeat here again something said already in the first Disc § 36. n. 3. could Protestants have extracted from these For the first their Freedom of Disputing and perswading What could they now have said after a thirty years Crowth of their Doctrine that they had not formerly written and the Council perused And with what face could they have declined the exposition of Scriptures by former Ecclesiastical Tradition Councils and Fathers by which they were cast For the latter their power of Voting What signified their number to that of Catholick Bishops Or if the Votes were changed from Personal to National still less relief to them from hence especially if such Nations be considered in a due proportion according to the multitude of their Clergy Which the Protestants well discerned when waving any such trial i. e. of Ecclesiastical matters by Ecclesiastical Judges they
Council high esteem of it and reiterated intercessions for it to the King and to the State who in Ecclesiastical matters I think ought to take them for their Guides and for their Judges § 78 2. Next That this Council was opposed by the King or Civil State of France not for any Decrees concerning the matters of faith 2. or doctrine but of Reformation as containing in them something contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church or rather of the King in or over the Gallican Church Whilst I say there was no exception taken at any point of doctrine For that point of the Popes superiority to a Council opposed by the French was not decreed at all in Trent whatever Ferieres in Soave p. 8â—8 saith to the contrary nor do the words there urged by Ferieres imply so much nor those most addâ—cted to the Pope pretend so much Nay Pallav. 24 l. 14. c. 12. 〈◊〉 saith that Pope Pius having nine parts of ten in the Council ready to vote this superiority yet suffered this controvâ—rsie to rest undetermined because of the dissent of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the French Bishops Here then the reformed cannot plead any disobligation to the Council for these things wherein the Council is generally accepted by so great a part of the Church ‖ See below §. 147. because that in some other things it is by some particular State refused § 79 3. Again That those 13. Articles drawn up concerning reformation of secular Princes 3. set down by Soave p. 769. which upon his Embassadors complaint occasioned the French Kings Protestation Soave p. 760. but gave offence likewise to the Emperour and the Kingdom of Spain c. ‖ were upon this resentment of Princes laid aside and all that was enacted by the Council in stead of these concerning Princes is contained in the 20 cap. of Reformation in the last Session Cupiens Sancta Synodus c. Where you may see with what great modesty and respect the Council treateh these Secular Suprems Admonendos esse censuit confidens eos c. Proptereaque admonet Imperatorem c. But so it is that had they prosecuted the former 13. Articles that were drawn up such thing seems not deprived of a plausible excuse for that there was nothing proposed in them but what was formerly contained in the Imperial Laws as Cardinal Morone the Popes Legat in the Council assured the Emperour See Pall. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6. and as is exâ—ressed in the Preface to those Articles See Soave p. 769 and for that they only admonished suprem Princes to cause their inferiour Magistrates against whom was their chief complaint for their infringing the Churches Immunities †Pallav. l. 22. c. 6. n. 1. to observe the former grants of the Secular Powers made to the Church which Grants some conceive after a free donation of them cannot be at pleasure resumed especially when confirmed to the Church many of them by a decurrent practise from the times of the first Christian Emperours What passages in the Council especially in the two last Sessions as infringing the rights of Princes were excepted against by the Kingdom or Parliaments of France you may see for it would be too tedious to recount them here in Soave p. 819. c. and you may see the defences in behalf of the Council returned to them by Palavacin in l. 24. c. 10. and concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in temporal matters l. 12 c. 3. As for that particular urged by Soave and others ‖ Sess 25. c. 19. de Reform of the Councils depriving those Princes of their States who shall allow Duels That clause in it Quod ab Ecclesia obtinent Jurisdictione Dominio civitatis castri aut loci in quo vel apud quem duellum fieri permiserint quod ab ecclesia obtinent privati intelligantur shews this privation limited to those places where the Church hath the Temporal Dominion But mean while where ever is supposed either a publick concurrence and consent of the secular powers to such an Act of the Church or a former grant made by them of such Priviledges and Rights to the Church here such Act of the Church cannot be justly censured and to use Spalatensis ‖ De Repub. Eccles l. 6. c. 10. n. his words concerning the third Capitulation in the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. which is also much agitated Legitimum erit si supremorum Principum concessione tacita vel expressa editum fuerit Lastly since many of those regal rights mentioned in Soave and pretended to be violated by the Council were not peculiar to France but common to iâ— with all other Princes it is most probable that had the Council bin faulty therein other Princes would have resented such wrongs and remonstrated against them as well as France For they did so against those 13. Articles which were afterward laid aside but yet nor they nor their Embassadors vigilant and exceptions enough in other matters who then attended the Council and unanimously assented to these Acts discerned in them any such violation and we may much rather conclude them just because the Emperour King of Spain and many other Princes accepted them than unjust because one King or State refused them And from finding the causes of the French State rejecting the Council so slight perhaps it was that Hen. 4. at his reconcilement promised with an oath to Pope Clement 8. to use all his endeavour that this Council might be in his Kingdom entirely received ‖ Sponda A.D. 1595. n. 9. Pallaviâ— 24. â— 10. n. 15. and Cardinal D' Ossat his great Councellor and manager of his affairs at Rome often writ in behalf of the Council both to Secretary Villeroi and to the King himself That he found nothing in the Council opposit to the Kings Authority Many things beneficial none contrary to the Gallican Church unless some one perhaps may think Simonies and other abuses and faults to be priviledges of the Church Gallican That it displeased the great ones in France because thereby they were not permitted to enjoy Benefices incompatible and with such other abuses as were prohibited by the Council See his Letters to Villeroi Feb. 15. 1597. And Mar. 31. 1599. And May 16. 1600. quoted in Paull l. 24. c. 10. To which I may add what Caterina de Medicis Q. Regent of France had urged before this to the Pope's Nuncio ‖ Pallavic Ib. c. 11. n. 2.4 That the Council could not be admitted because by the Councils decrees the King could not thereafter gratifie such Ministers of State as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses or other Benefices of the Church holden in Commendam CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by Reason of 1. The pretended Non generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place
§ 83. 3. Or the want of Safe conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. 6 ly THis said from §. 66 That there is no prejudice done this Council 6. for its bearing the Title of General and its obliging as such § 80 from the absence of Bishops Oriental or Occidental Protestant or Catholick or also from the very small numbers of the Bishops present in some Sessions considering so plenary a post-acceptation of it as hath been shewed Next Neither seems this any just exception against it that it was called by an Ecclesiastical Person the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of Rome leftblank In defence of which perhaps that may suffice that is said before at large § 47. c. But here it is to be added That this Council was called by him after First having had the consent both as to the place and time of the Emperour and all the other Christian Princes except those that were Protestants and Henry the Eighth who being a much minor part of these Princes were either to be concluded by the contrary vote of the rest or I see not since that Christianity is divided amongst so many Soveraign and Independent States and no Heresie or Schisme can be so molestful to the Church as to need the Remedy of a General Council save such as first finds patronage from some Christian Prince I say I see not how any such Counc l can ever be lawfully convened because if every such Prince be allowed a negative voice herein against the rest there will never be wanting some Prince or other extravagant in matters of Religion as Henry 8th was then obnoxious for his new assumed Title of Supreme in Spirituals and the Protestant Princes for many other Innovations and so such Prince also averse from the meeting of such a Council wherein he foresees that his party will be much the weaker and over-voted § 81 Called then this Council was by the Pope but not without the consent of the Emperour and the most of Christian Princes nay if we may believe Soave not without their great solicitation and importunity necessitating him to call it against his own inclinations as if he much dreaded some â—ffâ—ct thereof prejud cial to his present greatness Especially for the later pâ—rt of it hâ—ld under Pius and confirmâ—ng all the rest that had passâ—d before Soave saith ‖ â—hat the actions of this Counâ—il were thâ—n in a greater expectation than in the foâ—mer tiâ—es in enâ—gard all Princes had agreed in demanding it and sent Emâ—â—ssâ—dours to it and also that the mâ—mber of Prelates then assâ—mbled were fâ—iâ—r times as many as before Called also by him it was but aâ—ter the Protestant Princes had declared a great necessity thereof and afâ—er that both Luther himself and his followers had of en from the jâ—stice of the present Church-Governours appealed to it †Soave p. 8. 12. All which considered and supposing that all other things stand right That neither the necessity of such a Convention at this time can be denied nor the place we weighing a general convenience justly excepted against Nor that any persons are called to this Council save such and also all such called to it as have been the usual constitutive Members of all other former allowed General Councils nor any new rule or way proposed to be observed in this Council but that which hath been formerly from the very beginning of the first General Councils which proposal made to the Protestants by the Pope then calling it See in Palavic l. 3. c. 13. And in Soave p. 65 Nor the Pope or the Bishops constituting it become any other way a party in this than they have been formerly in them nor the lawâ—ul and Canonical freedom of its Members appear any way abridged by any precedeâ—t Oath or Ingagements made to the Pope or others nor the want of a safe conduct and freedom of access and recess can be justly complained of I say all these offences voided and their circumstances abstracted from I suppose the simple allegation of thâ—s Council its being called by the Pope will not be thought by Protestants the just subject of any quarrel and therefore leaving this spoken of before †§ 47. c. I proceed to the considering of the other particulars so many of them as shall need any Discâ—ssion 7. Next then as this Council is not hence to be esteemed as any way defective 7. from its being called by the Pope especially when this done with the concurring consent of the much-major part of Christian Princes sect 82. So neither are any of these The non-generality of the Summons or the non-freedom of the Place or the want of safe-conduct justly pretended for the condemning of this Council as illegal and non-obliging For first 1. 1. For the summons and invitation see in Soave p. 101. how universal it was in Paul the thirds time who began the Council and again how punctual it was in Pius the Fourths time who renewed the Council * In his sending several Nuncio's inviting them to it to all Protestant Princes and States and amongst the rest to Elizabeth the Queen of England which made B. Bramh. Reply to Chalc. p. 352. say As we have in horrour the treacherous and tyrannical proceedings of Paul the Third So we acknowledge with gratitude the civilities of Pius the Fourth * In his sending also an invitation to the Greek Church under the Christian Emperour of Moscovy and Baptist Romanus a Jesuite to the Patriarch of Alexandria to invite him to the Council †See the Preface to the Acta Council Ni caen which Jesuit brought from thence the Arabian copy of the Nicene Canons in number 80. and Soave acknowlegeth †p 482. that some deliberation there was of sending and granting a safe-conduct unto the Greek Churches under the Turk But it was presently seen saith he that these poor men afflicted in servitude could not without danger and assistance of mony think of Councils See the part cular persons sent to these Princes and the success of their Embassies in Soave l. 5. p. 435 439.440 Where also he saith that Although the Pope was put in mind that to send Nuncii into England and to Princes elswhere who do profess open separation from the See of Rome would be a disreputation to him yet he answered that he would humble himself to Heresie in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ did become that See For the same reason also saith he he sent Canobius into Polonia with design to make him to go into Moscovy to invite that Prince and Nation to the Council though they have never acknowledged the Pope of Rome Now here note one thing which I shall have reason to apply to many other particulars and shall often remember
se non deposituros eum si haereticum esse couvincant as Bellarmin †answered long since to this scruple only they swear to defend and promote all De Concil l. 1. c. 21. not to be in any action or plot against any of his legal and Canonical for this is alwaies understood in oaths Rights Authority Priviledges c Now what offence here what restraint of any lawful liberty For an Oath taken in general to all the Canonical rights of the Pope and not specifying any in particular leaves the Bishops and the Council in perfect liberty to dispute examine and determine what are his Canonical and rightful priviledges what not leaves them liberty to question his Supremacy so far as he seems to them to claim any such in causes or over persons Ecclesiastical not appearing by divine right or Church-Constitution due unto him and generally in liberty to question as Bellarmin observes his commanding or practising things they think unlawful And indeed the Bishops in Trent sworn to maintain all his lawful yet did dispute some of his pretended Rights and Priviledges and after much debate left them unstated Nor did the Pope or his Legats though willing enough to have prevented such agitations yet plead any obligation in the Episcopal Oath against them This Oath therefore obliging only to the observation of the former Divine and Church-Laws concerning the Papal Dignities can be no more prejudicial to the liberty of Councils than the former Laws and Canons are prejudicial thereto § 109 4 ly Bishops not sworn yet still remain obliged to the observance of all such Canons so that such Oath is not the addition of a new but the confirmation of a former obligation which 4. when our Superiors for their greater security call for we cannot justly deny 5 ly Yet neither do such obligation nor such Oath laid on Bishops taken singly restrain their liberty § 110 when met in a Council but that they with the present Popes consent 5. may then altor and change those Canons and so their obligation to them No more than a Princes or his Subjects swearing to the observance of the civil laws of a Nation hinders these when met in Parliament to abrogate any law or enact the contrary all oaths to laws have this tacit limitation viz. till those who have the authority shall think fit to repeal them And in the consecration of the Reformed Bishops in England the Oath imposed upon them of obedience to the Archbishop is conceived to be unprejudicial to the liberty of their Synods § 111 6 ly If in this Oath any thing was sworn that was unlawful the Bishops 6. so soon as this unlawfulness appeared to them from that moment without any dispensation were discharged from the observance thereof as Luther and Bucer so soon as it seemed to them unlawful thought themselves quitted from the same or the like Oath formerly taken when they first entred into a religious Order but if nothing was sworn in it but what was lawful why complain the Reformed of this Oath § 112 7 ly Did this Oath of the Bishops lay some restraint upon their liberty it would be only in one point of the Protestant Controversies 7. that concerning the Popes Supremacy but would leave it free as to all or most of the rest Neither see I what influence their swearing to maintain the Popes just Priviledges could have upon their votes in the points of Justification Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and the like For if this be named one of his privileges that their decrees in these points are invalid unless by him confirmed yet there is no reason that this should incline them at all to vote in these contrary to their own judgment 1 st Because omitting here the obligation they have to promote Truth upon whatever resistance they have no cause to presume his Judgment in such points especially after their Consultations would be different from theirs Or 2 ly Because if they knew it would differ yet they understood also that without the Concurrence of their Judgments his likewise is rendred invalid and not able to establish any thing wherein they dissent As in some affairs of this Council it so happened This for the Oath to pass on to others § 113 9 ly Whereas it is pretended that the Bishop of Rome who presided and those Bishops who sat in the Council were a party and Judges in their own cause 9. As for instance the controversies that were to be decided being between these two parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that those of the Council were all Roman Catholicks and the Protestants not permitted to have with the rest any decisive vote Again the Protestants accusing the Roman and other Western Churches of many corruptions both in their doctrine and in their discipline yet that this Council was made up of the Bishops of those Churches which were thus accused Again one controversie being against the superiority of the Order of Bishops to the Presbytery that therefore in this the Bishops were clearly a party Another controversie being against the Popes Supremacy and particularly against his authority of calling and presiding in Councils that therefore in this the Pope was a party Besides that his stiling the Protestants hereticks before the Council renders him in it no impartial nor unprejudiced Judge in their cause I say neither do these pretences hinder this Council supposing it composed of so many Bishops of the Catholick Church as are necessary to the constitution of a General Council or of so many Bishops of the Western Churches as are necessary to the constitution of a Patriarchal from being a lawful Judge in these controversies and the acts therof obligatory to all nor hinder not the Pope from presiding there Where 1 st To consider the legality of the Synod as it consists of such Bishops § 114 And 1 st Here we find that all Heresies and Schismes have had the same plea against the former Councils 1. as the Reformed against this of Trent namely that the contrary party the accuser or the accused was their Judge All the Christian Clergy was once divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians or Nestorians and Anti-Nestorians as in the times of the Council of Trent it was into the Protestants and Roman-Catholicks and the Arrians then accused the Catholick Bishops of their corruption of the doctrine of the Trinity as the Protestants did now the Roman Catholicks of several corruptions in doctrine and discipline Yet so it was that the Arrians were condemned by the Anti-Arrian Bishops as being the major part neither were they allowed any other Judge save these and this a Judgment approved by the Protestants Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople on the one side and Celestine Bishop of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria on the other side counter-accuse one another of Herâ—sie yet was Nestorius sentenced and condemned in the 3d. G. Council by Celestine presiding there by Cyril his Substitute Dioscorus Bishop
