See below § 16. n. 6 8. This in the third place from § 12. of the Churches subjecting both Ecclesiastical Persons and Councils One to Another the less to the greater in point of Judicature and Authority for preventing of Schismes 4ly When the two Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers that are subordinate §. 15. n. 2. do dissent the obedience of the Subjects of both in such case being once apparent was to be rendred to the Superior So if a Diocesan or Provincial Council ought to yield to a National the Subjects of such Province or Diocess when these two Councils clash ought to conform in their Obedience to the National not to a Diocesan or Provincial Council against it Now §. 16. n. 1. for such a subordination of the several Church-Officers and Synods forenamed and for Obedience when these dissent due to the Superior the two points last mentioned I will to save the labour of further proof give you the Concessions of Learned Protestants though this be done with some limitations accomodated to the better legitimating of their Reformation of which limitations see below § 16. n. 4. n. 7. and again § 28. desiring you also to peruse those set down already to the same purpose in the second Discourse § 24. n. 1. c. Of this matter then thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case between the Church of England and Rome p. 48. The Church of Christ is a society or company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13.17 And he that will not hear the Church is to be as a Heathen and a Publican Mat. 16. And applying this to the Presbyterians and other Sects dividing from the English Bishops and Synods ‖ p. 46. They have incurred saith he by leaving us and I wish they would sadly consider it no less than the guilt of Schisme which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or Sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and Sacriledge unto it And thus Dr. Hammond §. 16. n. 2. somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism c. 8. p. 157. The way saith he provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Vnity of the Faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence 1st Their resolving c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans of the Metropolitans in every Region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a primacy of Order or Dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and greeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses And when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial Patriarchal General Again Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these beginning at the lowest and so ascending to the highest Those Brethren or People saith he ‖ 7. which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained or appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks †8. In like manner if we ascend to the next higher Link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Brethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt Next For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates §. 16. n. 3. § 20. he goes on thus It is manifest That as the several Bishops had prefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans he having shewed in § 11.12 the first Institution thereof Apostolical in Titus and Timothy nay we must yet ascend saith he one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs Concerning whose authority having produced several Canons of Councils § 25. he concludes thus All these Canons or Councils deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops from the Apostles and first Planters of the Churches wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the authority which these have by Canon and Primitive Custom over them And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors he affirms also due on the same account to their several Synods †Answ to Catholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29. It is evident saith he That the power which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council where these Bishops are assembled and the despising of that Council is an offence under the first sort of Schism and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors whereof it is compounded Thus Dr. Hammond ascending in these subordinations as high as Primates But Dr. Field Bishop Bramhal and others §. 16. n. 4. rise one step higher to the Proto-primates or Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called and their Councils And strange it is if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest that Dr. Hammond could pass by these in his speaking of the remedies of Schism with so much silence not mentioning Patriarchs but only as taken for Primates or their Councils See * Answ to Cathol Gent. c. 3. n. 9 10 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial National Oecumenical Councils but passeth by Patriarchal and * Schism p. 158 where he names Provincial Patriarchal General but useth Patriarchal there for National or the Council presided-in by the Primate to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch Strange I say considering not only the clear evidence of ancient Constitutions and
same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And the 8 th General Council Can. 17. upon occasion of some Metropolitans qui ne secundum vocationem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant à mundi Principibus se detineri sine ratione causantur declares also thus against such Princes Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat impium esse ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant And all these things are justified and allowed by Protestants Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason That the calling of a General Council i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs and their Patriarchies should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs or Bishop of the chief See though we suppose that he claim no more than a preeminency of order as Primates do over Metropolitans § 49 Of this matter therefore some Learned Proteâ—â—rnts seem to speak more moderately 1 st Thus Mr. Thorndike concerning the Right of Calling Councils its belonging to the Church Epil p. 33. I must saith he here not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles He accounting that Assembly Act. 1. at the election of Matthias a General Council and again that Act. 15. And then thus B. Bramhal concerning the Prime Patriarch's calling such Council Schism-guarded p. 356. If the Pope saith he hath any right either to convocate General Councils himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convocation of them either in respect of his beginning of Vnity or of his Protopatriarchate we do not envy it him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. confesseth that power which we acknowledge that is that though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs yet the Right to convocate General Councils should pertain unto him So B. Bramhal Dr. Field speaks yet more distinctly and copiously †Of the Chur. p. 697. The State of the Christian Church saith he being spiritual is such that it may stand though not only forsaken but grievously oppressed by the great men of the world and therefore it is by all resolved on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of convocating these her spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her weâ—fare though none of the Princes of the world do favour her And there is no question but that this power of convocating these Pastors is in them that are first and before other in each company of spiritual Pastors and Ministers Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop of Provincial to the Metropolitan of National to the Primate and of Patriarchal to the Patriarch And of these he saith That they neither are so depending c. quoted before § 48. Lastly Concerning the Calling of General Councils In times of persecution saith he and when there are no Christian Princes i. e. to assist the Church as he saith afterward If there be any matter of Faith or any thing concerning the whole State of the Christian Church wherein a common deliberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary he that is in order the first among the Patriarchs with the Synods of Bishops subject to him may call the rest together as being the principal part of the Church whence all actions of this nature do take beginning Instancing in Julius and Damasus Bishops of Rome with their Councils practising this So Dr. Field § 50 Only here you see two limitations or bars put in by him for the Reformation to make some advantage of The one In times of persecution or when the Church hath not Princes to assist her then the power of Calling General Councils to belong to the Clergy The other That then it belongs in the Clergy to the prime Patriarch yet not singly but joined with his Council for saith he ‖ p. 668. the first Patriarch hath not power singly to call together the other Patriarchs and their Bishops because none of them is superior to another in degree as Bishops are to Presbyters nor so in Order Honour and Place as Metropolitans are to Bishops or Patriarchs to Metropolitans Now to the first of these his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution see what hath been said already ‖ and his own instances prove against it for Julius § 47 and Damaâ—us summoned the Oriental Bishops to such a Council the one of them in the Reign of Constans the other of Theodosius both of these being Christian Orthodox Catholick Emperors Though if this be allowed that in any non-assistance of the secular powers Heathen or Christian it matters not the Church hath power when she judgeth it requisite to assemble such Councils more needs not be desired Concerning his second Limitation In the reason he gives for it he omits one Superiority among the rest which would have fitted the purpose namely the Superiority that Primates have to the other Meropolitans in their calling a National Synod and that without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops first consulted I ask therefore why not the Primate of the Patriarchs do the like 2 ly If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs neither hath he joined with his Synod his Synod having no more power over other Patriarchs then himself As for the Instances Julius sent to the Orientals singly concerning a Council to be joined of both the East and West Damasus indeed sent when a Western Council was sitting but this called for other matters and not for this to give him a Commission for such a Summons or to join with him in it as if the first Patriarch cannot when need requires call a General Council without first Summoning and convening a Patriarchal Council to give their consent to the calling of this General A thing to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council a matter of so great trouble and delay as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council either for this or for much other Church-business as hearing Appeals of less account c. which come to the Patriarchs hands And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much where he saith ‖ p. 513. That in time causes growing many and the difficulties intollerable in coming together
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
a better Judgment of the Nature and Condition of General Councils and of that which is requisite in them at last to be applied to that of Trent which General Councils by reason of the Difficulty Charge and many other Inconveniences of so universal an Assembly have been much more rarely convened in the Church In these assemblies then fore-named for the unity and peace of the Church 1st It was ordered That the Inferiors though joyned in a Council could establish nothing in things that were of moment and concern'd the whole Body § 10 as in matters of Faith and Manners Ordination of Clergy c. without the Superiors or Presidents consent nor He without theirs i. e. of the major part of them For example The Presbyters nothing without their Bishop nor the Bishops without their Metropolitan nor Metropolitans without the Primate or Patriarch è contra Of which thus the 35. Can. Apostol Episcopos Gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus this ascends so high as Primats habeatur quem velut Caput existiment nihil ampliùs praeter ejus confcientiam gerant quà m illa sola singuli quae paraeciae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt Sed nec Ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum paraeciis Sic enim Unanimitas erit glorificabitur Deus per Christum in Spiritu Sancto And see the same repeated in Conc. Antioch Can. 9. And this Apostol Can. there referred to In which by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeter sententiam illus qui primus est must be understood not the Councils doing nothing without this Primate first consulted and then if He and they or a major part of them do differ in opinion He obliged to follow this major part as some Protestants would have it ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church p. 511. quoting Conc. Antiochen c. 19. as favouring such a sence but the Council's doing nothing without this Primates consent the Council or major part of it and he the President having both of them a negative voice in respect of one another and so such matters as both do not concur in being to remain undecided till their agreement or till such Cause is by some party devolved to a Superior Court if such difference doth not happen in the Supreme Otherwise if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be meant only Knowledge or Advice the one parties consulting or acquainting the other with such a matter then since that Canon runs also that the Primate shall do nothing praeter Episcoporum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sententiam yet this will not hinder but that he alone may make such Decrees also without the consent of the Council or of the major part of them and on neither side must the word signifie any more than their Counsel and Advice As for that passage of the 19th Antiochtan Canon urged ' Obtineat Sententia plurimorum the like to which see Conc. Nice Can. 6 it means only That the unanimous suffrage of all the Provincial Bishops joined with the Metropolitan will not be necessary for the Ordination of a new Bishop whenas perhaps some propter suum contentionis studium may contradict and not That such major part may pass such Acts without or against the Metropolitan The consent of which Metropolitan for the Ordination or Confirmation of such a Bâ—shop is expresly required by the 4th and 6th Canon of the first General Council of Nice 2ly For preserving the same Peace and Unity it was so ordered § 11 That no Bishop in any Diocess could be Ordained or exercise any Jurisdiction belonging to such place without the consent or confirmation of the Metropolitan nor Metropolitan in any Province without the Confirmation of the Patriarch See Can. Apost 35. Conc Nic. Can. 4 6. Con c. Antioch c. 9.19 Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Carthag c. 12. Conc. Constantinop c. 2. Conc. Ephes c. 8 Where note That not the Confirmation of the Cyprian Metropolitan but the Election and Ordination of him of which the Cyprian Bishops complained that they were deprived is denied in this Canon to the Antiochian Patriarch as Res nova and contrary to former Customs this thing properly belonging to the Provincial Synod Conc. Chalced. 28. And here note that these later Canons maintain the Mos antiquus obtineat of the 6th Nicene Canon and so preserve unviolated the ancient preeminencies of the Chief Patriarches as well as those of inferior Primates or Metropolitans After all which the 8th General Council Can. 17 Reciting the foresaid 6th Canon of Nice thus explains it Quâ pro causâ haec magna sancta Synodus tam in seniori novâ Româ Constantinopoli quam in Sede Antiochiaes Hierosolymorum priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metropolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiunt habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandam eos urgente necessit ate ad Synodalem Conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam dâ—lictis forsitan accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p 5.8 Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council †Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by Imposition of Hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be Ordained And What they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the Right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus B. Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority In Ordaining their Metropolitans or Confirming them c. 3ly Again so ordered That any difference arising between any inferior persons or Councils either of an equal degree as between two Presbyters or two Bishops or their Synods § 12 or an unequal as between a Presbyter and his Bishop between a Bishop and his Metropolitan or their Synods a repair for the decision thereof should be made to the next Person or Council Superior to both Nor might obedience by an Inferior be denied to or a discession made from any Superior upon something thought criminous in him before such judgment of an higher Court were first passed discharging such Inferiors of their duty See Conc. Nic. Can 4 5 6. Conc. Sard. Can. 7. Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 8. General Council c. 10. 26. compared with the 17. expounding the 6th Can. of the Nicene Council Thus then all inferior Conciliar differences of much
