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
such Superâ—ours Elâ—e the publick faith suppose of a General Council cedentis de suo jure and engaâ—ing exemption and impunity to some Heretick in a matter belonging to its Jurisdiction or also private Faith where is not such prohibition once given to a publick Enemy are affirmed to remain afterward inviolable P Layman Theol. Moral l. 2. tract 3. c. 12. Faedera publica Genâ—â—um jure intrâ—ducta sunct Idq propter necesâ—itatem Quia nisi faedera pubâ—â—ca sen inter dive sos principes aut reâ—publicas sâ—n inter Principem suâ—ditos ejus v.g. rebellantes to whom he adds Hereticks upon the same ground § Diâ—e 4â— Nec hac it a magnum â—â—th he vidâ—ri dâ—bet sperantibus in Dâ—o Christo summo Ecclesiae â—â—fensore qui auxâ—â—tum fâ—rt in tempore opportâ—no inita omnim de servanda essâ—nt nulla pax aut soâ—iâ—tas inter humanum Genus consâ—stere pâ—ssit And more particâ—larly concâ—rning Hereticks thus Becanus de side Haeret. servand c. 12. Quaestio est an quando Catholiâ—us Prinâ—eps sive saecularis sit sive Ecclesiastâ—â—â—â— câ—nâ—edit Haeretâ—â—is salâ—um conductum liâ—eâ—e venienâ—i râ—deundi â—sive id saciat jure communt sive speciaâ—i i. e. this later way debeat illis servare fidem neene Affirmant saith â—e uno consensu emnes Catholici where he instanceth also in the practice of the Emperour Charles the Fifth to Luther and goes on Hic valdâ— mirer adreâ—sâ—rios qui elsâ— hac audiant a nobis tamen elâ—mant noâ— câ—ntrarium doâ—ere But see the same prosessed joyntly by the Council of Basil and the Emperour in their Safe-conduct to the Bohemians securing them not only from the hand of violence but also of justice whose words in the close of it are these Promittimus sine fraude quolibet dolo quod nolumus neque debemus quacunque occasione praetensa uti authoritate vel potentia jure statuto vel privilegio legum vel Canonum quorumque Conciliorum specialiter Constantiensis Senensis quacunque forma verborum expressa in aliquod praejudicium salvo Conductui per nos concesso What more clear than this for the lawfulness and undispensableness of such publick faith though given in the largest form and most derogatory to the Engagers rights § 95 Only some Cases there are wherein all judicious Protestants I suppose consenting Faith given may not be kept to any person whatsoever and so neither to Hereticks such as these 1 st If the faith be given not absolutely but conditionally the Condition wanting or failing the faith or promise given with and limited by it is voided 2. So also if the matter of the faith oath or promise be a thing unlawful to be done neither here may such faith either lawfully be given or given be observed If the matter be unlawful I say either by the divine law if and though it be the publick faith given by a suprem Authority or also by any humane law if it be a faith given by Inferiors and Subjects to such laws Among which unlawful things and that jure divino is to be numbred if Faith be given either by Prince or Subject in any thing which invades anothers right or assumes to our selves what only is in anothers lawful disposal and so involves doing wrong to a third person which it is never lawful to do though cedere de nostro jure is a thing very lawful So for Example in the particular matter of Hereticks If the supreme Temporal Magistrate should pass his faith to one suspected of Heresie to free him from any Trial thereof by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal or to free him found guilty thereof from the sentence of Excommunication a right belonging to the Church and independent of secular Powers or to introduce or continue him excommunicated in the Catholick Church-Assemblies such faith as it is unlawfully given so neither given can it lawfully be observed Again when the law of a Prince or State restrains to professed Hereticks the publick Exercise of their Religion or imposeth some mulct upon them and this law is here supposed just if a Subordinate Officer or private person engage his faith to some Hereticks to the contrary such faith to them is not to be kept as promising a thing not in his but rather anothers lawful power and disposal And the same it were in a privat mans faith given to conceal an Heretick or a Robber or the like where the law of the State obligeth all persons to detect them Mean while where none of the forenamed cases happen where the matter of the pact is no sin and no sin it is that offends against no law nor only conditional Faith given to whomsoever by what person soever is affirmed no way dispensable or remittible unless the party to whom it is given relax it neither upon the plea of Fear in making it I say no superior law voiding such pacts nor upon any damage temporal or spiritual coming by it For some spiritual damage to be sustained thereby affords no sufficient ground to pretend an action unlawful Since the damage both spiritual and temporal to the world would be far the greater when none by reason of these and the like Exceptions could have any security of anothers faith since such Pacts and Oaths most what are made from some temporal necessity constraining men thereto and frequently do infer some spiritual or temporal damage or do some otherwayes hinder some publick or private good § 96 To this purpose Molanus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 14. concerning the publick faith when given to another where the matter of it is not unlawful That it is undispensable or unrelaxable by any even the Pope himself arguing thus from the ill Consequences thereof Si Romanus Pontifex semel in fidei publicae transgressione dispensaret haec non foret legitima dispensatio sed potius dissipatio quia deinceps nemo posset securus esse habito a rege aut alterius Tituli Principe salvo Conductu solenni juramento eo quod semper periculum foret ne Regia Potestas id via dispensationis à Pontifice extorqueat quod semel concessum esse novit Where he urgeth Heb. 6 16. Omnis Controversiae eorum finis ad confirmationem est juramentum and Soto who faith ‖ De Jure l. 8. q. 1. c. 9. Pontificem non posse relaxare juramentum cum praejudicio ejus cujus interest And thus Layman on the same subject †l. 2. Tract 3. â— 12 Si a Christiano v. g. Rege cum Infidelibus and the same he repeateth afterward cum Haereticis and before cum Subditis Rebellantibus publicum soedus fiat nulla unquam ratione seu directe seu indirecte Summus Pontifex relaxare potest Ratio est Quia cederet in maximum detrimentum ac contemptum ipsiusmet etiam Ecclesiae Quamobrem si quando foedus a Catholico Rege cum Infidelibus legitimâ potestate constitutum cedere postea videatur in Ecclesia
Catholicae detrimentum a Concilio supremo ejus Rectore Desensore auxilium sperandum Neque vero saith he tergiversationis locus est * quod pars altera ad faedus ineundum per vim injustam adacta sit cum paciscentes superiorem Judicem non habeaut qui causa cognita ipsis jus dicat * Nor Quod soedus publica authoritate initum Principi aut Reipublicae paciscenti perniciesum esse appareat Nor * Quodcunque incommodum sen detrimentum Ecclesiae Catholicae ex faederis observatione inferendum and his reason is because if such prejudices to Church or State be once admitted as just causes for voiding the publick Faith Nulla pax aut Societas inter humanum Genus consistere possit This concerning the publick Faith given to Infidels Hereticks Rebels or others in matters where no common Superior is acknowledged to have Right of disposing them otherwise § 97 But as to private Contracts Faith or Oaths where there is a common Superior to both parties who may restrain or moderate these upon all occasions according to the publick and private good here several Laws and Constitutions and common Customs grounded on a moral equity and necessity do give him a power in several cases which may happen such as these where such Contract or Oath is extorted by some injury first done to the party as by force fraud fear or where such engagement made in some great perturbation and transport of mind or where the contract though in a matter lawful yet brings some great unexpected and unforeseen damage to the publick or privat good Spiritual or Civil or also is a hinderance of some considerable greater good of the Church or State which the Contractors ought to prefer before their private when these are judged not by the party but by the Superior to be such the laws I say do give Him power in such cases to relax such pacts or Faith and to oblige the party to whom they are made being subject to him and such laws to remit them And the parties in making any such pact may and ought to know this superintendent power or also all such Oaths and Contracts when they are made are supposed to include a tacit Exception of such cases to be stated by the Arbitrement of such Superiors And indeed what thing better can be contrived within the limits of a settled Government than that such engagements should be transacted with such a reserve of capability of relaxation by the Superior where otherwise either by the difficulty of the observance of them the circumstances being changed they will probably be broken or some great damage by them publick or private inferred But in the publick or private Faith passed