whose vigilant providence never deserts his Church either converts Him or removes Him I say however these things be stated yet as to our present business of Trent neither did the Pope out of any such private guilt of Heresie or other Crime forbear to call this Council nor when it was assembled and the Protestants complaints against the Pope well known did this supreme Court find any ground or cause of such extraordinary proceedings against him For 1st For his Presidentship in the Council which was excepted against how could the Council deprive him of this right which was no new tyranny or device but that office which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils which the Church ever had Of which see what is said before § 46. c. And as for any false doctrines crimes or corruptions charged on Him this Council found none valid as to his own person either for removal of Him from such Presidentship or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical § 124 Many corruptions indeed and great need of Reformation of several things both in the Church and in the Court of Rome as the Protestants complain'd of so the Council and also the Pope himself acknowledged And in the remedying of these the Council spent the longer part of their Acts which have been not meerly delusory as a late Writer would blast them †Stillingf Rat. Account p 482. who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority but very effective as to the having produced a vigorous and during Reformation in the Roman Church and that of the chiefest disorders complain'd of as is shewed more particularly below § 203. c. And this real effect it was which with an holy envy the Clergy of France discovered in other Catholick Countries and which made them so importunate with the King and State of France to give them there the like force and that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit †See §. 77. c. And so much were these severe Decrees resented and dreaded in the Court of Rome that Soave †p. 8 6. reports That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court representing their losses and prejudices and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness and of the Apostolick See and diminution of his Revenues Of which see much more below § 204. This in the second place that the Council who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church if any so be and of these matters found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person as might justly abridge any of his priviledges therein nor that any Reformation in the Church or Court was obstructed by his Authority § 125 3. Lastly Neither doth the Popes calling or declaring the Lutherans 3. Hereticks before the sitting of this Council render him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council and other Popes as the fore-mentioned Celestine and Leo having formerly declared against the errors of Nestorius and Dioseorus yet afterward approvedly presided in Councils and there again condemned them But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans Hereticks without shew of wrong if so be that their tenents or some of them had been determined against and condemned in former lawful Councils as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were For if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie those who own it without a new process may be pronounced Hereticks Now t is clear that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned in the 2d Nicene in the 8. G. Council in the Lateran under Innocent 3. in that of Florence in that of Constance ‖ See below §. 198. Add to this * that Leo the 10th who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther and his followers to be proceeded against as Hereticks was deceased before this Council and presided not in it * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council did not formerly pass any formal sentence against the Lutherans or Hereticks but only in his Bull concerning Reformation of the Court of Rome Obiter named them so which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree yet in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent forbears also to name them so * That Pius the 4th who renewed the Council and concluded it was absolutely free from giving them this offence therefore the Acts at least under him enough to condemn them are not upon this pretence to be invalidated But here it must not be forgotten that not only the Pope but the Emperour the King of France and sometime the King of England Henry the 8th before the Council pronounced them Hereticks published Edicts and denounced heavy punishments against them and yet afterward they did not for this utterly decline these Princes judgments as hoping that such proceedings might be upon better informations and second considerations reversible § 126 To the question asked here †Mr. Stilâ—ingf Râ—t Account p. 492. If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils why was the Council of Trent at all summoned It is easily answered 1 st That though many of the Protestant tenents had been considered and condemned in former Councils yet not all because some of them not then appearing 2 ly Had all been so yet that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts to reiterate their sentence and by new Declarations and perhaps new reasons too to enforce their former Laws and Decrees so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say and disobey them whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors and in their Resolution for the maintainance thereof So Arianism after the Nicen was condemned again by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality by the Council of Sardica and Berengarius and his party being condemned by five several Councils before the great Lateran and that of Florence yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condemnation so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie CHAP. VIII II. Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonableness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to the Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies § 127 THus much from § 53. of the first General Head I proposed § 8. concerning the sufficient generality of this Council to render it obligatory Now I pass to the second concerning the novelty canonical invalidity and probably ineffectiveness as to their carrying the cause of such a General Council as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent and as should be regulated with all their
at least by the Emperor one not without Designs * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods the charges of continuing there great not a few Bishops and other Divines poor great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council especially in its first beginning the more necessitous without some maintenance of their charges threatening to depart as Soavo himself acknowledgeth p. 124 and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them before they had his leave and saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7. these pensions were so small being but 25 Crowns a month that the Bishops so reliev'd staid not without murmuring that thus they were deprived of a just pretence to go away and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated attendance than thanks for his allowance and often complaining of their want some of them saith he in the consultations gave more molestation than some others both to the Legats and to the Pope But if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service it had been easie for Christian Princes by the like allowances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions to have countermined such policies § 171 To the 5th The admitting Titular Bishops 'T is true that some Titular Bishops were in the Council To 5. but they are justified by their allowed ordination of Priests to be true Bishops and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council and vote therein without asking any ones leave I find not any said to be in the Council who were not made Bishops before it Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope as some others do either of erecting any new Bishopricks or creating Titular Bishops during the sitting of the Council nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope save two and those at the first beginning of the Council nor these meerly Titular laus Magnus and Robert Venants waucap One Archbishop of Vpsali in Sweden the other of Armagh in Ireland both excluded from their Sees by Princes enemies to the Catholick Faith Of whom as you may read what is said in Soave p. 140. to their disparagement so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their commendation The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts so chiefly for their Country one being a Swede the other a Scot that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them Lastly if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope the same may be said of them as hath been †§. 167. of the Italians in general * That the Pope found but little assistance from them where he most needed them nor was any advantagious thing done for Him in the Council by their help * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs and passed several Acts against †Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 4. de Deform Sesss 14. c. 2 them when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council some of them would have spoken there in their own defence especially that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bishop without his licence But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress for the future the creating any such Bishops for the reasons given in Soave p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops or of those who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches or of Prelats imployed in greater affairs § 172 To the last The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations and had in them a vote with the rest but were not admitted to have a definitive vote in the Council for this reason least so whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence these their Substitutes coming abundantly from all parts might overbear the Bishops in the Council these being men of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption as they might of the Bishops themselves and this being a thing which those Prelats who afforded their own personal attendance would be much offended with Yet was it attempted to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent as to some of the German Bishops but that this could not be easily done exclusively to others †See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8. l. 21. c. 1. n. 3. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason alledged by Protestants viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted I cannot judge But those Bishops who sent Proxies themselves afterward accepting the Council did what was equivalent to their own or their Proxies definitive voting in it But to conclude this matter suppose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly and to the prejudice of the Council in some things yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above § 148 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things which were therein actually and unanimously established which is enough to overthrow the Reformation CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3. That all General Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new Divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in some former Councils § 198. 9. That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10. That a Discession from the Church and declaration against its Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. § 173 THus much from § 147.
touching the third Head the legal proceedings of this Council Now we come to the Fourth Touching the many Decrees and Canons Definitions and Anathema's of this Council much exceeding those of former and some of them said to be in very slight matters by which this Council is charged to have multiplied and imposed on all Christians so many new Articles of Faith and Pius his Bull that followed it to have added twelve new ones to the Creed Thus when as the Reformation as Mr. Thorndike complains in Conclusion to his Epilog might have been only Provisional till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this Council cutâ—â—â—â— off all hopes of Peace except by yielding to all their Decrees In this matter therefore for the Councils Defence I shall propose to you these ten Considerations following The 1st That all Anathemas in Councils are not passed 1. for holding something against matter of Faith but for other misdemeanours and Trespasses against Obedience and good manners Amongst which this may be reckoned one If any one raiseth Factions and Sects and disturbeth the Churches peace in contradicting her common Doctrines of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be or spreadeth abroad propositions schismatical and scandalous and apt to corrupt good manners or be made ill use of by the simple though the matter of them be not properly Heretical or opposing an Article that is De fide Again Anathemas that are inflicted by the Church for holding something contrary to the Faith are not alwaies or most usually denounced for those more fundamental and necessary points of Faith an error in which ruines Salvation but also and more commonly because these are more for some lesser matters of faith viz any whereby some damage smaller or greater comes as to the Author from holding them so to others from his maintaining and divulging them abroad The Church being very vigilant contrary to Sects to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith which are observed by the Apostle to be of the nature of a Cancer 1 Tim. 2.17 still eating further into the bowels of Truth she not knowing how far they may enlarge themselves and by little and little invade higher Points and lay the Foundation for more pernicious errors Nor doth the punishment of Anathema in these eye so much the greatness and malignity of the error as the pertinacy and obstinacy of its Abettor refusing submittance to the Churches authority the violating of which Authority may be a great fault and of very ill consequence though in a small matter If he will not hear the Church saith our Lord let him be to thee Mat. 18 17. as an Heathen †an excommunicated â—rn anathematized person where the censure lies upon his not hearing the Church be the matter in which small or great § 174 And the great guilt of the obstinacy against the Definitions of Superiors though in the maintaining only of some small errors in the Faith some Protestants seem to acknowledge and confess it well to merit so high a Censure Of which thus Dr. Fearn †Considerations on the Church of Engl. Preface We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus this Doctor Only he would have the Church to distinguish between pertinacious and modest gain-saying which is to know Hearts and this latter he would have to pass free from this censure and such he would have that of the Reformers to be Was that of Luther then so modest Or doth not the weight and venerableness of the Churches Authority render all known contradiction whatever truly guilty of Pertinacy and Pride Again Thus Bishop Brambal †Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27. When inferior questions not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church for such a point non-fundamental deserve to be punish't as Hereticks i. e. Anathematized And Cardinal Bellarmin saith †De Concil l. 2. c. 10. of Provincial Councils That Judicium non-infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And Debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes vel Concilium Universale these two it seems only do set at liberty our tongues from the obligations of Inferiour Councills si secus egerint merito excommunicantur Notwithstanding though an Anathema in such cases in well deserved from the wilful adherence of such persons to their own fancies against their Superiors yet it is never inflicted meerly for this but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent if spread abroad to others the remedy of which danger of infecting others seems chiefly to be intended in the Churches using ordinarily in such Canons Si quis dixerit rather than senserit § 175 2. Concerning the Extent of matter of Faith You must know That all Divine Revelations whatever 2. and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith could they proceed in infinitum are also when known the matter or objects or Articles of our faith as well as the more chief necessary points thereof unless we may dis-believe something that we grant to be God's Word And are all Traditional from the Apostles times either in their own express terms or in their necessary Principles since new Divine Revelations none pretend And consequently the contrary error to any of these Deductions when ever it seems very hurtful may be Anathematized § 176 And amongst these Divine Revelations and matter of our Faith are to be reckoned these two Propositions of no little consequence viz. the Doctrine of Christian liberty namely That all things are lawful unto us which God's Word hath not prohibited And again this That the Church hath authority committed to Her by our Lord in such lawful things to make Constitutions and Decrees obliging all her subjects to obedience So that one that affirms something to be prohibited in God's Word or unlawful that is not so prohibited or one that denies obedience to the Precepts of the Church made in things not contrary to God's Word offends against the Faith and on this account is liable to an Anathema And in these things our Belief according to the several objects thereof is required of us in a several manner 1. In pure speculatives If it be a thing made known to us to be revealed by God the Faith that is required of us upon such Revelation is to believe it a certain Truth 2. In practicals if it be a thing by God commanded or