practice relating to these Patriarchs and their Synods but the great necessity thereof as to the Vnity of the Churches Faith and Conservation of her Peace and that much more since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms by reason of which secular contrary Interests the several parts and members of the Catholick Church dispersed amongst them are more subject to be disjointed and separated from one another Which unity and peace if we reflect on * the great rarity of General Councils not above 5 or 6 in the Protestant account in 1600. years and * the multiplicity of Primates that are in Christendom all left by Dr. Hammond Supreme and independent of one another or of any other person or Council when a General one not in being and * the experience of their frequent Lapses into gross Errors For almost what great Heresie or Schism hath there been in the Church whereof some Primate was not a chief Abettor and * The Rents in the Church made by these apt to be much greater as the person is higher and more powerful is not sufficiently provided for though much pretended in Dr. Hammonds Scheme Come we then to Dr. Fields Model yet more enlarged The actions saith he ‖ Of the Chur. p. 513. of the Bishop of each particular Church of a City §. 16. n. 5. and places adjoining were subject to the censure and judgment of the rest of the Bishops of the same Province amongst whom for order sake there was one Chief to whom it pertained to call them together to sit as Moderator in the midst of them being assembled and to execute what by joint consent they resolved on The actions of the Bishops of a Province and of a Provincial Synod consising of those Bishops were subject to a Synod consisting of the Metropolitans and other Bishops of divers Provinces This Synod was of two sorts For either it consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and Nation only as did the Councils of Affrica or of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms If of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishop of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Vnity of it Here you see that roundly confest which Dr. Hammond concea'ld Again Ib. p. 668. It is evident That there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods Synods Patriarchal answering to Patriarchs National to Primates and that neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And Ib. p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these had no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and this Council for which see Ib. c. 39. p. 563. where he quotes the Emperors Law Novel 123. c. 22. Patriarcha Dioceseos illius huic causae praebeat finem nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente confirming the 9th Canon of Conc. Chalced. Again p. 567. 568. he saith That it is a Rule in Church-government that the lesser and inferior may not judge the greater and superior That if any Bishop have ought against his Metropolitan he must go as I shewed before to the Patriarch and his Synod to complain as to fit and competent Judges That the great Patriarchs of the Christian Church are to be judged by some other of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops that the Bishop of Rome as first in order among the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty though these later are not found always necessary or present at such judgments nor more of his own Bishops than those whom he can at such time conveniently assemble and consult with as appears in the Appeals of those persons named before § 13. n. 1. may judge any of the other Patriarchs That such as have complaints against them may fly to him and the Synod of Bishops subject to him and that the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses may fly to him and such Synods for relief and help See the same §. 16. n. 6. p 668 Nor doth he acknowledge such an authority of Judicature in these Church Prelates only as joined w th their Synods but also in them single and without them For since it is manifest that the constant meeting of the Provincial Synods twice as it was ordered at the first or once in the year as afterward did very early cease either by the Clergies neglect or the great trouble and charge of such Assemblies and so later Councils accordingly appointed such Synods to be held in stead of twice yearly once in 3. years nor yet are in this well obeyed Hence either all such Causes and Appeals to their Superious still multiplied as Christianity is increased must be for so long a time suspended and depending which would be intolerable and a quick dispatch though less equitable rather to be wished or the hearing of them must be devolved to these single standing Judges as directed by former Church-Canons Concerning this therefore thus the same Doctor goes on ‖ l. 5. p. 514. quoting the Canons of the 6th and 7th Council At the first saith he there was a Synod of Bishops in every Province twice in the year But for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th Council †Can. 8. decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed which Canon was renewed by the 7th General Council ‖ Can. 6. But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy Meetings we shall find that they met not so often and very early may this be found and therefore the Council of Basil appointed Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year and Provincial at the least once in three years And so in time Causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus He. And if this rarer meeting of Provincial Synods transferred many Causes on the
pretence there could be to settle from other parts Appeals to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of Rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome And before speaking of the Eastern Arrians desiring to be heard at Rome by Julius Shall I believe saith he as some Learned men i. e. Protestant conjecture That Pope Julius is meerly an Arbitrator named by one party whom the other could not resuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot Thus Mr. Thorndike I fear I have tired you with the same things so often repeated by several Authors but this may serve the more to confirm the verity of that wherein they agree As for the Obedience acknowledged by them due to the Church according to these Subordinations I shall have occasion to give you a further account of it hereafter § 17 Now this Subordination not only of the lower Ranks of Clergy Presbyters and Bishops of the same but of these higher Primates and Patriarchs of several Nations ending its ascent in a Primacy not of order ineffective but also of Power placed in the Prime Patriarch especially conduceth to the necessary coherence of the always one-only-Communion of the Church Ca-National and to the suppression of Heresies and Schismes oftner tholick than Diocesan only or Provincial § 18 A thing which the moderate spirit of Grotius well observed and spared not often to speak of Quae verâ— est causa saith he in his first Reply to Rivet ‖ Ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholices maneant in eodem corpore non ruptâ Communione contrà qui inter Protestantes dissident idem sacere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraternâ loquuntur Hoc qui rectè expenderit inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus which brings to mind that of S. Jerom †Adversus Jovin l. 1. c. 14. concerning S. Peters Primacy Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constitute Schismatum tollatur occasio Capite constituto but Prâ—macy of Order without power helps no schisms And again the same Grotius in the close of the last Reply to Rivet ‖ Apol. Discussio p. 255. written not long before his death Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque Corpus semper optatam à Grotio sciunt qui eum norunt Existimavit autem aliquando incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione Postea vidit id planà fieri nequire quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia sermè omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima Protestantes nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt cur sactae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur partes aliae atque aliae sint exsurrecturae Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit causae divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canonas fatente Melancthone qui eum Primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retimendam unitatem Thus Grotius Which passageis taken notice of by Dr. Hammond in Schism p. 158 and seemingly allowed the Dâ—ctor there seeming to admit the Popes authority so far as it is justifiable by the ancient Canons which authority you have seen how far it is by other Protestants out of the same Canons advanced And indeed to exclude this supreme Patriarchal authority and constitute such an Aristocratical or rather so many several Monarchical absolute equal independent Covernments in regard of any spiritual Superior as there are Primates several Monarchical Governments I say for the Aristocratical Government consists in one Council or Court having its constant and set Meetings such as are not those Meetings of the Highest Ecclesiastical Synods and therefore they cannot bear this Stile seems most destructive of the Churches Vnity and Peace And then to make amends for this the subjecting all these distinct Monarchical Governments to a General Council proves no sufficient Remedy when we reflect how many and frequent are Clergy-differences how few such Councils have hitherto been how difficult such a Council since the Division of the Empire to be convened or rather how impossible according to the Protestants Composition of it who as they frequently appeal to it so load it with such conditions as they may be sure such Court can never meet to hear their Cause Thus much is contributed by Learned Protestants toward the confirmation of the two last the 3 d. and 4 th Constitutions § 20 5ly After such a Regular and well-compacted Government thus setled in the Church Next it was strictly ordered by the Church-Laws and by her greatest Censures imposed on Delinquents That no Clergy in any maâ—ters of meerly Spiritual Concernment should decline the Authority or Judgment of these their Ecclesiastical Superiors or their subjection to the Church-Canons by repairing or appealing to any secular Tribunal from which Tribunals some in those days sought relief either that of other inferior Lay Magistrates or of the Emperor himself Nor should seek new Ecclesiastical Dâ—gnities erected by the Emperors Pragmatick contrary to the Canons Decreed also it was that in such case any Church-authority or priviledges attempted to be so alienated should still continue to the former Possessors For which see Conc. Antioch c. 11 12. Conc. Sardic c. 8. Conc. Chalced. c. 9 12. Conc. Milevit c. 19. Conc. Tâ—let 3 c. 13. 8 Gen. Conc. c. 17 21. § 21 Which Ecclesiastical Constitutions that they may appear no way unjust or infringing the Rights of Temporal Soveragnty It is to be noted and therefore give me leave to spend a few lines in the hand That the Church from the beginning was constituted by our Lord a distinct Body from the Civil State and is in all such States but one visible Society Credo unam Catholicam Ecclesiam all the parts of it having one and the same interest through those several Dominions and regulated within these Territories by its own Laws without which Laws no Communion can consist independently as to matters purely spiritual on the State and the exercise of these not lawfully to be inhibited or altered by it whilst all the Civil Rights of such States mean while doremain unviolated by these Church-Laws and the secular Sword is left where it was before in the hand of the Secular Governors so that the Church in any difference cannot be the invading but only the Suffering party § 22 Now if you would know more particularly what those Rights are which the Church hath from the begining practised and vindicated as belonging to her independently
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