between persons that are joyned together in no such society no such thing can be admitted but the matter of such oath or promise being jure Divino lawful and diminishing no third Persons legal Rights all damages whatever are to be sustained in a strict and undispensable observance thereof so far as the party to whom such engagement is made shall exact it And so in some sence Faith is maintained to be kept by Catholicks to Enemies Heretickâ— Infidels c. when not so by one Catholick to another because the constitutions or customs of the Government Ecclesiastiacal or Civil under which Catholicks live do not extend to these other Covenants and the excuse of damage fear force c. hath here no place or consideration where is to be had no common umpire and Judge of such matters § 98 If it be said here That Secular Princes are made by Roman Divines inferiour and subordinate to the Ecclesiastical suprem the Pope or General Council and so that the Sanctions and laws of the Church by what is said before § 97. will void at pleasure the Oath and engagement of Princes to what ever Confederat in whatever matter as this being contrary to the law of a Superior whose Constitutions they are obliged to observe It is answered that the Roman Church owns no such Doctrine nor do the Ecclesiastical Governours claim any Supremacy or Legislative power save in Spiritual matters Contrary to which therefore if any of the Churches Subjects though a Prince make any oath or promise such Faith given is not to be kept by vertue of the former subjection of such person to the Churches Laws But as for any Oaths or engagements of Princes in other matters Secular or also any use of the Secular Sword whether in matters Temporal or Spiritual the Church claims no Superiority herein The Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrate have their distinct and independent Rights and Jurisdictions freely confessed by Cardinal Bellarmine to be both held from Christ and nor from one another Ex Scripturis saith he †De Rom. Pontis l. 5. c. 3. nihil habemus nisi datas Pontifici claves regni caelorum de clavibus Regni Terrarum nulla mentio fit Traditio Apostolica nulla Quando Rex fit Christianus non perdit Regnum Terrarum quod jam obtinebat And quoting a passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus Quicquid saith he Imperatores habent dicit Nicolaus a Christo eos habere Peto igitur rel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus Imperatoribus hoc tanquam summus ipse Rex Imperator aut non potest si potest ergo est major Christo Si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem Regiam Neither is any such Power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals without the exercise of which power the Primitive Church though most grievously oppressed by Secular States yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire as to all things essentially necessary thereto Their proper and distinct Rights then both these supremes have And their oaths and engagement passed in matters of their proper right to what persons soever are denied generally by Catholick Divines to be dissolvable by one another § 99 Of this particular of keeping faith with Hereticks in such matters thus P. Layman a learned Jesuite †Theol. Moral l. 2. Tract 3. c. 12. Dico 4 to Si Catholici cum Haereticis publicum foedus ineant non potest per authoritatem Pontificiam solvi aut relaxari where he quotes also Molanus saying †De fid Haeret servand l. 5. c. 14. Neque ullum hactenus extitit aut unquam extabit hujus rei exemplum And thus Becanus 〈◊〉 de fid Haeret. servand c. 7. Virtutes illae ex quibus oritur obligatio servandae fidei in promissis aeque nos obligant sive apud Catholicos sive apud Haereticos versemur Nusquam enim licet mentiri nusquam jus alterius violare nusquam injustitiam committere nunquam perjurum esse Quando fidelâ—â— paciscuntur cum Gentilibus Idolatris debent issi servare fidem in rebus licitis honestis ergo etiam quando paciscuntur cum Haereticis An oath of fidelity therefore taken by a
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
Yet remain they still fettered with the Bonds of a third Obedience I mean Passive in a meek submittance to the Church's Censures And if they shall happen to be excommunicated by the Church and externally disjoyned from its Society yet is it by no means lawful for them after their publishing new Doctrines to proceed also to erect a new Altar or Anti-Communion against it But patiently undergoing its sentence and longing for their peaceable restorement to the former Catholick Communion which is alwaies but One and may not be divided they are to expect from God the vindication of his Truth and their Innocence Which so long as any suffers for he remains still internally a member of this former Society from which externally he is excluded Now by this third Obedience if the Churches Faith in some manner suffers yet its Unity at least will remain unviolated and not divided or torn by Schismes These things I have endeavoured to represent and perswade to the pious Reader in the former Discourses as also in the beginning and conclusion of this present Work have further pressed them Now from such a submission to a legal Church-Authority once gained the same is rightly demanded to that of Trent if this Council proved Legal And then by this Council once received and submitted to is an end put to the most and chiefest of the modern Theological Controversies and present Church-distractions This then is the Task of the following Discourse Of which I implore the Divine Majesty for a prosperous success only so far as it maintains a right and just Cause and so commit the Reader to the gracious Illuminations of his Holy Spirit THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council OBjected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its Proceedings § 5. 4. That Several of its Decisions are without or contrary to Scripture to Primitive Tradition and Tyrannically Imposed § 6. 5. That the Decrees of this Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. n. 2. CHAP. II. Some General Considerations pre-posed 1. Of Inferior Councils The due Subordination and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precedents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. CHAP. III. 2. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the Acceptation of them Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 45. 3. And Calling of them § 47. CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from the subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant-Clergy § 67. CHAP. V. 5. That this Council is not hindred from being General by the absence of the Roman Catholick Bishops of some Province or Nation § 69. Where 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions § 70. 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Council under Pius § 75. 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy § 77. And particularly Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church Ib. CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by reason of 1. The pretended Non-generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place § 83. 3. Or the want of Safe-Conduct § 92. Where concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks § 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance § 101. CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishop's or Pope's being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several waies of judging Ecclesiastical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Pope's being Judge § 122. CHAP. VIII II Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonablness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies CHAP. IX III Head Of the Legalness of the proceeding of this Council 1. That a Council may be Legal and Obligatory in some of its Acts 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council where any considerable party contradicted § 128. 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon this Council for the condemning of the Protestant Opinions in condemning which the Fathers of this Council unanimously agreed § 150. 4 That no violence was used upon the Council for defining of Points debated between the Catholicks themselves § 152. Where Of the Councils proceedings touching the chief points in debate Touching 1. Episcopal Residency Jure Divino § 153. 2. Episcopal Jurisdiction Jure Divino § 154. 3. The Popes Superiority to Councils § 155. That these three Points of Controversie however stated are of no great advantage to the Reformed § 156. 5. That no violence was used upon the Council for hindring any just Reformations § 157. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing
482. Most of these Objections you may find after Soave urged by Archbishop Lawd § 27 c. and reinforced in his Defence by Mr. Stillingfl p. 2. c. 8. By B. Bramh. Vind. c. 9. By Dr. Hammond of Her § 11. and many others whether with more force and advantage than is here set down I must desire you to consult the Authors § 7 These are the principal Exceptions occurring in later Protestant-Writers against the Council of Trent Now I desire your patience to hear on the other side what may be said for it Which Council being by reason of the subjection of the Clergy to so many supreme and independent Princes with so much difficulty conven'd not finally concluded till 18 years after its first sitting interrupted by sickness interrupted by wars managed under several Popes of several inclinations and under often-changed interests of most warlike and rival Princes according to their several advantages or disgusts who now sent now withdrew their Bishops and desired to model its Decrees to the content of their Subjects and secular Peace in their Dominions It must needs encounter great diversity of Accidents and not always retain the same face security frequency splendor and reputation nor the same purity and dis-engagement from secular affairs and national obligations Again * Sitting in the time and for the composing of the greatest and the most powerful considering the engagement of the common people as well as of Princes separation and division that ever was in the Christian Church which departed also from the former unity in so many points of Doctrine and Discipline as never did any before and * driving two main designs at once the reformation of manners in the Church and its Governors and the confutation of errors in the Sectaries It must needs be liable to many Intestine as well as External affronts and hinderances from all sides and in so many decisions seem to some to commit not a few oversights But yet notwithstanding all these Intrigues and all that is produced against it I see not but that both its Authority and Integrity may be rationally and justly vindicated § 8 The Considerations upon it for the more orderly proceeding in them I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Concerning the Generality 1. Liberty and just Authority of this Council or of the persons constituting it to oblige the Churches Subjects 2. or especially those of the West 2. Concerning the Invalidity and also probably the uneffectiveness of such a General Council as the Protestants in stead thereof demanded and as should be limited with all the conditions they proposed 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent 3. especially as to those matters which respect the Protestants 4. 4. The many Definitions and Anathema's of this Council and its pretended-new Articles of Faith 5. 5. Concerning the many Constitutions and Acts of great consequence passed in this Council and confirmed by the Pope for the Reformation of several corrupt practices and disorders observed in the Churches Government or Discipline CHAP. II. Of Councils inferior to General The due Subordinations and other Regulations of them § 9. 1. The several Councils at least so high as the Patriarchal to be called and moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors or Presidents and nothing to be passed by them without his or by Him without their consent § 10. 2. No Introduction or Ordination of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation or Confirmation of the Superior § 11. 3. Differences between Inferiors upon Appeal to be decided by Superiors and those of higher persons and in greater Causes by the Bishop of the first See § 12. where concerning his contest about this with the Africans § 13. n. 2. Yet that no persons or Synods co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another Nor all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts and many without troubling the Synod in its Interval to be decided by its President § 14. 4. Obedience in any dissent happening amongst Superiors to be yielded to the Superior of them The Concessions of Learned Protestants touching the Precidents § 16. 5. No Addresses or Appeals permitted from the Superior Ecclesiastical to any secular Judge or Court § 20. Where That the Church from the beginning was constituted a distinct Body from the Civil State § 21. And what seem to be Her Rights and Priviledges as so distinct § 22. § 9 COncerning the first Head to discern more clearly the true State of this Council assembled at Trent It seems necessary that I first give you a brief account of some things more generally appertaining to these Ecclesiastical Courts Of Councils then assembled as need required for deciding Controversies enacting Laws and preserving the Peace of the Church Catholick which is but one throughout the world there have been always used in the Church these several Kinds or Compositions subordinate in Dignity and Authority one to another 1 Episcopal or Diocesan 2 Provincial 3 National 4 Patriarchal and 5 Oecumenical or General Of which Councils the first Pattern under the Gospel was that held at Jerusalem Act. 15. A. D. 51. Amongst these the lowest Synod or Ecclesiastical Council for governing the Church was Episcopal or Diocesan taking the word in its modern sence consisting of the Bishop of any particular Diocess and his Presbyters the Bishop calling them together and moderating the Assembly the Actions and Decrees of which Synod were appealable from and liable to the Judgment and Censure of an higher Council The next Council was Provincial consisting of all the Bishops of a Province in which were many Diocesses called and moderated and its Decrees executed by the Metropolitan The next Synod to whom also the Actions and Decrees of this Provincial were subject was National consisting of the Metropolitans of several Provinces with their Bishops called and moderated by the chief Primate in such a Nation such were several of the Affrican Councils and particularly that held under S. Cyprian de Baptizandis Haereticis there being of these Provinces or greater Circuits six in Affrick and so many Primates or primae Sedis Episcopi of whom the Chief was the Bishop of Carthage The next a Council Patriarchal consisting of the Metropolitans c. of divers Kingdoms and Countries which were contained under the same Patriarchy this called and moderated by the Patriarch The last and supremest is a Council Oecumenical or General to which I should proceed next to shew you of what persons it is to consist who is to call who is to preside in to regulate and ratifie it c. But this I shall defer till § 34. And because the Regulation and Government that is for the necessary preserving of the Churches firmer Peace and Unity established and observed in these lower Councils is by their being more frequently held much better known and also freely acknowledged by Learned Protestants I will first give you some further Account of this that so you may make
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
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
Council high esteem of it and reiterated intercessions for it to the King and to the State who in Ecclesiastical matters I think ought to take them for their Guides and for their Judges § 78 2. Next That this Council was opposed by the King or Civil State of France not for any Decrees concerning the matters of faith 2. or doctrine but of Reformation as containing in them something contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church or rather of the King in or over the Gallican Church Whilst I say there was no exception taken at any point of doctrine For that point of the Popes superiority to a Council opposed by the French was not decreed at all in Trent whatever Ferieres in Soave p. 8â—8 saith to the contrary nor do the words there urged by Ferieres imply so much nor those most addâ—cted to the Pope pretend so much Nay Pallav. 24 l. 14. c. 12. 〈◊〉 saith that Pope Pius having nine parts of ten in the Council ready to vote this superiority yet suffered this controvâ—rsie to rest undetermined because of the dissent of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the French Bishops Here then the reformed cannot plead any disobligation to the Council for these things wherein the Council is generally accepted by so great a part of the Church ‖ See below §. 147. because that in some other things it is by some particular State refused § 79 3. Again That those 13. Articles drawn up concerning reformation of secular Princes 3. set down by Soave p. 769. which upon his Embassadors complaint occasioned the French Kings Protestation Soave p. 760. but gave offence likewise to the Emperour and the Kingdom of Spain c. ‖ were upon this resentment of Princes laid aside and all that was enacted by the Council in stead of these concerning Princes is contained in the 20 cap. of Reformation in the last Session Cupiens Sancta Synodus c. Where you may see with what great modesty and respect the Council treateh these Secular Suprems Admonendos esse censuit confidens eos c. Proptereaque admonet Imperatorem c. But so it is that had they prosecuted the former 13. Articles that were drawn up such thing seems not deprived of a plausible excuse for that there was nothing proposed in them but what was formerly contained in the Imperial Laws as Cardinal Morone the Popes Legat in the Council assured the Emperour See Pall. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6. and as is exâ—ressed in the Preface to those Articles See Soave p. 769 and for that they only admonished suprem Princes to cause their inferiour Magistrates against whom was their chief complaint for their infringing the Churches Immunities †Pallav. l. 22. c. 6. n. 1. to observe the former grants of the Secular Powers made to the Church which Grants some conceive after a free donation of them cannot be at pleasure resumed especially when confirmed to the Church many of them by a decurrent practise from the times of the first Christian Emperours What passages in the Council especially in the two last Sessions as infringing the rights of Princes were excepted against by the Kingdom or Parliaments of France you may see for it would be too tedious to recount them here in Soave p. 819. c. and you may see the defences in behalf of the Council returned to them by Palavacin in l. 24. c. 10. and concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in temporal matters l. 12 c. 3. As for that particular urged by Soave and others ‖ Sess 25. c. 19. de Reform of the Councils depriving those Princes of their States who shall allow Duels That clause in it Quod ab Ecclesia obtinent Jurisdictione Dominio civitatis castri aut loci in quo vel apud quem duellum fieri permiserint quod ab ecclesia obtinent privati intelligantur shews this privation limited to those places where the Church hath the Temporal Dominion But mean while where ever is supposed either a publick concurrence and consent of the secular powers to such an Act of the Church or a former grant made by them of such Priviledges and Rights to the Church here such Act of the Church cannot be justly censured and to use Spalatensis ‖ De Repub. Eccles l. 6. c. 10. n. his words concerning the third Capitulation in the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. which is also much agitated Legitimum erit si supremorum Principum concessione tacita vel expressa editum fuerit Lastly since many of those regal rights mentioned in Soave and pretended to be violated by the Council were not peculiar to France but common to iâ— with all other Princes it is most probable that had the Council bin faulty therein other Princes would have resented such wrongs and remonstrated against them as well as France For they did so against those 13. Articles which were afterward laid aside but yet nor they nor their Embassadors vigilant and exceptions enough in other matters who then attended the Council and unanimously assented to these Acts discerned in them any such violation and we may much rather conclude them just because the Emperour King of Spain and many other Princes accepted them than unjust because one King or State refused them And from finding the causes of the French State rejecting the Council so slight perhaps it was that Hen. 4. at his reconcilement promised with an oath to Pope Clement 8. to use all his endeavour that this Council might be in his Kingdom entirely received ‖ Sponda A.D. 1595. n. 9. Pallaviâ— 24. â— 10. n. 15. and Cardinal D' Ossat his great Councellor and manager of his affairs at Rome often writ in behalf of the Council both to Secretary Villeroi and to the King himself That he found nothing in the Council opposit to the Kings Authority Many things beneficial none contrary to the Gallican Church unless some one perhaps may think Simonies and other abuses and faults to be priviledges of the Church Gallican That it displeased the great ones in France because thereby they were not permitted to enjoy Benefices incompatible and with such other abuses as were prohibited by the Council See his Letters to Villeroi Feb. 15. 1597. And Mar. 31. 1599. And May 16. 1600. quoted in Paull l. 24. c. 10. To which I may add what Caterina de Medicis Q. Regent of France had urged before this to the Pope's Nuncio ‖ Pallavic Ib. c. 11. n. 2.4 That the Council could not be admitted because by the Councils decrees the King could not thereafter gratifie such Ministers of State as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses or other Benefices of the Church holden in Commendam CHAP. VI. 6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced by its being called by the Pope § 80. 7. Nor by Reason of 1. The pretended Non generality of the Summons § 82. 2. Or Non-freedom of the Place
you of That if the Acts of Pius the Fourth if the proceedings of that Council in his time be justifiable though those of and under Paul and Julius should be proved some way faulty the number of Prelates insufficient their decisions factiously carried c. yet this Tridentine Council will stand universally in force as to all the decrees thereof because this Council under Pius reviewed and ratified and made their act all the Decrees made before with what supposed defect or culpableness of their proceedings you please for that may be right that is not done rightly under Paul and Julius So that who so justifieth this Council save only for Pius his times doth somewhat more than what is necessary 2ly For the place I desire these things may be considered § 83 1 st That no place can be chosen any where so absolutely free but that he under whose temporal Dominion it is 1. may infer some violence to the Council or to some party therein with whom he is offended and so whereas the Church and the Pope as well as Temporal Princes have their rights and priviledges which may be violated the place of the Council in any Secular State may seem not free enough for the Pope and the Church and again since the Secular Princes have often differences and several interests as it happened frequently in the time of the Council of Trent the place of the Council in ones Dominions will not seem free enough to another Unless it may be thought a sufficient remedy for such unavoidable inconvenience that when such violence appears the Council may cease acting or be suspended or dâ—ssolved or injured States withdrraw from it their Bishops § 84 2 ly That the place of former Councils appointed at Rome or in some other City in Italy as it was in the Roman Lateran Florentine Pisan Councils was not accounted therefore to render them not free because of the nearer influence from Pope though in all those Councils there was something to be decided wherein the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio but was inclined more to one side than another and wherein one side might pretend him a Party as in the controversies of the Waldenses of Beâ—engarius of the Grecians c. § 85 3 ly That the Imperour took sufficient care that thâ—s Council should not be coâ—vâ—â—ed in any place of Italy 3. which was under the Temporal Dominâ—on of the Pope or where himself had not the câ—â—ef command He consented indeed that the Council should be kept in Mantua but see what he declared first to the Protestants concerning this place in Soave l. 1. p 80. That the Duke thereof was vassâ—l to the Empire so that the Pope had no power there and that if they desired any further caution himself was ready to give it them To which they answered how rationally I leave it to you That no safe-conduct could there free them from danger for the Pope having adherents throughout all Italy who bitterly hated them there was great danger of treachery and sâ—cret plots †Sâ—â— Soavâ— p. 77. And as little reason as these had Henry the Eight to protest against the Council at Mantua for fear of the Pope § 86 4 ly That the Pope had indeed no reason to allow the Council to be kept in any City of Germany 4 that was near the Protestants not to avoid their pleas but * for fear of their Arms of which fear whether he had any just cause we shall see more by and by as likewise * for the too great distance from Rome whereby he could not so easily from time to tâ—me give directions to his Legats in those many controversies which were likely to be agitated in that Council and in all which it was impossible for him to give them a precedent information with a sufficient foresight § 87 5 ly That this Council was celebrated in a place to which the Emperour and the major part of Christian Princes namely all the Catholick 5. gave their consent and sent some sooner some later their Bishops and Embassadours too which was enough to legitimate it though perhaps they would rather have chosen another and not all the same See Soave p. 101 and p. 702. Where the King of France desiring a translâ—tion of the Council form Trent to Constance Wormers c. for the more convenience of the Dutch English and part of the French Prelats Soave reports the King of Spain returning this answer That the Council was assembled in Trent 〈◊〉 all the solemnities with consent of all Kings Princes and at 〈…〉 â—â—nce of Francis the French King that the Emperour had superiority in that City as in the others that were named and might give full security to all in case the former safe conduct were not sufficient § Again celebrated in a place confining on Germany and nearer to the Protestants there than it was to the Catholicks of France or Spain and of which the Emperour was the châ—ef Lord. § Therefore Soave p. 309. represents the Emperour dâ—scoursing thâ—s to the Protestants concerning this City That they should leave all to his care who knew how to handle the business that they should suffer other Nations to mâ—et and that himself would go in person if not thither yet to some near place and would take ordâ—r nâ—t by words but dâ—eds that all should pass with goâ—d termâ— And below that he as Advocate to the holy Chuâ—ch and Dâ—fender of the Councils will do what â—elongeth to his charge as he hath promis d. And p. 669 reâ—â—tâ—s How the Cardinal of Lorraine sent a Gentleman to the Empercur to desire him that he would not remove further from the Council in regard of the fruit which thâ—y hoped forby means â—f his vicinity which will kâ—ep every one in his duty and hinder the attempts of thosâ— who would translate it into another place c. And p. 30â— relates the Popes fears That he could not take all suspicion from the King of France if the Council should be celebrated in Frent a place subject to the Emperour and near unto his Army Again a place it was * not accessible by the Popes Forces unless marching first through anothers Dominions and trespassing on the Emperour who was in Italy it self a Prince much more powerful than he and a place which either the Emperours or Protestant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march And therefore was not the Pope free from fears concerning it though he had more of Germany as may be seen in Soave l. 5. p. 436. where he saith That the Pope was troubled because the Protestants of Germany unto whom a great part of France was united would demand exorbitant things which he could not grant them and doubted they might be able to disturb the Council with Arms that He confessed that the dangers were great and the remedies small and was perplexed and troubled in mind Thus Soave § 90 Nor
