Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine § 5 3. ' That it was not a Free and Lawful Council 3. 1. λ. Where the accusers or the accused take λ. 1. whether you please namely the Pope and the Bishops persons of the same perswasion and communion with him sate as Judges in their own cause namely in a Question of the Popes Supremacy and of the corruptions of that Church see B. L. § 27 n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's μ. μ. Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council 2. ν. Where was no security in the place of Meeting ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted since the cruel Decrees and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss though armed with a safe Conduct ξ. Whither also ξ. notwithstanding this some of the Protestant party being come yet they were not suffered to propose and dispute their cause And again Ï€. Where after dispute Ï€. had it been granted them yet they if no Bishops could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest but must after the Disputation have been judged and censured by their Adversaries 3. Ï‚. Where all the Members of the Council Ï‚. 3. that had a vote had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy and none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome and were professed enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council B. Lawd § 27. n. 1. 4. σ. σ. 1 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council but only what the Popes Legates proposed the Popes Commission running Proponentibus Legatis σ 2 * where nothing was determined σ 2 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome himself not vouchsafing to be present therein and therefore it was commonly said that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male 5. Ï„. Ï„. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope and many Bishops were introduced who were only titular and ‖ B. Bramb Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishopricks also erected by the Pope during the Council all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes and hence such an unproportionable number there of Italian Bishops § 6 4. v. Suppose the Council in all these Objections cleared v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical and Legal yet have the Reformed this Reserve after all wherefore they cannot justly entertain it * Because some of the Decrees and Definitions are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures or at least not warranted by them φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures as the Nicene and other primitive Councils did but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in matter of Faith Concerning which thus Arch-Bishop Lawd § 28. The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or in necessary sense or the Council is not Lawful For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority to make the Council Authentical and the Decisions of it de fide than any confirmation of the Pope can be Now the Council of Trent we are able to prove had not the first but have departed from the Letter and sense of Scripture and so we have no reason to respect the second See likewise § 27. n. 1. Where he asks How that Council is Legal which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie and make it to be de fide though it hath not the written word of God for warrant either in express Letter or necessary sence and deduction but is quite extra without the Scripture See also Mr Stillingfl p. 477 478. χ χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to or at least not warranted by Primitive and Apostolical Tradition ‖ Soave p. 228. And in the last place Dr. Hammond of Her §. 11. n. 3 7. Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's in these and in many other slight matters if truths upon all those who shall dissent from or at least who shall contradict their Judgment in them this one Council having made near hand as many Canons as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together ‖ Soave p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds * drawn up bp Pius the 4th according to the order of the Council ‖ Sess 24. c. 12. de Refor and * imposed to be believed by all who would enter into the communion of the Church contrary to the 7th Can. of the Third General Council at Ephesus All these Articles Imposed too as Fundamental and to be assented to as absolutely and explicitly for attaining salvation as the Articles of the Creed and so that in disbelieving any of them it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire which Articles are concluded there as the Athanasian Creed with an Haec vera Catholica Fides extra quam nemo Salvus ‖ See Archbishop Lawd p. 51. Bishop Bramh. Vindie of Church of England p. 23â— 231 Reply to Chalâ—ed p. 322. Dr. Hammond Ars to Cath. Gent. p. 138. and to Schism Disarm'd p. 241. Dr. Fern Considerations touching Reformation p. 45. Stillingfl Rat. Acccâ—nt p. 48 c. So that saith Mr. Thorndyke †Fpilog Conclusion p. 413. it was the Acts of this Council that framed the Schisme because when as the Reformation might have been provisional till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace but by yielding to all their Decrees 5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine And next §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation which also are very numerous and 5 one would think the more the better yet these also are not free from their complaints ω. ω. That these Decrees are meer Illusions many of them of small weight taking Motes out of the eye and leaving Beams That the Council in framing them imitated the Physitian who in an Hectical Body laboured to kill the Itch That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved and some Symptomes only cured That in some of more consequence the Exceptions are larger than the Rule And αα αα That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them as he pleaseth Thus Soave frequently That nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council and it ended ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it ‖ Stillingfl Rat. Acc. p. 480