of him and his Legates presided in it challengeth Primatus honorem only post Romanum Episcopum †Conc. Constant c. 5. And that Council in their Epistle to Damasus the Roman Bishop acknowledge their meeting in that Council by order of his Letters Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae literas Now for the first Council That of Nice which only remains Here also the Popes Legates are found to subscribe the first before all the other Patriarchs only Hosius bearing no title save Bishop of Corduba gives his Vote and attests the Nicene Creed before these Legates which hath caused much dispute Act. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 5. Gelazius Cyzicenus ‖ and some other Ancients say Hosius presided in it as Sylvestri Episcopi Maximae Romae locum obtinens And indeed the Popes Primacy before the other Patriarchs and so much more before a Bishop of his own Patriarchy being granted and no mention being made of any such Presidentship conferred on Hosius either by election of the Council or of the Emperor what can be said but that he held such Presidency only in this capacity viz. the Popes Deputation as Cyrâ—l also did in the 3d. General Council unless â—ny will say that his voting in the first place was a pure Indulgence of honour to him as being 〈◊〉 a Confessor in Divelesian's days and narrowly missing Martyrdom * the Emperor 's especial Favourite sent by him formerly â—o compose the differences in Egypt ‖ * a person as Athanasius â—aith of him †Apolog. 2. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes Obâ—tantos labores omni Reverentiâ dignus ‖ and now Euscb de vita Const l. 2. c. 62. Socrat. l. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 the Compiler of the new Form of the Nicene Creed To which Creed therefore himself gives the first testimony in this form Hosius Episcopus Civitatis Cordubensis Provinciae Hispaniae dixit â—ta credo sicut superius scriptum est after which consent of his follows in the first place the Pope's Legates Subscripsimus and then that of the other Patriarchs and Bishop Where it may also be confidered what Dr. Field hath observed ‑ That the Subscriptions ‖ p. 652. in the first Councils were more irregular and no such certain and uniform course kept in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops as was afterward For in this Council the third Patriarch of Antioch subscribes not only after the Bishops of Egypt but of Palestine and several others subject to his own Patriarchate And thuâ— far the same Dr. Field proceeds in deferring this Presidentship to the Bishop of Rome All Antiquity saith he †p. 653 yielded to the Bishop of Rome a Presidentship of honour to have preeminence in place to propose things to be debated to direct the Actions and to give definitive Sentence according to the Voices and Judgment of the Council He might have added And in matters concerning Faith to render the Act of it invalid and unconclusive to the Church without his consent according to the ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nibil finiendum c. as appears in his nulling the Act of the second Ephesine Council voting Eutychianisme but not a Presidentship of power to have the power not only of directing but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Council and to conclude of matters after his own judgment though the greater part of the Council like it not yea though no part like it But such a Presidentship of power in the Pope as to conclude matters after his own judgment either against the whole or major part of a General Council is denied as well by modern Catholicks as by Protestants or Antiquity § 47 3 ly What of Presiding in the same is to be said of the Calling of General Councils 1. Where 1. 1st It seems all reason that such Meetings being Consultations for the better managing of affairs purely Ecclesiastical and for the better feeling and preserving of the Churches Unity and Peace of the necessity of which meetings the Clergy can best judge All reason I say it seems that the Calling of them should belong to the Clergy especially when the secular powers are not Christian And this also we find in the Churche's practice that both that first Council Act. 15. and all those following till Constantine's days were assembled by the Churche's sole Authority without the Prince's concurrence or leave and if amongst these Councils none save the first were absolutely General yet this was not from a defect of power in the Church to convene such a Council but that she thought in such a secular opposition her affairs might be by many divided Councils Provincial more privately and securely dispatched as the Controversie about Easter was in the second Century This Right therefore formerly possessed by the Church Princes by their submitting unto it and becoming Christian cannot justly take away nor may be thought to do so by their accumulative power in assisting the Church from time to time for procuring the more effectual concurrence which much depends on their temporal penalties of such great Assemblies But whatever priviledge of calling General Councils should be allowed to Princes so long as Catholick yet at least that Right which in this matter is conceded to belong to the Church in case the Emperor or Prince be Infidel must also be resumed in case the Prince Christian be an enemy to the Orthodox Faith i. e. be either Heretical or Schismatical of which likewise it belongs to the Supreme Governors of the Church to judge For What mischief may the Church suffer from unbelieving that she may not also suffer from Heretical Princes And again must also be resumed in case the secular Princes through whose Dominions the Catholick Church is dispersed be many of many several temporal Interests and in respect of these not facil to concur in the calling such Council where the Church apprehends need § 48 2. Next This hath been shewed already § 9. 16. n. 4. 2. in all the inferior Synods Protestants consenting 1. That the Right of calling them though the Prince be Christian belongs to such an Ecclesiastical person as hath either a superiority of Power over the Members of such Synod as in a Provincial Synod the Metropolitan hath or at least the superiority of Order and Place es in a National Synod the Primate hath in respect of the other Metropolitans whereof it consists 2. And Belongs to such Ecclesiastical persons without their first consulting any other preparatory Synod about calling such Synods 3. And again belongs to some of them as the calling of Patriarchal Synods to the Patriarch when the Bishops so called together by him do live under many several secular Governments Yet which Patriarchs saith Dr. Field ‖ p. 653. are neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith I add Faith either Christian or Catholick they may exercise the
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
might be to suppress And judge you by these things how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 104. were in opposition to Austin the Monk who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church and objected against them Quòd in multis Romanae consuetudini immo Vniversalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent quòd suas Traditiones universis quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent All which was true and the Proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle restoring sight to a blind man See Sir Hen. Spelman A. D. 601. Pardon this Digression made to abate a little the Confidence of those who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor and the different observation of Easter Of which matter Mr. Thorndike in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior the visible Heads of which Resort he saith were Rome Alexandria and Antiochia speaks thus more moderately †They that would except Britain out of this Rule Just weights p. 40. of subjection upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head should consider that S. Gregory setting him over the Saxon Church which he had founded according to Rule transgressed the Rule in setting him over the Welsh Church Setting this case aside the rest of that little remembrance that remains concerning the British Church testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome as appears from the Churches of Gaul Spain and Affrick of which there is no cause to doubt that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome § 61 To proceed and from the Council of Arles and Sardica and Ariminum spoken of before ‖ §. 55. to come to later times we find the English Bishops either concurring and presenting themselves as members with the rest in those Occidental Councils of a later Date the several Lateran Councils that of Constance Basil and Florence or in absence acquiessing in and conforming to the Votes and Acts thereof which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils or at least over the Western part thereof which the present Reformation denies him For which see the Council of Constance much urged by Protestants as no Flatterer of the Pope and wherein the Council voting by Nations the English were one of the 4. Sess 8. 15. condemning against Wickleff and Hus such Propositions as these Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi Apostolorum Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares Petrus non fuit neque est Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae Papae Praefectio Institutio à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit Papa non est manifestus verus Successor Apostolorum Principis Petri si vivit moribus contrariis Petro Non est scintilla apparentiae quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam quod Caput semper cum ipsâ militanti Ecclesiâ conservetur conservatur Now the contrary Propositions to these authorized by a Council supposed not General but Patriarchal only are obligatory at least to the members thereof and consequently to their Posterity until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power de novo asking their consent Not many years after the Council of Chalcedon in the Patriarchy of Alexandria there succeeded to Proterius a Catholick Bishop Timotheus an Eutychian since which time also the Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia remain still Eutychian or at least Dioscorists And in the Patriarchy of Antioch to Martyrius a Catholick Bishop succeeded Petrus Fullo an Eutychian And in the Empire to Leo an Orrhodox Emperor succeeded Zeno an Eutychian And all these declared their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon Yet this did no way unfix with posterity the stability of its Authority or Decrees Neither can the modern Eutychians justifie their non-submission to that Council hence because they can produce some persons and those Patriarchs too that have in succeeding times but after a former more general Acceptation opposed it § 62 3 ly After the English and before them the British Bishops thus shewed § 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council upon what pretence 3. or new priviledge fince the Reformation these Bishops should plead any exemption from submitting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy an acceptation sufficient ‖ See before §. 40. I see not For 1 st The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Council irregular for it is granted by Protestants 1. that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council though not of a General of right belongeth to Him neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons or secular Prince hinder their journey †See before §. 16. n. 5 2. 2ly Neither can the absence of the Eastern Bishops here be stood upon because their presence not necessary in such a Council 3ly Nor can the secular power under which such Protestant Bishops live especially whenas no Heathen 3. but himself also a Subject of the Church opposing or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof I mean if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical and spiritual and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights of which enough hath been said formerly § 63 Bishop Bramhal's Plea That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects till by him incorporated into his Laws as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws unless first made the King's hath been spoken to before ‖ §. 55. Dr. Hammond's grand Plea on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Reformation See his Treatise of Schism c. 6 7 p. 115 132 137 138 142. viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriarchies to remove that of Rome to Canterbury helps not at least in this matter nor perhaps did he ever mean it should extend so far as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council For 1st He grants That the Prince can do no such thing so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church See Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 164. A Power saith he Princes have to erect Metropoles and hence he collects new Patriarchs but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular because he is in some doubt as appears in his Answer to
12. And indeed such an Eye to and Reverence of the Orientals had the Council of Trent that in several passages it seems to take great care * of Anathematizing any such Doctrines as were in those parts commonly received Of which see something besow § 186. or of giving them any occasion to protest against it This said of the absence of the Greeks * § 67 4 ly Neither doth the absence of the Protestant-Clergy hinder this of Trent from being a Lawful and obliging Patriarchal 4. or also General Council 1. First Not the absence of so many of them as were no Bishops because they had no right to sit 1. or vote there if we may be suffered to model that of Trent according to former General and approved Councils 2. 2. Nor the voluntary and un-necessitated absence of such of them as were Bishops though those of a whole Province or Nation be so absent if invited if secured as the Protestants were See below § 92 c. and yet not coming For as hath been shewed in Councils as the Vote so the Presence of some Bishops from a major part of Christian Provinces and a like Acceptation of its Acts after the Council concluded is sufficient to nominate the Council General and render its Acts obliging or else farewel General Councils and their power For these being ordinarily assembled for the rectifying of some part peccant when will not such Bishops as are heterodox fearing some censure or ill success from the rest out-numbring them purposely absent themselves or such Princes as are any way obnoxious as Hen. 8. was having assumed a new Church-Supremacy not prohibit them Of this thus Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 4. Such a promulgation as is morally sufficient to give notice that such a Council is called is sufficient in case of Contumacy and where they who are called and refuse to come have no just cause for their not coming And D. Field ‖ p. 651. forbears not to pronounce the 5 th Council held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian A. D. 553 General when as yet the Prime Patriarch and his Western Bishops were neither present in it at least any considerable number of them nor in absence had approved it General i. e. in case saith he of their wilful refusal See his words set down before § 43. Some other cause therefore must be urged and not this barely of their absence why the Council is not without them Legally General or obliging 3. Nor doth the involuntary absence of some Bishops if hindered by some secular power or also if not admitted 3. or excluded by the Council hinder it from being Legitimate if the excluded be proved such as profess and own those Opinions that have been condemned and the defenders thereof anathematized by former lawful Councils Now whether the Protestant party might justly have been excluded upon this Title see below § 198. Nay further For those Bishops who are not yet condemned by any former Church-Decree yet if they be accused or suspected of some new dangerous Errour it hath not been unusual in former allowed Councils the major part thereof so agreeing to deny them the liberty of sitting or giving their vote therein till first by the judgment of the Council they be cleared of it For which see the Proceedings against Dioscoruus Bishop of Alexandria and his chief Adherents in the 4 th General Council Act. 1. Yet §. 86. n. 1. notwithstanding such just pretensions of excluding the Protestant Divines from the Council of Trent de facto they were not so But had granted to them Plenissimam securitatem as their Safe-Conduct Sess 18 expresseth it Veniendi proponendi loquendi Articulos quoslibet tam scripto quam verbo liberè offerendi cosque Scripturis Sacris Beatorum Patrum Sententiis rationibus astruendi ad objecta Concilii Generalis respondendi c. See also that Safe Conduct before this Sess 13. And some Protestant Divines appeared in this Council upon such security ‖ See Soave p. 374 375. But behold within three Weeks after their arrival there the Protestant Princes that had sent these to treat here an Vnion of Religion and the Peace of Christendom appear in Arms on a sudden invade the Emperor secure and wholly unprovided and narrowly saving himself from their Hands by flight from Ispruck at midnight And their victorious Armes now not far distant from Trent and a rumor spread that they would suddenly possess themselves of the Alpes to hinder the entrance of forreign Forces struck the Council with such a terror that they were necessitated to suspend it for some time and seek their safety by a dispersion of their Members Nor did the Council by reason of the tumults in Germany and wars in Italy and France †Conc. Trid. Bulla cel brat Coâ—e Sess 17. meet again till ten years after this in the beginning of Pius the fourth after that the Reformed Religion had received an incredible growth in those troublesom and distracted times wherein by the Emperor's being constrain'd to grant a Toleration the Evil One had much more advantage to sow his Tares as also at its first birth Protestantism was cherished with a like Toleration by reason of the Invasions of the Turk and the Aids against Him necessary from the Protestant party No sooner had Pius renewed the Council but there was another Safe-Conduct for Protestants published like that under Julius but not made use of But let us now suppose the Council undisturbed in the manner before related §. 68. n. 2. and these Protestant Divines that came to the Council still continuing there and indulged not only 1 the freedom of Disputing but 2 their Decisire Vote Touching which thing see the Caution premised by the Council ‖ Apud Binnium Conc. Trid. Sess 15. That if for that time the Protestants were permitted to give a Placet it should be no prejudice to the Rights or Honour of the present or future Councils which shews the Council not resolved to deny this to them if much stood upon Yet what least advantage to repeat here again something said already in the first Disc § 36. n. 3. could Protestants have extracted from these For the first their Freedom of Disputing and perswading What could they now have said after a thirty years Crowth of their Doctrine that they had not formerly written and the Council perused And with what face could they have declined the exposition of Scriptures by former Ecclesiastical Tradition Councils and Fathers by which they were cast For the latter their power of Voting What signified their number to that of Catholick Bishops Or if the Votes were changed from Personal to National still less relief to them from hence especially if such Nations be considered in a due proportion according to the multitude of their Clergy Which the Protestants well discerned when waving any such trial i. e. of Ecclesiastical matters by Ecclesiastical Judges they