whose vigilant providence never deserts his Church either converts Him or removes Him I say however these things be stated yet as to our present business of Trent neither did the Pope out of any such private guilt of Heresie or other Crime forbear to call this Council nor when it was assembled and the Protestants complaints against the Pope well known did this supreme Court find any ground or cause of such extraordinary proceedings against him For 1st For his Presidentship in the Council which was excepted against how could the Council deprive him of this right which was no new tyranny or device but that office which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils which the Church ever had Of which see what is said before § 46. c. And as for any false doctrines crimes or corruptions charged on Him this Council found none valid as to his own person either for removal of Him from such Presidentship or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical § 124 Many corruptions indeed and great need of Reformation of several things both in the Church and in the Court of Rome as the Protestants complain'd of so the Council and also the Pope himself acknowledged And in the remedying of these the Council spent the longer part of their Acts which have been not meerly delusory as a late Writer would blast them †Stillingf Rat. Account p 482. who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority but very effective as to the having produced a vigorous and during Reformation in the Roman Church and that of the chiefest disorders complain'd of as is shewed more particularly below § 203. c. And this real effect it was which with an holy envy the Clergy of France discovered in other Catholick Countries and which made them so importunate with the King and State of France to give them there the like force and that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit †See §. 77. c. And so much were these severe Decrees resented and dreaded in the Court of Rome that Soave †p. 8 6. reports That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court representing their losses and prejudices and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness and of the Apostolick See and diminution of his Revenues Of which see much more below § 204. This in the second place that the Council who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church if any so be and of these matters found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person as might justly abridge any of his priviledges therein nor that any Reformation in the Church or Court was obstructed by his Authority § 125 3. Lastly Neither doth the Popes calling or declaring the Lutherans 3. Hereticks before the sitting of this Council render him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council and other Popes as the fore-mentioned Celestine and Leo having formerly declared against the errors of Nestorius and Dioseorus yet afterward approvedly presided in Councils and there again condemned them But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans Hereticks without shew of wrong if so be that their tenents or some of them had been determined against and condemned in former lawful Councils as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were For if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie those who own it without a new process may be pronounced Hereticks Now t is clear that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned in the 2d Nicene in the 8. G. Council in the Lateran under Innocent 3. in that of Florence in that of Constance ‖ See below §. 198. Add to this * that Leo the 10th who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther and his followers to be proceeded against as Hereticks was deceased before this Council and presided not in it * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council did not formerly pass any formal sentence against the Lutherans or Hereticks but only in his Bull concerning Reformation of the Court of Rome Obiter named them so which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree yet in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent forbears also to name them so * That Pius the 4th who renewed the Council and concluded it was absolutely free from giving them this offence therefore the Acts at least under him enough to condemn them are not upon this pretence to be invalidated But here it must not be forgotten that not only the Pope but the Emperour the King of France and sometime the King of England Henry the 8th before the Council pronounced them Hereticks published Edicts and denounced heavy punishments against them and yet afterward they did not for this utterly decline these Princes judgments as hoping that such proceedings might be upon better informations and second considerations reversible § 126 To the question asked here †Mr. Stilâ—ingf Râ—t Account p. 492. If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils why was the Council of Trent at all summoned It is easily answered 1 st That though many of the Protestant tenents had been considered and condemned in former Councils yet not all because some of them not then appearing 2 ly Had all been so yet that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts to reiterate their sentence and by new Declarations and perhaps new reasons too to enforce their former Laws and Decrees so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say and disobey them whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors and in their Resolution for the maintainance thereof So Arianism after the Nicen was condemned again by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality by the Council of Sardica and Berengarius and his party being condemned by five several Councils before the great Lateran and that of Florence yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condemnation so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie CHAP. VIII II. Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonableness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to the Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies § 127 THus much from § 53. of the first General Head I proposed § 8. concerning the sufficient generality of this Council to render it obligatory Now I pass to the second concerning the novelty canonical invalidity and probably ineffectiveness as to their carrying the cause of such a General Council as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent and as should be regulated with all their