trial in this Council as formerly by Church-Tradition Councils and Fathers interpreting Scriptures controverted But now the Learned amongst the Reformed perhaps like the ancient Sectarists but now mentioned ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur think fit to take another way and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed as the Roman overthrown by those same ancient Councils and Fathers Whereby we are now made believe that these their Fore-Fathers mainly declined that Authority which clearly established their opinions and on the otherside the Roman Catholicks together with the Pope vehemently contended for that Authority that manifestly ruined theirs § 129 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions should be preferred 7. i. e. those opinions which were regulated by the word of God 8. 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg A. D. 1555. continue in force Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Protestants were A toleration of all sects that every one might follow what religion pleaseth them best as you may see in Soave p. 378. and 393. § 130 The sum therefore of the fift seventh and eighth condition is this Of the Fifth that Protestants shall vote in the Council definitively together with the Catholicks but this the Protestants must needs see by the Catholicks over-numbring them would signifie little Therefore the seventh condition cautioneth that if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents than for them yet this plurality may not carry the business but that their opinion if the more sound though it have fewer Suffrages shall be preferred But again this they saw was very unlikely either that the others who voted against their opinion should judge it the more sound or themselves only judging it more sound that the others upon this should prefer it Therefore the 8th condition makes sure work that if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions yet they shall not condemn but allow every one that pleaseth still to retain them and on these conditions they will submit to a Council § 131 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made which see in Soave p. 369. That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope 9. and of the Bishops his adherents and it being unjust that either the Plaintiff or the Defendent should be the judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets there might be Judges indifferently chosen by both sides to take knowledge of the controversies § 132 In satisfaction to these their demands To the first see what is said above § 47. and § 80. To the second what is said § 83. c. To the Canon urged See Bellarmins answer de Concil l. 1. c. 21. The Canon intends criminal matters where witnesses are necessary not matters of faith The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem Arianism arising in Alexandria judged at Nice in Bithynia To the third see what is said before § 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it in Soave p. 80. is sufficient That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council to which it belongs according to the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council recited before cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas And that for the manner and Form it was not convenient that they should prescribe it to all Nations nor think their Devines only inspired by God c. To the fourth what is said § 105. c. And that de facto such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom was seen in several controversies that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes and a contrary party about Episcopal Jurisdiction c. To the fifth what is said § 68. n. 2. 115. c. and 118. where it is also shewed by the suppositions there made that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants it would have nothing promoted their cause unless perhaps they think that the evident arguments which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents would have converted so many of their adversaries as joyned with them would have made a major part in the Council But besides these arguments seen and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council in their books who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned without working any such effect upon them what success their disputations would have had in the Council may be gathered * from that which they had in the German Diets from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant and inflexible in their former perswasions as themselves and * from that effect which they have in Christendome ever since that Council to this day the major part undeniably remaining still Catholick and the other of late much decreasing § 313 To the sixth I have said much elsewhere which you may remember 1. Surely nothing can be more reasonable and just when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of than that the litigants for what is either said in the Scriptures or necessarily deduced from them stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church