See below § 16. n. 6 8. This in the third place from § 12. of the Churches subjecting both Ecclesiastical Persons and Councils One to Another the less to the greater in point of Judicature and Authority for preventing of Schismes 4ly When the two Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers that are subordinate §. 15. n. 2. do dissent the obedience of the Subjects of both in such case being once apparent was to be rendred to the Superior So if a Diocesan or Provincial Council ought to yield to a National the Subjects of such Province or Diocess when these two Councils clash ought to conform in their Obedience to the National not to a Diocesan or Provincial Council against it Now §. 16. n. 1. for such a subordination of the several Church-Officers and Synods forenamed and for Obedience when these dissent due to the Superior the two points last mentioned I will to save the labour of further proof give you the Concessions of Learned Protestants though this be done with some limitations accomodated to the better legitimating of their Reformation of which limitations see below § 16. n. 4. n. 7. and again § 28. desiring you also to peruse those set down already to the same purpose in the second Discourse § 24. n. 1. c. Of this matter then thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case between the Church of England and Rome p. 48. The Church of Christ is a society or company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13.17 And he that will not hear the Church is to be as a Heathen and a Publican Mat. 16. And applying this to the Presbyterians and other Sects dividing from the English Bishops and Synods ‖ p. 46. They have incurred saith he by leaving us and I wish they would sadly consider it no less than the guilt of Schisme which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or Sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and Sacriledge unto it And thus Dr. Hammond §. 16. n. 2. somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism c. 8. p. 157. The way saith he provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Vnity of the Faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence 1st Their resolving c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans of the Metropolitans in every Region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a primacy of Order or Dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and greeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses And when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial Patriarchal General Again Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these beginning at the lowest and so ascending to the highest Those Brethren or People saith he ‖ 7. which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained or appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks †8. In like manner if we ascend to the next higher Link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Brethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt Next For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates §. 16. n. 3. § 20. he goes on thus It is manifest That as the several Bishops had prefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans he having shewed in § 11.12 the first Institution thereof Apostolical in Titus and Timothy nay we must yet ascend saith he one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs Concerning whose authority having produced several Canons of Councils § 25. he concludes thus All these Canons or Councils deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops from the Apostles and first Planters of the Churches wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the authority which these have by Canon and Primitive Custom over them And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors he affirms also due on the same account to their several Synods †Answ to Catholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29. It is evident saith he That the power which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council where these Bishops are assembled and the despising of that Council is an offence under the first sort of Schism and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors whereof it is compounded Thus Dr. Hammond ascending in these subordinations as high as Primates But Dr. Field Bishop Bramhal and others §. 16. n. 4. rise one step higher to the Proto-primates or Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called and their Councils And strange it is if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest that Dr. Hammond could pass by these in his speaking of the remedies of Schism with so much silence not mentioning Patriarchs but only as taken for Primates or their Councils See * Answ to Cathol Gent. c. 3. n. 9 10 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial National Oecumenical Councils but passeth by Patriarchal and * Schism p. 158 where he names Provincial Patriarchal General but useth Patriarchal there for National or the Council presided-in by the Primate to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch Strange I say considering not only the clear evidence of ancient Constitutions and
S. W †Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 174. whether Princes do not hold such power of translating or erecting Patriarchs from the Churche's Grant Now surely this will be confessed contrary to the Churche's Canons for a Prince to make such a removal of the Patriarchs former Jurisdiction as thereby to null as to his Subjects the authority of a Patriarchal Council And if indeed the erecting and removing Patriarchs did originally belong to Princes yet since the Civil Governments that are contained within the Precincts of one Patriarchy are now in the hands of many several Soveraigns the repeal of any Patriarch's former authority as it relates to the convening of such Councils must be an act at least of the Major part of these Princes as being a thing which equally concerns them all Nor can the Doctor produce an instance of a former fact in this kind And if the Prince can thus free his National Clergy from a Patriarch and his Synod why not also from a General Council that neither it shall oblige his Subjects without his consent Again Doctor Heylin's Plea ‖ Reformation justified p. 84. touching the English Clergy in their Reformation their conferring all their power on the Prince which they formerly enjoyed in their own Capacity A power saith he not only of confirming their Synodical acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity comparing it there to the Roman Senat 's transferring all their power on Caesar I say this Plea as it contains very strange Doctrine so it reacheth not our present matter for if a National Clergy can at pleasure transfer their own spiritual authority over others and that authority too for reforming Errors