and West because the 27th Canon forementioned touching another matter was refused to be ratified by the Pope and Western Bishops Or Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria there condemned might justly plead That because without the consent of the Bishop of Rome and all those of the West the Constitutions of the second Ephesin Council were of no force therefore neither those of Chalcedon were so without his Or an ordinary Bishop in a Provincial Council might plead that because the Metropolitan by the Canon exerciseth a negative power and voice for matters voted therein therefore he also where he thinks fit will use and claim the like Neither will the Illegalness or non-freedom of any Conciliary Act pretended by a few signifie any thing when the contrary is declared or such Act is accepted by so great and dignified a part of the Church besides as doth lawfully conclude the whole For suppose whatever irregularity in the making of such a Decree yet this Acceptation and acknowledgment clears it of such former blemish and gives it a just force § 148 2 ly Observe that Soave confesseth p. 576. That it was a general maxim in this Council that to establish a Decree of Reformation a major part of voices was sufficient but that a Decree of Faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict Where also he saith * That because hardly more than half of the Fathers would consent that the allowance of the Cup should be referred to the Pope's pleasure namely those Fathers refusing this reference who thought it not fit to be allowed at all therefore the Legats made it one of the Articles of Reformation and * that some said that the point that Christ offered himself in the supper was not lawfully decided because it had 23 contradictors But Pallav. l. 18 c. 9. n. 9. shews Soave to be mistaken in this instance this point having had only two contradictors as appears in the acts of the Council And observe again what Soave very often inculcateth That it was the Custom in in this Council to mould and change the Articles and matter of their Decrees till there was nothing contained in them that displeased any considerable party So he saith p. 215. That S. Croce the Legat took incredible pains in avoiding to insert any thing in the Decrees controverted among the Schoolmen and in so handling those which could not be omitted as that every one might be contented In every congregation observed what was disliked by any and took it away or corrected it as he was advised Now what is this but to say that all or almost all were pleased with whatever was passed or voted since he saith that whatever displeased was taken away and that the Proponents did not force the Council to their propositions but fitted their propositions to the mind of the Council and then I ask what violence or indirect means needed here to be used to overbear a party § 149 To this usual conduct of the Council all the exception that that can be taken is that thus it hath left many controversies undecided To which may be replied 1. That if the Protestant may Judge the Councils greatest fault was in making so many decisions not in making no more and see Soave elsewhere censuring the Council on this side p. 227. and 228. where he makes some to say That in all the Councils held in the Church from the Apostles time till then there were never so many Articles decided as in one Session only of Trent viz. the sixth Session And p. 822. that in this Council matters were minced and an article of faith made of every question which could be moved in any matter yet Ibid are the same people angry That in Purgatory Invocation of Saints Indulgences the Council was not more particular in her decisions Defining or not defining how shall the Council please him or his counterfeit German Chorus 2. That nothing more than this shewed the great wisdom of the Council which forbare such decisions either when it esteemed the controversie subtile nice inconsiderable and needless to be determined or very difficult and doubtful and not having sufficient evidence from Scriptures and former Tradition to be determined The Council for the things it states depending more on Church History than Logick Nor hence may any when the Council thought fit to express something only in general terms justly charge the Council with ambiguity or equivocation because it answers not in its decree to every question proposed but rather commend it for a judicious refusal to decide such matter more specifically for the reason mentioned above that it might stand confirm'd with a more general Acceptation whilst mean while the more generical decision is not made in vain these more universal terms deciding such point against some other sects of religion more grosly erring when they do not decide it also for all parties of the Schools And this I think may satisfie Soave's sad complaints concerning the contradictings of Soto and Vega p. 216. and of Soto and Catharinus p. 229. both perhaps faultily endeavouring to make the determination of the Council more specifical than it was that so it might speak on his side § 150 3 ly Observe that there can be no just exceptions taken against the free proceedings of the Council for those matters of controversie decided in it 3. wherein the Protestants opposed the Roman Church no violence or tyranny used either by the Pope over the Council or by a more powerful party in the Council over the rest in these points Which appears by the great unanimity and concord of the Tridentine Fathers even according to Soaves relations for that part of their Decrees and Canons wherein are condemned any of the Protestant tenents To instance in some of the chief See their unanimity in what opposed the Protestants Concerning Original sin Soave p. 175. No man resisted the condemnation of the Protestant Articles and p. 184. In the Council there being no more difference amongst the Fathers concerning the things discussed c. Concerning Justification excepting the most difficult Arminian and Jansenian controversies Soave p. 223. The two next congregations saith he were spent in reading again the decrees as well of of faith as of reformation the which some small matters being corrected by the advice of those who were not present at the first pleased them all Concerning the necessity of confession to the Priest of mortal sins committed after Baptism See Soave p. 348. where no opposition at all was made amongst them to the 6 7 and 8 Canons of the 14th Session Concerning Transubstantiation and Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist See Soave p. 324. and 326. where in the second and sixth Canons of the 13 Session none dissented and many desired to have them more full and enlarged Concerning the Mass that it is a propitiatory sacrifice There was no disagreement neither amongst the Divines Soave p. 544. nor amongst the Prelats p.
For if the were twice so many Italians as others a major part of the Council could not vote against the Popes inclinations without some of the Italian Bishops concurring But to dispel clearly these doubts §. 151. n. 2. you may understand that the Bishops voted nothing against the Protestants in the chief points at least but what was their own belief and practice before they came to the Council and what had been the practise and belief of many former ages even the reformed being Judges And that the chief question to be decided in the Council was whether such and such practices lawful viz. whether Communion in one kind only Adoration of Christs corporal Presence in the Eucharist offering the sacrifice of the Mass veneration of Images Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead as better able thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgment Indulgences Monastick Vows enjoyning Celibacy enjoyning Sacerdotal Confession in case of mortal sin c. be lawful And seeing the chief question in opposition to the new Lutheran Doctrines was whether these things lawful which were then and in many former generations Protestants not denying it daily practised what need of force of new Mandats from Rome of hiring Suffrages creating more titular Bishops Oaths of strict obedience to the Pope such a multitude of Italians to procure a prevalent vote or to invite the Prelats in the Council to establish those things several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries As the Sacrifice of the Mass Adoration of Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner by compulsion how came both the Catholick Bishops in the German Diets where free from such fears or force in the time of the Council to vote the same things and also after the Council the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches and of France with the rest so freely and voluntarily to accept them and to continue till their death in the constant observance of them But if it be said that though such things were generally believ'd and practised before yet by Art and violence were now the Fathers brought to advance them into matters of Faith I ask concerning many of these Points what Faith required save of those Truths which are necessary to render them lawful beneficial c. All practice lawful being grounded on some speculative Proposition that must be true Or if more be required yet more than this viz. the lawfulness of such practise wherein these Fathers voluntarily concurr'd was no way necessary for overthrowing the Protestants contrary Doctrine § 152 4 ly Obierve that no violence was used upon the Council for other points debated between the Catholicks themselves no violence so far as that any thing favourable or advantageous to the Pope was at any time passed in the Council when any small number thereof opposed it Concerning which Pallavicino in the close of his History l. 24. c. 14. n. 9 hath these words There was not in this Council established one point of faith nor one canon of discipline for the advantage of Popes but amongst the second the canons of discipline very many to their detriment and of such a thing indeed Soave himself brings not so much as one example so much is there wanting to him any sign or shadow thereof But not to rest in the testimony of a partisan The chief points agitated in the Council wherein the Popes pre-eminence and priviledges are said to be much concerned were besides the matters of Reformation these three 1. Whether residency of Bishops at their Bishopricks was jure divino which if established it was conceived that it would take away from the Pope the power of giving Dispensations Administrations and Commendaâ—â—â—s Pluralities c. by which amongst other things the Popes Attendents and the dignity of his Court would be much lessened See Soave p. 647. 2. Whether the Jurisdiction of Bishops was jure divino which if established it was conceived that it would infer that the keys were not given to Peter only that all Bishops were equal to the Pope and the Council above him c. see Soave p. 609. 3. Whether the Pope was superior to Councils In never a one of which was any thing decreed on the Popes side § 153 1. Concerning Residency of Bishops it was not determined according to what was conceived to be the Popes inclination viz. that Residency was not jure divino but 1. that which was determined being Sess 23. de reform cap. 1. seeemed rather to favour jure divino upon a jealousie of which Pall. l. 21.6.12 saith some few excepted against the decree Pope Pius though he desired the question were omitted yet shewed much moderation in it He did not condemn saith Soave p. 503. the opinion of those who said that Residency was de jure divino yea he commended them for speaking according to their conscience and sometimes he added that perhaps that opinion was the better and ordered that the Council might have its free course in it As you may see in Pall. l. 24. c. 14. n. 11. and l. 16. c. 7. n. 19. where he quotes the French Embassadors testimony and partly in Soave p. 504 505. where he saith That the Pope having well discussed the reasons concâ—â—â—ing Residency settled his opinion to approve it and cause iâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 executed upon what law soever it were grounded whether Canonical or evangelical And 2. of his Legats were thought to favour the determining of it jure divino ‖ Pall. l. 24. c. 14. Soave p. 496 623. and when it was put to the vote whether this controversie should be stated by the Council or no a major part were for the affirmative Soave p. 496 which being supposed contrary to the Popes desire shews that amongst the rest some Italians also who made the greater part of the Council took liberty to relinquish his interest Though in fine this point whether Jure divino was left undecided because taking in those who referred to the Pope almost an equal part as Soave but Pallavi ‖ l. 16. c. 4. â—â— 21. correcting him saith a major part drew the contrary â—way and to what else was stated about residence Sess 23. Refer cap. 1. In the Session all agreed save only eleven See Pall. l. 21. c 12. n. 9. and Soave p. 742. And in the General Congregation held before the Session all save 28. saith Soave †p. 737 Pallav. l. 21. c. 11. n. 4. i. e. some of the Spanish Bishops 2. Concerning Episcopacy jure Divino of which the 6. Can. de Sacram. Ordinis Sess 23. speaks thus Si Quis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholic â non esse Hierarchiant divinâ ordinatione institutam quae constat ex Episcopis § 154 Presbyteris Ministris Anathema sit where the Spanish Bishops would have had 2.