and he that disclaims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge that these Fathers and Councils are against him and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie When you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture saith King Charles †3d. Paper of blessed memory to his weak Antagonist Mr. Henderson and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer Neither have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented and again †4th Paper When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences Thus against Puritans against Socinians c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things wherein her eyes are shut against Catholicks But set this humane Authority quite aside the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side than on the other because it saith only the same words to or for both and thus as by other
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE COVNCIL OF TRENT BEING The Fifth Discourse CONCERNING The GVIDE in CONTROVERSIES By R. H. 1 Pet. 3.15 Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos Rationem 2 Cor. 6.8 Per infamiam bonam famam Ut seductores Vcraces Printed in the Year MDCLXXI The Preface IN the former Discourses concerning the Guide in Controversies as also in the Beginning and Conclusion of this present I have endeavoured to perswade a necessicy of Obedience to a lawful Church-Authority from these weighty Considerations whereon seem to be built the Unity and the Peace of Christian Religion 1 First That However the Holy Scriptures are a Rule sufficient yet not in respect of all capacities a Rule so clear but that the true sense of them is by several Parties much disputed and that in points of Faith necessary to be known And therefore as to these need of some other Guide for the direction of Christians in this true Sense 2 That there is contained in these Scriptures a Divine Promise and that not Conditional but Absolute of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries made to the Church-Catholick of all Ages To It not only Diffusive some or other Persons or Churches alwaies not to erre in necessaries but as a Guide or to the Guides thereof 3 Again That the Catholick Church throughout â—he whole World is but One ever contradistinct to all other Communions Heretical or Schismatical And its Governours and Clergy however dispersed through several Nations regulated by the same Laws and straitly linked together in a due subordination whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superiors and a Part to the Whole in such manner as that these Laws observed admit of or consist with no Schisms Divisions or contradicting Parties after any past Declaration of the Church 4 That in this Subordination no inferior Clergy Person Church or Council when standing in any opposition to their Superiors can be this Guide to Christians But only the Superior whether Person or Council and in a Council not wholy unanimous the major Part join'd with the See Apostolick The major part whether those present in the Council and decreeing matters in debate or those absent and accepting their Decrees A regular obedience in any contradiction thus ascending to and acquiescing in the sentence of the most supreme in present actual being That also these subordinations of Church-Governours are so commonly known and by the learned on all sides acknowledged that even a Plebeian following this line though amidst so many Sects calling him hither and thither and all offering to shew him the right way cannot mistake his true Guide 5 That from this present Guide thus discovered All are to learn both as to the true sense of Holy Scriptures and of Antiquity or former Church-Tradition and also the legalness of former Councils c. when any of these are controverted and questioned the Resolution of that which they ought to believe and adhere to so far as its Determinations have prescribed to their Faith And the more important any point is that they are hence the more strictly obliged to the Declarations of this Authority because here more danger in their mistake That here if we grant an Infallibility of this Guide in Necessaries which is amply proved this bindeth its Subjects to an universal acceptance of its Decrees lest perhaps in some Necessary their Faith should miscarry Or this Guide supposed Fallible which presupposeth in such matters some obscurity in the Rule yet neither thus are the bonds of their obedience any way relaxed since their own fallibility is much grearer And if in following such a learned and prudent Conduct they are exposed to some error yet so to much more and more gross by following their own Of the mischief of which Self-conduct the many modern most absurd Sects and especially the Socinians are a dreadful Example Who very inquisitive and laborious and critical as to the Holy Scriptures yet by throwing off the yoke of a legal Church-Authority are by the Divine just judgment delivered up to most Capital and Desperate errors and those running through the whole Body of Divinity 6 That none in the resistance of Authority can be secured by following his Conscience though alwaies obliged to follow it when It culpably misguiding him and in the information whereof he hath not used necessary diligence 7 That where such a weighty Church-Authority I speak of the most supreme to which the Churches Subjects may apply themselves so highly authorized and recommended to us by our Lord sways on the one side and only Arguments and Reasons relating to the matter in Agitation but all these short of certainty on the other here a sober and disinteressed