in matters of Religion to a Lay person or also to his Delegates which authority was intrusted to them by our Lord in a Personal Ordination yet can they not hence transfer to the same Lay-person their Superiors whether persons or Councils spiritual authority over them so that this superior's authority for the future shall not oblige but when such Lay-person first admits it § 64 This from § 53. of Obedience due from the Reformed and particularly from the Church of England to the Council of Trent if this were only a free and Legal Patriarchal Council The true Rights of which also it may not be thought to forfeit by its further pretensions to be a Council Oecumenical As we may not withdraw our due obedience from our Prince when he exacts some other not due or withhold a just debt where more is unjustly demanded But not to stay here § 65 2ly Our Obedience may yet further be rightly challenged to this Council 2. as General if it shall be proved though not so General as several formerly have been yet so General as now in such an alteration of States can be had and it being such the same divine assistance as to ampler formerly may be presumed to be afforded to it for such Controversies as are necessary to be decided And a submission to a Council only so comprehensive several Protestant Divines think reasonable Thus B. Bramhal in Preface to Reply to Chalced. I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so General as can be procured And Schism-guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as General as may be And p. 351. I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had See more in Disc 1. § 35. Dr. Field freely confesseth ‖ Of the Church p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these have no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and his Council as appears Ib. d. 39. p. 563. Where he quotes the Emperor's Law Novel 223. c. 22. confirming the 9 th Canon of Council Chalced. Nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente Consequently these Councils bind so the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith †Answ to Catholick Gent. p. 30. That General Councils are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many Communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled But mean while he saith ‖ Of Schism c. 9. p. 163. We acknowledge the due authority of our Ecclesiastical Superiors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things secundum Deum And Answ to Cathol Gentleman p. 17. A Congregation saith he that is fallible may yet have authority to make decisions and to require Inferiors so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions All which seems to amount to his acknowledging an external obedience of non-contradiction at least and such as Protestants contend for to their National Synods to be due to a Patriarchal or the highest Assembly of Church-Governors which the present or future times in the moral impossibility of having General Councils are capable of § 66 3ly The absence in it of the Representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches 3. the thing principally urged seems no just hinderance why this council of Trent may not be stiled General For evidencing which I desire you to consider with me these Reasons in part cleared before 1st That a Council may be stiled General without the presence in it of some considerable Churches ‖ See before §. 36 43. either 1. When these called by a lawful Authority by reason of poverty and distance of place 1. or persecution c. cannot come and afterward acquainted with the Councils proceedings express no dissent to the Acts thereof See before § 36. the four first Councils as convened for the suppressing of Heresies that chiefly afflicted the Eastern parts so mostly confisting of Oriental Bishops scarce any of the West being present in some of them Or 2. When invited and no way justly letted they refuse to come Or 3. When by some former General Council condemned of Heresie and Schism they are not invited at all to come or coming are repelled For the Church Catholick may be much narrower than Christianity †See before § 39. and Councils are General and obligatory as such if they consist of the Church Catholick though it should be reduced only to one Patriarchate 2. 2 ly Concerning the Calling of the Eastern Churches not entring here into that Controversie whether these Churches do not maintain an Heresie in the Procession of the H. Ghost and
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
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
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
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints and Appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And the Protestant-Primates saith Bishop Bramhal †Vind. c. 1. p. 257. use the same customs of judging Church-Causes without calling Synods Now what is in this kind conceded to Metropolitans much more ought to be to Patriarchs whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial nor ever was a set time appointed for these as for the other This said concerning the Calling of General Councils its belonging of right to the Church and in it to the Supremest Prelate § 49 3ly It is not denied but that the Emperor had and since the dissolution of the Empire other Princes joined 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Prelates as being their Subjects of calling these both in assistance to the Church in her necessities and also in order to their own Civil affairs when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church Provided this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent consent either before or at least after the Indiction of them Of which thus Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt fic tainen ut possit etiam alius Pontifice consentiente Conciliâ—m indicere quinetiam satis sit si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat confirmet at si nec ipse indicat Concilium nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem illud non Concilium sed Conciliabulum fore § 52 And this thing is made good by the ancient practice where As the Emperors being by their secular power much more effectual promoters thereof were prevailed with to call the first General Councils so this was not done but either from the first Motion or with the consent of the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Head of the Church as appears concerning all the first 6. General Councils in the acclamatory speech of the 6 th Council at the conclusion thereof to the Emperor Arius Divisor c. They naming 1 Sylvester 2 Damasus 3 Caelestinus 4 Leo 5 Vigilius 6 Agatho Bishops of Rome joined with the Emperor in the promoting all these Councils And to come to some particulars Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus and to the Council assembled with him at