any Point after defined necessary explicitly to be believed not only this one condition of the Churches having defined them is required for none is obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal made to us of the Churches having defined them And then indeed so many Articles are necessary to be explicitly believed as to the doing of our duty in order to our salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as to acquiring some knowledge necessary to our salvation without which knowledge it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is See what hath been already said of this whole matter much what to this purpose in Disc 3. § 85. n. 4. c. § 197 There are then as Catholicks to undeceive Protestants do frequently inculcat and cannot be heard Points or Articles of Faith necessary to our Salvation to be believed or extra quae credita nemo salvus in a tripple sence 1. Some necessary ratione Medii Such as are necessary so absolutely as that an invincible ignorance of them is said to fail of Salvation which are a very few of the many Articles of our Christian Faith 2. Others necessary ratione praecepti which are necessary to be believed only conditionally And they are of two sorts 1. Either such which I am not only obliged to believe when known to me to be Divine Truths but the knowledge also of which as Articles of high concernment I am bound according to the different quality of my condition to seek after wherein my ignorance and neglect when by using a due diligence I might have known them being thus in an high degree culpable doth unrepented of destroy my salvation Such are some other chief Principles of Religion and Piety the ten Commandements and some Sacraments c. delivered in the common Creeds and Catechisms such as are not absolutely necessary ratione Medii 3. 2 Or such as though I am not obliged to such a diligent search of them as of the former yet a belief of them I am to embrace so often as these two things precede 1 st that they are defined by my spiritual Guides to be Divine Revelation c 2 ly that this Definition is sufficiently evidenced to me Where though not my meer ignorance in such Points yet my denial or dis-belief of them thus proposed is to be judged wilful and obstinate and this unrepented of destroyes my salvation § 198 8. This of the Seventh The Eighth consideration is That the most or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies defined 8. or made de Fide in the Council of Trent to repeat here what hath been said formerly in the first Disc § 50. were made so by sormer Councils of equal obligation or also were contained in the publick Liturgies of the Church Catholick As The law fulness of communion in one kind declared in the Council of Constance Canon of Scripture Purgatory seven Sacraments the Popes Supremacy in the Council of Florence Auricular Confession Transubstantiation in the Council Lateran Veneration of Images in second Nicene Council Adoration of Christs Body and Blood as present in the Eucharist in the Council of Frankfort if Capitulate Caroli may be taken to deliver the sence of that Council †See Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. Veneration of the Cross †Ib. l. 4. c. 16. and of Relicks ‖ Ib. l. 3. c. 24. in the same Council only this Council condemned the Adoration of Images in such a sence as they mistook the second Council of Nice to have allowed it †See Capitulare prefat Dr. Hamnâ—ond o Idol § 57. Thornd Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Monnastick vows Celibacy of Clergy sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead Sacrifice of the Mass and many other apparent in the publick Liturgies of the Church preceding the Council of Trent and unaltered for many ages Protestants being Judges Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful which in her Liturgies she obligeth them to practise And why was there made a departure from the Church for these points before the Council of Trent if the Church before made them not de Fide or if the Council of Trent or Pius the 4th were first faulty herein But if Councils before Trent have defined such things then by these first were all hopes of peace except by yielding to their Decrees cut off and not by Trent because these Councils are by the Roman Church accepted and held obligatory as well as that of Trent And here I may repeat those words of Bishop Bramhal recited in Disc 1. § 52. in answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon who urged the separation of Protestants from the Church long before the Grievances of Trent or Pius These very Points saith he †p. 263. which Pius the Fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded on us before by his Predecessors i. e. then when Luther and his Followers forsook the Church as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion This is the only difference that Pius 4. dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and be bound them up into a bundle They fashioned the rods i. e. in the Synods held in the Church before Luthers appearance For these Rods only require submittance as being necessary Articles of her Communion and such are only the Definitions of her Councils § 199 9. Consid That the Protestants who accuse seem as guilty in making new definitions in matters of faith and enjoyning them to be believed or assented and subscribed to 9. by those of their Communion as the Council of Trent or Roman Church that is here taxed for it For as the one is said to make new affirmatives in Religion so the other new Negatives all or most of which as hath been shewed in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †§. 85 n. 2. are implicitly new affirmatives Neither can the Church of Rome be more justly questioned in her not leaving points in universals only § 200 and their former indifferency but anew-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation Invocation c. than the Reformed and particularly those of the English Church for new-stating the contrary to these 1. Who as hath been shewed in the 3d Disc c. 7. †§. 85. n. 3. 1. do not suspend their judgment concerning those new points which they say the Roman Church presumes to determine but do in the main Articles handled in the Council of Trent as peremptorily state the one side as the Roman Church the other and as to several points the reformed also were the first I mean in comparison of the Council of Trent in determining them and condemning the doctrines and practises of the other side So to say nothing here of the Augustan Confession composed many years
the conveniency of hearing witnesses where this necessary in such Appeales it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoyning Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the Seventh Canon of Sardica seems to take special care or at least that Commissioners might be sent to examin witnesses at home in the non observance of which Canons perhaps some Roman Bishops may have been culpable and caused some affliction to the Churches Subjects But yet other exigences may occur every cause not being sit to be decided by Delegates that require the trial to be before the Pope's own person to which greater necessities the trouble caused to witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council of Sardica c. 4. And we have no reason to think but that this grave Assembly at Sardica weighed the troubles of such Appeales as well as the Affricans did afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the Intervals of Councils Schisms and Divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many supremes terminating all spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or Countries Christian 5 ly If this Avocation to the supreme be now done without the Method sometimes used of ascending by degrees through many subordinat Courts this when such Courts have not a cogent power for terminating the Cause seems only a shortning both of the trouble and charge § 215 To β Dispensations See Sess 25. c. 18. where in General Provision is made by the Council That Si urgens justaque To β. ratio major quandoque utilitas postulaverint cum aliquibus dispensandum esse id causâ cognita ac summâ maturitate atque gratis à quibuscunque ad quos dispensatio pertinebit erit praestandum aliterque facta dispensatio surreptitia censeatur This Dispensation then by whomsoever given is to be made gratis otherwise to be held surreptitious and the cognition of this surreption is referred to the Ordinary Sess 22. c. 5. Again ordered Sess 22. c. 5. That no Dispensations of Grace obtained at Rome shall take effect except first examined by the Bishop of the place whether obtained justly and upon a right information Again Sess 24. c. 6. Bishops are impowred to dispense with their Subjects in foro conscientiae in all irregularities and suspensions for secret offences except voluntary murther c. and to absolve in all cases occult that are reserved to the See Apostolick Of which and other the like relaxations in this Council of their former restraints what the issue hath been in the Court of Rome see what is quoted before †out of Pallavic Introduction c. 10. § 216 Mean while as the same Council hath observed Sess 25. c. 18. it seems necessary 1 That laws be not so enacted as to leave in the hands of no person a power of Dispensations 2 And again necessary That this power of Dispensing be not as to matters more important left alwaies in the hands of Inferior Magistrates especially those living upon the place and therefore more liable to be sweyed by friendships importunity fear and over-awing this last requisite that the obligation of laws by the facility of dispensing be not quite dissolved the first that the law too rigidly exacted may not sometimes oppress And what Civil Government is there that by its retaining a Dispensative power as to their temporal laws in the hand of the supreme Magistrate doth not amply justifie the Ecclesiastick herein § 217 Such a Dispensative power therefore from antient times hath been thought fit to be deposited in the chief Bishop of the Christian Universs and from him such Dispensations and relaxations to be received as necessity requires Such was that conceded by S. Gregory l. 12. Ep. 31. to the English upon the hazzard of their deserting the new-founded Christianity concerning Marriages for a time in some degrees prohibited by the Canons of the Church and that to the Sicilian Bishops who could not be brought to do more concerning holding a Provincial Council once a year when the Canons required twice Before him such that conceded