Judgment cannot but pass sentence that it is safer to submit to the first of these than relie on the second And then so often the following our reasons and private opinion and deserting Authority becomes acting against our Judgment and Conscience and the forsaking our private Reason acting according to it 8 That thus at least all those who have a contrary perswasion to Authority but short of certainty i. e. all illiterat and plebeians unable to examine Controversies or also learned that after examining them are left still in some doubt which two sorts will comprehend the most Christians are engaged in Conscience to yield their assent to the Decisions of this Authority 9 That an absolute and Demonstrative Certainty indeed where-ever it is is exempted from all such obedience to Authority as shall require submission of Judgment and Assent But that such a Certainty is very difficultly attained in matters Intellectual and abstracted from sense more difficultly yet in those Spiritual and Divine especially such Divine and Spiritual matters where Church Authority i. e. so numerous a Body of learned and prudent men discern little reason for that we pretend Certainty of and so much against it as that they declare the contrary for certain To which may be added the frequent experience of our own weakness when by more study and better weighting and comparing contrary Reasons we come to doubt of the truth of several things wherein formerly we thought our selves most fully satisfied 10 That supposing such a Certainty attained and so obedience of Assent justly repealed yet if this be of a Truth of no great importance or consequence of which great importance too as well as of the truth it self they are to be certain here still another Obedience viz. that of silence or Non-contradiction tyes us fast and rests still due and payable to Church-Authority And so these Certainists or Demonstrators become at least tongue-tied and constrained to stand single and disinabled to father or beget Sects 11 Or in the last place if this also Certain that it is a Truth of great concernment and the Error of the Church-Guides therein not only manifest but Intolerable and so they here obliged also to break this second obedience silence and to publish such truth
Conditions Luther the first Parent of this new Sect being questioned for his Doctrines and upon this cited to Rome first made Friends to have his cause tried in Germany having been heard and condemned in Germany by Cardinal Cajetan for one a moderat and learned Prelat he now appeal'd to Rome and to the Pope But well perceiving that his Doctrine would also be most certainly condemned there as it was he suddainly intercepted this Appeal with another †See Adam vitae Lutheri made from the Pope to a Council having some ground to imagine that such a Body would never be conven'd to hear his cause nor the Pope call them together from whom was expected a severe Reformation of Him and his Court But afterward seeing that in good earnest such a Council there would be for a Bull was published for one to be held at Vicenza in 1â—37 and well discerning that neither thus the usual former laws of Councils being observed or only this law of all Assemblies that the much major part shall conclude the whole his Doctrine could stand as indeed it did not He began now to vilifie Councils and put out a book De Conciliis in 1â—39 wherein he declares no good but much hurt to have come to the Church by those that had been held formerly not sparing the very First reverenced by the whole Christian world not that of Nice not that of the Apostles Act. c. 15. Some of his Invectives I have set down already in Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. and so here forbear to repeat them Upon this therefore his last Appeale was from Councils to the Holy Scriptures defending himself with a Si Angelus de Coelo Gal. 18. Attendite à falsis Prophetis ‖ Matt. 17.15 Oves meae vocem meam audiunt †Jo. 10. Omnia probantes ‖ 1 Teess 5.21 c. And here he knew himself safe as any Heresie though never so absurd would be in chusing that to be the Judge or decider of the Controversie which could never deliver any new sentence on any side and where the meaning of its former Sentence deliver'd already which all will stand to were it known is the controversie to be decided But his followers rather than utterly to decline a Council which they had formerly to avoid the standing Church-authorities often called for thought sit to change the ancient form thereof and to clog it with such Conditions as if accepted should perfectly secure them from any danger from it Now the Conditions as they are most fully set down in Soave p. 642. though often mentioned elsewhere †See Soave p. 18 65 80. 1. 2 3. are these 1. That it should not be called by the Pope 2. That it should be celebrated in Germany according to the Canon ut illic lites terminentur ubi exortae sunt 3. That the Pope should not preside in but only be part of the Council and subject to the determinations thereof 4. That the Bishops should be free from their Oath given to the Pope that so they may freely and without impediment deliver their opinions 5. That the Protestant Divines sent to the Council might have a deciding voice with the rest 6. That the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council end all humane authority excluded § 128 Where note that by humane authority they would exclade amongst other things Apostolorum traditiones Concilia authoritates S. Patrum Which together with the Holy Scriptures as necessary to know the true meaning of them where it is disputed was the Rule that the Council