after the Churches Doctrine sufficiently established in the Nicen Creed There Credentibus quident saith the Council apologizing for it self sufficit ad utilitatem Fidei i. e Nicenae in discussa i. e. without further consequences multiplied from it prospectio His autem qui doctrinam rectam pervertere moliuntur ad singula quae malè pariunt oportet occurrere eorum objectis propria quaeque providere Nam si omnes contenti essent fidei Nicenae constituto which indeed may also be said of the Apostles Creed pietatis semitam nullâ innovatione turbarent deceret Ecclesiae Filios in Councils nihil amplius excogitare Sed quia multi a rectâ lineâ per anfractus erroris exorbitant necesse nobis est veritatis eos inventione convertere commentaque eorum devia salutaribus adjectionibus refutare non ut novum ad pietatem quasi fides desit semper aliquid exquirentes sed ut contra ea quae ab illis innovata sunt excogitantes quae salubria judicantur Thus that Council apologizeth for its new Definitions Where Excogitare and veritatis inventione and the adversaries object ng to them Innovation c shew that Councils may define not only express Traditionals in matters of faith but any new conclusions extracted from such Traditionals Neither seems it to be much material §, 183. n. 2. 1. Whether the Definitions of latter Councils when inserted into former Creeds be called explanations and Declarations of or Additions to the former faith which was a great contest between the Greek and the Latine Church in the Council of Florence provided they be only such things as are granted to be necessarily educed out of former Principles of faith 2. Nor 2ly much matters it as to the assent that ought to be yielded to them when known to be the Churches Definitions whether they be not inserted into former Creeds but delivered apart For an obligation we have to the one sort as well as to the other For example There is no less an obedience due to Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dei Genetrix intimating the unity of Christs person though compounded of two distinct Natures defined by the third General Council though not interposed in the Creed than to one Baptisme or Filioque which were so interposed Only it seems that an Insertion into the Creed is purposely made of those points of faith which among the rest are conceiv'd more necessary not only to be assented to when known but to be explicitly known by every Christian or in infected times fit to be distinctly confessed by every Catholick Though yet so indifferent was this matter as to principal points That Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks urged in the Council of Florence †Sess 5. that it was forborn to be added to the Nicen Creed by the Ephesin Fathers yet is found in terms equivalent to be put in the Athanasian Creed Not two but one Christ by unity of Person and this allowed of by the Reformed and again found in express terms to be put in the Definition of their Faith according to some Copies made shortly after by the Council of Chalcedon See Sess 5. where also before the passing of this Definition the Fathers cryed out against the Nestorians Ista fides Orthodoxorum Sancta Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scribatur In Symbolo sic addatur †Sess 5. As likewise afterward found to be put in express terms in the Creed of the fourth Toletan Council The like may be said of One Baptism for Remission of sins defined indeed against the Novatians by the Nicen Council but by the second General Council of Constantinople first mentioned in the enlarged Creed The like of that clause they that have done evil into everlasting fire omitted in the Constantinopolitan but put in the Athanasian Creed perhaps against the Origenists who held the fire temporary and malos post purgationem malorum regna Dei lucique restituendos ‖ Austin de Hares Nay In the now-receiv'd Apostles Creed it self there seems something to be additional inserted by latter times propter nonnullos Haereticos saith Ruffinus in Expositione Symboli not found in the prime Copies thereof at least not in those anciently used in the Roman Church as Descendit ad inferos and vitam aeternam See the Authorities quoted by Archbishop Vsher De Symbolo Apostolico vetere Rom. Ecclesiae This in Explication of the much mis-understood Ephesin Canon urged as prohibiting any future additions to the Nicen Creed or the following ages enlarging the Articles of the former Catholick Faith Now to proceed § 184 4. That many Controversies and Questions started in this Council of Trent yet 4. because they had not sufficient evidence in Scripture or Tradition to decide them were left unstated by it For which see what hath been said formerly § 149. And great prudence and care was used that nothing should pass there from which any considerable number dissented And Pallavicino observes ‖ l. 12. c. 1. n. 4. out of several Registers of the Councils Acts whereof he had the perusal that Soave perhaps the more to trouble and muddy the clearness of the Catholick Doctrine as it opposed that of the Innovators or to shew his own Reading in points where there happens to be any difference among the Schoolmen doth many times bring-in the skirmishing of the Theologs one with another concerning them when as in Reality there was no such contest amongst them in the Council Though on the other side this is not denied several times to have happened and perhaps some of the Disputants desirous that their own tenents might pass for the common Doctrine of the Church but as I said the Legats and others not ingaged in such a quarrel by their great judgment composed such strifes without giving in the Session and the Decree the victory to either side a moderation much complained of by the Protestants the Spectators who from thence might have hoped some schisme and the rise of a civil war in the Catholick Communion § 185 5. That the Lutherans broaching so many erroneous positions and joyning together the tenents of so many several Sects that had been before them innovating something in every part of Divinity caused the Council of Trent to multiply so many Anathemas against them and joyn together also the results of many former Councils This being the course observed in the Council first for some selected persons to read the Lutheran writings on the subject in hand and to collect out of them the erroneous and noxious propositions and then for the whole Council when such propositions upon examination were unanimously disallowed to anathematize though some among these of much less malignity than others especially all those errors which were destitute of the patronage of some reverend Father or other writer of the Church for where the Council found any such Patronage they used them more gently and prosecuted them not
with the like vehemency And seeing that in the proceeding against Sects some former Councils were wont only to condemn the Sect in general and make mention only of the chief heads of their doctrine other Councils again more punctual descended to the condemning of all the particulars this latter way was rather taken by the Council of Trent not without mature consideration had in the beginning of the Council concerning it which is related by Soave p. 192. where he saith That one part desired that four or six fundamental Articles of the new doctrine might be chosen and condemned following the example of the ancient Councils which having declared the principal Article condemned the heresie never descending to particular propositions but condemning in general the books of the Hereticks That in that universal they comprehended all the pernicious doctrine and that the honour of the Council so required But the other part saith he aimed to put under censure all the propositions which might receive a bad construction that those amongst them might be condemned which in reason did deserve it saying that it was the office of a Pastor to discern intirely the wholsome grass from the hurtful and not to suffer the flock to tast of this And if the example of ancient Councils ought to be imitated they should imitate * that of Ephesus which made so many and so famous anathematisms against the doctrine of Nestorius that these did contain whatsoever the heretick had said * and the Councils of Affrica which descended to the condemnation of all the propositions of the Sects see Conc. Milevitan against the Pelagian doctrines Conc. Gangrense Syrmiense 2. Nicaen Act. 7 and lastly the Council of Constance condemning forty five propositions of Wickleff and thirty of Jo. Huss the first opinion did undoubtedly propose a more easie way and would have left a chink open for an agreement which future times might produce yet the second was embraced c. Thus Soave As for the former way leaving a chink open for agreement It may be more easily credited when we shall see an agreement advanced in those points handled in the 25th Session where the Councils determinations are so brief and general as the Council escaped not for this generality also the censure of Soaves Chorus †p. 822. as elsewhere it incurs their displeasure for mincing matters too much and making every thing moved an Article of Faith § 186 6. That all the Canons in the Council of Trent that have Anathema affixed all which except a very few †See Sess 4. Sess 5. c. 1. run only in the form Si quis dixeril 〈◊〉 â—njoyn assent under Anathema to the contradictory proposition nor make it an Article of Faith necessary to be believed under the penalty of being reputed an Heretick unless saith Canus †Com. leci l. 5. c. 5. the decree to which such Canon relates bind to assent with a Firma fide credendum Hoc est dogma fidei catholicae Contrarium asserentes or tenentes judicentur pro hareticis Or some other equivalent expression or unless the Canon run Si quis hoc senserit And Cardinal Bellarmin saith much what the same †De Concil l. 2. c. 12. Quando autem Decretum proponatur tanquam de Fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilii Semper enim dicere solent 1 se explicare fidem Catholicam 2 vel quod est communissimum dicunt Anathema ab Ecclesiâ excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt But then what if it be only Anathema iis qui contrarium dicunt or docent Quando autem nihil horum dicunt non est certum rem esse de Fide Thus Bellarmin For this Council doth sometimes expresly anathematize or excommunicate for teaching or publickly defending of some error or for accusing the Church of error in her teaching the contrary when it doth not anathematize the holding of such an error An example of which * see Sess 24. c. 7. Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare cum docuit docet juxta Evangelicam Apostolicam doctrinam propter adulterium alterius conjugum Matrimonti vinculum non posse dissolvi c. Anathema sit Where the Council anathematizeth those who condemn the Church of erring in teaching such a doctrine as Luther did condemn the Church but doth not anathematize those who hold the contrary doctrine as the Greek Church doth to whom the Council in this decree was favourable in passing the Anathema not on the holding such an error but only on any ones censuring the Church of error for holding otherwise Now one who holds an opinion for truth may be highly culpable in accusing those who hold the contrary of error either because himself may be mistaken in what he holds or because he may be uncharitable or also disobedient in divulging all that he knows I add this in respect of what Soave objects about this matter p. 755. and 799. See the like can 8. and 4. and Sess 21. c. 2. * See likewise Sess 13. c. 11. where in respect that some approved Writers †See Pallav l. 12. c 2. n. 7. n. 12. both ancient and modern amongst whom Cajetan had held concerning Sacerdotal Confession to precede Communion the contrary tenent to that which the Council approved it doth not anathematize or excommunicate those who held the contrary doctrine as Hereticks but excommunicates those qui contrarium docere prudicare vel pertinaciter assetere seu etiam publice disputando defendere praesumpserint i. e. for the future is perturbers of the Churches peace as Canus one present in the Council observes †Com. loc l. 5. c. 5. § 187 So in the Canon about the canonical books of Scripture Sess 4. Si quis pro sacris canonicis non susceperit being only expressed in this Canon and parireverentiâ venerandis omitted which had some opposers Pall. l. 6. c. 14. n. 3. whilst of the three draughts that were proposed †See Soave p. 155. Bishop Cosin Hist of Canon c. 18. §. 192. every one had some maintainers no person seems under Anathema to be any further obliged than only to hold these books sacred and canonical A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike de Ratione finiend Controversias c. 28. p. 565. Neither yet is there any Injunction in this Council concerning the books called Apocryphal pari reverentiâ venerandos esse but only this said Synodus part reverentiâ veneratur which hath not the Form of a Decree Where also parireverentiâ may be understood so as that whilst in some respect it equals these Apocryphal books with some of the others as the Protestants call them generally held Canonical as perhaps with Esther Ruth Ezra Nehemiah Proverbs Ecclesiasties c. yet doth it not therefore in every respect equal them with all as namely Tobit or the book of Wisdom with the five Books of Moses or the four Gospels Some parts of the Canon being much
any Point after defined necessary explicitly to be believed not only this one condition of the Churches having defined them is required for none is obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal made to us of the Churches having defined them And then indeed so many Articles are necessary to be explicitly believed as to the doing of our duty in order to our salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as to acquiring some knowledge necessary to our salvation without which knowledge it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is See what hath been already said of this whole matter much what to this purpose in Disc 3. § 85. n. 4. c. § 197 There are then as Catholicks to undeceive Protestants do frequently inculcat and cannot be heard Points or Articles of Faith necessary to our Salvation to be believed or extra quae credita nemo salvus in a tripple sence 1. Some necessary ratione Medii Such as are necessary so absolutely as that an invincible ignorance of them is said to fail of Salvation which are a very few of the many Articles of our Christian Faith 2. Others necessary ratione praecepti which are necessary to be believed only conditionally And they are of two sorts 1. Either such which I am not only obliged to believe when known to me to be Divine Truths but the knowledge also of which as Articles of high concernment I am bound according to the different quality of my condition to seek after wherein my ignorance and neglect when by using a due diligence I might have known them being thus in an high degree culpable doth unrepented of destroy my salvation Such are some other chief Principles of Religion and Piety the ten Commandements and some Sacraments c. delivered in the common Creeds and Catechisms such as are not absolutely necessary ratione Medii 3. 2 Or such as though I am not obliged to such a diligent search of them as of the former yet a belief of them I am to embrace so often as these two things precede 1 st that they are defined by my spiritual Guides to be Divine Revelation c 2 ly that this Definition is sufficiently evidenced to me Where though not my meer ignorance in such Points yet my denial or dis-belief of them thus proposed is to be judged wilful and obstinate and this unrepented of destroyes my salvation § 198 8. This of the Seventh The Eighth consideration is That the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined 8. or made de Fide in the Council of Trent to repeat here what hath been said formerly in the first Disc § 50. were made so by sormer Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The law fulness of communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Popes Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council Lateran Veneration of Images in second Nicene Council Adoration of Christs Body and Blood as present in the Eucharist in the Council of Frankfort if Capitulate Caroli may be taken to deliver the sence of that Council †See Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. Veneration of the Cross †Ib. l. 4. c. 16. and of Relicks ‖ Ib. l. 3. c. 24. in the same Council only this Council condemned the Adoration of Images in such a sence as they mistook the second Council of Nice to have allowed it †See Capitulare prefat Dr. Hamnâ—ond o Idol § 57. Thornd Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Monnastick vows Celibacy of Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead Sacrifice of the Mass and many other apparent in the publick Liturgies of the Church preceding the Council of Trent and unaltered for many ages Protestants being Judges Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practise And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before made them not de Fide or if the Council of Trent or Pius the 4th were first faulty herein But if Councils before Trent have defined such things then by these first were all hopes of peace except by yielding to their Decrees cut off and not by Trent because these Councils are by the Roman Church accepted and held obligatory as well as that of Trent And here I may repeat those words of Bishop Bramhal recited in Disc 1. § 52. in answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon who urged the separation of Protestants from the Church long before the Grievances of Trent or Pius These very Points saith he †p. 263. which Pius the Fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded on us before by his Predecessors i. e. then when Luther and his Followers forsook the Church as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion This is the only difference that Pius 4. dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and be bound them up into a bundle They fashioned the rods i. e. in the Synods held in the Church before Luthers appearance For these Rods only require submittance as being necessary Articles of her Communion and such are only the Definitions of her Councils § 199 9. Consid That the Protestants who accuse seem as guilty in making new definitions in matters of faith and enjoyning them to be believed or assented and subscribed to 9. by those of their Communion as the Council of Trent or Roman Church that is here taxed for it For as the one is said to make new affirmatives in Religion so the other new Negatives all or most of which as hath been shewed in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †§. 85 n. 2. are implicitly new affirmatives Neither can the Church of Rome be more justly questioned in her not leaving points in universals only § 200 and their former indifferency but anew-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation Invocation c. than the Reformed and particularly those of the English Church for new-stating the contrary to these 1. Who as hath been shewed in the 3d Disc c. 7. †§. 85. n. 3. 1. do not suspend their judgment concerning those new points which they say the Roman Church presumes to determine but do in the main Articles handled in the Council of Trent as peremptorily state the one side as the Roman Church the other and as to several points the reformed also were the first I mean in comparison of the Council of Trent in determining them and condemning the doctrines and practises of the other side So to say nothing here of the Augustan Confession composed many years
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