Divinâ Ordinatione changed into per institutionem Christ The great dispute in the Council was not whether the Order or Bishops as superior to Priests and as including the power of ordination and confirmation but whether the Jurisdiction of all Bishops especially as to some points thereof was jure divino viz. as to the just extent and subject matter of such Jurisdiction and the exterior and forensick exercise thereof wherein some Bishops enjoy a much larger power and compass which extent of power seems to depend on superiors as doth also the exercise of Absolution in Priests and is liable to be suspended taken away transferr'd diminished and this necessary for avoiding confusion †See Soave p. 623 734. And here as nothing was determined against the Pope in this matter so nothing for him And that no more in it should be decided than was decided all the Council consented in the Session and in the Congregation held before it all save the Spanish Bishops and therefore more consented to this than only the Italians and the Popes party see what Soave saith p. 737 738 725 735. where he relates That the Cardinal of Lorraine and the other French Prelats did not hold the â—â—â—itution and Superiority of Bishops de sure divino to be necessary to 〈…〉 mined in Council but rather that it ought to be omitted Now 〈…〉 the Pope if he had a major part of the Council on his 〈…〉 hinder the rest for carrying any thing against him by their votes yet could he not over-aw the rest thus to vote for him who having much more dependence for their Estates on their Temporal than their Spiritual Supream and backed by their Princes and their Embassadours in the Council these also generally much more favouring the Bishops than the Popes rights were secure enough against his power even the Italian Prelats also except that much smaller part of them whose preferments lay in the Popes Dominions § 155 3. Concerning the Popes Supremacy in the Church or Superiority to Councils though the Spaniards 3. and all the rest of the Council consented in as full terms as the Council of Florence had expressed it to decree and insert it in this Council also and though only the French Bishops who were not above the tenth part of the Council resisted yet the Pope for peace sake because there was not a full accord ceased to prosecute the determination thereof and the Article drawn was laid aside See these things more fully related in Pallavic History l. 19. and l. 24. c. 14. n. 12 and see there †l. 19. c. 15. n. 3. the contents of Carlo Borrhomeo's Letters to this purpose But the same thing of the Spanish consenting with the Italians for declaring the Popes authority according to the form of the Council ef Florence appears in Soave p. 737 738. though he much more compendious than Pallavicin in this part of the History perhaps for want of intelligence of which he complains in the beginning of his seventh book p. 583 And the same Author saith elsewhere p. 732. That an order came from the Emperour to his Embassadors to use all means that the authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council because he saw the major part was inclin'd to enlarge it Yet we see the Pope did not prosecute such advantage Neither doth that phrase accidentally used in Sess 25. Reform 1. cap. Sed ad S. Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales pertinere decernit quorum consilio apud Sanctum Romanum Pontificem cum universalis Ecclesiae administratio nitatur c. which the French Embassador Ferrieres so highly aggravated that it yielded to the Pope superiority over Councils †Sorve p. 818. truly prove any such thing neither passed it from the Council as any Decree neither in the reading in the Congregation of this 1 cap. of Reform wherein were some things corrected did the French Bishops except at this †Soave p. 803. which certainly they would have done had they apprehended such danger in it For also the French were not such opposites to the Popes pre-eminency of authority but that their Leader the Cardinal of Lorraine proposed in the Council this Article for it Pallav. l. 19. c. 6. condemning any that should say That Peter by the institution of Christ was not the Prime amongst the Apostles and his supreme Vicar Or that it was not necessary that there should be in the Church a chief Bishop Peters Successor and equal to him in the authority of Government and that his lawful Successors in the See of Rome have not the right of Primacy in the Church And the French Bishops though they disallowed this form Datam esse à Concilio Pontifici Romano potestatem pascendi regendi universalem because Ecclesia universalis here if taken collectively would prejudice the French Churches opinion of the Councils superiority to the Pope †Pall. l. 19. c. 13. n. 6. c. 12. n. 11. l. 21. c. 14. n. 12. Soave p. 657. yet they yielded to this form potestatem regendi omnes fideles omnes Ecclesias or pascendi omnes Christi oves if omnes be not taken conjunctionl And for that Supremacy of the Pope over the Church that is denied by Protestants Soave giving reasons why Henry the 8th prudently declined a Council thus secures this Supremacy Papal from any censure of the Bishops saying †§. 〈◊〉 70. That it was impossible that a Council composed of Ecclesiastical Persons should not maintain this his power which is the main pillar of their Order Because this Order saith he by the Papacy is above all Kings and the Emperour but without it is subject to them there being no Ecclesiastical Person that hath superiority but the Pope Thus he usually exstracting the Original of all mens actions not out of Conscience but Policy Yet in these points we see the Popes supposed major party in the Council carried nothing for his advantage But how much the former bounds of the Episcopal Authority were enlarged by several Decrees of this Council that were confirmed and ratified by the Pope wherein at least they are substituted his perpetual and standing Delegats for transacting many things of great consequence formerly dispatched by Himself and his Officers See below 205 211. c. Mean while whether or how much the Pope or his party when stronger there might be faulty in hindering any points to be determined which the rest of the Fathers in the Council desired should be so I cannot say because I cannot judge whether such things are necessary to be determined as some of the Council said they were a few or better not as others the most But if the Pope be culpable for having abstracting here from Protestant-Controversies as hath been shewed †hindred by his Italian adherents something § 150 that otherwise would have passed He seems to make an amends for it in the not passing in Council several other matters which
which though advanced by the Clergy all the Embassadours and Orators unanimously opposed †See Soave p. 760 766 769. was stopped by the Legats power though I grant several times diverted or dissuaded by their advice and that proposals also were not unusually made in the Council by others if we may believe Soave proposals both most contrary to the Popes interest and most displeasing to his Legats To name some Such were * those concerning the two great questions about the Institution and residency of Bishops whether jure divino * Articles of Reformation to be joyned in their consultations with those of Doctrine and Religion * The abrogating or moderating of the priviledges and exemptions of Regulars from the Episcopal power * the abrogation or moderating of Commendams Dispensations Union of Benefices Of pensions and reservations of profits out of Ecclesiastical Benefices * Ordination of Titular Bishops Appeales to the Pope * The Councils representing the universal Church All which and many more were agitated in the Council the Legats as Soave represents them relucting yet not offering to infringe the liberty of the Council where they saw the inclinations of a considerable part bent that way So concerning residency and exemptions Soave tells us the truth of the History frequently constraining him to contradict those maximes which are elsewhere laid down by him to infer the slavery of the Council That the Legats were inforced to consent that both should be considered of and that every one speak his opinion of them and that some Fathers should be deputed to frame the Decree that it might be examined Concerning the Articles handling Reformation p. 144 145. he saith The number contending for them was so great that the Legats were confounded And that they yielded to their desire being constrained thereunto by meer necessity Concerning abrogating the exemption of Regulars p. 761 and 167 170. he saith It was a thing moved by the Bishops and that the Pope and Legats desired to maintain the Regulars Priviledges Concerning admission of the Protestant Divines to disputation p. 365. he saith That this opinion being embraced frist by the Germans then by the Spanish Prelats and at last somewhat coldly by the Italian the Legat remained immoveable and shewed plainly that he stood quiet being forced by necessity And concerning the reformation of Princes p. 769. he saith That the Legats gave forth this Article being forced thereunto by the mutiny of the Prelats If you would see more instances in Soave of the Councils bridling and over-ruling the Legats I refer you to Quorlius l. 2. first and second Chapters a diligent Collector of them So p. 656. concerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Emperour and by the French †Soave p. 513 652. which were thought to intrench too much upon the Popes priviledges Soave brings him in giving such instructions to his Legats That they should defer to speak of them as long as was possible That when there was necessity to peruse them they should begin with those that were least prejudicial c. That in case they were forced to propose them imparting their objections to the Prelats their adherents they should put them in discussion and controversie So very frequently in his History you shall find him as if he had forgot himself concerning what he affirms elsewhere of the domineering and tyranny of the Pope and his party revealing the distractions the fears the complaints and upon this the subtile Artifices of the Pope and of his Legats probably such as his own wit could contrive who with his fancy presumes to enter into all their secrets and speaks as if he had the Art of discerning thoughts and intentions as clearly as others do actions and Records and many times as you have seen after all these he represents the Legats yielding and going along with the stream because they could with no Art withstand it But if indeed the proponentibus Legatis was intended or executed in such a manner as Protestants affirm so as that nothing could be moved in the Council but what they pleased though a major part desiring it nor any thing pleased them that it should be moved which was prejudicial to the Popes interest or Grandeur this surely would have remedied and prevented all these fears and jealousies of the Pope and Court of Rome supposing his Legats as Soave alwaies represents them still true and faithful to him But I ask what matter of moment was there how much soever distastful to the Pope or Court of Rome that being presented once in Trent was strangled before it came to be proposed and agitated in the Council The Articles of Reformation that were exhibited by the Imperial and French Embassadors were after some delay taken into consideration in the 24. and 25. Sessions †Soave p. 751 759. And here when some Embassadors proposed that Deputies might be elected for each Nation to take care in the Council of the special interest of it The Cardinal of Lorraine and the other Embassadors both the French and Emperours contradicted it saith Soave alledging that every one i. e. in the Council might speak his opinion concerning the Articles proposed and propose others if there were cause so that there was no need to give this distast to the Pope and the Legats Such a Liberty then de facto there was used in the Council But I say not whether alwaies with that discretion that was needful or whether not with some Contradiction of some persons of a sounder judgment than the rest Or whether the Legats did not well in putting such bounds to this liberty as they well could either by using perswasions to the contrary or by interposing delaies till the first fervour was a little cooled as to many points which they saw unprofitable difficult and apt to divide the Council into parties and not tending to those end for which this Council was chiefly assembled Especially whilst they endeavoured to win the relucting party though this were not very numerous with reason and treating rather than force or overvoting them in Council § 163 4 ly Such a sole priviledge of proposal to be appropriated to the Legats of the Apostolick See further than for order sake seems needless to be contended for For if as Soave often saith the major part of the Council being Italians were at the Popes devotion for deciding all matters what mattered it who or what was proposed 5 ly You may observe That no such prescription as proponentibus legatis was made to the Councils proceedings till Pius his time and yet that all things there run in the same course before as after it Neither do any Protestants esteem the Council more free or equitable unto them under Paul's or Julius's than under Pius's conduct 6. Lastly which must be often said as to the most or all the Protestant Controversies concerning doctrine the Legats proposal could be no disadvantage in condemning which doctrines
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