entertained to decide present controversies by Of which see Soave l. 4. p. 344. and 323. where he saith the Council prescribed this Rule to the Divines in their disputations about the Articles proposed to them That they ought to confirm their opinions with the Holy Scriptures Traditions of the Apostles sacred and approved Councils and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the Holy Fathers to avoid superfluous and unprofitable questions and perverse contentions Which rule to judge controversies by was also mentioned in the Safe-conduct Quod causae controversae secundum Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum S. Patrum authoritates tractentur in praedicto Concilio and which also long before this was mentioned in the beginning of the Council Sess 4. where a Decree was made Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei c. scripturam sacram interpretari audeat contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater ecclesia aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum And such an advice and rule as this we find given not long after the second General Council to Theodosius the Emperour in a time much over-run with divers Heresies which Emperour thinking that all Sects might easily be united in the Truth by convocating them all together and permitting a free Disputation Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople with others rather perswaded him to take this course Vt fugeret to give you it in Sozomen's words ‖ Sozom. l. 7. c 12. Socrat. l. 5. c. 10. institutas cum sectariis disputationes utpote rixarum atque pugnarum fomites Sed ex ipsis quaereret reciperent ne eos qui ante ecclesiae distractionem interpretes ac Doctores fuissent Scripturae sacrae Etenim si borum Testimonia rejecerint à suis ipsorum consortibus explodentur sin autem sufficere eos ad controversias decidendas arbitrabuntur produci oportet eorum libros c. By which books they would soon be convinced of their errour which advice the Pious Emperour commending and proposing this way of ending Controversie to the Heads of the Sectaries they soon discovered to him their Tergiversation and He there upon authorizing only the Catholick Religion vigorously undertook the suppression of the rest Suitable to this among those General Proposals made by the Pope's Nuncio's in Germany and elsewhere before the sitting of this Council this was the first †Pallavic l. 3. c. 13. n. 2. â— Soave p. 64. That the Council might be free and be celebrated in the manner used by the Church even from the beginning of the first General Councils and the second That all those who met in the Council should engage to submit to the Decrees thereof Things to which the Protestants would no way consent The clause contained in the Safe-conduct of deciding controversies per probata Concilia c. they excepted against see Soave p. 344 and 372 and before § 104. and they refused also to stand to any Council that should proceed as the use had been for 800 years before †Soave p. 18. Here then at that time thus the case stood The Pope and the Tridentine Fathers were for admitting the Protestants for excluding the Form a of Council agreeable with the former and again the one for admitting the other for excluding a
humane authority allowed the Catholicks will have the victory so Scripture being the sole Judge the Protestant can have no conquest but the contention will still be depending So the King Ibid. We must find some Rule to judge betwixt us when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the self-same Text or it can never determine our question As we see amongst the reformed also of those daies that the Scriptures being made sole judge or rule to try their doctrines by yet by it could they not then accord the differences amongst themselves how then might they hope by it solely to decide the differences between them and the Roman Catholicks 2. Again * It is yet more unreasonable and unjust so to bind over the Council or the Church to the test of Scripture as that all their Constitutions or Injunctions shall be cassated and rejected if not shewed to be commanded also in Scripture It is sufficient that such Injunctions cannot be shewn by the adverse party to be against Scripture For the Church hath power in things indifferent And so much as is not prohibited is lawful § 134 To the Seventh it is easily granted that the more sound opinion be preferred but taking away plurality of votes in the Council the supreme Judge in these matters To 7. and what course shall be used to judge or decide which opinion is the more sound See the unsufficiency of those waies proposed § 115. n. 2. and 118. c. To the Eighth What is this but saying To 8. that they will be judged by a Council upon condition that the Council will judge either for or not against them And what a ridiculous thing would it seem even to a Protestant if any opinion which they dislike suppose the Arrian or Nestorian should have thus capitulated before hand with Councils and yielded to be examined by them after it hath first tyed their hands to decree nothing against it § 135 In satisfaction to the Ninth concerning an equal number on both sides to determine their controversies To 9. see what is said above § 118. And besides that this seems not appealing to the judgment of a General Council but rather from it to a private Committee and that it is no more reasonable to propose this than that an equal number of Arrians and Anti-Arrians should judge of Arrianisme the experiment of this device in so many Diets of Germany still fruitless shews it would have been so also in Trent And here 'T is worth your diversion