Nation were granted to be To θ. To θ. See what is said § 39. c. 67. An universal Acceptation by all Churches of the Acts of a Council to render them obliging is not necessary for so none would be valid wherein the Doctrines of any Church are censured § 253 To To See what is said § 77. Both the Ecclesiastical and Civil State of France accepted the Trent Decrees as to matter of Doctrine the things wherein Protestants chiefly oppose it The Ecclesiastical State of France accepted and petitioned the King and Civil State to receive this Council also in points of Discipline And if the Civil State received it not in every thing I mean so far as it medled not with their temporal rights I think it appears from the former Justification of the Legality of this Council that they cannot be freed from fault Neither if that State refuse these Canons of Discipline will it just fie the Protestants for refusing the rest of Doctrine unless the French plead the Council totally illegal as they do not neither will it justifie the Protestants at least in refusing these if the French do faultily refuse them To λ. To λ. See what is said §. 254. n. 1. from § 113. to § 127. where is shewed 1st As to the Bishops That the same plea hath been usually made against former Councils by the Hereticks they condemned That the Christian world was divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians before the Council of Nice as it was into Catholicks and Protestants before that of Trent and the Arrians were many waies proceeded against before the assembling of that Council by some of those Bishops who yet afterward sat in Council as their Judges and the Anti-Arrian Bishops only as the major number condemned the other That the Church-Governours whatever their perswasions are formerly known to be in the controversie proposed cannot be removed from the Tribunal for the deciding purely ecclesiastical and spiritual matters and this is only necessary not to see whether they side any way or own a party but only to see on which side is the major part That in causes of Religion in which all men are concerned and the Clergie especially stand obliged earnestly to defend the truth and oppose Novelties and are culpable in remaining neuters and omitting this duty to use Mr. Chilling-worths words it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but that the Judge must be some way or other a party if he may be called a party who hath formerly declared himself of such an opinion But if their being questioned of judging in their own cause relate not here to matters of opinion but of honour or profit then for most matters defined in the Council of Trent its judgment cannot be declined on this later account being given in matters meerly speculative or at least far remote from such Secular concernments 2ly As to the Pope That the same things may be repeated for him as for the Bishops That Popes have often presided by their Legats in former allowed Councils when they were accused and excepted against by those persons for the judging of whose cause the Council was convened As Celestine excepted against by Nestorius presided in the Third and Leo by Dioscorus in the Fourth General Council That it is thought most reasonable that the supreme Civil Judge either by himself or his Substitutes be the Judge of all those causes which concern his own Rights when there is a controversie in these between him and some of his Subjects That if the Pope for defects in his Office or other personal faults be Table to any other Judge it must be to the Council Now by this Council he remaineth either cleared or not condemned as to the Accusations of Protestants This having ever been the chief plea for those §. 254. n. 2. who foresee that they shall be over-numbred and over-voted in a Council to alledge it to consist of a contrary Party and so to decline its judgment for usually no Council happens to be called for suppressing any new Doctrine till a considerable opposition is first made by those Pastors of the Church against such Doctrine who also are the proper Judges of it I think it not amiss in the last place to give you the judgment of Protestants themselves touching the insufficiency of such an excuse when by God's providence it happened afterward to be their own case in I think the most noted and general Synod that hath been held amongst them since the Reformation I mean the Synod at Dort assembled A. D. 1618. Wherein were present Delegates from the King of England Elector Palatine Landgrave of Hess the four Protestant-Cantons of the Swisses the Commonwealth of Geneva c. For some time great Controversie had been in the Low-Countries concerning the high points of Predestination Grace and Freewill the Pastors there divided into Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants the contest proceeding so far in several places as to a seperation of Communion Upon it this National Synod is called and the Remonstrants in this of Dort foreseeing themselves in the same condition as the Protestants did in that of Trent defencâ—d themselves with the same Arts and Excuses †See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 25. Alledged that the Synod excepting the Forrainers did mostly consist a thing which could not be denied of an already declared contrary Party who it was unreasonable that they should sit Judges in their own cause a party too who had before also separated themselves from communicating with the Remonstrants and amongst other things those Remonstrants did particularly insist upon this very plea we are now speaking to of the Protestants against the Council of Trent which was held justly to exempt them from any obligation to its Decrees They required also a Synod as the Protestants did in the time of that of Trent In which a set and equal number on either side might be chosen to consider how to accommodate rather than decide these Controversies After which any Clergy dissenting being only removed from their places might still enjoy the same liberty of conscience as others For that since the Apostles there was no such infallible Guidance of the Holy Spirit but that Modern Synods might erre as several Ancient had done †See Synod Delf Sess 26. In answer to this the Synod defends it self all the forrain assistants thereof concurring in their judgment with such replies as these §. 254. n. 3. Than which only changing the name I cannot imagine a better justification of the Council of Trent 1st Concerning the members of the Synod their being of a contrary perswasion and so a Party and Judges They say see Acta Synod Dordr Sess 26. p. 84. Nunquam praxin hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse ut Pastores quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio sese opponerent as the Tridentine Bishops before that Council did propterea jure suffragiorum aut de illis ipsis erroribus judicandi potestate exciderent
to be handled in Council were lawful before the Council why not during it Especially the matters being so various as that the Legats were not capable of such Instructions all at once neither did this encroach on the liberty of the Council unless it can be shewed that the Council was obliged to follow it which it is clear they were not because de facto they many times opposed it Neither was any thing in matter of Doctrine voted in Council whatever instructions came in the male from Rome a considerable part resisting § 262 To Ï„. To Ï„. See what is said § 170 171. The Popes Pensions given to some poorer Bishops during so long a Session of the Council might be an effect of his charity not policy However it is clear that their assistance to him was useless as to Protestant Controversies and stood him in little stead as to those Catholick ones wherein a considerable part of the Council opposed him none of which were passed for him if any perhaps were hindred by his party from being passed against him this was the uttermost of any service done by his Pensioners As for many Titular Bishops sent and new Bishopricks erected during the Council whilst those things are only in general said and no particulars named they carry the suspicion of a groundless report § 263 To ν. To ν. The Councils determining things repugnant to Scripture 1 That no injunction repugnant to the Holy Scriptures is to be obeyed is on all sides agreed on But that some of the Councils decrees are contrary to the Scriptures as it is a thing affirmed by the Protestants the lesser so is it denied by the Council and its adherents much the major part of the Doctors and Church-Governours of the West We are to seek then which of them our duty doth oblige us to obey and follow Next 2 As to the Councils determining things not warranted by Scripture See before § 176. the two Propositions both Divine Revelation whereby the Scriptures warrant the Church in her defining and requiring a belief of such things to be lawful and in her injoyning such things to be practised as the Holy Scriptures have not prohibited or declared against This warrant from the Scriptures for any of their Decrees the Council wants not and affirms no further warrant from them as to such Decrees necessary § 264 To φ. To Φ I answer 1st That the Council of Trent allows no Tradition extra Scripturas or unwritten there to be sufficient ground of defining matter of faith unless it be Tradition Apostolical Traditiones saith It †See Sess 4. Decret de Canon Scrip. quae exipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis Apostolis spiritu sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt And ‖ Salv. Conduct Sess 15. Vult S. Synodus quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones c. in praedicto Concilio tractentur 2ly That any Council should make the word of God delivered by the Apostles either by Tradition written the Holy Scriptures or unwritten i. e. by them equally a ground of Faith where there is a certainty equal or sufficient of the one as of the other that it is Apostolical I see not how it can be liable to any Censure Of this thus Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 210. Your next inquiry is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility As for the necessity of standing Records which he there alledgeth from the speedy decay of an Orall Tradition this is sufficiently remedied if the Apostles Successors at least do commit to writing things which were by them orally received And thus Mr. Chillingw †We conceive no antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might stand very well together If God had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written So he hath sending us to our spiritual Guides †Heb. 13.7 17. Eph. 4.11 14. who do by Tradition of their Predecessors writings conveâ—â—â—â—â—â— to us that right sence of Scriptures which is dubious in the written letter of them 3 ly None can rationally deny that the Traditive Doctrine of the Church-Guides would have been a sufficient ground of our faith had the Scriptures not been written because it was so before they were written and is so still to some who cannot read them written or know that others read them right Of this also thus Mr. Stillingf †p. 208. It is evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of faith as to that revelation Because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and his Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrine of Christ before it was written and this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of the Scripture 4ly We find the first General Councils universally allowed to have grounded their Decrees upon the Argument of Tradition and the Doctrine or Interpretation of Scriptures descended to them from former ages as well as upon the Text of Scriptures and by both these not one of them singly to have defended their cause against Hereticks Of which thus Athanasius †Synodi Nicen decreta Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse and In eo Concilio illa sunt scripta quae ab initio ipsi qui Testes oculati Ministri verbi fuere tradiderunt Fides enim quae scriptis decretisque Synodi sancita est ea est totius Ecclesiae And ‖ Epistol ad Epictetum Ego arbitrabar omnium quotquot unquam fuere haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam fides quae inibi à Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est satis mihi idonea essicaxque videbatur ad omnem impietatem evertendam pietatem ejus quae in Christo est fidei constituendam 5 ly Protestants in some point of faith ground their belief only or at least sufficiently on Tradition †Stillingf pt 1 c. 7. namely in this That the Scriptures are God's Word and consequently must allow any other Tradition of equal evidence a sufficient ground of any other Article of Faith and so do When you can produce saith Mr. Stillingf ‖ p. 210. aâ— certain evidence
of these though much more tedious and painful For the greater benefit both of those within and those without the Churches Communion that her children might more exactly know all those noxious Tenents they were to avoid and her adversaries those they were to reform And if in taking this second way the Council escaped not obloquy yet much more had they incurred it in taking the firsti e. in condemning so many Persons and their writings for many Corruptions of Catholick Truths and then naming none or a few and not using so much care in sifting the Novelties of Luther who drew such a train after him as their Predecessors at Coustance did in those of Jo. Wicleff or Jo Huss Neither in so particular a Discussion and Censure of the Lutheran Doctrines § 267 is this Council destitute of the Example of many former Councils very copious in their Anathemas against Heresies of a much less latitude and in some matters as considered in themselves seeming of no great Malignity For which see no less than twelve Anathemas of the third General Council passed against Nestorius according to the several Particulars whereinto his Error had brâ—â—ched it self and colours he had laid upon it though all pointing at one thing two persons in our Lord Christ a thing Soave saith ‖ p. 192. the Council of Trent took notice of and set before them as a Pattern See the 25 Anathemas of the Syrmian Council all relating to several branches of Photinianisme The eight Anathematismes of the Milevitan Council pursuing all the particular points of Pelagianisme The eleven Anathemas of the second Nâ—cen Council ‖ Act 7. †all about veneration of Images The twenty Anathematismes of that ancient Council at Gangra A. D. 319. wherein the famous Hosius was present pronounced against the Eustathians letting nothing how small soever it might seem to be in this their censure pass unbranded wherein this Sect was found to oppose the Churches common Doctrine and Practice Many of which Anathemas of former Councils if you please to compare with those of Trent you shall find several of them as to the Gravity of the matter much inferiour Lastly see the late Council at Constance condemning not only 45 propositions of John Wicliff recited there †Sess 8. but 260 more besides of the same temper All which had been formerly with much care by the Vniversity of Oxford gleaned out of his writings they bringing under their censure not only such Articles as were Blasphemi Haeretici or Sediosi but also as were temerarii scandalosi or piarum aurium offensivi and letting none escape them that might do hurt In the same Council also afterward †Sess 15. were no less than 30 propositions of John Huss condemned Now we may presume that Luther and his Followers to those who put their sickle into their books to bring to tryal what seemed faults could not but yield an harvest much more fertile Nor was the care here to be less where the danger was much greater And for this strict Inquisition and search made by Councils we owe great thanks to the providence of God For thus whilst the wantonness and curiosity of mens understanding from the Faith delivered in General still descends to things more particular and so raiseth new Disputes in the Church and spreads false opinions the contrary Determinations of Councils regulated by necessary Consequences render also the Christian Faith from time to time more particular and so more exact and less liable to the corrupted when all that in question comes to be stated that is clearly evidenced and the knowledge thereof any way useful So since the settling by Council of those particular points contained in the Athanasian Creed explicating that of the Apostles much more short and General the Church as to these points hath enjoyed a great repose and freedom from those disputes with which some ages of it before were miserably distracted And if the Decrees of the Council of Trent have had the same effect as Soave complains they have in the beginning of his History †p. 1 2. the Protestants may impute it to their precedent questioning of the Churches Doctrine and disturbance of her peace § 268 To ω. To ω See what is said before § 244. Bene facere male audire is the common fortune of Governours and to the censorious and male contents the world is still out of order though God himself Governs it and the worst times are alwaies the present Whether the Trent Decrees for Reformation which were never so numerous in any Council and design'd from the beginning of it to have an half share with points of Doctrine in all their Consultations and in the composition of which so many several Parties well seen at least in one anothers Defects concurred were so contrived as to remove motes and not beams to cure itches not feavours I must refer you to the re-consideration of the particulars set down before from § 212. Neither may we think that it was the meddling with moâ—es that offended so much either the Court of Rome or of France as Soave tells us their reformation did For any defects still seen in Church-Government Discipline c which alwaies are and will be many it ought not to be charged on these laws but the non execution of them which neglect also useth to be much more in those laws that are more exact and perfect and so more contrary to common practice But since the sitting of this Council there have not wanted those pious Bishops as S. Carlo Borremeo and others who molding their Reformations exactly according to these Decrees have manifested to the world the great perfection thereof § 269 To α α. To α α. See what hath been said in Defence of this Dispensative Power placed in the supreme Ecclesiastical Governour before § 216. 1. The Council weighing the conveniences thereof with the inconveniences yet declared †Sess 25. De Reform Gen. c. 18. Publice expedit legis vinculum quandoque relaxare ut plenius evenientibus casibus necessitatibus pro communi utilitate satissiat Else the laws may sometimes hurt where they should help 2. Again this Dispensative Power deposed in this Ecclesiastical Supreme is no new usurpation but an ancient priviledge injoyed alwaies by him Of which see before § 217. 3. Next It had here some qualifications and clogs laid upon it by the Council As †See before §. 215. that such Dispensation shall be accounted surreptitious and void when not given gratis and causâ prius cognitâ the Ordinary being constituted the Inspector and Examiner of this †Sess 25. c. 18. Now he must be very perversly wicked who will issue forth such a Dispensation where he neither receives benefit by it nor sees just cause for it 4. Lastly The same Dispensative Power as to the civil Laws is reposed in the Secular Supreme neither is the vigor of such Laws esteemed to be