Rome Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae i. e. of Damasus singly this Council not then sitting when the Orientals met first in Council though it did when they writ literas missas Theodosio summâ pietate Imperatori Concerning the 3 d. Council thus Prosper in Chronico Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ Coelestini authoritate Concerning the 4 th Thus the Emperor to Leo in the Epistles pertaining to that Council Superest ut si placuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire c. Synodum celebrare hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur nostris utique desideriis vestra Sanctitas satisfaciet Sacrae Religioni quae utilia sunt decernet Si verâ— hoc onerosum est ut tu ad has partes advenias hoc ipsum nobis prâ—priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum ubi nobis placuerit omues sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire quae Christianorum Religioni atque Catholicae Fidei prosint sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit suâ dispositione declarent To which add * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister to the same Pope Propterea tua Reverentia quocunque modo prospexerit significare dignetur ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi Thraciae atque Illyrici sicut etian nostro Domin piâ—ssimo Imperatori placuit in unani Civitatem velociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire illic facto Concilio de Catholicâ confessione c. te authore decernant And * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the first Act of that Council Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam factum est nec fieri licuit The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Oriental Bishops against John Bishop of Constantinople And that of Gelasius who lived about some 40. years after in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum i. e. the second Ephesin non consentiendo sola summovit authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Lastly If the ancient Canon that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum stand good the calling such Councils by Emperors without the Mandate or confent also of this Bishop will be to no purpose because nothing can be established therein without his concurrence Thus much of the power of Calling General Councils CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy § 67. § 53 THese things touching Church-Government from § â—9 being premised in general a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent as occasion requires I proceed to a more particular consideration of the first Head proposed before ‖ §. 8. concerning the Generality and just Authority of this Council to oblige all the Churches Subjects especially those of the West 1. Where in the first place it is to be noted That supposing this Council of Trent no legal and free General yet if it be a free and legal Patriarchal Council thus it will stand obligatory at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction to the Reformed and particularly to the English Church For 1 st It hath been formerly cleared both by the Church-Canons ‖ See before §. 11 12. c. and the Concessions of Protestants †§. 16. n. 4. c. That as a Diocesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses or to a Provincial where the Metropolitan presides and again a Provincial or Metropolitan Synod to a National or that composed of many Provinces
wherein the Primate of the Metropolitans presides so again is this National Synod the Catholick Church in many Nations being but One subject to that composed of several Nations and their Primates called and presided-in by one of the principal Patriarchs Neither whatever Superiority such Patriarch really hath needeth he for the subjection of such Primates and their respective Churches to this Patriarchal Council any other power over these Primates save what these Primates are granted to have over the Metropolitans whose Proyincial Synods we see are subjected to a National or the Primate's Synod Neither if it could be proved that the chief Patriarchs have over National Primates no superiority of power or at least that some particular Provinces as to Ordinations or some other Jurisdictions are utterly exempt from Patriarchal authority may therefore such Provinces pretend freedom from any obedience to the Decrees of a Council Patriarchal wherein some one of these Patriarchs presides no more than they can justly pretend freedom from a Council Oecumenical on the same account in which Council Oecumenical or General though the same Primates should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical Person their Superior yet could they not deny the Council to be so Subject then are National Synods and Churches to Patriarchal and to this end every Church as Dr. Field observes p. 513. cited before § 16. n. 5. is subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporated into the Vnity of it Of the necessity of which Union of Churches in Patriarchal Synods in the so much more difficult and chargeable assembling of such as are absolutely Vniversal see before § 16. n. 4. § 54 2. Next The Church of England one of those the most anciently professing Christianity 2 which it is clear it did before Tertullian's time ‖ See Tertullian Apol. ad versus Judaeos c. 7. Origen in Ezech. Hom. 4 Bede Hist Angl. l. 1. c. 4. never pretended subjection to any other Patriarch or his Council than this of the West to whom also it ascribes its Conversion without dispute as for the Saxons or English if not also as for the Britains And accordingly both in ancient and latter times if the mos antiquus obtineat in the 6 th Canon of Nice be of any force it hath always ranged it self and appeared in the Western Councils as a Member of this Patriarchy and of the Latine Church and from time to time concurred in the passing of those Canons which have established the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and of these Patriarchal Councils § 55 After several Christians suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's time In the Council at Arles in France 10. years before that of Nice assembled by Constantine who being born in England and his Mother an English woman and a Christian and being after his Father's death here also first declared Emperor by his Army may be presumed to have had some particular respects for the Brittish Clergy we find the presence and subscription of several Brittish Bishops acknowledged by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schism p. 110. and B. Bramhal †Vindic. of the Church if England p. 98. and of which thus Sir Henry Spelm. A. D 314. Aderant è Britanniâ celebriores ut videtur tres Episcopi Surely in dignity much preceding and much ancienter than the Bishop of Caerleon nempe Eboracensis Londinensis de Civitate Coloniae Lodunensium quae aliàs dicitur Camelodunum una cum