to view a little with me the unsatisfying issue of those many Diets § 136 The Emperour sometimes from the pressing of forreign war from the Turk who in those times frequently alarm'd Germany to the great growth of Protestancy sometimes for fear of civil or from some discords arising with neighbouring Princes exceedingly desirous to settle a peace in Germany had many Conferences and Diets in several places for composing the differences in Religion A. D. 1530. Was held a Diet at Ausburg Diet 1530. where the Protestants exhibited the Confession of their faith called the Augustan Confession and here seven Catholicks and seven Protestants on either side two Princes two Lawyers and three Divines were chosen to confer together and find out a means of composition and these not being able to agree afterward the number was restrained to three a piece But saith Soave l. 1. p. 56. though some few small points of doctrine and other petty things belonging to some rites were agreed on yet in conclusion it was perceived that the Conference could produce no concord at all because neither party was willing to grant to the other any thing of importance Or if any thing of importance was there yielded it was by the Protestant party for which see Pall l. 3. c. 4. § A. D. 1541. Was held a Conference at Ratisbon where the Emperour himself being present and two Presidents of the Colloquy appointed Diet 1541. three Catholick and three Protestant Divines were chosen to determine and compose the differences and Calvin was present at it though not yet much noted 22. Articles were drawn up by some Catholicks and proposed by the Emperour as an argument and subject of what they ought to treat and in these Articles and in those afterward of the Interim was the nearest approach made to any agreement since the Reformation and the accord here made concerning Justification is worth your reading the Catholick party purposely omitting the word Merit that they might not give an offence in the expression where both agreed in the sense See Pall. l. 4. c. 14. n. 8. Yet of these 22. those Articles which contained the things most controverted could not be agreed on Amongst which these De summè venerando sacramento veri corporis sanguinis Christi de hujus adoratione reservatione De transubstantiatione panis vini De missâ De conjugio sacerdotum De communione sacramenti sub utraque specie De paenitentiâ Confessione Satisfactione De invocatione sanctorum De ecclesiae Hierarchico ordine De ecclesiae Conciliorum authoritate and several others And the other few that were agreed on as De libero Arbitrio De Originali peccato De justificatione hominis De paenitentia post lapsum c. were by both parties afterward diversly expounded and equally complained of as perplexed and ambiguous and not clearly expressing the Truth and particularly by the Catholick party as changing the former Church-language and also stating such evident matters as were no way formerly controverted amongst the learned See Responsum Principum Protestantium penn'd by P. Melanthon and Responsum Principum qui Rom. Pontificem agnoscunt And so this meeting ended without effecting a peace See Soave l. 1. p 95. § 138 These meetings were before the Council of Trent Afterward in the time of the Council Diet 1546. 1546. was another Colloquy appointed at Ratisbone four Divines on a side and two Judges But no good fruit grew thereof saith Soave l. 2. p. 148. by reason of the suspicions which one part conceived against the other and because the Catholicks omitted no occasions to give greater jealousies to the other side and to fain them of their own which finally made the Colloquy to dissolve Thus Soave blaming the Catholicks but see Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 10. and the Authors he cites charging the fault on the Protestant side deserting the Colloquy recalled by the Princes that sent them After this §. 139.1 A. D. 1547. upon the Emperours great victory obtained over the Protestants Diet 1547. and no hopes of the Councils return from Bologna whither it was removed by reason of the Plague to Trent a Diet was held at Ausburg where the Emperour resolving before he disarmed to set Germany at peace in matters of Religion elected three two of them Catholicks the third Joannes Agricola Islebius a moderate Protestant or one that had been so but
the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
to be handled in Council were lawful before the Council why not during it Especially the matters being so various as that the Legats were not capable of such Instructions all at once neither did this encroach on the liberty of the Council unless it can be shewed that the Council was obliged to follow it which it is clear they were not because de facto they many times opposed it Neither was any thing in matter of Doctrine voted in Council whatever instructions came in the male from Rome a considerable part resisting § 262 To Ï„. To Ï„. See what is said § 170 171. The Popes Pensions given to some poorer Bishops during so long a Session of the Council might be an effect of his charity not policy However it is clear that their assistance to him was useless as to Protestant Controversies and stood him in little stead as to those Catholick ones wherein a considerable part of the Council opposed him none of which were passed for him if any perhaps were hindred by his party from being passed against him this was the uttermost of any service done by his Pensioners As for many Titular Bishops sent and new Bishopricks erected during the Council whilst those things are only in general said and no particulars named they carry the