proper to Hâ—storians to asperse and blemish the most specious and candid actions of those though the most sacred Persons whose interests he disfavours with some or other uncharitable Gloss upon them and to represent the fairest fruit they bear still worm-eaten with some corrupt Design or malignant Intention for which a bare possibility thereof seems his sufficient warrant to affirm it And again for the second constantly after each Session of this Council He under the Mask of the vulgar talk and common Fame takes liberty to sum together all that which he apprehends may any way disparage the precedent Decrees and that which perhaps never entred into any ones save his own fancy 4 Lastly That he was a Person with whom the Arch-Bishop of Spalato had an intimate Acquaintance and of whom also he gives this Character in the Preface to the first Edition of this History London 1619. which Preface is omitted in the latter as some think because it too manifestly discovers the Historians Dis-affection to those whose actions he relates That he lived so in the Roman Captivity as to guide himself by a right Conscience rather than the common Customs That he had a great Zeal to the purity of Religion against such unexcusable i. e. Roman depravations thereof That he abhorred those who defended the Church of Rome's abuses as holy Institutions and professed Truth wherever found was to be embraced That this his work was only known to him and some others his great Confidents From which as also from some Extracts out of his Letters holding correspondence with some French Hugonots mentioned in Casoni's Preface to the Second Volume of Pallavicino may easily be gathered that his Religion was much-what of the same temper and complexion with that of Spalatensis Unless perhaps we may think that after his writing this Book he return'd to a better mind and that from this change came that reluctance of his Spalatensis mentions ‖ Prefat to Soave's History for communicating this work Nay as the same Bishop relates it ‖ a Purpose to have quite suppressed and made it away Destinato ad essere sommerso dal suo Genitore Which thing as he imputes to his fear of some danger from it so Charity will rather judge that it proceeded from remorse of Conscience when in a pious reflection upon his former Conceptions he discern'd that in stead of an History he had brought forth a Satyre against Gods Truth and his Church and the most Supreme and Sacred of those Governors whom our Lord himself had appointed over It and Him However This his History hath not so far corrupted the truth of Affairs as not to contain in it many Evidences very advantageous to the Catholick Cause and so much remains sound in it as may serve very well to confute that which is vitiated and in the main things that are charged against the Pope and Council especially concerning the Councils Liberty this History is found as it were to destroy it self by its own Contradictions A thing which observed by Phil. Quorlius an Italian Doctor produced his Book entituled Historia Petri Soavis ex Authorismet assertionibus consutata This account in my entrance I thought fit to give you of this Author that you may see what just credit on such a Subject he deserves out of whose Quiver the Reformed have taken most of those arrows with which they seek to wound this Council The chief of which I shall first summarily relate to you and so proceed to its intended Defence § 3 First then it is Objected by the Protestant Divines That this of Trent can no way truly be called a General Council as it is stiled by the Romanists 1. α. α Because it is necessary to the Generalness of a Council that some be there and those Authorized from all particular Churches See Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 3. where he quotes Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 17. for it §. 4. ut saltem But none from the Eastern Churches were present in this of Trent or so much as summoned or afterwards approved or consented unto its Acts And the number of the Bishops β. who were present from other Churches was frequently so small that in many Sessions it had scarce 10. Arch-Bishops or 40 or 50 Bishops present Bishop Lawd § 27. n. 2. And That it had not so many Biships present at the Determination of the weightiest Controversies concerning the Rule of Faith as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a Months warning B. Brambal Vindic. c. 9. p. 247. And see what Soave saith to the same purpose l. 2. p. 163. Add to this γ. γ. That it was not lawfully called so as General Councils ought and used to be namely by the Emperor and other Christian Princes but only by the Pope this was one of Henry the 8th's Pleas in his Manifesto's against it Lastly δ. δ. That the Popes themselves as many as lived in the time thereof would never consent that this Council should be affirmed to represent the Vniversal Church prudently foreseeing that if this were granted as in the Council of Constance it was the Council as being the whole would put off its subjection and depend no longer on the Pope that was but a part of it nor would need his confirmation to render it what it was before viz. the Representative of the whole Church thus Dr. Hammond Her 11. § n 8 9. This against its being a General Coucil § 4 2. That neither was it a plenary Patriarchal Council 2. for the West ε ε Because from some Churches in the West as from the Britannick and some other Reformed Churches there were no Bishops present there who also had just cause for their not coming thither B. Lawd ib. n. 2. neither can it justly be pleaded that they were Heretical or Schismatical Churches being never condemned by any former Council B. Brambal Answer to Chalced. p. 351. ζ. ζ. And of other Western Churches save only Italy present very few in all the Sessions under Paul the 3d. but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the sixth Session under Julius the 3d. B. Lawd ib. n. 2. â— And Twice so many Bishops out of Italy present as there were out of all other Christian Nations put together B. Bramb Vind. p. 247. as appears at the end of the Coucil where the Italians are set down 187. and all the rest make but 83. B. Lawd § 29. n. 2. Neither was this Council after its rising fully acknowledged or received by the Western Churches nor by the Britannick and other Reformed Churches Nor by the Gallican Church of the Roman Communion And Let no man say saith B. Bramb Vind. p. 248. that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline not of Doctrine for the same Canonical Obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General I add or other Superior
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
proposed rather a Decision by Laicks indifferently chosen in an equal number on both sides †See Soave p. 369. By which bargain they were sure not to lose their Cause if only those nominated by them did not vote against them Was it not then a much wiser course to forbear coming to this Council at all and to plead it non General by their absence when as the proceedings thereof could no way have been defeated or changed by their presence This for the Absence of the Protestant Clergy CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman-Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nations § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. § 69 5ly Neither doth the Absence of many of the Roman Catholick Bishops or of the Bishops of some one Roman-Cathol Prince provided there be a personal presence of some Bishops authorized from a major part of Cathol Princes hinder this Council from being lawfully Patriarchal or General for some of the Reasons given but now § 67. To which may be added these further Considerations to remove any prejudice raised to this Council from the paucity of the number of Bishops in it especially in some Sessions in comparison of some former General Councils § 70 1. The first Consideration is That this Council beyond any former 1. having so many Points of Doctrine and Discipline to examine wherein the Reformed contradicted the immediate-former common tradition and practice and being drawn out for so long a time beginning in 1545 and ending in in 1563 actually fitting for some four years it cannot rationally be expected that such a frequency of Bishops should continually attend it as if it had been convened for deciding some single Controversie and suddenly concluded But in so long a Service much complaint there was especially amongst the poorer sort of their great expences more of the neglect of their several Churches and after a while great longing after their own Country Relations Houses and therefore frequently some stealing away from the Council without the leave and consent of the rest § 71 2. That whereas the Council several times complained especially in the fourth fifth 2. and sixth Sessions and intended to proceed to Censures against the Bishops that were absent in which Council the greatest scarcity was of the Bishops of France and Germany at several times both the French King's and Emperor's Embassadors excused their absence to the Council for some time at least from the necessity there was to retain them at home for the defence of the Catholick Religion against the endeavours and tumults of the Calvinists in France and of the Lutherans in Germany See Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 6. c. 16. Soave p. 509. 552. § 72 1. For the French Bishops 't is true that three of them only attended the beginning of the Council the Archbishop of Renes the Archbishop of Aix and another One of which Renes returned upon the King's Summons before the first Session of the Council but more Bishops from time to time were promised to be sent from thence see Soave p. 143 and after some time were sent when the Council for fear of the Plague was removed from Trent to Bologna ‖ Spendan A.D. 1545. n. 17. Pallavic l. 6. c. 1. n. 10. l. 10. c. 7. n. 2. c. 2. n. 6. And in the time of the Council's fitting afterward at Trent under Pius the Fourth the King of France sent thither the Card. of Lorraine and 14. Bishops who sate in Council and 18. select Divines most of them Sorbon-Doctors maintained there at the King's charge †Pallav. l. 18. c. 17. n. 21. 2 As for the German Bishops because in the beginning of the Council it was thought necessary that they should be detained at home at least many of them to defend the Roman-Catholick Cause in the frequent Diets there and because in Pius his time they were partly terrified with the threats of Hostility upon their Estates from the Protestants then very powerful if they should offer to go to Trent as the Emperor's Embassadors in the Council pleaded for them therefore there was not so great an appearance at any time of them in the Council though nearer than many others and they were dispensed with to appear by Proxies though indeed it was for some Reasons denied to all Proxies non-Bishops to have in the Council any definitive Vote ‖ Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 7. c. 13. l. 20. c. 17. n. 7. l. 23. c. 5. n. 4. But mean while these German Prelates in their several Treaties with the Protestants in these Diets without yielding any thing to them that was contrary to the Conciliar Acts for which see the Relation made by Soave of these Diets do shew a concurrence in all points of their judgments with the others who sate in Council § 73 3. That open discords and wars breaking out several times between several Princes during the sitting of this Council especially between the Pope 3. and the Emperor and King of France as likewise Civil Wars between the Lutherans and Catholicks in the same Prince's Dominions hindred sometimes the Bishops of one Nation sometimes of another from attending the Council The Princes also upon another account sent not or recalled their Bishops as they had some Differences with the Pope or feared that their secular interest might any way suffer in the Council See the Emperor restraining his Prelates from the Council when translated from Trent to Bologna upon pretence of the place too remote for setling the affairs of Germany and for the convenience of the German Bishops who had so great Charges their repairing thither Soave p. 274. But see the true cause Soave p. 261 if we may believe him where he saith The Emperor Charles 5. was much displeased at this Translation of the Council because he saw a weapon i. e. the Council taken out of his hand i. e. from Trent which City was in his power by managing whereof according to opportunity he thought to s◠Religion at peace in Germany and so to put it under his obedience So see the King of France Hen. 2. in Julius his time with whom he had a contest about Parma protesting against the Council in Trent and refusing to send his Bishops thither upon pretence that they could not pass safely neither through the Pope's Territories with whom he had war nor through the Emperor's a Confederate with the Pope Soave p. 319 320. But see the true Cause Soave p. 315. The King hoping that such Protestation against the Council would remove the Pope from his resolutions concerning Parma
necessary here to be said for those inconsidering persons with whom speaking last serves for an Answer since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions clears it I say by that common Rule owned also by Protestants themselves †Stillingfl p. 536. That in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western at the making of the Decrees yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth exâ—post-facto make the Council I add or any Session thereof truly Oecumenical Yet in the last place I need not tell you that the Articles made under Pius alone from Session 17-to its Conclusion the ratification of which is here not questioned are so many and so principal as that these utterly ruine the Reformation though the rest of the Council for the paucity of the Representatives were cassated Amongst these Decrees are The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Coelibacy of Priests Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Celebration of the Divine Service in a more generally-unknown Tongue the Assertion of Purgatory the Sacrifice of the Mass and several others § 77 6. Or 6ly If this Council under Pius also seem not sufficiently numerous 6. because more than half of them were Italian Bishops yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward by the Bishops of those Nations who had sometimes none and other times but few Representatives in it sufficiently repairs this defect also See before § 36 37. Now amongst all those Catholick Churches the Acceptation of the French is only that which can be doubted of And concerning this you may observe 1st That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France 1. as well those absent as those present in the Council See for this the many Petitions made at several times by the whole Clergy assembled to the King that he would receive it like the rest of Catholick Princes set down in Review of Council Trent l. 1. c. 2. There 1576. the Archbishop of Lyons in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois doth in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France speak thus unto the King They most humbly desire you that according to their more particular Requests exhibited in their Remonstrances you would authorize and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent which by the advice of so many Learned men hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor Wherein Sir they hope and expect from you as a most Christian Ring the assistance of your authority to put this Reformation in execution where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation as well as Doctrine Again 1579 in a like Assembly of the Clergy at Melun the Bishop of Bazas in their name speaks thus to the King The Clergy entreateth your Majesty that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline reform themselves in good earnest Amongst all the Rules of Reformation Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost and written by the Holy Council of Trent in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the Body Ecclesiastical but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church upon pain of being reputed Schismatical against the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome and of incurring the Curse of God and eternal damnation Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause spake at Fountainâ—leau in this fort The Council of Trent is received kept and observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates this Kingdom only excepted which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it to the the great scandal of the French Nation and of the title of Most Christian wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured So that under colour of some Articles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire c. A. D. 1585 the same request was renewed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German in Paris Not the Gallican only but the whole Church Catholick doth summon intreat and pray you to receive it the Council of Trent No good Christian can or ought ever to make any question but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See the consent of all Christian Princes who sent their Ambassadours thither who staid there till the very upshot without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published There being such a number of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and learned men from all parts yea not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom sent thither by the late King your Brother who having delivered consulted and spoken their opinion freely did consent and agree to what was there determined And since the writing of the Review A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris Cardinal Perron and Cardinal Richlieu then Bishop of Lusson prosecuted again the same request And though this without success yet of the solemn Acceptation of this Council the next year after at least by the Representatives of the Clergy thus Spondanus ‖ In A. D 1615 n 7 In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis 1614 quanivis nobilitas vota sua junxisset viz. Vt sacrum Concilium Tridentinum Regia authoritate promulgaretur in Râ—gnâ— praestitum a Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Abbatibus ac caeteris qui aderant ex cunctis Regni provinciis Delegatis viris Ecclesiasticis extitit quantum in ipsis suit dum scilicet unanimi 〈◊〉 â—mnium consensu illud recipientes suis se functionibus observaturos promiserunt ac jurarunâ— After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country ‖ A D 1546 n 4 Non solum non in Decretis Fidei ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae ullum unquam fuisse objectum dubium Sed ipsa Dicreta Reformationis tam ab ecclesiasticis susceptafuisse quam etiam paucis quibusdam exceptis chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with ecclesiastical commendams Singillatim Regiis Constitutionibus recepta per Ministros Regios executioni mandata These I have transcribed to shew you the French Clergies conformity to this
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
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
more necessary and dignified than some others And then as for this expression equalling at least those Books called Apocryphal with some Canonical fore-named and its accepting them all as equally penn'd by the direction of the H. Spirit I ask What new Discerner of Spirits will assume to himself so much skill as clearly to discover the language and character of the Spirit in the one sort of these Books that is not in the other For Example in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes that is not in Ecclesiastions Especially 1. When as the Churches ancient reading them all promiscuously in her publick service for the Instruction of her children shews that she held the doctrine of them all sound 2. And again when as in those Books which all sides allow canonical yet the II. Spirit pens them in so many various and unlike stiles and some of these much more rude and unpolished than others and speaks sometimes in a much higher sometimes in a much lower key as if it condescended to receive a mixture with or tincture from the natural parts and Elocution of its Scribe and only the Truth being entirely preserved admitted also sometimes his Infirmities as to Language Method Perspicuity c. In which Canon also some of the Historical books though preserved from error seem not penned from immedint Divine Revelation so as the Prophetical but by using such humane industry and diligence as other Histories are compiled with For which see St. Lukes Preface to his Gospel 3. And lastly when as there are some seeming Antilogies and incongruities produced in the one sort of these books called Apocryphal so are there others as many as great urged in those receiv'd by all for canonical especially in the Historical § 188 Therefore it seems a great inadvertency if nothing more in Bishop Cosin writing so large a Treatise on this subject Where he saith †c. 7. §. 81. That this Council commanded all the Books recited in their Canon to be equally accepted and taken with the self same veneration as having all a like absolute and divine authority annexed to them without preferring one before another and damned all the Churches of the world besides that will not thus receive that Canon of Scripture upon their own terms Quoting in the same place for justifying this charge these words as the words of the Council Concil Trid. Sess 4. Omnes libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro Canonicis receperit Ibid. Si quis autem non susceperit c. Anathema sit whereas there are no such words in the Council so put together Si quis non susceperit or receperit omnes hos libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ veneratione pro canonicis Anathema sit which words will only serve the design of his Book But only these words there used with relation to Anathema Si quis hos libros integros c. pro sacris canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit And I hope in this Decree as to any words or expressions used therein stiling them only Sacri Canonici the Council proceeds no further in affirming any thing concerning them than the Bishop will concede the Affrican Council †Conc. Carthag 3. c. 47. Innocentius Austin and other Fathers to have done and than himself also in a large sence will acknowledge them to be For he in giving answer to the Fathers § 82. writes thus of them In a large and common sence as they be books appointed to be read in the Church for the more ample direction and instruction of the people c. in which sence that Council viz. of Carthage took them or as they are to be preferr'd before all other Ecclesiastical Books in which sence St. Austin took them and as they are opposed to suppositions Apocryphal and rejected Books in which sence both St. Austin and this Council besides divers others of the Fathers took them all these waies they may be called Canonical Thus he And then for the sence of these words since he also advanceth thus far toward the Councils pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit as to acknowledge these books to have been as read in the Church like as other parts of Scripture so cited and termed by sundry of the Fathers Sacred and Divine and Holy Scriptures and Prophetical writings †Ibid. §. 