Sacerdote Presbytero Diacono qui Canones assensu suo approbabant in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos The first Canon whereof setleth the matter of Easter to be kept through all the Churches on the same day and the divulgation of this through all Churches was committed to the Bishop of Rome the Western and Prime Patriarch secundum consuetudinem saith the Canon Again at the Council held at Ariminum and before this in that of Sardica assembled A. D. 347. some 20. years after that of Nice is found the presence of the Britain amongst other Western Bishops witnessed by Athanasius who was present there himself in his second Apology And therefore may the Canons of that Council be presumed among the rest to be ratified by them or at least being passed by the major part of that Occidental Council to oblige them Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop how they allow and ratifie his supreme Decision of Appeals c. Protestants are not ignorant and therefore to evade it make such exceptions as these ‖ B. Bramhal Reply to S. W p. 24. 1. That it doth not appear That the British Bishops did assent to that Canon But this matters not the major part in Councils concluding the rest and neither doth it appear on the other side but that they did approve it which also is to be presumed where appears no contradiction 2 Again urged That it was no General Council But it sufficeth for the Britains if it were at least a compleat Occidental Council 3. Pleaded That these Canons of Sardica were never incorperated into the English Laws and therefore did not bind English Subjects But Church-Canons and Decrees in matters Ecclesiastical do oblige all the Members of the Church though Princes oppose Oblige Princes also if Christian and so the Churches Subjects And the Author that requireth this incorporation of Church Canons into the Princes Laws explains himself elsewhere ‖ Schism guarded p. 160. to mean only that Church-Decrees oblige not as to the using any coactive power in his Realms for the execution of them without the Princes leave because saith he such external coactive Jurisdiction is originally Political a thing granted him so that before such leave or enrolment the Churches Decrees oblige both Prince and People if Christian in foro Conscientiae the disobedient justly incurring the Churches censures the thing we here contend for Lastly The 9 th Canon of Chalced. a subsequent General Council is pretended to contradict these of Sardica in giving the Supremacy in Appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople But I need not tell him that this Constantinople Supremacy is not for the West but East which is for the Controversies of those Provinces there subject to that Patriarch § 56 And from the presence of the Britain Bishops in these ancient Councils if I may make here a little digression appears the ignorance of the Abbot of Bangor if the Relation be true in being such a stranger to the Popes Person Authority or Titles after A. D. 600. after all that power exercised by him for so many Ages in the Western Provinces conceded by Protestants see Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. from c. 32. to c. 40. after so many missions of several holy Bishops from the Pope of Rome either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland or to reform it * Of Fugatius and Damianus very early sent by Pope Eleutherius in King Lucius his days which King
now you may see the reason of what Soave said above and the great point the Protestants had gained if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil though that Form names with the Scriptures Concilia Doctores praxin Apostolicam primitivae Ecclesiae for the judge of Controversies But why is the Tridentine Council so averse you will say that Scripture only should be the Judge or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion For this reason because when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture as mostly it is it is fit the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein or else what end can be of such Controversie when those against whom the Councils declare shall so often say the Councils declare against the Scriptures i. e. their sense of them But here it is sufficient that though the Safe-conduct as to the way which the Protestants demanded of the trial of their Doctrines was excepted against of which more by and by yet as to the security of their persons it was unquestioned Thus much from § 82. that no deficiency in the Summons place or Safe-conduct hath rendred this Council illegal or non-obliging CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishops or Popes being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Popes being Judge § 122. § 105 8 ly NEither doth the Oath 8. that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope hinder this Council consisting of those Bishops from being a free legal and obliging Council The sum of which Oath is Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae Domino meo Papae N. ejusque Successoribus Canonice intrantibus Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae Regulas Sanctorum Patrum adjutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnem Hominem Regulas Sanctorum Patrum or Regalia Sancti Petri as it is in later Pontificals which Regalia I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in or near them as also non ero in Consilio ut vitam perdat and several other Passages in the Oath seem to be Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere angere promovere curabo Nec ero in Consilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliquae sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris status potestatis eorum machinentur § 106 1. Where note first That it is the ordinary 1 and customary Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Council and that it is for substance the same oath as hath been usually sworn in former ages precedent to many other Councils without being complained of or conceived any way to abridge their Liberties Nor is it now a grievance save to such as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights § 107 2 ly That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours 2. is required by the Reformed themselves and every Bishop in the Church of England at his Consecration takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop and the Metropolitan Church and their Successors And though in a thing so far as it is granted lawful it matters not how new is the practice yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patriarchy hath been also anciently used See the order in Conce Tolâ—t 11. can 10. Omnes Pontifices Rectoresque Ecclesiarum tempore quo ordinandi sunt sub cautione promittant ut fidem Catholicam custodiant atque obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi dependant where why omnes Pontifices praeeminenti sibi may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch as of the Metropolitan I see nothing to hinder And see apud Baron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man and other Bishops of those times at their Ordination Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps vicarioque tuo B. Gregorio Papae successori ejus me omnem fidem puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibere in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere Again Fidem puritatem meam atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae i e. Petri cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi solvendique data est praedicto vicario tuo atque Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist l. 10. ep 31. Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus sub anathematis Obligatione promitto sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus vicario Beato Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem haec Sancta 4or Evangelia c. where though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it ‖ See Stillinsl p. 490. yet the word promitto sancti Petri Apostolorum Principis vicario me in Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum in this as also me fidem atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturumâ— in the precedent Form include a fidelity and subjection to St. Peter's Chair and that the Bishops in those ancient dayes sware no less to continue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome than in the unity of the Catholick Church Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable and therefore in the same Form it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae and those who desert it are said to depart à radice unitatis Now this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case why may it not be so at another time And if this Council of Trent by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope may not be thought Free to proceed against any disorders in this See neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths since that Toletan Council since Gregories or Winfrids times be thought so § 108 3 ly Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience only to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require Donec Pontifex est dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum sacros Canones jubere potest sed non jurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in Concilio vel
trial in this Council as formerly by Church-Tradition Councils and Fathers interpreting Scriptures controverted But now the Learned amongst the Reformed perhaps like the ancient Sectarists but now mentioned ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur think fit to take another way and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed as the Roman overthrown by those same ancient Councils and Fathers Whereby we are now made believe that these their Fore-Fathers mainly declined that Authority which clearly established their opinions and on the otherside the Roman Catholicks together with the Pope vehemently contended for that Authority that manifestly ruined theirs § 129 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions should be preferred 7. i. e. those opinions which were regulated by the word of God 8. 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg A. D. 1555. continue in force Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Protestants were A toleration of all sects that every one might follow what religion pleaseth them best as you may see in Soave p. 378. and 393. § 130 The sum therefore of the fift seventh and eighth condition is this Of the Fifth that Protestants shall vote in the Council definitively together with the Catholicks but this the Protestants must needs see by the Catholicks over-numbring them would signifie little Therefore the seventh condition cautioneth that if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents than for them yet this plurality may not carry the business but that their opinion if the more sound though it have fewer Suffrages shall be preferred But again this they saw was very unlikely either that the others who voted against their opinion should judge it the more sound or themselves only judging it more sound that the others upon this should prefer it Therefore the 8th condition makes sure work that if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions yet they shall not condemn but allow every one that pleaseth still to retain them and on these conditions they will submit to a Council § 131 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made which see in Soave p. 369. That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope 9. and of the Bishops his adherents and it being unjust that either the Plaintiff or the Defendent should be the judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets there might be Judges indifferently chosen by both sides to take knowledge of the controversies § 132 In satisfaction to these their demands To the first see what is said above § 47. and § 80. To the second what is said § 83. c. To the Canon urged See Bellarmins answer de Concil l. 1. c. 21. The Canon intends criminal matters where witnesses are necessary not matters of faith The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem Arianism arising in Alexandria judged at Nice in Bithynia To the third see what is said before § 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it in Soave p. 80. is sufficient That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council to which it belongs according to the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council recited before cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas And that for the manner and Form it was not convenient that they should prescribe it to all Nations nor think their Devines only inspired by God c. To the fourth what is said § 105. c. And that de facto such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom was seen in several controversies that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes and a contrary party about Episcopal Jurisdiction c. To the fifth what is said § 68. n. 2. 