suspicion of a groundless report § 263 To ν. To ν. The Councils determining things repugnant to Scripture 1 That no injunction repugnant to the Holy Scriptures is to be obeyed is on all sides agreed on But that some of the Councils decrees are contrary to the Scriptures as it is a thing affirmed by the Protestants the lesser so is it denied by the Council and its adherents much the major part of the Doctors and Church-Governours of the West We are to seek then which of them our duty doth oblige us to obey and follow Next 2 As to the Councils determining things not warranted by Scripture See before § 176. the two Propositions both Divine Revelation whereby the Scriptures warrant the Church in her defining and requiring a belief of such things to be lawful and in her injoyning such things to be practised as the Holy Scriptures have not prohibited or declared against This warrant from the Scriptures for any of their Decrees the Council wants not and affirms no further warrant from them as to such Decrees necessary § 264 To φ. To Φ I answer 1st That the Council of Trent allows no Tradition extra Scripturas or unwritten there to be sufficient ground of defining matter of faith unless it be Tradition Apostolical Traditiones saith It †See Sess 4. Decret de Canon Scrip. quae exipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis Apostolis spiritu sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt And ‖ Salv. Conduct Sess 15. Vult S. Synodus quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones c. in praedicto Concilio tractentur 2ly That any Council should make the word of God delivered by the Apostles either by Tradition written the Holy Scriptures or unwritten i. e. by them equally a ground of Faith where there is a certainty equal or sufficient of the one as of the other that it is Apostolical I see not how it can be liable to any Censure Of this thus Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 210. Your next inquiry is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility As for the necessity of standing Records which he there alledgeth from the speedy decay of an Orall Tradition this is sufficiently remedied if the Apostles Successors at least do commit to writing things which were by them orally received And thus Mr. Chillingw †We conceive no antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might stand very well together If God had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written So he hath sending us to our spiritual Guides †Heb. 13.7 17. Eph. 4.11 14. who do by Tradition of their Predecessors writings conveâ—â—â—â—â—â— to us that right sence of Scriptures which is dubious in the written letter of them 3 ly None can rationally deny that the Traditive Doctrine of the Church-Guides would have been a sufficient ground of our faith had the Scriptures not been written because it was so before they were written and is so still to some who cannot read them written or know that others read them right Of this also thus Mr. Stillingf †p. 208. It is evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of faith as to that revelation Because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and his Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrine of Christ before it was written and this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of the Scripture 4ly We find the first General Councils universally allowed to have grounded their Decrees upon the Argument of Tradition and the Doctrine or Interpretation of Scriptures descended to them from former ages as well as upon the Text of Scriptures and by both these not one of them singly to have defended their cause against Hereticks Of which thus Athanasius †Synodi Nicen decreta Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse and In eo Concilio illa sunt scripta quae ab initio ipsi qui Testes oculati Ministri verbi fuere tradiderunt Fides enim quae scriptis decretisque Synodi sancita est ea est totius Ecclesiae And ‖ Epistol ad Epictetum Ego arbitrabar omnium quotquot unquam fuere haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam fides quae inibi à Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est satis mihi idonea essicaxque videbatur ad omnem impietatem evertendam pietatem ejus quae in Christo est fidei constituendam 5 ly Protestants in some point of faith ground their belief only or at least sufficiently on Tradition †Stillingf pt 1 c. 7. namely in this That the Scriptures are God's Word and consequently must allow any other Tradition of equal evidence a sufficient ground of any other Article of Faith and so do When you can produce saith Mr. Stillingf ‖ p. 210. aâ— certain evidence
Synods For M. Claude saith The word of God contains nettement clairement all that which is necessary to form our Faith and that the most simple are capable to judge of it c. Unless the Protestant Controversies be never about any thing necessary This is the way M. Claude thought on to leave no Doubters though never so unlearned among Protestants as to the Eucharist or other Points of their Faith But mean while if after such Speculations of his any such Doubters there be I do not find but that he leaves so many wholly to D. Arnaud's disposal viz. that they return to and remain in the bosom of the former Church so long till they become certain of its errors and not follow strangers that have not entered by the dore into Christ's Fold and I hope they will consider it As for the settling of our Conscience this person speaks of by resting our Faith immediately on Gods Word I see not where the sence of the Scriptures is supposed the thing controverted how