77. Epithites common to these with other Scriptures Why may not these infer also in a large and common sence a parity If the Bishop will be pleased to mollifie the Councils expressions so as he doth those Fathers By which Tradition and testimony of the Fathers Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta †Conc. Trid. Sess 4. Decret de caâ—eâ— script the Council as it saith was guided in making this Decree A 2d inadvertency of the same Reverend Bishop seems to be § 189 that which he urgeth much †See in him §. 194. of the small and inconsiderable number which that Council had to give a suffrage to this their Synodical Decree and that forty Bishops of Italy assisted peradventure with half a score others should make up a General Council for all Christendom c. Whilst he takes no notice * that by how few soever this Decree was passed at the first yet it was afterward by the great Body of this Council under Pius confirmed and ratified and this Ratification again by the most of Christian Churches accepted of which see before § 72 75 77. And again * That not one Book more was voted sacred and canonical by these Fathers in Trent than had been voted before as high as St. Austins times by the third Council of Carthage to which St. Austin amongst others subscribed and than were in those times also generally received for such in the Western Church and lastly * that as several of these books are declared Canonical by this Council after some doubt formerly had concerning them so are others not only declared Canonical by Protestants but as fully believed as the rest and in every respect equalled with them as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the second of St. Peter the second and third of S. John the Apocalypse which were formerly viz. till fourth age See Chemnie Exam. conc Trid. 4. Sess subject to the like disputes ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo and as St. Jerom ‖ De viris illustribus in Jacobo saith of one of them Paulatim procedente tempore authoritatem obtinuerunt Paulatim viz. as the conformity of these books with the rest of the Canon and the slightness of the objections made against them and the former Tradition was clearlier discovered after the vanishing of those Sects that chiefly opposed them As therefore several pieces of the new Testament once disputed have since been declared and generally received into the Canon so may those pieces of the old Testament be by the following Christian Church admitted for such though formerly rejected by
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
Ita enim omnem everti judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem efficique ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant Again p. 88. Eos qui in doctrinâ aut moribus scandalorum authores sunt semper Censores suos Consistoria Classes Synodos seu partem adversam rejicere Ad eum modum Arrianis aliisque olim haereticis adversus Orthodoxos Pastores semper licuisset excipere And Quo pacto say they iis Pastores se neutros ut loquuntur praebebunt Quando praesertim tam multi anni intercedunt priusquam legitimum publicum Ecclesiae judicium obtineri potest quum Deus illis praecipiat ut serio Doctrinae sinceritati attendant The English Divines there deliver their judgment also in the same case very solidly Non valet say they ad Synodi hujus but suppose they had said Tridentinae authoritatem enervandam quod causentur Remonstrantes maximam Synodi partem constare ex adversariis suis Neque naturale jus permittere ut qui adversarius est in causâ suâ judex sedeat 1. Nam huic sententiae refragatur primo perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum Nam in Synodis Oecumenicis Nicaeno c. ii qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt ab illis qui eandem sibi traditam admiserunt approbarunt examinati judicati damnati sunt 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit Theologi enim in negocio Religionis neque esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae neque esse debent Si igitur soli neutrales possunt esse Judices extra Ecclesiam in quâ lites enataesunt quaerendi essent 3. Ipsa aequitas hocsuadere videtur Nam quae ratio reddi potest ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi Pastores qui ex officio receptam Ecclesiae doctrinam propugnantes secus docentibus adversati sunt Si hoc obtinuerit nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisleret ne ipso facto jus omne postmodum de illis controversiis judicandi amitteret Enough of this 2. Again §. 254. n. 4 For the just and obliging authority of this Council and the Credibility at least of it s not erring they urge †See Sess 26. Syn. Delf Christum Dominum qui Apostolis promisit spiritum veritatis Ecclesiae quoque suae pollicitum esse se cum eâ usque ad finem saeculi mansurum Matt. 28.20 And Vbi duo aut tres in ipsius nomine congregati fuerint se in eorum medio futurum Matt. 18.20 They urge the precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.29 31. Vt judicetur de iis quae Prophetae loquuntur And Prophetarum Spiritus prophetis subjecti sint And the Geneva Divines Sess 29. urge also Dic Ecclesiae and Si Ecclesiam non audiverit c. 3 ly In defence of the Protestants refusing submission to the Judgment of the Council of Trent §. 254. n. 5. because it was a party without their allowing the same priviledge to the Remonstrants for that of Dort they answer ‖ Sess 25. p. 82. Valde disparem esse hanc comparationem Illos enim the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants eidem subesse Magistratui And Remonstrantes membra esse Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Reformatarum See the same said again Sess 26. p. 85. But according to this answer the reason why the Protestants denied their submission to the Council of Trent must not be because it consisted of an adverse party but because all its members were not Subjects of the same Prince a thing never alledged before But here I ask Is there then no preservation of the Churches unity by Synods no subordination of Clergy no rule of one party the Superior and Major judging another the Inferior and Minor any further than only in such little parcels of the Church as happen to live under the same Secular Governours Are our Lords Promises and Dic Ecclesiae all confin'd to these What will become of the Authority of Oecumenical and Patriarchal Councils Why not in these also one Ecclesiastical major Party judge another as well as in that of Dort Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam How this Church One if united in no one common Government and Subjection But if it be here also one party must judge another and so the Protestants alledging the Council of Trent an adverse Party availes them nothing as to the annulling of its Judgment But as the Remonstrants yet further replied †See Synod Delf Sess 26 If at least of the Clergy living under the same Secular Government one adverse Party may judge the other then may a Synod of the Catholick Clergy in France oblige the Protestant Clergy there to stand to their sentence To this therefore the Synod shapes another answer as me seems no better than the former That all Protestants are freed from being tryed or judged by the Popish party in Synods Conc. Delf in Acta Dordrecht Sess 6. For that †Primi Ecclesiae Reformatores pro Doctoribus Ecclesiae Pontificiae haberi noluerunt sed contra ab iis secessionem fecerunt Again Ibid Isti nunquam Ecclesiae Pontificiae Doctores censeri voluerunt sicuti Hi i. e. the Remonstrants pro Ecclesiae Reformatae Doctoribus habert cupiunt So also the Geneva Divines Sess 29. deliver their judgment Licuit say they nostris protestari adversus Concilium Constantiense Tridentinum quia non profitemur unionem cum illis Imo ill am aspernamur aversamur But I say doth our renouncing and professing to have no communion with a lawful Superior Ecclesiastical Authority presently in justice free us from it For example the Presbyter Arius his renouncing communion with the Bishop of Alexandria or the Presbyter Luther with his Ecclesiastical Superiors in Saxony Is there not a due subordination both of persons and Synods from the lowest to the highest as well in several as in the same secular Governments to preserve the unity of the Church not only Belgick or Brittannick but Catholick Which gradual Authority all those are obliged to obey and conform to and are liable to its censures not who voluntarily profess obedience but who truly according to the Churches Canons do owe it as the Protestants did to that of Trent and owe it not a whit the less for their declaring against it Else so many as will venture to be schismaticks and divide will put themselves out of the reach of the Churches Spiritual Courts And had the Remonstrants to their supposed innovation in doctrine added a separation in communion from the rest of the Belgick Clergy the Contra-Remonstrants they had by this second fault freed themselves from having been either justly tryed or censured by the Synod and their declaring once Non profitemur unionem cum vobis immo illam aspernamur aversamur would have voided all the counter-actings of the Synod of Dort as these Dort-Divines say the Reformed's like Protestation did those of Trent § 255 To μ. See what is said § 125. Leo. the Tenth did no wrong in declaring the
Protestant-tenents Heresies To μ. if several of them were condemned by several allowed Councils ‖ See §. 198. and consequently the maintainers of them were Hereticks Yet is it usual for Councils and other Courts of Judicature to reiterate their sentence so often as offenders reiterate the same faults or revive the same errors And therefore was this done in Trent § 256 To ν. To ν. See § 83 92. The place of the Council was chosen by the consent of most Christian Princes no place could be appointed of an equal convenience for all Countries the place was under the Emperours power as himself often declared not accessible by the Popes forces and secure enough to the main Body of Protestants those of Germany from which place also their forces when time was frighted the Council Lastly nearer to them than to the Catholicks of Spain and France A Sase-conduct also the Protestants had as large as could justly be desired and the Exceptions they took against it were unreasonable Of which see before § 104. The Council of Constance is also much wronged and the proceedings thereof against Jo. Huss mis-related Of which see before § 101. The Divines also that upon the Safe-conduct came to the Council of Trent were courteously treated and dismissed though the designs of those Princes that sent them thither were treacherous and bloody †§. 68 90. § 257 To ε. To ε. The whole abode of the Protestant Divines of Trent from their first coming to their departure was but in all about a Fortnights time after which short time the Protestant Princes unexpectedly appeared in Arms. Though it is true also that at their coming one of the Legats his accidentally falling sick of a disease of which he died within a few weeks somewhat retarded the business of treating with them the manner of which treaty required much deliberation Lastly by their printing the defence of their tenents the Fathers of the Council heard sufficiently what they could say yet were no way sweyed with their Arguments § 258 To π. To π. See § 68. n. 2. and what is said before to λ. To refer the judgment of Spiritual matters to Lay-persons as more indifferent or to change the former ordinary Ecclesiastical Judges of such Controversies because these are fore-known to be of a contrary opinion to those who are to appear before their Tribunal is shewed before § 254. to be a most unreasonable demand Neither if such thing had been granted could it have advantaged the Protestants For whether their Judge had been the whole and not only the Episcopal Clergy or Secular Princes or People a major part of all these they knew to be Catholick and of a belief opposit to theirs †See before §. 115. n. 2. §. 118. c. And whom their writings had hitherto not changed or perswaded why should they think their discourse or disputes would Lastly an equal number on both sides without any umpirage appointed to be their Judges is a Court that where either party is resolute can proceed to no sentence They who foresee a major part of those to whom our Lord hath committed the Government and guidance of his Church opposing their Doctrine are already self-condemned as to Authority and ought not to seek a new Judge but reform their errors sect 259 To ς. To ς. See what is said § 105. To shew that this Oath was not given in any prejudice to the freedom of the Council for 1st It was only an oath used at Ordinations not new framed for or imposed on the Council at Trent It or the like was anciently taken by the Bishops when ordained without being thought prejudicial to the liberty of former Councils 2. Again an Oath it was only obliging to a legal obedience due by the Divine or Church-laws an Oath to this purpose being taken also by Protestant Bishops and so strengthning only that engagement of Bishops to the observance of these laws which they had before when yet unsworn So that notwithstanding such Oath they might question any Papal pretended right which they thought not Canonical As also it is clear they freely did without any thought or jealousie of their trespassing against this Oath and without the Pope's Legats objecting it to them 3. Again neither did such Oath in such a sence restrain them to observance of the Canons as that now when in a conjunct Body and the See Apostolick concurring they might not also abrogate and change the same Canons as thought fit 4 However An Oath it was laying no restraint upon the Counicls liberty as to voting any way concerning most of the Protestant Controversies unless perhaps that of the Popes Supremacy 5. Again If this Oath binding them to any thing thought unlawful their learning well enough knew they were without any Dispensation obliged to break not keep it and that in an unlawful ingagement every one is free from it as soon as he knows it such 6. Lastly this Oath being taken generally by all how come the French and Spanish Bishops to be said to have acted so diversly from the Italian Bishops if all were so straightly tyed by the same Oath to the Popes interest As for what is said That none had suffrage in this Council but such as were profest enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council Here since it cannot be denied that all the Bishops present in Trent had Suffrages none excluded it is by the Objectors confessed that not only a Major part but the whole Council of Trent was an enemy to the Reformation and the Pope as to all those Points that proceeded singly against them secure enough of a full vote without the multiplying of Italian or Titular or Pensionary Bishops § 260 To σ. To σ. 1 1 See § 160 The proposal of the Legats could alter nothing in the Councils votes as to the things that were proposed especially as to those Protestant Controversies wherein they unanimously agreed but only could hinder some things from being voted because not proposed But no Protestant Controversies are found so omitted Again such Proposal seems very necessary for order sake nor was any way used by the Legats to abridge the desires of any considerable part of the Council concerning any proponends as is amply shewed See § 164 § 160. § 261 To σ. To. σ. 2 2 Things were first consulted on and voted in Trent not at Rome the Pope usually advertised of their Consultations after the judgment of the Congregations already passed returned Instructions to his Legats before the General Sessions concerning his opinion of the matter in hand and commendable had it been and advantageous to the Synod could the Bishops or Metropolitans of each Province have done the like to their Representatives Celestine and Leo declared their judgments to the third and fourth General Council not to give a law to them but advice If the Pope's Instructions to his Legats concerning any Points
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
fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should erre in matter of Faith I adde to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without Idolatry practice and therein find approbation and reception amongst all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the general approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation Thus he But if here the Doctor be asked why upon these considerations he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents For example all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation held before Luther I suppose his answer is ready because these were not General nor universally accepted But since these were the most General that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction and had also the most universal acceptation that those times could afford unless he would have also the Berengatians the persons condemned in them to accept them an acceptation most unreasonably demanded why do not here also Gods Providence and Promises stand ingaged in compassion to the meek and pious Subjects of the Church that these Councils erre not nor the Christians of those times fall into such a temptation as it must needs be if these the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence as is the committing of Idolatry ever since See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to this it is saith he that Christ is said Eph. 4.12 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i. e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting the Saints into a Church for the building up of the body of Christ confirming and continuing them in all truth that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages 't is every where apparent by Ignatius his Epistles that the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that form of wholsome words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted c. And in his Treatise of Schisme chap. 2. § 10. he speaks in this manner A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due For the Church where his lot is fallen may by Heresie or Schisme stand divided from the Church-Catholick Here he allows depositing of our judgment in deference to our Superiors where the Fundamentals of Faith c. are not concerned But would not one think rather that in these points especially a person to be safe should adhere to the Churches judgment rather than his own Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality Doctor Jackson on the Creed §. 295. n 3. l. 2 § 1 c. 6. p. 175. in stating the Question ‖ p. 170. Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any opinion or action goes on thus Superiors saith he are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine or not of capacity to discern or not of power or place to determine whether they be lawful or no. Again p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion he argues thus Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill that may ensue a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice either for doing or omitting it The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent for here is an indifferency of perswasions But suppose we have not such indifferency yet p. 172 Whilst men of skill and judgment saith he appointed by God to advise in such matters are otherwise perswaded than we in private are the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action wherein heretofore we thought was not And the performance of obedience it self is a good and acceptable action in the sight of God Now what he saith here concering the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion Again Ibid p. 174. True spiritual obedience were it rightly planted in our hearts would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake than to disobey authority for the private dislike of them Both our disobedience i. e. dissent or non-submission of judgment to the one and dislike of the other are unwarrantable unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors and express law of the most High And. c. 4. p. 165. Sundry saith he in profession Protestants in eagerness of opposition to the Papists affirm that the Church or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed then only be obeyed when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart and consciences of such as must believe and obey them And this in one word is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors and to deprive them of all obedience unto whom doubtless God by his word hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars unto which he demands belief or obedience what obedience do men perform unto him more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever he be that can shew us the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all But