115. c. and 118. where it is also shewed by the suppositions there made that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants it would have nothing promoted their cause unless perhaps they think that the evident arguments which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents would have converted so many of their adversaries as joyned with them would have made a major part in the Council But besides these arguments seen and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council in their books who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned without working any such effect upon them what success their disputations would have had in the Council may be gathered * from that which they had in the German Diets from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant and inflexible in their former perswasions as themselves and * from that effect which they have in Christendome ever since that Council to this day the major part undeniably remaining still Catholick and the other of late much decreasing § 313 To the sixth I have said much elsewhere which you may remember 1. Surely nothing can be more reasonable and just when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of than that the litigants for what is either said in the Scriptures or necessarily deduced from them stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church and he that disclaims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge that these Fathers and Councils are against him and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie When you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture saith King Charles †3d. Paper of blessed memory to his weak Antagonist Mr. Henderson and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer Neither have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented and again †4th Paper When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences Thus against Puritans against Socinians c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things wherein her eyes are shut against Catholicks But set this humane Authority quite aside the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side than on the other because it saith only the same words to or for both and thus as by other
therein obliged to believe the Articles §. 195. n. 1◠or Canons of Trent or of other Councils in any other sense 3. than that which we have but now mentioned †§. 192. For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession Haec vera Catholica fides extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest cannot be understood distributively in such a manner as if every Canon of every lawful Council is necessary explicitly to be known and assented to that any one may attain Salvation which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith See Bellarmin de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14. Multa sunt de fide quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem I add nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur But either * it is to be understood collectively In hac Professione continetur vera Catholica Fides c. that all the fides extra quam nemo salvus is contained in that profession which expression respects chiefly the Apostles or Nicen Creed set in the front of the profession as appears by a like expression Fundamentum firmum unicum applied to that Creed alone in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess For if only some part of that profession of faith which is made in that Bull be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation this phrase is sufficiently justified extra quam i. e. totam i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved non est salus As saying that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God without believing which there is no Salvation argues not that every thing delivered in these Scriptures is necessary to be believed for Salvation but that some things are Or * It is to be understood distributively but this conditionally in such a sence as extra quam nemo salvus esse potest i. e. if such person opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths †See before For in so doing though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith § 192 he becomes therein obstinate and Heretical and disobedient to his spiritual Guide declared by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries and so in this becomes guilty of a mortal sin which unrepented of exlcudes from Salvation Where also since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary hence though all her Definitions are not in such yet his obstinacy in not yielding assent to all matters defined runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull §. 195. n. 2 when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter crediderit salvus esse non poterit which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew That some Points may become necessary for salvation to be believed when once defined by the Church that yet are not absolutely so necessary or fundamental according to the Importance of the matter All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental or necessary ratione Medii to Salvation that none can possibly attain it without an explicit belief of them Here a late Protestant Writer †Stillingf p. 70 71. in answer to this can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss than that we have now given viz. That as to some of the Athanasian Articles Haec est fides Cathol c. neither infers that they are necessary to be believed from the matter nor yet from Church-Definition but necessary only if there be first a clear conviction i. e. not from Church-Authority but from Scripture that they are Divine Revelation Where the authority of the Church in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed as to any obligation of her Subjects to conform to it seems quite laid aside since upon a clear conviction that those Articles are Divine Revelation from whatever Proponent one stands obliged to believe them and without such conviction neither stands he so obliged by the Church Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition from the Quam nisi quisque fideliter c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scripture Since Protestants then take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles it is but reason that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius § 196 4. Lastly If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence as Protestants fetter them with Namely 4. That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles as absolutely necessary to salvation As Bishop Bramhal †Rep. to Chalced. p. 322. Which whether true or false one is to swear to as much as to his Creed As Mr. Thorndike †Epilog Conclus p. 410. That whereas the Church of England only excommunicates such as shall affirm that her Articles are in any part erroneous the saine Church never declaring that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith by the Church of Rome every one of them if that Church hath once determined them is made fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens belief As Bishop Laud ‖ §. 15. p. 51. That supposing the Churches Definition one passed that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation i. e. by this Proposal or Definition as what is necessary from the matter And That an equal explicit faith is required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to salvation of believing both of them As Mr. Stillingf †Rat. Account p. 48. If I say Pius his Haec est Bides Catholica must be taken in such a sence and then it be considered also that by the Bull this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it but to all other Definitions also of all other former allowed Councils the Consequent is that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation and that for want of necessary faith the far greater part not only of Christians but of Roman Catholicks viz. all that do not explicitly believe and therefore that do not actually know every particular Definition of any precedent Council when as who is there among the vulgar that is not ignorant of the most of them who amongst the learned that knows them all Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words and that they only declaim against their own Fancies When as indeed to render