remaineth subject unto it that it was never so great nor so soundly rooted Thus he To which may be added the like passage in Mr. Stillingfleet †Rat. Account p. 480. I suppose from this Historians Detractions too confidently followed who tells his Readers That the Pope was still in a bodily Fear till the Council was ended to his mind But then what rejoycing 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 § 204 But I suppose it will be sufficient in answer to both to give you the Confessions of the same Soave in the latter end of his History to make appear how untruly these things are said in the beginning For after the Council now ended and a Confirmation desired from the Pope of these its acts the authority of Bishops was found to be so much enlarged by the Council and the former exercise of the Popes Authority though all done with a Salva authoritate Apostolica sedis so much pared the priviledges of the Cardinals and gains of the Court of Rome by the restraints of Appeals of Dispensations of Pluralities of Non-Residence Exemptions Pensions Elections c. so much diminished that the Pope though of himself much inclined to a General Confirmation with his Cardinals and Court is related by Soave to have long time deliberated whether the Articles of Faith only should be accepted and confirmed and those of Reformation rejected or moderated To give you these things rather in his own words which may serve as an Antidote to the former L. 8. p. 814. He saith That the Court understanding that the Pope was resolved for the Confirmation changed their joy into grief and all the Officers complained of the loss they should receive in their Offices if that reformation were executed That Supplications also and Memorials were given to the Pope by those who having bought their Offices and foreseeing this loss demanded Restitution That the Pope having diligently considered hereof deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confirmation and to think upon some remedy for the complaints of the Court. That these Cardinals were almost all of opinion that it was fit they should be moderated before the Confirmation And that it was certain that they who did procure the Council had no aim but to pull down the Popes authority and while the Council did last every one did speak as if It had power to give laws unto him where you see what freedom the Council took At last that satisfied with two speeches the one of Cardinal Amulius the other of Hugo Buon Compagno perswading him and the Court that by dispensing with its acts or giving what interpretations to them he pleased he might provide for his Ministers and Servants and accommodate things to that which might be for the benefit of the Church without violating the Decrees of the Council because in them the Apostolick authority is still reserved the Pope proceeded to confirm them entirely § 205 To verifie some part of which Relation of Soave concerning the reluâ—tance of the Popes Court not without great cause if an eye may be had only to gain I may add what Pallavicino writing but the other day and well acquainted with the present state thereof relates concerning it †That as to Favours and Dispensations Introduct c. 10. formerly granted from the Apostolick See this Council hath so far moderated the use of them that if the Pope will observe these laws the fountain of his beneficence is dried up for one half And that although he hath still a power to dispense with these laws yet the Popes for their Conscience and Honour sake require for the most part such pressing Motives and so rarely happening of doing this that their Concessions in such matters as are prohibited by the Council do not amount to the 20th part of those formerly accustomed And that the same thing also happens * in the Causes primae instantiae as they phrase it that are brought to the Court of Rome And * In those priviledges or exemptions by which many particular persons withdrew themselves from the Jurisdiction of Bishops which was no less than rendring many the immediate Subjects of the Tribunals of the Pope and finally * in all those affairs concerning which the Council grants power to the Bishops that they shall proceed in them as Delegats of the Apostolick See which as to the advancing of the Bishops power amounts to the same as if they dispatched them in their own right without any such formality Thus he And again l. 23. c. 12. n. 5. To Soave †objecting That the leaving the cognition l. 8. p. 792. and termination of several causes to the Bishops Tribunals without any more Appeales to Rome ordered in the 20th Chapter of Reformation Sess 24. was quite destroyed by the exception there added Ab his excipiantur causae quas ex urgenti ration abilique causâ judicaverit summus Romanus Pontifex per speciale Rescriptum Signaturae sanctitatis suae manu propria subscribendum committere aut avocare he answers thus That though the Pope may still call to himself what causes he thinks fit so he passeth this first under his own hand and seal yet that the former faculty of his Officers to call such causes to him though in his name yet without his knowledge or subscription was now ceased by this new Order And That if it be numbred as that is easily counted which is seldom done How many Commissions of this kind are signed by the Pope in a year for the whole Circuite of Christianity if these rise to three or four yearly it is acknowledged very much 〈◊〉 Thus he of the former Income to the Court of Rome much diminished and of the Acts of this Council after the decurrence of an hundred years as to this matter still retaining their primitive vigour publishing these things in that place where in matters so obvious and evident his credit must suffer very much by any falsification But on the other side the Episcopal authority in this Council was so much increased by the Popes and the Councils committing many both persons and affairs before exempt and reserved to their inspection and Government as which Bishops being at a nearer distance could better discern and attend them that the King of Spain said of his That they went to the Council as so many Parish Priests but returned from it so many Popes § 206 Next the Decrees themselves concerning Reformation which in a few hours you may read deliberately over and where especially I would recommend to you the view of those made under Pius and amongst these those chiefly of the 24th Session I say the Decrees themselves do shew the great service which this Council hath done to the Church at that time much relaxed and languishing in its Discipline partly by reason of its non-execution of former necessary Church-Canons
partly by other abuses not provided against by any former laws and now growing intolerable In all which matters a much better face of Ecclesiastical affairs appears at present through the Influence which this Council hath had upon the succeeding times And much have those ungrateful Detractors to answer to God by whom the Good of this great Body of the most sacred of Magistrates hath been not only so little acknowledged but so evil spoken of § 207 It would be too tedious to recite to you all the particular Acts of this Council wherein it hath repaired the former decayes but perhaps not unnecessary in such an ungrateful age to relate and clear some of the chiefest The manners and customs of the Church that chiefly in those times were imagined to give cause of just complaint seem to be 1 st Concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. α. The Avocation of so many Causes and admission of so many Appeales without ascent as formerly through inferior Courts especially those of Diocesan and Provincial Synods β. And the reservation of so many Licences and Dispensations to the Apostolick See and Court of Rome These not to be prosecuted or procured without great charge Nor the Judge at so great a distance capable of so true and exact informations either touching the person or cause 2. γ. The Popes Collation of Bishopricks and other spiritual Benefices in forraine States where the Merits of such persons as are most fit and capable of them are little known to him 3. δ. The imposing of Pensions on such spiritual Benefices ε. or giving them in Commenda ζ. Or uniting many of them into one without any necessity So to furnish Favourites with a superfluous wealth and hidden Pluralities 4. η. The Exemptions of so many persons and Societies from Episcopal Jurisdictions which Bishops by their vicinity of Residence are the fittest rectifiers of all disorders 5. θ Several abuses committed by the Persons publishing Indulgences and collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses § 208 I name not here amongst these Grievances the Popes Annats in lieu of the Tenths of Tithes or other constant supports received from the inferior Clergy out of the several States of the Westerne Church because it neither seemed just to the Council to deprive him of them nor to the Secular Princes in their many Articles of Reformation proposed to request it See those of the Emperor Soave p. 513. of the King of France p. 652. as they well seeing that it was necessary for this General Father of the Church both to have wherewith to maintain so many Officers in his service whether at home or abroad as the Church affairs passing through his hands required and wherewith also to reward their pains And if the ancient Bishops of Rome managed these great affairs with a much smaller Revenue yet it must be granted 1. Both that much less was then necessary by reason as well of the much narrower extent of Christendome as also of the union of most of it in those times under one Secular Power the Emperour whereas now the preservation of the unity of Catholick Faith and necessary correspondence between the Members of this Church so much more diffused and residing in so many States of a contrary temper gives much more trouble and charge to the supream Head thereof And 2ly Must be granted also That by the want then of the present subsistence whilst the Pope was the Emperors temporal Subject both many inconveniences and injuries were suffered and many Benefactions hindered This of the Complaints concerning the Pope and his Court. 2. Concerning the Clergy 1. unfit persons elected into Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Benefices § 209 without a sufficient pre-examination of their learning and manners 2. λ. Pluralities of Benefices where these singly afford a maintenance sufficient whilst other worthy persons are destitute and the mis-expence of such ample Church-Revenue on their Secular Relations 3. μ. Non-Residence where having the care or charge of souls 4. ν In their Residence Neglect of frequent Preaching and Catechising And Their not celebrating at least part of the Divine Service nor teaching the ignorant the Mysteries of Religion in the vulgar tongue 5. ξ. Their being restrained from marriage and in Celibacy their frequent incontinency and violation of Chastity 6. Ï€ Their withholding the Communion of the Cup both from the Laity and themselves when not officiating 7. Ï. Their too common use of Excommunication applying many times the severest of the Churches Censures to the smallest Delinquencies 8. σ. To which may be added the many disorders then observed in Regulars and Monasticks 9. Ï„. The correction necessary of several things in the Missals and Breviaries and bringing them to a greater uniformity § 210 Concerning these and several other grievances see the Articles of Reformation proposed by the Emperors Agents before the 21. and 24. Sessions in Soave p. 513 and 751 and by the French before the 23. Session in Soave 632. These therefore the Council took into due consideration and rectified what they judged amiss * so far as that Iron-age would permit of which the Council thus complains Sess 25. De Reform Regul c. 21. Adeo dura difficilùque est praesentium temporum conditio ut nec statim omnibus nec commune ubique quod optaret remedium posset adhiberi and * so far as the National parties in the Council inured to several customes and injoying different priviledges without the making of a schisme could agree upon rectified I say so far as their Ordinations strengthened with severe penalties could do it But the constant execution of these depends on others whose diligence or supineness herein must needs produce in the Church contrary effects and also the necessity of leaving their Canons upon just occasions all which no law can fit dispensable must also leave open a passage to such Governours as are corrupt or negligent of doing this without a reasonable cause § 211 1st Then for those matters that concern the Pope and Court of Rome See the many Decrees in this Council wherein the Bishops are substituted as perpetual and standing Delegates of the Apostolick See for the Execution of them and the former Reservations remitted though this to the great diminution of the Revenue of the Pope and his Officers as hath been said †Such Decrees are § 205 Sess 5. c. 1 2. De Reform Sess 6. c. 4. Sess 7. c. 6. Sess 13. c. 5. Sess 21. c. 5 8. Sess 22. c. 5.8 Sess 24. c. 11. And very many others In which matter though the Bishops are impowred as Delegates of the See Apostolick because the point whether Bishops hold their Jurisdictions as to the exterior and forensick exercise thereof in and over such particular things and persons immediatly from Christ or from the Pope was indeed much agitated in the Council but on no side determined Yet so it is that a possession they have now of several branches of such Jurisdiction since
this Council which they had not before Nor varies it any thing in the good service actually done thereby to the Church by what way soever this power descends upon them § 212 To come closer them to the Particulars For. α. Causes and Appeales To α. See the restraint made therein Sess 13. c. 1. Sess 22. c. 1. Nec appellatio executionem hanc quae ad morum correctionem pertinet suspendat And Sess 24. c. 10. Nec in his ubi de visitatione aut morum correctione agitur exemptio aut ulla inhibitio appellatio seu querela etiam ad sedem Apostolicam interposita executionem eorum quae ab his mandata decreta aut judicata fuerint quoque modo impediat aut suspendat Again Sess 21. c. 8 Sess 25. c. 10. The Pope and Council delegate such persons as shall be chosen in the Provincial or Diocesan Synod together with the Ordinary to be supplied if any one of them dies before the next Synod by the Bishop and Chapter to decide these Appeales in the Province or Diocess where such Controversies arise unless they be such as for the weight of them are thought fit to be removed to Rome Sess 24.5 It is ordered That the criminal causes of Bishops except those more heinous ones of Heresie or the like where their ejectment is questioned which are reserved to the Apostolick See are to be terminated either by a Provincial Council or in the interval by its Deputies And Ib. c. 20. Civil Matrimonial Criminal Causes are left to be ended by inferior Tribunals without the intermedling of the Popes legats or Nuncio's herein except those Quas ex urgenti rationabilique causa judicaverit summus Romanus Pontifex per speciale Rescriptum signaturae sanctitatis suae manu propriâ subscribendum committere aut avocare Where ex urgenti rationabilique causâ rescriptum signaturae sanctitatis sua manu propriâ subscribendum a Rescript after the matter is particularly made known to the Pope and upon this his hand and seal obtained cannot be a thing so ordinarily happening as to overthrow the whole benefit of the Decree as Soave would perswade †p. 792. § 13 Next Concerning the forementioned Provincial and Diocesan Synods which were to elect the persons for deciding such Appeales which Synods the Council judged very necessary Moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componendis c. and to which it committed a chief superintendence over the actions of Bishops as to their due execution of its Decrees touching Reformation It is ordered Sess 24. c. 2. That the Provincial Synods be called by the Metropolitan or he justly hindered by the Senior Bishop of the Province at least once every three years after the Octave of Easter or other time if more convenient and a Diocesan once every year In the calling of and meeting in which if any neglected their Duty they incur the Ecclesiastical Censures prescribed by former Canons And those Bishops who are Subject to no Archbishop are obliged to chuse some Province of whose Synods they shall for the future be members and be subjected to its decrees Ordered also that in