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
interrogatio est Quid rei nobis cum Patribus cum carne aut sanguine Aut quid ad nos attinet quod Episcoporum pseudo-Synodi constituunt c. In those more confident times also § 306 the Centurists freely set down in the several ages the errors of the Fathers which in the modern Controversies misled the latter Roman and Greek Churches Hospinian in the Preface to his Histor Sacrament to Antiquity urged as opposing the new reformed opinions and practices returns for answer * the command in the Prophet Jeremy In statutis Patrum vestrorum nolite ambulare And * that saying of our Lord Sine causa colunt me mandata doctrinas hominum docentes and * that of St. Cyprian Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est and of S. Austin Antiquitatem praejudicare veritati nec posse nec debere The forementioned Dudithius in his discontented Epistle to Beza †See Beza Epist 1. Si veritas est saith he quam veteres Patres mutuo consensu sunt professi ea à Pontificiis tota stabit § 337 And several later Protestants and other Dissenters from the Church of Rome there are who have been ingenuous in the same confession Grotius in the beginning of his Votum pro pace giving an account of his reading of the Fathers Collegi saith he quae essent illa quae veterum testimonio manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita videbam ea manere in illa ecclesia quae Romanae connectitur Is Causabon cited by Arnauld in his late answer to Claude an Hugenot Minister with many others which you may view in his 1. Book 5. chap. in his Epistle to Witenbogard †§. 207. praestantium virorum Epistolae written 1610 a little before his coming into England when he seems to have been in some greater dissettlement speaks thus Deum toto affectu veneror ut mala ecclesiae suae qui potest solus velit Sanare Me ne quid dissimulem haec tanta diversitas in Protestants à fide veteris ecclesiae non parum turbat Ne de aliis dicam in re sacramentorum à majoribus discessit Lutherus c. Then speaking of Peter du Moulin his making as other Protestants usually do those Tracts of the Fathers †§. 297. that are urged to confirm the Roman Doctrine spurious and counterfeit As. S. Ambrose de sacramentis Cyril Herosol Cateches Mystagog Gregory Nyssens Catechetical Oration he thus goes on Jam quod idem Molinaeus omnes veterum libros suae doctrinae contrarios respuit ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cui mediocriter docto fidem faciet Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum illa scripta esse verissima quae ipse pronunciat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Causabon § 308 1. More general yet that confession of Socinus Ep. ad Radecium Legantur saith he Pontificiorum scripta adversus Lutheranos Calvinianos satis intelliget si praeter sacras literas illorum Patrum produced by the Pontificii authoritate sit standum nobis omnino causa cadendum esse And indeed the followers of Socinus despairing as to their chief points concerning God's Attributes and the Trinity to produce any just plea from ancient Church-Authority do also more candidly relinquish this interest as to those other Controversies which they in common with other reformed maintain against Catholicks In defending which points when the Fathers are urged against them their ordinary answer is 1 That Error and Antichrist came into the Church so soon as the Apostles by death went out of it And therefore they make even the Apostles themselves not the Roman Empire for that they say would keep out Antichrist too long to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thess 2. 2 That the Fathers would have the Holy Scriptures to be believed rather than any thing they say 3 That the Fathers are not to be believed in any thing they say contrary to the Scriptures and that if Antiquity be to be followed the Prophets and Apostles are the most ancient these persons impudently calling by the name of Prophets Apostles Scriptures that private sense they impose upon them See for this Volkelius de vera Relig. l. 3. c. 40. and l. 4. c. 22. and frequently elsewhere and see Beza in his first Epistle applying like plaisters to the wound of Dudithius § 309 Chillingw also more candidly than many of his followers in his new Socinian way that all necessaries to all manner of persons using their industry are clear in the Holy Scriptures seems very little solicitious in engaging the Fathers or other Antiquity on his side by reason of the evidence in Holy Scriptures of all necessaries and the needlesness of deciding any non-necessaries I for my part saith he in the latter end of his work after his declaring not the Articles of the Church of England not the harmony of Protestant Confessions but the Bible the Bible to be his Religion after a long and as I verily believe and hope imimpartial search of the true way to eternal happiness do profess plainly that I cannot finde any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only i. e. of the Bible not of the Church for as for this latter he goes on I see plainly and with my own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive Interpretations of Scripture few or none found no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only not any it seems of Antiquity or of the Primitive Church yet out of which the Catholicks alwaies convinced Heresies for any considering man to build upon Thus he down-right § 310 And therefore it is considerable That in his answers to the Motives of his turning Catholick †See the conclusion of his Preface §. 41. c. that you may see the Authority of Antiquity and of Church-Tradition had a great hand in leading him to Popery but none at all in reducing him to Protestantisme he is not sollicitous at all to deny or disprove the truth of these motives but to traverse the consequence he formerly made from them So to the first Motive to the Roman Catholick Religion viz. That a perpetual visible Profession is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so far as concerns the points in contestation He answers not by denying any such visible profession to be wanting to Protestants But that any such visible Profession without any mixture of falshood is not necessary Again to the Fourth That many Points of Protestant Doctrine are the opinions of Hereticks condemned by the Primitive Church He answers not by denying the Protestant Doctrines to be condemned as Heretical by the
Eight hundred years ago and fince that by Lanfrank Guitmund c. at the appearance of Berengarius Which Primitive Tradition and judgement of Antiquity that it was if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils the same concerning these Scriptures with that of the present Church Authority I think any one that is well affected to the peace of the Church and not pre-ingaged in Disputes will receive sufficient satisfaction herein who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by cited parcels the short Discourses on this subject of * St. Ambrose De Myster initiand chap. 9. * The Author of the Books De Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father l. 4 the 4 and 5. Chapters * Cyrill Hierosol Catechis Mystagog 4. and 5. * Chrysostom in Matt. Homil. 83. In. Act. Apost Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 36 37 * Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatens De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hilarius Pictao De Trinitate the former part of the eighth book * Cyril Alexand. In Evangel Johan l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces for the last Protestâ—ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon †§. 307. speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum Molinaeum Not that I affirm here that every one that reads these pieces shall be so perswaded and convinced For as hath been shewed the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising and miscolouring things to the understanding As when perhaps the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father and when one hath first stated the Question to himself ordered his Arguments deduced his Conclusions solved Objections c. and then upon such provocation of an Antagonist is brought to examine their writings here we may presume such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before and to lay down his Arms and that it will go hard if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause Either 1. for the Terms used by the Father he will contend that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times and not in a proper or modern sense Oâ— That their Rhetorick and Eloquence fitted not to state the Question or inform the Judgement but to move Affections and gain the Will doth often make use of such expressions as rigourously taken transcend the Truth Or 2. For the sense given when apparently against him he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities that follow from it or some other Tenents of the Father that will not consist with it and the Translation alsor or the Copy shall many times be blamed Or 3. Touching the Discourse 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father 's other works or some words used in it some Rites or Customs mentioned that are of a later date or age or such work not found in such Editions or not mentioned by later writers or that it is in part corrupted and interpolated and not all of a piece 2 Or at least He will find some Clauses in the same or in some other discourse of the Father whereby he may seem to confess in one place what he denies in another or which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point and so serviceable to no Party I name these defences not so but that some times they may be true but that they are much oftner made use of than there is any just cause and are apt to blind the unwary and preoccupated and such as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth before they are well read in Antiquity So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist §. 321. n. 2. Vigier after the two former Combatants Arnauld and Claude one by taking the Fathers in a plain and literal the other in a Metaphorical sense had each of them challenged Antiquity as clearly on his own side seeks to dispatch the Controversie much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings †3 Reg. 3.27 whose the childe was not Nec mihi nec Tibi sit Saying ‖ Eng. Translat p. 80. That the true belief of the ancient Church about this point of the Eucharist is very hard to be known That there are innumerable perplexities in it and that if the Fathers have believed the Reality as he seeth no reason to doubt but they did they believed it in such a manner which neither Roman Catholicks nor Protestants nor any other Christian Society would approve of And so p. 66 c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstantialists he is content they should be Stercoranists i. e. holding I know not what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord much more gross and incredible than that of Transubstantiation For whether the Greeks fall short of or ago beyond the Latine Church herein he thinks all to his purpose so they be not just the same But then over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies manifesting the unanimous accord herein of the present Oriental with the Western Churches here he will have them to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers but by no means to have derived it from their Forefathers There may have happened saith he ‖ p. 94. a change since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks or by the Voyages of the Portugais and other Nations into the Oriental Churches mean while the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman it may well be considered what would become of the Protestant cause if the Controversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld §. 321. n. 3. For the shewing of which a little more at large because I am speaking here of the Eucharist and what I shall say may serve for a pre-advertisement to some less experienced in this Controversie that may light on his Book and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it prejudicial to the Catholick Faith I beg leave of the Reader to make a step though somewhat out of my way yet not much beside my purpose Remitting those who think this Forreign Author less concerns them to the prosecution of the former Discourse resum'd below § 321. n. 27. 1st This Author busyes himself ‖ l. 2. c. 1. to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance and decay
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in
Body not by a meer joyning it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by his first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there Thus Greeks and Latines ormer and latter times §. 321. n. 20. will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Tranubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Vnion Hypostatical * Christ s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lords or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivisicating virtue of Christs natural body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only not to the Symbols * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lords Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same Body this with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say But this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated But only in the former sence i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it the same If such be their sence the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sence this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8 th Observation M. Claud's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it 9 ly After this §. 321. n. 21 He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neithâ—r Believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presâ—â—ce is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to Him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latines nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines p. 375. because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latines never to have accused the Greeks as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Teneâ—t which they never formerly contested and of an errour in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latines and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very begining of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons 10 ly Hitherto §. 321. n 22. from § 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1 st He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claud's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2 ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8 p 416. The Author
Synods For M. Claude saith The word of God contains nettement clairement all that which is necessary to form our Faith and that the most simple are capable to judge of it c. Unless the Protestant Controversies be never about any thing necessary This is the way M. Claude thought on to leave no Doubters though never so unlearned among Protestants as to the Eucharist or other Points of their Faith But mean while if after such Speculations of his any such Doubters there be I do not find but that he leaves so many wholly to D. Arnaud's disposal viz. that they return to and remain in the bosom of the former Church so long till they become certain of its errors and not follow strangers that have not entered by the dore into Christ's Fold and I hope they will consider it As for the settling of our Conscience this person speaks of by resting our Faith immediately on Gods Word I see not where the sence of the Scriptures is supposed the thing controverted how any one rests his Faith more immediately on God's word by following his own Exposition or Sence thereof or the Exposition of a Minister c. for some person's exposition he must follow than he that follows that of the Church If we are then for a total application to the Scriptures and for searching things to the bottom Let us search there first this main Point that decides all other concerning our Lord's establishing a just Church-Authority for ending contentions Where we shall find also that he is not a God of dissention or Confusion 1 Cor. 14.33 Eph. 4.11 14 1 Cor. 12.28 in his House the Church but of Peace And That he hath given his Clergy in a certain Subordination that we should not be carryed about with every wind of Doctrine as we must be when ever these disagree in expounding Scripture to us if we have no Rule which of them to follow The truth of this once found out by our search will save many other searches of which without it I see no end In vain do we endeavour with whatever pains so discern Gods Truth without the illumination of his Holy Spirit and Grace and since revelat parvalis in vain expect this without great Humility and self-dâ—s-esteem and a reverent preference of and pious Credulity toward our just and lawful Spiritual Superiours Credendo first i. e. Ecclesiae saith S. Austin in his Tract De utilitate Credendi †c. 1. praemunimâ—r illuminaturo praeparamur Deo To resume then here the matter we were speaking of before § 321. n 27. § 321. n. 1. from which we have so long digressed For such Persons as are self-confident despisers of Superiors much pre-engaged whatever evident Testimony Truth may have on its side I can affirm nothing For Pride and thinking they see utterly puts out their eyes But I think so many as are no way thus intangled and are humble and well affected to Authority will by reading the pieces aforesaid be reduced either to a full perswasion on the Churches side in this great Point or to a Dubitancy and uncertainty of that which is maintained against it And then this later only as hath been shewed †§. 291. c. is a sufficient Ground and Inductive of their conformity to it I mean to the authority of the present Church In this point then the main Trial seems to be 1. Whether Antiquity indeed so understood and Councils declared the sense of these Scriptures as is pretended Since as Mr. Thorndike hath it in his Rule of Reformation †Forbea and Penalties c. 8. this is to be taken for granted That nothing can be the true sence of Scripture which the consent of the whole Church contradicteth 2. If this found so whether this Authority ought not to prescribe to any particular judgment especially when he perceives the new pretended Demonstrations to the contrary no way to perswade this present Church-Authority as any true Demonstration in the Protestants Definition of it necessarily must For the Second Point Invocation of Saints 1. It is granted by Protestants §. 322. n. 1. that if the Saints deceased hear or otherwise know our requests made to them it is lawful to invocate them or desire their prayers for us as we do those of Saints here and the invocation of them in any other manner Catholicks disclaim 2. It sufficiently appears from the knowledge of things done ‖ or said †2 King 6.8 9 12 31.32 in absence that several Prophets †King 5 25. Act. 5.3 Col. 2.5 and other Saints of God by Revelation or Vision have had here in this life that it is possible that the Saints glorified without imagining any their omni-presence or omni-science may know by the like Revelation Representation or Vision or by some other way as God pleaseth for the particular manner thereof is no way stated by the Church may thus know I say either all or so many of those prayers that are made to them though at the same time by several persons in the most distant places as it may concern their Petitioners touching any benefit to be received by their Intercessions that they should know them Lastly possible that the Saints Glorified may know these or some other instrument of God's mercy viz. Angels know these for them or in their stead for this clause also is put in by St. Austin proceeding most cautiously in this matter These things I say are possible And if any of these be put it is abundantly sufficient to render Invocation of Saints glorified not vain For to frustrate the benefit here of the Saints must neither know nor others for them who only upon their general Intercessions offered may be as God pleaseth made his instruments in relieving the necessities of such Supplicants They must neither know all nor any of our affairs or prayers For if they or others for them only know and relieve some it will be lawful at any time in any thing to implore their help who we know not but in that time and thing they may assist us Again suppose neither the Saints nor others for them save God only to know at all our particular prayers or wants but the Saints only in grosse to intercede for all those that implore their help or yet more generally only for all their fellow-members here that are in distress whether imploring or not imploring their help yet if God at least apply the benefit of any Saints general Intercessions more particularly to those who more particularly honour and with their addresses sollicite such a Saint Such Invocation and Honour still remains profitable and advantageous to the Supplicant Where note §. 322. n. 2. that neither those who make nor yet God who reveales their prayers to the Saints do it at all for this end that so the Saints may make known such their prayers to God a thing in which Protestants please themselves to find absurdities and