too much verified in this our Nation But Dudithius the famous Bishop of Quinquecclesiae in his disconsolate Letter to Beza when Dudithius now a Protestant and married and beginning to stagger in his new Religion that had dispensed with his Celibacy much more deplores these their intestine discords and schismes in a scisme There †Apud Becaw Epist 1. Si quae aliquando saith he inter eruditos ex quodam disputationis quasi calore Controversiae extiterunt illis statim Concilii sive etiam Pontificis decreta finem imposuerunt At nostri quales tandem sunt palantes omni doctrinae vento agitati in altum sublati modo ad hanc modo ad illam partem differuntur Horum quae sit hodie de Religione sententia scire sortasse possis sed quae eras de eadem futura sit opinion neque ille neque tu certo affirmare queas Again Ecclesiae ipsae pugnant inter se capitalibus odiis horrendis quibusdam Anathematismis perhaps looking at the Dissentions then between the followers of Futher Zuinglius Oecolampadius Calvin c. not yet healed Ipsi qui summum haberi volunt Theologi à seipsis indies dissident fidem cudunt à suá ipsius quam paulo ante professi fuerant ab aliorum omnium fide abhorrentem denique menstruam fidem habent perhaps looking at the often varyings of Luther Melancthon Bucer and others from their own former opinions and doctrine Thus Dudithius For though the Churches make some particular standing Articles to bind together their own Subjects yet both the Articles of the several Churches do not accord one with another in some principal Points as appears in the Lutheran Calvinist Belgick French English reformed Churches and the Subjects of each Church do upon the reforming Principles without scruple break these Bonds upon any new greater verisimilities thinking their Christian liberty infringed by them And certainty whatever deviation from Truth and former Tradition we may suppose the first Reformers to have made yet if they could have restrained the people their Subjects from following their example and from taking that liberty of dissenting from them which they being also Subjects took of dissenting from their Superiors both the whole Body of the Reformation would have had much more unity and peace and such persons much less error § 298 2. 2 Advanced thus far learned Protestants consenting That all such persons as we here speak of are to conform to and to suffer themselves in matters of Religion to be guided by Church Authority Next a Judgment freed from the interests of the Will may easily further add That where these Ecclesiastical Governours happen to differ amongst themselves and guide a contrary way here since these are placed for avoiding schismes in a due subordination such persons in such case owe their obedience to the Superiors of them To which in all regular Governments the inferior Magistrates if they do not ought to give place Si aliquid saith St. Austin †De verbis Dom. Serm. 6. Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator nunquid dubitatur isto contempto illi esse serviendum i. e. in things which our Ecclesiastical Guides do not instruct us to be contrary to the Divine Laws So as to spiritual matters and the sence of Scripture a Provincial and a National Synod guiding such persons several waies their obedience is due to the National again a National and a Patriarch Council of all the West or a General determining matters in a diverse manner the obedience of such persons is due to the Patriarchal or General not the National Council And the same it is in any Patriarchy or Province in the intervals of Synods as to the subordinate Pastors and Prelats See the obedience required by the Church of England from all inferior Clergie or Synods to a National Council in the Canons made 1603. Can. 139. and 140. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said sacred Synod are to be subject to the decrees thereof c. let him be Excommunicated And as of persons so Churches That Church saith Bishop Bramhal †Schism guared p. 2 which shall not outwardly aquiesce after a legal determination i. e. of its Superiors and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And elsewhere †Vindic of Church Engl. p. 12. If a Superior presume to determine contrary to the determination of the Church i. e. of his Ecclesiastical Superiors it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him and obey them And I acknowledge saith Dr. Hammond †Knew to Cath. Gentl. c. 8. §. 1. as much as C. G. or any man the Authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And in his Book of Schisme p. 54. and 66. He grants it Schism for the Bishop to withdraw his obedience from the higher power of the Metropolitan or Primate as well as for Presbyters from the Bishop Now from these I collect that if these inferior Synods or Clergy are to yield such external obedience to their respective Superiors Then are the Subjects of these when ever a lower Church-Authority clasheth with an higher either in submission of their judgment or of their silence to adhere to the higher nor are the one freed from this duty because the other neglect it So some National and a Patriarchal Council dissenting or some Metropolitan and his Patriarch here the forenamed persons being the Subjects of both owe their submission of judgment only to the higher Church-Authority of the two which Authority if the forecited Protestants allow the lower to dissent from yet not to gain-say § 299 Nor is it reasonable for any to decline here the present Supreme Authority that is extant and in being and transfer such his obedience and submission to a future that hath no being as to transfer it from his Primate or Patriarch or so large and universal Councils as have been convened in his own or in former times to a future absolutely General Council For thus so many only are subject to the present supreme Powers as are content to be so if an appeale to a future Authority streight unties them from it And yet more unreasonable this if this appeale is to such a future Council as probably can never be namely where either the Assembly or the approbation of it must be absolutely Vniversal either as to the whole Body of Christian Bishops or at least as to some Bishops of every Province an usual demand of the Reformed For such Provinces as are censured or condemned by the Council which thing often happens it cannot be presumed that they will ever accept it No more than the Council of Trent supposed