these Synods not having a constant being certain Deputies be chosen which may in the Intervals determine such Causes and execute such Orders as this Council hath committed to them But mean while as for other causes not thought meet to be intrusted to Delegats nor that conveniently can be so long suspended as till another Provincial Synod sits which for the great trouble and charge of their meeting later Councils upon the experience of former Canons neglected appointed to be held seldomer nor yet is this obeyed it seemed necessary that without expecting these such causes should from the Pope a higher standing Judge receive a present dispatch of which see what is said before § 16. n. 6. and n. 8. And The restoring of Synodal Judicatures i. e. as to all causes saith Soave †p. 336. was rejected by almost all the Fathers of the Council For which he gives a reason after his usual manner the most uncharitable one he could invent That they did this because such Synodal Judicatures did diminish the Episcopal and were too popular The Episcopal he means taken singly in their distinct Courts else the Synodal is nothing else but a conjunct Judicature of Bishops But perhaps some of those reasons given by Castellus for this apud Soave p. 335. may seem more perswasive viz. Beside their being no standing Court and rarely convened the difficulty that was found to inform so many and the impediments in the examination where many are to do it the infinite length in the proceedings and dispatches the parties and divisions therein that are usually made by the factious for which Castellus imagines that Synods came to be in later times more intermitted and other Courts and Officers brought in to remedy such disorders § 214 Mean while Of Appeales of higher consequence received and judged by most holy Popes Antiquity affords many examples See more mentioned before § 13. n. 1. And indeed such a superlative power as to causes of greater moment seems very necessary For 1 st This Prime Patriarch and supreme Governour in the Church being constituted by a more choise Election is presumed ordinarily to be a more knowing person and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit But 2 ly though he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from heaven yet must he needs be a less partial judge in such matters because not so interessed in the cause or in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also those other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to the Metropolitans power Now the more remote from all private interest and high in place the Judge is the more even he is likely to hold the scales of Justice and to administer it less sweyed with affection or mastered by fear 3 ly The chief Courts to whom beside the Roman Bishop the termination of Appeales of moment is recommended being Provincial National or General Councils were their Judgments never so satisfactory to all parties though Provincial or National Synods have not been alwaies thought so witness those Affrican ones in the cause of Cecilianus yet are these not alwaies to be had The Provincial Synods much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint Councils General yet more rare none of them by reason of the trouble of convening fit upon every such Appeale to be called 4 ly Many cases of Appeales are not matters of Fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jare where the fact is confessed and in such no more plea can be made to have them tryed at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter decided at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria his at Nice As for
any From all which you may further gather what truth his words have set in the entrance of his History †p. 2. That the Bishops hoping to regain the Episcopal Authority usurped for the most part by the Pope now wholy lost it and the Pope fearing a Moderation of his former exorbitant power had it now much more than ever established and confirmed § 225 Next to proceed to the Grievances concerning the Clergy To To The Complaint concerning unfit and unworthy persons elected both into Bishopticks and inferior Benefices of Cure 1 st For the future Election of Bishops this Council ordered Sess 24. c. 1. That there should be drawn up by the Provincial Synods a certain Form for taking Informations and examining the Persons nominated to such Ecclesiastical Dignities to be approved by the Pope Then concerning the particular Person to be elected an Instrument of the Examination made according to the Form prescribed is to be sent to his Holiness And this Instrument there first to be perused by four Cardinals who if they also approve are to subscribe it and to affirm Se certo to give you the words of the Canon existimare sub periculo mortis aeternae idoneos esse qui Ecclessis praeficiantur the relation also of these Cardinals is to be made in one Consistory but the deliberation deferred to another that things may be more exactly weighed The person also to be chosen is particularly to have the Testimonial of his Ordinary or of the Pope's Nuncio residing in such place Sess 22. c. 2. And what course is observed in Bishops the same ordered to be in the Election of Cardinals Sess 24. c. 1. Lastly the Council admonisheth in General * all those who have the Right of any such Collation Eos mortaliter peccare nisi eos praefici curaverint quos not dignos but digniores Ecclesiis magis utiles ipsi judicaverint And particularly * the Pope that if he be faulty herein either as to the Promotion of Cardinals or Bishops unfit Ovium Christi sanguinem quae ex malo negligentium sui Officii immemorum Pastorum regimine peribunt Dominus Noster Jesus Christus de manibus ejus sit requisiturus § 226 This for the Election of Bishops Next For the Election of worthy Persons into inferior Church-Benefices with Cure 1st It is ordered Sess 24. c. 18. That whoever the Patron be there be six Examiners nominated by the Diocesan Synod all which or at least three of them together with the Bishop are at a time prefix't publickly to try the sufficiency of such as are presented and only such a person as is approved by them or if many be presented who is thought the more worthy is to be admitted to such Benefice without such Examination and approvement the Collation of such Benefice to be accounted Surreptitious and another Election to be made The Bishop being permitted thus to choose the Person even where the Pope gives Institution It a Sanctissimus voluit saith the Congregation of Cardinals appointed for the Interpreters of the Decrees of the Council †In 24. Sess c. 18. fig. 33. quia Episcopus melius cognoscit personas Pius the Fourth †Pallavic l. 22. c. 1. n. 18. quoting Card. Borrom letter to the Legats having also before this Session concerning Benefices in his Disposal made this free offer to the Fathers of the Council 1. Either that henceforth all Benefices having Curam Animarum should be in their Gift and the other without Cure in his Or that henceforth he would bestow them on none who shall not also be by the Ordinary approved worthy 3. Or that he would only make his Election out of such Persons worthy and of the Diocess of whom the Bishop should send him a Roul After which the Council agreed upon the Constitution forementioned Which not escaping Soave's Censure who saith That it was framed with exquisite artifice and with a fair shew makes the Bishops Patrons to give the Cure to whom they please upon pretence of Examinations But yet taketh no profit from the Court of Rome The Institution still being reserved to the Pope and a Bull to be had from thence Pallavicino †l. 23. c. 3.12 returns this answer That any reasonable man may well observe what a loss here of his own benefit the Pope consented to for the benefit of the Church when he was pleased to take from himself the bestowing according to his own choise by this being now left to the Bishop and the Examiners of so many Benefices as should happen to be vacant for eight months in the year in so many Kingdoms of Christendom and when he deprived his Court of that frequent Concourse formerly made to it of so many forreign Ecclesiasticks who otherwise must first have made themselves known there for the obtaining these Benefices at home § 227 2. Again to remove all temptations arising from gain to introduce persons into the Clergy of less worth It is ordered Sess 21. c. 1. that all things be passed Gratis save that the under-officers such as have no set stipend may receive some small fee not to exceed the tenth part of a Crown for their labours provided the Collator share nothing in it Nihil saith the Council pro collatione quorumcunque Ordinum etiam clericalis Tonsurae necpro litteris dimissorus aut testimonialibus nec pro sigillo nec alia quâcunque de causâ etiam sponte oblatum Episcopi alii ordinum Collatores aut eorum Ministri quovis praetevtu accipiant Notarii vero in iis tantum locis in quibus non viget laudabilis consuetudo nihil accipiendi pro singulis liteais dimissortis aut Testimonialibusque decima in in tantum unius aurei partem accipere possint dummodo eis nullum Salarium sit constitutum pro officio exercendo nec Episcopo ex Notarii commodis aliquod Emoluentum ex eisdem Ordinum Collationibus directe vel indirecte provenire possit tunc enim gratis operam suam eos praestare omnino teneri decernit And Qui secus fecerint tam dantes quam accipientes ultra divinam ultionem paenas a jure instictas ipso facto incurrant which Decree is understood also of the Collation of Benefices and of Dispensations See the Exposition of the Congregation of Cardinals on this Decree § Item Declarat § 228 3 ly To see also the Parochial duties rightly discharged by the Clergy It is ordered Sess 24.3 That the Bishop by himself or his Vicar visit yearly his Diocess or if large the greatter part of it and the Remainder in the year following and that the Provincial Councils punish any Bishops neglects herein § 228 4 ly Ordered also Sess 29. c. 4. That the Bishop as Apostolical Delegate where the People of a Parish are very numerous may either erect a new dividing the Profits or compel the Rector of such Parish when not able alone to perform the Pastoral Duty to so
in carnalibus but a Clerical suiting to their Order upon pain of the sequestring and if they continue obstinate Privation of their Benefices Again Sess 22. c. 1. Renews the observance of all those former Church-Canons Quae de luxu commessationibus coreis aleis lusibus ac quibuscunque criminibus nec non saecul aribus negotiis fugiendis copiose ac salubriter sancita fuerunt iisdem paenis vel majoribus arbitrio Ordinarii imponendis And that no appeale should frustrate the execution of these laws which belong to the correction of manners § 235 To μ. To μ. Non-Residence In Sess 23. c. 1. And Sess 6. c. 1 2. 1st It is declared by the Council That neither Bishops nor inferior Clergy enjoying any Benefice with Cura animarum may be absent from their charge at any time without a just cause and that by their long and causless absence they incur mortal sin 2ly As to Bishops for the absence of two months or at the most three in the year the Council leaves the Examen of this just cause of such absence to their conscience Quam sperat religiosam timoratam fore cum Deo corda pateant cujus opus non fraudulenter agere suo periculo tenetur yet admonisheth them especially to forbear this absence as to Advent Lent the Feasts of the Nativity and Resurrection Pentecost and Corpus Christi 3ly But then ordered That none whether Bishop or also Cardinal exceed such time of two or three moneths in the year except upon a cause allowed under their hand by the Pope or the Metropolitan or for the Metropolitans absence by the Senior Resident-Bishop of the Province the Provincial Council being impowred to see to that there be no abuses committed in such licences and that the due penalties be executed on the faulty 4ly As for Priests having cure the Bishop may prohibit their absence for any time exceeding two or three dayes unless they have a licence under his hand for it upon some cause approved Nor yet is such licence for just cause to be granted them for above two moneths unless this be very pressing Discedendi autem licentiam ultra bimestre tempus nisi ex gravi causâ non obtineant 5ly Among just Causes of absence as the Congregation of Cardinals hath interpreted the Council such as these are not allowed * want of a House * a Suit in Law about the living * a perpetual sickness or if it not such as that for the Cure thereof either Medicines or a Physitian is wanting in the place of Residence upon which absence may be conceded for three or four moneths if necessiity require so much * An unhealthful aire of the place to one bred elsewhere unless this aire such only for some certain time * absence desired for study for a sufficiency of learning is supposed to be found by the Examiners in such persons when elected * Their being Officials of the Pope or imployed in some service of the Bishop or Cathedral Church unless it be their assistance of him in the Visitation * The living at a distance three or four miles off and visiting his Church every Lords day These I say and some others are held no just causes for which Residence may be dispensed with 6ly Where such Residence is for a time justly dispensed with the Bishop is to take care that in such absence an able Vicar be substituted with a sufficient allowance out of the Profits by the Bishops arbitration 7ly The Penalty of absence that is not thus allowed is Sequestration of Profits for time of absence to be applied by the Ecclesiastical Superior to pious uses Or in such absence continued above a year and further contumacy shewed when admonished thereof ejectment out of such Bishoprick or Living The former to be done by the Pope whom the Metropolitan or Senior Bishop-Resident is obliged to inform thereof by Letter or Messenger within three moneths the latter by the Ordinary 8ly All former Exemptions or priviledges for non-residence abrogated See also the like strictness concerning the Residence of the Canons of Cathedral Churches and Personal performance of their Church-Offices Sess 24. c. 12. To To The want of frequent Preaching §. 236. n. 1. and Catechising As the Council orders Sess 23. c. 14. That the Bishops take care that the Priests on every Sunday and solemn Festival celebrate Mass so concerning Preaching Sess 5. c. 2. and Sess 24. c. 4. They do declare it to be the chief office of a Bishop and injoyn it to be performed by him in the Cathedral and by other inferior Clergy having care of Souls in their Parishes at least on all Lords dayes and solemn Festivals Or if the Bishop be some way letted that he cannot do it himself then that he procure another to do it at his charge as also if the Rector of a Parish be hindered or do neglect such office the Bishop is to substitute another to supply it appointing to him part of the Profits In which Sermons the Council injoyns Vt plebes sibi commissas pro suâ earum capacitate pascant salutaribus verbis docendo quae scire omnibus necessarium est ad salutem annunciandoque eis cum brevitate facilitate sermonis vitia quae eos declinare virtutes quas sectari oporteat ut paenam aeternam evadere calestem gloriam consequi valeant The Bishop also is to take care that in time of Advent and Lent in such places as he thinks it meet Sermons be had every day or three times a week and in these things the Bishop hath power to compel if need be with Ecclesiastical Censures The Bishop is to take care also That §. 236. n. 2. at least on every Lords day and other Festivals the Priest do catechise the Children of his Parish and teach them the Principles of their faith and obedience to God and their Parents Finally Sess 24. c. 7. and Sess 22. c. 8. to see to That before the Sacraments be administred the force and use of them be explained to the people in the vulgar tongue and that the Catechisme to be set forth by the Council be also faithfully transtated into the vulgar and expounded to the people by their Pastors and that also in the celebration of the Mass and other Divine Service Sacra eloquia salutis monita eâdem vernaculâ lingua singulis diebus festis vel solemnibus explanentur That the Holy Scriptures and instructions necessary for Salvation be explained to them on all Holydaies and solemn Festivals in the vulgar tongue without handling any unprofitable matter or question § 237 Thus there remaining no more obligation on the Church than to render so much of divine matters or exercises intelligible to the common people as is necessary for them to know or practice and this abundantly performed the Council notwithstanding earnest petitions to the contrary saw much reason to retain in the Latin Church the same constancy as is found