any one rests his Faith more immediately on God's word by following his own Exposition or Sence thereof or the Exposition of a Minister c. for some person's exposition he must follow than he that follows that of the Church If we are then for a total application to the Scriptures and for searching things to the bottom Let us search there first this main Point that decides all other concerning our Lord's establishing a just Church-Authority for ending contentions Where we shall find also that he is not a God of dissention or Confusion 1 Cor. 14.33 Eph. 4.11 14 1 Cor. 12.28 in his House the Church but of Peace And That he hath given his Clergy in a certain Subordination that we should not be carryed about with every wind of Doctrine as we must be when ever these disagree in expounding Scripture to us if we have no Rule which of them to follow The truth of this once found out by our search will save many other searches of which without it I see no end In vain do we endeavour with whatever pains so discern Gods Truth without the illumination of his Holy Spirit and Grace and since revelat parvalis in vain expect this without great Humility and self-dâ—s-esteem and a reverent preference of and pious Credulity toward our just and lawful Spiritual Superiours Credendo first i. e. Ecclesiae saith S. Austin in his Tract De utilitate Credendi †c. 1. praemunimâ—r illuminaturo praeparamur Deo To resume then here the matter we were speaking of before § 321. n 27. § 321. n. 1. from which we have so long digressed For such Persons as are self-confident despisers of Superiors much pre-engaged whatever evident Testimony Truth may have on its side I can affirm nothing For Pride and thinking they see utterly puts out their eyes But I think so many as are no way thus intangled and are humble and well affected to Authority will by reading the pieces aforesaid be reduced either to a full perswasion on the Churches side in this great Point or to a Dubitancy and uncertainty of that which is maintained against it And then this later only as hath been shewed †§. 291. c. is a sufficient Ground and Inductive of their conformity to it I mean to the authority of the present Church In this point then the main Trial seems to be 1. Whether Antiquity indeed so understood and Councils declared the sense of these Scriptures as is pretended Since as Mr. Thorndike hath it in his Rule of Reformation †Forbea and Penalties c. 8. this is to be taken for granted That nothing can be the true sence of Scripture which the consent of the whole Church contradicteth 2. If this found so whether this Authority ought not to prescribe to any particular judgment especially when he perceives the new pretended Demonstrations to the contrary no way to perswade this present Church-Authority as any true Demonstration in the Protestants Definition of it necessarily must For the Second Point Invocation of Saints 1. It is granted by Protestants §. 322. n. 1. that if the Saints deceased hear or otherwise know our requests made to them it is lawful to invocate them or desire their prayers for us as we do those of Saints here and the invocation of them in any other manner Catholicks disclaim 2. It sufficiently appears from the knowledge of things done ‖ or said †2 King 6.8 9 12 31.32 in absence that several Prophets †King 5 25. Act. 5.3 Col. 2.5 and other Saints of God by Revelation or Vision have had here in this life that it is possible that the Saints glorified without imagining any their omni-presence or omni-science may know by the like Revelation Representation or Vision or by some other way as God pleaseth for the particular manner thereof is no way stated by the Church may thus know I say either all or so many of those prayers that are made to them though at the same time by several persons in the most distant places as it may concern their Petitioners touching any benefit to be received by their Intercessions that they should know them Lastly possible that the Saints Glorified may know these or some other instrument of God's mercy viz. Angels know these for them or in their stead for this clause also is put in by St. Austin proceeding most cautiously in this matter These things I say are possible And if any of these be put it is abundantly sufficient to render Invocation of Saints glorified not vain For to frustrate the benefit here of the Saints must neither know nor others for them who only upon their general Intercessions offered may be as God pleaseth made his instruments in relieving the necessities of such Supplicants They must neither know all nor any of our affairs or prayers For if they or others for them only know and relieve some it will be lawful at any time in any thing to implore their help who we know not but in that time and thing they may assist us Again suppose neither the Saints nor others for them save God only to know at all our particular prayers or wants but the Saints only in grosse to intercede for all those that implore their help or yet more generally only for all their fellow-members here that are in distress whether imploring or not imploring their help yet if God at least apply the benefit of any Saints general Intercessions more particularly to those who more particularly honour and with their addresses sollicite such a Saint Such Invocation and Honour still remains profitable and advantageous to the Supplicant Where note §. 322. n. 2. that neither those who make nor yet God who reveales their prayers to the Saints do it at all for this end that so the Saints may make known such their prayers to God a thing in which Protestants please themselves to find absurdities and