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
utilitate Cred. c. 1. that he was enticed by the Sect of the Manichees on this account because they promised Se terribili authoritate separatâ merâ simplici rations or as afterward magna quadam praesumptione pollicitatione rationum cos qui se audire vellent introducturos ad Deum erroreomni liberaturos And Se nullum premere ad fidem nisi prius discussâ enodatâ veritate And again †Ibid c. 9. Eos Catholicam Ecclesiam eo maxime criminari quod illis qui ad eam veniunt praecipitur ut credâ—nt se autem non jugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriari And therefore he saith in his Retract l. 1. c. 14. That upon this he writ against this presumption of their's his Book De utilitate Credendi Or Of the benefit of ones believing Church-Authority This from § 318. of the weak Grounds Protestants have of pretending Certainty against Church Authority § 330 2 But next Suppose a person may be infallibly certain of and can truly demonstrate something the contrary of which Church-Authority delivers as certain yet if this certainty be only of such a Truth from the knowledge of which ariseth no great benefit to Christians or to the Church or at least not so much benefit as weighed in the ballance will preponderat this other benefit of conserving the Churches peace Here again these Demonstrators Protestants also being Judges are to yield to Church-Authority the obedience of silence and non-contradiction and are to keep such Truth to themselves and not to disturb the publick peace after any thing defined to the contrary by divulging it to others § 331 In vindication of such obedience thus Dr. Potter ‑ It is true when the Church hath declared her self in any matter of opinions or of rites her Declaration obligeth all her children to peace and external obedience nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Where he saith also That by his factiously opposing this his own judgment to the publick he may become an Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false After him Bishop Brambal thus †Schism guarded p. 2. That Church and much more that person which shal not outwardly acquiesce after a legal Determination and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And Vindic. of Church of England p. 27. When inferior Questions saith he not fundamental are â—nce defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in patience and they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Doctor Fern Division of Churches p. 81. requiring conformity of Sectaries to the Church of England argues thus If Sectaries shall say to us You allow us to use our reason and judgement in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction not to abuse it against the Church But we do not abuse it say they but have consulted our Guides and used all means we can for satisfaction We tell them You must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church and next having modestly propounded it attend the judgment thereof But what if after all this go against them To which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yield an external peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it Thus he states the point Now such an external peaceable subjection and obedience as hath been often said if it were well observed stops all Reformations as to these points that are found of less consequence the Demonstrators Truth must die with him Nor thus will any Disciples be drawn from the Church or their Pastors to follow Strangers § 232 Next To know whether the truth they are so certain of be also of so great weight as that the Churches peace and external unity is to be broken rather than such a Truth strangled or lost what less thing also can secure them for this that it is a Truth of much importance than that which secures them of their certainty that it is a Truth namely a Demonstration hereof Now the Evidences Protestants have brought either of the one or the other either that such Church-Doctrines are errors or if so errors of great consequence have been heard and considered by Church-Authority And these by it neither thought errors intollerable nor errors at all But if Church-Authority may not interpose here and every one may rely on his own particular Judgment when truths or errors are of moment when not who is there when his thoughts are wholy taken up with a thing and he totus in illo and perhaps besides troubled with an itch that that knowledge of his which he esteems extraordinary should be communicated and that se scire hoc sciat alter will not thus induce himself to think the smallest matters great Lastly concerning truths of much importance let this also be considered Whether that which is so much pretended by the Reformed that the Holy Scriptures are clear in all Divine Truths necessary doth not strongly argue against them that none of those things wherein they gain-say the Church are matters much important or necessary Because all these Scriptures clear in necessaries will surely be so to the Church as well as to them As they grant these Scriptures to be generally as to all persons perspicuous in all those common points of faith that are not at all controverted § 333 3. But let this also be allowed That the error of Church-Authority is not only manifest but that it both is and is certainly known to be in a point most important and necessary and that neither the obedience of assent nor yet of silence or non-contradiction ought to be yielded to Church-Authority therein yet all this granted will not justifie or secure any in their not yielding a third obedience meerly passive viz. a quiet submission to the Churches censures however deemed in such a particular case unjust Whereby if this censure happen to be Excommunication he is patiently to remain so as who in such case injoyes still the internal communion of the Church though he want the external till God provide for the vindication of Truth and his Innocency But by no means to proceed further to set up or joyn himself to an external communion apart and separated from that of his Superiors and such a communion as either refuseth any conjunction with them or at least is prohibited and excluded by them which must alwaies be schismatical as being that of a Part differing from the Whole or of Inferiors divided from their Canonical Superiors by which now that Party begins to lose that internal Communion of the Church also which when unjustly excommunicated and acquiescing therein he still