in the Greek and to continue the Divine Service still in the same language and words without any alteration in which their Ancestors had delivered it to them and in which it had descended to these from all former ages as for this Western Church ever since that next to the Apostles times Neither doth this or the following Ages seem imprudently to have chosen for this service the most common language in the understanding whereof all these Nations are united and concur So that however any removed their Station they might still find the Divine Service both in matter and words the same and any Priest however he changed his Residence be able to serve the people in it § 238 To ξ. To ξ The Clergies being restrained from Marriage and living continently 1st The Council retaining the antient doctrine of the Church so expounding the Scriptures †Matt. 19.11 1. Cor. 7.78 c holds That Continency is a Grace or Gift which though not actually possessed by all yet is denied by God to none who with using due means and preparations thereto seek it of him the using of which means is a thing in every ones power in such ordinary sence as other humane actions are said to be 2ly That Continency being thus by every one either possessed or attainable the vow of perpetual Celibacy is lawful which is a thing seconded by the universal practice of the Religious or Monasticks as well in the Eastern as Western Church all of them making such a vow 3ly Holds That such Celibacy attainable and observable by all may be injoyned and imposed by the Church on some viz. such as shall desire to enter into the Priestly Function for many weighty reasons and particularly for those given by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.28 32 34 35 38. Vt non habeant tribulationem carnis ut sint sine mundanâ solicitudine ut sint sancti corpore spiritu ut faciant non bene sed melius Whilst mean while none at all are compel'd absolutely either to become Priests or in order to it to profess Celibacy but only that if they are desirous of the one they must undergo the burden of the other nor none instructed that God's law but only the Churches Constitution doth require it of them 4ly The Council had also in this matter the warrantable Precedent of former ages both in the Occidental and Oriental Churches so far as that none at all entring into the holy Order of Priesthood in either Church hath been hitherto permitted after to marry 5ly The Council injoyning this doth not deny this Celibacy of the Clergy as being only Ecclesiastical Constitution to be dispensable And though the Council it self thought not fit to give such dispensation especially since those Princes and their Prelats in the Council whose Kingdoms remained untainted with Protestanisme opposed it See Soave p. 688 and 690. Where he saith That the King of Spain and his Prelats had neither Interest i.e. out of any necessary compliance with Sects nor affection to prosecute the three Instances of the marriage of Priests communion of the Cup and use of the vulgar tongue Yet neither doth the Council prohibit any such dispensation if at any time circumstances considered it shall so seem good to the Pope And so he after the Council ended was both by the Emperour and the Duke of Bavaria much sollicited for it †See Soave p. 823 824 Pallav. l 24. c. 12. n. 9. I mean for a toleration of it in their Dominions being in hopes of reclaiming thereby some of the Sectarists But both the Emperours death following shortly after hindred the further prosecution of it and the Pope seemed very averse from gratifying any Prince with such an indulgment of which he knew not where it would stop nor how far it might draw on Petitions from other places in the same or also in other matters and those perhaps of much more prejudice to the Churches welfare In which thing Soave also †p. 690. is pleased to â—â—commend the Popes prudence therein § 239 A Dispensation therefore in this matter though lawful neither the Council nor Pope to whom such power was left thought expedient But the Parochial Clergy by reason of their Secular Imployment and converse being much more exposed than Regulars to the breach of this holy Resolution of perpetual continency in a single life and by their fall herein highly offending God and also bringing great scandal on their sacred Profession the Council Sess 25 c. 14. made the strictest laws that could well be devised against any such miscarriage prohibiting Priests to keep any women of whom might be reasonable suspicion either in their house or abroad or to have any converse with such Among which suspitious persons saith the third Canon of Conc. Nice are to be reckoned all Nisi Mater aut Soror aut Avia aut Avita vel matertera sit In his namque solis personis harum similibus omnis quae ex mulieribus est suspitio declinatur which Canon the 3d. Carthag Council thus expoundeth or inlargeth Sorores filiae fratrum aut sororum quaecunque ex familia domesticâ necessitate 〈◊〉 antequam ordinatis Parentibus uxores acceperunt aut servis non habitantibus in domo quas ducant aliunde ducere necessitas fuit § 240 Next the Council ordaineth That the faulty herein after the first admonition by the Bishop should lose the third part of the profits of their Benefice and after the second not amending it all and further should be suspended from officiating And after disobeying a third admonition should be ejected out of their Living and made incapable of another And the Bishop to proceed herein without any formal Conviction in Court so the verity of the fact were sufficiently proved to him Their Concubines also by the aide of the Secular Power to be expelled the Town or the Diocess And Sess 21. c. 6. the same power of Ejection of the Clergy when found incorrigible the Bishops have as to any other great and scandalous faults without the relief of any Exemptions or Appeales But if a Bishop were so faulty after an admonition from the Provincial Synod if no amendment he was to be suspended and still continuing so the same Synod to inform the Pope thereof and he to proceed to the Deposition of him from his Bishoprick the Council providing also that this their Constitution should not hinder the force and execution of any former Laws or Canons made for the correction of such crime § 241 To Ï€. To Ï€. With-holding the Communion of the Cup. 1st The Council Sess 21. c. 1. following the custom and judgment of former Churches declares That there is no divine Precept that obligeth all Communicants to receive in both kinds since the frequent practice of Antiquity to some persons in some places administred it only one kind when yet there was a possibility though not convenience of doing it in both and
of these though much more tedious and painful For the greater benefit both of those within and those without the Churches Communion that her children might more exactly know all those noxious Tenents they were to avoid and her adversaries those they were to reform And if in taking this second way the Council escaped not obloquy yet much more had they incurred it in taking the firsti e. in condemning so many Persons and their writings for many Corruptions of Catholick Truths and then naming none or a few and not using so much care in sifting the Novelties of Luther who drew such a train after him as their Predecessors at Coustance did in those of Jo. Wicleff or Jo Huss Neither in so particular a Discussion and Censure of the Lutheran Doctrines § 267 is this Council destitute of the Example of many former Councils very copious in their Anathemas against Heresies of a much less latitude and in some matters as considered in themselves seeming of no great Malignity For which see no less than twelve Anathemas of the third General Council passed against Nestorius according to the several Particulars whereinto his Error had brâ—â—ched it self and colours he had laid upon it though all pointing at one thing two persons in our Lord Christ a thing Soave saith ‖ p. 192. the Council of Trent took notice of and set before them as a Pattern See the 25 Anathemas of the Syrmian Council all relating to several branches of Photinianisme The eight Anathematismes of the Milevitan Council pursuing all the particular points of Pelagianisme The eleven Anathemas of the second Nâ—cen Council ‖ Act 7. †all about veneration of Images The twenty Anathematismes of that ancient Council at Gangra A. D. 319. wherein the famous Hosius was present pronounced against the Eustathians letting nothing how small soever it might seem to be in this their censure pass unbranded wherein this Sect was found to oppose the Churches common Doctrine and Practice Many of which Anathemas of former Councils if you please to compare with those of Trent you shall find several of them as to the Gravity of the matter much inferiour Lastly see the late Council at Constance condemning not only 45 propositions of John Wicliff recited there †Sess 8. but 260 more besides of the same temper All which had been formerly with much care by the Vniversity of Oxford gleaned out of his writings they bringing under their censure not only such Articles as were Blasphemi Haeretici or Sediosi but also as were temerarii scandalosi or piarum aurium offensivi and letting none escape them that might do hurt In the same Council also afterward †Sess 15. were no less than 30 propositions of John Huss condemned Now we may presume that Luther and his Followers to those who put their sickle into their books to bring to tryal what seemed faults could not but yield an harvest much more fertile Nor was the care here to be less where the danger was much greater And for this strict Inquisition and search made by Councils we owe great thanks to the providence of God For thus whilst the wantonness and curiosity of mens understanding from the Faith delivered in General still descends to things more particular and so raiseth new Disputes in the Church and spreads false opinions the contrary Determinations of Councils regulated by necessary Consequences render also the Christian Faith from time to time more particular and so more exact and less liable to the corrupted when all that in question comes to be stated that is clearly evidenced and the knowledge thereof any way useful So since the settling by Council of those particular points contained in the Athanasian Creed explicating that of the Apostles much more short and General the Church as to these points hath enjoyed a great repose and freedom from those disputes with which some ages of it before were miserably distracted And if the Decrees of the Council of Trent have had the same effect as Soave complains they have in the beginning of his History †p. 1 2. the Protestants may impute it to their precedent questioning of the Churches Doctrine and disturbance of her peace § 268 To ω. To ω See what is said before § 244. Bene facere male audire is the common fortune of Governours and to the censorious and male contents the world is still out of order though God himself Governs it and the worst times are alwaies the present Whether the Trent Decrees for Reformation which were never so numerous in any Council and design'd from the beginning of it to have an half share with points of Doctrine in all their Consultations and in the composition of which so many several Parties well seen at least in one anothers Defects concurred were so contrived as to remove motes and not beams to cure itches not feavours I must refer you to the re-consideration of the particulars set down before from § 212. Neither may we think that it was the meddling with moâ—es that offended so much either the Court of Rome or of France as Soave tells us their reformation did For any defects still seen in Church-Government Discipline c which alwaies are and will be many it ought not to be charged on these laws but the non execution of them which neglect also useth to be much more in those laws that are more exact and perfect and so more contrary to common practice But since the sitting of this Council there have not wanted those pious Bishops as S. Carlo Borremeo and others who molding their Reformations exactly according to these Decrees have manifested to the world the great perfection thereof § 269 To α α. To α α. See what hath been said in Defence of this Dispensative Power placed in the supreme Ecclesiastical Governour before § 216. 1. The Council weighing the conveniences thereof with the inconveniences yet declared †Sess 25. De Reform Gen. c. 18. Publice expedit legis vinculum quandoque relaxare ut plenius evenientibus casibus necessitatibus pro communi utilitate satissiat Else the laws may sometimes hurt where they should help 2. Again this Dispensative Power deposed in this Ecclesiastical Supreme is no new usurpation but an ancient priviledge injoyed alwaies by him Of which see before § 217. 3. Next It had here some qualifications and clogs laid upon it by the Council As †See before §. 215. that such Dispensation shall be accounted surreptitious and void when not given gratis and causâ prius cognitâ the Ordinary being constituted the Inspector and Examiner of this †Sess 25. c. 18. Now he must be very perversly wicked who will issue forth such a Dispensation where he neither receives benefit by it nor sees just cause for it 4. Lastly The same Dispensative Power as to the civil Laws is reposed in the Secular Supreme neither is the vigor of such Laws esteemed to be