is equivalent to this Let all those eat my flesh and drink my blood that will have life It seems most reasonable 1. That such Precept be extended to all Communions whatever as well those private or domestick as the publick since in both possible to be observed For there occurs nothing in our Lords words distinguishing these Communions one from another or ordering a receit of the Cup in the one which shall be left at liberty in the other And so by such sence of Scripture as we have said the practice of Antiquity is condemned 2. That it be extended as to the receiving in both kinds so to the receiving them apart and to the drinking of the one as the eating of the other For the Scripture is no more express for the receiving of the blood than it is for receiving it separated by it self and for drinking of it By which the practice of the Eastern Churches is condemned who receive the Symbole of Christs Body only intinct in the Blood 3. Especially from that text in c. 6. John 53. That this precept be extended to all persons for whom we expect eternal life and so to Infants Therefore the communicating of them also in both kinds or one at least was a custom used in Antiquity Yet such a necessity by vertue of any Scripture-precept Protestants together with Catholicks deny and both desist from such a practice § 326 Again several other Texts we find in Scripture that may seem to have the force of Universal Precepts as much as any concerning communicating in both kinds As Act. 15.29 for abstaining from Blood and things strangled Luke 6.30 Of him that takes away your Goods ask them not again and Give to every one that asketh Matt. 6 17. When you fast wash your face and anoint your head c. 5.34 Swear not at all Matt. 23 9. Call no man your Father on the earth neither be ye called Masters The Quakers Precepts Salute one another with a kiss of charity or an holy kiss frequent in the Apostle Rom 16.16 1 Cor. 16 20. 2 Cor. 13.12 1 Thess 5.26 I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Jo. 13.14 for the Clergies washing feet before the Communion Do this unlimited in St. Luke 22.19 for any Christian whatever his breaking bread or consecrating and distributing the communion If any be sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up not that every sick person that the Apostles prayed over should be cured and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him James 5.14 15. urged as enjoyning extreme unction § 327 Now notwithstanding the shew of strict and universal Precepts yet in the understanding and practising of all these save the last Protestants conform to the judgment of former and present Church And in the last though Catholicks think themselves obliged to receive it as a Precept and accordingly practice yet Protestants deny the one and forbear the other Lastly some Protectants there be and those of note that deny any peremptory precept or command in Scripture as in these so in those urged for Communion sub utraque species * Vbi jubentur in Scripturis saith Bishop Montague †Origin Eccl. p. 396. Infantes baptizari aut Caenam Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare Sexcenta sunt ejusmodi c. de quibus possumus profiteri Nil tale docet scriptura * Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are receiv'd and honoured by us Now such are these which follow The historical Tradition concerning the numbers and dignity of the Books of Canonical Scripture The Catholick exposition of many sentences of holy Scripture Which indeed unless received there will be no conviction or cure of Heresies and Schismes Baptism of Infants observation of the Lords day The service of the Church in a known tongue the tongues used by the Apostolical times for God's publick Service the Church still continues unchanged The delivering of the Holy Communion to the people in both kinds i. e. for publick communions For as for private ancient Tradition many times practised otherwise * Spalatens de Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 6. Dico non esse adeo sub praecepto ut Eucharistia in cibo in potu semper à fidelibus sumatur quin ex gravi seu privatâ privatorum causâ possit cum fructu licite etiam sub solo pane sumi c. And indeed in the omnes added to Bibite Matt. 26. it seems clear that our Lord had no particular intention thereby to prescribe what every Christian was necessarily to practice because the Manducate as necessary as the Bibite is pronounced without an omnes But only to shew what he would have to be done at that time by all the other Apostles as well as by him whom he first delivered the Cup to For whereas several portions of the bread were severally given to every one of them Yet the Cup was delivered only to one from whom it was to be handed successively to all the rest and divided amongst them all Therefore St. Luke instead of omnes hath Take this and divide it among your selves § 328 In this point then the main Trial seems to be Whether Antiquity did indeed use such a practice as on several occasions where inconveniences happened of giving it in both to communicate persons in one kind only Which if found true it would be too great a temerity and boldness in a Protestant to alledge certainly or pretend Demonstration of the sense of any Text of Scripture contrary to that wherein both the present and ancient Church hath understood and interpreted it Especially as I said when these they stile Demonstrations do not convince others or if notwithstanding this they be good and sufficient Demonstrations then must they be so too for mâ—â—y other Texts named before as well as for these touching communion to impose the same sence and universal preceptive force on them Yet against which sence Protestants are necessitated to concur in their judgment with Catholicks nay proceed further to deny some to be Precepts which Catholicks accept for such § 329 This Digression from § 320. I have made as hoping it might be beneficial to shew in some Controversies of consequence what small Foundation Protestants have to pretend Certainty and Demonstration against the former Church's Doctrine To which in the last place I may add that such pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority suffers a greaâ— prejudice from that which S. Austin hath observed that it is a plea used by all Hereticks Hoc facium saith he †Enarrat in Psal 8. Haeretici universi vetant credere Ecclesiâ proponente incognita certam scientiam pollicentur And he saith †De
enjoyed Of which persons thus S. Austin †De vera Relig. c. 6. Saepe sinit divina Providentia expelli de congregatione Chrstianâ etiam bonos virâ—s quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum paticuâ—â—ssime pro ecclâ—siae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel schismatis i. e. segregationis conventiculorum as he explains it afterward vel haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quam vero affectu quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns And De Baptism l. 1. c. 17. of such persons he saith Ibi magis probantur quum si intus permaneant only with this exception Cum adversus ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur sed in solidâ unitatis petrâ fortissimae charitatis robore radicantur Thus he in the defence of such § 334 But If an unjust Excommunication should further warrant any to erect Anti-communions and then a private person may also pass sentence of such injastice against the Church who sees not that this pulls down the whole structure of Church-Government and fills it full of schisms and is the same in the Church as this would be in the Civil State if a Subject unjustly condemned to some mulct or imprisonment should presently raise and head an Army against the Prince and with it detain from him some part of his Dominions No man is authorized by suffering injustice to do it § 335 See Christian Reader how many bars are set to keep us within such a degree of subjection to the Church as prevents Schism 1 If we are of those that do not profess certainty of the contrary to that which the Church teacheth as the most of Christans are such here Protestants †See §. 295 agree that we owe the obedience of assent and submission of judgment to the supremest known Church-Authority that presides over us 2 But next suppose we pretend certainty of a Truth against this Authority yet in case this truth be not of much concernment Here Protestants ‖ See §. 331. consent that we are to yield the obedience of silence and non-contradiction to it 3 But if the Truth be of moment and so supposed that neither silence may be used herein yet are we still tied at least to yield a third sort of obedience a passive one to the Churches censures even to that of Excommunication though supposed unjust without erecting or resorting to any Anti-Communion to that of our Superiors and of the whole i. e. the Communion Catholick 4 And then whatever degree of obedience a Person well considering these things shall judge due to be yielded to Church-Authority in General I hope the former Discourse by clearing the Legality of it hath justly vindicated to the Council of Trent 5 And this Council once submitted to infers as to all the principal modern Controversies an universal Settlement and Peace Now the great Pastor and Bishop of Souls in an accptable time â— Pet. 2.25 bring home all those Sheep that are yet going astray and hearken to the voice of Strangers into the happy Communion of all his Saints That there may be one Fould and one Shepherd unus Dominus una Fides unum Corpus Jo. 10.16 Eph. 4 â— 5 To Him Allpowerful and Good and the constant lover of his Spouse the Church be given all Glory and Praise in the same his Church forever Amen FINIS ERRATA Page 8. line 19 dele 9. 2. read formed 16. marg r Milevit 28.40 r Catholick 41. r. National 36 marg r. § 34. c. 37 marg r. § 37. 38 marg r. § 38. 39 marg r. § 40. 47 marg r. 667. 79 marg r n. 102. â—6 23 r. Trent 128.3 r. would 136.20.1 obstructions 137.6 r. fifth 149.29 r. Politician 153.25 r. Olaus 26. r. Vpsal 160.23 r. which was established 171.26 r. Hebraei 198.5 r. testimonialibus decimam tantum unius aures Ib. 8. r. Emolumentum ex eisdem ordinum 200. marg r. Agathens 216.13 r so both a 220.40 r. To aâ— 1 see 221. 6. r. To â— 2 § 164. 239.9 r. Rusticks those p. 240. 33. r. Ceriuthus 241.22 r. Caput unum 242.31 dele if we are 245.40 r. it is 246.31 r. to divine 246.19 t schismatis 249.34.34 r. 1st That 251.4 r. Terentianum Maurum 257. marg r Bezam 258.1 r. summi 259. marg r. guarded Ib. marg r. Answ to 264.29 r. in the 164.41 r. iis me 265.23 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi cerei 265.26 r. proferam 266.21 r. consultius 268. marg dele § 207 and § 297. Ib. 19. dele Praestantium virorum Epistolae 273.32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 281.40 r. Censurer 283. marg Forbearance 284.42 r. them As 287.26 r. or Divine l. 32. r. we kneel before and embrace kiss c. 288.32 r. and there the Churches doctrine The Reader is desired to correct with his pen the Errata page 128-287 line 32-and -288.
praestituta ac praescripta est à Sanctis Patribus qui in Nicenorum urbe in which Creed the additions also of the Constantinopolitan Council are here supposed to be included cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre volentibus converti ad agnitionem veritatis sive ex Gentilitate sive Judaismo c. to be professed by them at their admission into the Church ut hi si quidem Episcopi sint ab Episcopatu removeantur sin autem Laici sint ut extromâ detestatione execratione percellantur This being the Canon To α I say 1 st That § 179. n. 2. R. To α. this Canon being pressed by the Greeks against the Latines in the Florentine Synod to prove the unlawfulness of the Latines addition to the Creed of Filioque either the Reformed must approve the sense the Latines gave of that Decree namely R. To α. that the Ephesin Council prohibited only that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing or contrary in any thing to the doctrine of the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his wicked Creed was which occasioned this Decree or must confess that the Latines unjustly retain and mention Filioque in their Creeds which was added to the Creeds after the Ephesin and the four first Councils †See Conc. Florent 7. Sess being first mentioned and found in the Creed in the fourth Toletan Council about A D. 680. as the Roman Writers themselves confess 2 ly That supposing the Council prohibits not only the composing or addition of any thing contrary to the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his Nestorian Creed the occasion thereof may perswade it did but the addition thereto or alteration in expression of any thing whatsoever though never so conformable to the Nicen Creed yet this prohibition extends not to Councils but only to private persons and Church-Governours according to that Hi si quidem Episcopi sunt ab Episcopatu removeantur for who shall execute this sentence upon a General Council Or how can one General Council justly limit or prescribe to another of equal authority 3 ly Supposing that they extend this Act to Councils also either they prohibit to them not the making new definitions in matters of Faith but only the adding of such definitions made to the body of the Nicene Creeed but then this act concerns none who afterward make new Definitions so they add them not to the Creed Now no additions at all have been made to that Creed since the fourth General Council save Filioque which the Protestants also allow of and use Or 4 ly If the Ephesin Fathers prohibit to the Councils any such Definitions also as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice they condemn themselves in the first place who though they added not to the Creed yet defined Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the Ephesin Canon be taken in either of these sences thus it will be found not to be observed by the very next General Council that of Chalcedon who made another new definition or Creed against Eutyches in which also they altered some expressions of the Nicene Creed as is noted by the Latines Concil Florent § 6. altered natum ex Patre 1. ex Substantiâ Patris into Consubstantialem Patri secundum Divinitatem nobis autem secundum humanitatem and added many other things as appears in their Confession of faith Sess 5. which Confession they conclude and seal up just after the same manner as the Ephesin Council before them did Decrevit sancta atque universalis haec Synodus aliam fidem nemini licere proferre sive conscribere aut exponere vel sentire Sed eos qui audent vel componere vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se convertere c. si Episcopi sunt alienos esse ab Episcopatu c. si Laici Anathematizari 5 ly That both Leo Bishop of Rome and Flavianus and Eusebius being charged by the Eutychian faction as offending against this Decree of Ephesus in their asserting as a part of their Faith Christum ex duabus in duabus simul naturis esse an Article not contained in the Nicene Creed were cleared by the Council of Chalcedon as not guilty thereof who some of them probably the same who sate in the Ephesin Council that being only twenty years before this understood it in the sence of the Latines and urged the necessity of additions as appears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Emperor †See below § 183. n. 1. 6 ly Taken in such a sence as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed but also the defining any new thing in matter of faith it is as was said before not only null by an equal authority reversing it in this sense but most irrational since the like occasions of making such new definitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council as it did before and also in it § 180 To β. To â— If the Grecians meant imperfection in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith then both the authority of the Latine Church and all the reasons given above may be produced against them but if they mean imperfection in respect of containing all Credends in respect of salvation necessary to be explicitly known it s granted that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice †See Conc. Florent Sess 1. § 181 To γ. To γ. The Latines joyn contrary also to it when they name different and mean only such difference as is also contrary as is clear every where by their words in that Synod Sess 11. Julianus Cardinalis thus Quae quidein verba i. e Concilii Ephesini nos credimus hoc solum significare ut fas sit nulle Nicaenorum Patrum fidei contrarium proferre Is the addition filioque which Protestants justifie nothing diverse then neither shall any other new definitions of Councils be so § 182 To δ. To δ. Celestines words which are spoken of the Apostles Creed either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions or do condemn Nice for it But see this testimony explained by the Latines Sess 10. that he meant only denying any thing delivered in the Apostles Creed or asserting or adding any thing contrary to it To conclude this matter §. 183. n. 1. see the defence which the Fathers of the fourth General Council following the Ephesin made to Marcianus the Emperor in the Conclusion of that Synod †Allocut ad Marcianum concerning the necessity of making from time to time new Definitions and Additions to explicate and corroborate the former Faith as new errors arise to debilitate or pervert it returned in answer to the Eutychians aâ—d others who to obtain liberty to their own opinions accused Leo's Epistle and also the Council of Innovations in matters of Faith