by Gelasius in Ep. to the Bishops in Italy complaining to him that many of their Churches by the Gothick wars were rendred destitute of a Clergy in which he relaxed several things required by the former Canons to Ordinations c. after he had made this Presace Necessaria rerum dispensatione constringimur sic Canonum paternorum decreta librare retro Praesulum decessorumque nostrorum praecepta metiri ut quae praesentium necessitas temporum restaurandis Ecclesiis relaxanda deposcit quantum potest fieri temperemus Igitur tam instituendi quam promovendi clericalis obsequii sic spatia dispensanda concedimus c. Before him by Simplician Epistle 14. to the Emperor Zeno in which he allowed the election of the Bishop of Antioch made for preventing a sedition at Constantinople contrary to the Fourth Nicen Canon And before him by Celestine †Socrat. Hist l. 7. c. 39.40 allowing by his Letters sent to the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch the Election of Proclus who was before the designed Bishop of Cyzicum to be Bishop of Constantinople procured by the Emperor Theodosius for preventing some Tumults where the Pope either dispensed with †See Conc. Antioch c. 2. or more indulgently expounded some former Church Canons that seemed to have prohibited all Translation of Bishops To γ. See the answer to κ. § 218 To δ. Pensions reserved by the Pope out of some richer Ecclesiastical Benefices To δ. as rewards of persons much meriting in the Churches service It seemed hard To δ. suppose it could have been justly done to deprive the Pope of them whilst Secular Princes would still retain them and were much displeased when in the Articles provided for Reformation of Princes †Mentioned in Soave p. 769. such things were demanded of themselves as they would have redressed in others yet the Council thus far moderated this matter That those Bishopricks or Benefices of a smaller Revenue not amounting to above such a certain summe yearly should not be for the future charged with any such Pensions Sess 24. c. 13. And for the rest since all Pensions could not be voided which perhaps had been best yet may it seem as equitable That the Ecclesiastick Governours do continue to make use of them for recompensing persons of extraordinary merit in the Church as Princes those in the State Especially when the Council hath provided that they be taken from no Church but where such an overplus may be spared and that Revenue only applied to maintain two which indeed is superfluous for one § 219 To ε. The like much-what may be said of Monasteries To ε. or other Ecclesiastical Benefices with or
Nation were granted to be To θ. To θ. See what is said § 39. c. 67. An universal Acceptation by all Churches of the Acts of a Council to render them obliging is not necessary for so none would be valid wherein the Doctrines of any Church are censured § 253 To To See what is said § 77. Both the Ecclesiastical and Civil State of France accepted the Trent Decrees as to matter of Doctrine the things wherein Protestants chiefly oppose it The Ecclesiastical State of France accepted and petitioned the King and Civil State to receive this Council also in points of Discipline And if the Civil State received it not in every thing I mean so far as it medled not with their temporal rights I think it appears from the former Justification of the Legality of this Council that they cannot be freed from fault Neither if that State refuse these Canons of Discipline will it just fie the Protestants for refusing the rest of Doctrine unless the French plead the Council totally illegal as they do not neither will it justifie the Protestants at least in refusing these if the French do faultily refuse them To λ. To λ. See what is said §. 254. n. 1. from § 113. to § 127. where is shewed 1st As to the Bishops That the same plea hath been usually made against former Councils by the Hereticks they condemned That the Christian world was divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians before the Council of Nice as it was into Catholicks and Protestants before that of Trent and the Arrians were many waies proceeded against before the assembling of that Council by some of those Bishops who yet afterward sat in Council as their Judges and the Anti-Arrian Bishops only as the major number condemned the other That the Church-Governours whatever their perswasions are formerly known to be in the controversie proposed cannot be removed from the Tribunal for the deciding purely ecclesiastical and spiritual matters and this is only necessary not to see whether they side any way or own a party but only to see on which side is the major part That in causes of Religion in which all men are concerned and the Clergie especially stand obliged earnestly to defend the truth and oppose Novelties and are culpable in remaining neuters and omitting this duty to use Mr. Chilling-worths words it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but that the Judge must be some way or other a party if he may be called a party who hath formerly declared himself of such an opinion But if their being questioned of judging in their own cause relate not here to matters of opinion but of honour or profit then for most matters defined in the Council of Trent its judgment cannot be declined on this later account being given in matters meerly speculative or at least far remote from such Secular concernments 2ly As to the Pope That the same things may be repeated for him as for the Bishops That Popes have often presided by their Legats in former allowed Councils when they were accused and excepted against by those persons for the judging of whose cause the Council was convened As Celestine excepted against by Nestorius presided in the Third and Leo by Dioscorus in the Fourth General Council That it is thought most reasonable that the supreme Civil Judge either by himself or his Substitutes be the Judge of all those causes which concern his own Rights when there is a controversie in these between him and some of his Subjects That if the Pope for defects in his Office or other personal faults be Table to any other Judge it must be to the Council Now by this Council he remaineth either cleared or not condemned as to the Accusations of Protestants This having ever been the chief plea for those §. 254. n. 2. who foresee that they shall be over-numbred and over-voted in a Council to alledge it to consist of a contrary Party and so to decline its judgment for usually no Council happens to be called for suppressing any new Doctrine till a considerable opposition is first made by those Pastors of the Church against such Doctrine who also are the proper Judges of it I think it not amiss in the last place to give you the judgment of Protestants themselves touching the insufficiency of such an excuse when by God's providence it happened afterward to be their own case in I think the most noted and general Synod that hath been held amongst them since the Reformation I mean the Synod at Dort assembled A. D. 1618. Wherein were present Delegates from the King of England Elector Palatine Landgrave of Hess the four Protestant-Cantons of the Swisses the Commonwealth of Geneva c. For some time great Controversie had been in the Low-Countries concerning the high points of Predestination Grace and Freewill the Pastors there divided into Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants the contest proceeding so far in several places as to a seperation of Communion Upon it this National Synod is called and the Remonstrants in this of Dort foreseeing themselves in the same condition as the Protestants did in that of Trent defencâ—d themselves with the same Arts and Excuses †See Acta Synod Dordrecht Sess 25. Alledged that the Synod excepting the Forrainers did mostly consist a thing which could not be denied of an already declared contrary Party who it was unreasonable that they should sit Judges in their own cause a party too who had before also separated themselves from communicating with the Remonstrants and amongst other things those Remonstrants did particularly insist upon this very plea we are now speaking to of the Protestants against the Council of Trent which was held justly to exempt them from any obligation to its Decrees They required also a Synod as the Protestants did in the time of that of Trent In which a set and equal number on either side might be chosen to consider how to accommodate rather than decide these Controversies After which any Clergy dissenting being only removed from their places might still enjoy the same liberty of conscience as others For that since the Apostles there was no such infallible Guidance of the Holy Spirit but that Modern Synods might erre as several Ancient had done †See Synod Delf Sess 26. In answer to this the Synod defends it self all the forrain assistants thereof concurring in their judgment with such replies as these §. 254. n. 3. Than which only changing the name I cannot imagine a better justification of the Council of Trent 1st Concerning the members of the Synod their being of a contrary perswasion and so a Party and Judges They say see Acta Synod Dordr Sess 26. p. 84. Nunquam praxin hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse ut Pastores quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio sese opponerent as the Tridentine Bishops before that Council did propterea jure suffragiorum aut de illis ipsis erroribus judicandi potestate exciderent
jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to present Church-Authority § 292. That learned Protestants have so determined this Point § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311. § 281 NOw a Judgment once set free from the three former great Arts of the Will to misguide it as any ones Secular Interest shall require will begin to consider 1. In opposition to the first of them mentioned before § 274 keeping the judgment in ignorance as to Divine matters and imploying it wholy about other studies That since a right perswasion in Religion is of so great consequence to salvation All those who are not settled in their Belief upon the Basis of Church Authority and so under it remain in a sufficient security of their Faith as to all those points wherein the sense of the Holy Scriptures is disputed and controverted by several parties as for example in these Whether Justification is by Faith alone Whether there be Evangelical Councils as well as Precepts Whether Christ our Lord be Co-Essential with God the Father Whether exhibiting his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Whether there be a Purgatory after this life for some imperfect souls though departing in God's Grace or the like All such I say since they have taken the guidance of themselves in Spirituals into their own hands have great reason themselves to fall most attentively to the study thereof For it were to serve God too carelesly and at hap hazard to cast off Church-Authority for the Exposition and Sence of God's Word in these disputed and difficult matters and not himself to use any other indeavour at all for the right understanding of them And in such indeavour he ought not only to take a perfunctory view of some places that may seem at the first sight to represent to him what he would have but to seek out all those Texts that both sides build upon and then diligently to examine and compare them For though some Texts may seem never so plain as to the Literal and Grammatical sence as what more clear than Accipite comedite Hoc est Corpusmeum Matt 26. yet scarce is there any sentence where the terms are not capable of several acceptions Figurative and Non-literal Or if they be not all sides must necessarily agree in their sence and so about such Texts be no dispute And again there being a necessary consonancy and agreement in every title of Scripture no place how plain soever for the expression it seems to be may be so inter preted as to contradict another that seems as clearly to say the contrary He ought also to weigh not only the immediat sence of Scripture but the necessary consequences and since whatever things are not opposit to Scripture are truly lawful and practicable to discern the true and not only pretended repugnances thereto He ought also to examin Translations peruse the Comments and Expositions of others Modern Ancient For all these things that Authority most exquisitly doth whose judgment and conduct he declines Lastly he must be a Divine who will not be guided by Divines for of the true way of Salvation none can securely be ignorant And what Prelatical Protestant allows this in an Independent or Fanatick when he will neither guide his ignorance by following the learned nor remove it by study § 282 As for Salvation to be had in any Christian Profession though it may be true in a Church where all fundamentals are truly believ'd and Baptism rightly administred for so many as are invincibly ignorant of any better or perhaps other communion for Children and Rusticks those of an immature age or of very low imployments void of literature and publick converse and by their mean condition and inexperience destitute of any improvement of their knowledge yet for all the rest who have better means of understanding Divine matters and of searching the grounds of their Faith and state of their Communion and on whose direction and example every where depend the other meaner and younger sort of people and by their default miscarry ‖ 1 Cor. 8 1â— For these I say their case seems very dangerous who happen to be in any separated Society out of the external Catholick Communion Since the One God will be worshipped as S. Austin †Epist 48. answered those Latitudinarian Donatists not only in verity but unity and again hath left marks and Testimonies sufficiently evident for the discerning and distinguishing that Catholick Communion wherein he will be worshipped from all other Heretical or Schismatical Societies All those therefore who either through their own fault do not know this Communion because they will not search or knowing it yet voluntarily still remain in any other divided from it must needs be in a very perillous Condition The first because their ignorance in a thing so manifest and withal so important must needs be very gross and unexcusable The second because any long stay in any such separated Society to one convinced seems both by the Scriptures and by the Church frequently prohibited And were it not so at least brings so much detriment and damage to the spiritual Condition of such a person as is no way to be recompenced by any other fancied advantages injoyed therein Which things it will not be amiss to discourse a little more fully if perhaps some Laodicean complexion may receive some benefit thereby § 283 1st Then The remaining in any such Communion is prohibited by the Scriptures in many places Eph. 5.7 8. The children of light are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness nor to be partakers with them but to reprove them 2 Cor. 6.14 Light and darkness Justice and iniquity Believers and Infidâ—ls the Temples of God which all good Christians are and of Idols are to have no fellowship or communion together But Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord. And 1 Cor. 3.16 Si quis Templum Domini violarerit disperdet illum Deus Nor may such separation be understood from Infidels Heathens or non-Christians only For 1 Cor. 5.9.11 If a Brother i. e. one that professeth Christianity with us be a Fornicator an Adulterer an Idolater a Drunkard with such a one we are charged not to eat But to with-draw our ordinary converse from him i. e. where no duty of
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
they might easily discern and the phenomena or Characters of the Apocalyptical false Prophet which are by them through insuperable difficulties misapplied to the Pope the Head of the Church to have been most visibly and eminently fulfilled in Him * Who is the head and Founder of that false Religion which hath so boldly invaded Christianity after so many hundred years growth and supplanted it in the greatest and most dignified part of the converted world Whose signs and wonders how lying or ridiculous soever for God forbid any such should be expected from this false Prophet as our Lord or his Apostles did have had the very same effect as the two Apostles †Apocal. 13.13 14. 2 Thess 2.9 10. have foretold those of the false Prophet should have viz. the seduction and delusion of the Nations and if there be no wonder in the wonders the greater wonder there is in the seduction that followed upon them * Who hath introduced a new Gospel and that pretended to have been written in heaven he assuming therein the person and voice of God new Sacraments new daies and places of solemn worship who hath moulded a new fine easie religion void as he saith of all Controversies and subtilties and consisting only of one Article of Faith One only God and Mahomet his Prophet Devised new pleasing laws which that they might be point-blanck opposit to our Lords are full of lust and uncleanness on one fide and of cruelty rapin tyranny violence the sword slavery and the law martial on another and hath invented new future sensual Beatitudes suitable to the observance of his laws * Who hath changed Dies Dominica for solemn worship into Dies Veneris and the visiting of our Lords Sepulchre and Temple at Jerusalem to his at Mecha Subjecting Sarah to Hagar and Isaac to Ismael * Who hath taken away the Christian Altars and the daily Evangelical Sacrifice the Sacraments the Priests and thrown out of the Churches of Bodies of the Saints interred there as contaminating them § 313 * Who after the attempts of Cerinthus Carpocrates and others in S. Johns daies and the progress of Arius and his Disciples in following ages almost all the ancient Hereticks being treacherous to our Lords Divinity hath at last compleated that which is spoken of 1 Joh. 4.2 * the Dissolution of Jesus as the vulgar and those Greek Copies it follows have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †See Socrat. Hist l. 7 c. 32. Irenaeus l 3. c. 18. or * the denial of Jesus his coming in the flesh as other Copies i. e. his descending from Heaven into the flesh whilst he hath rob'd our Lord not only of his Divinity but also by this of the High Prerogatives of his Humanity too rob'd him also of his Cross and Death which he saith he never suffered and so rob'd Him and the world of his Satisfactions and Merits and all the vertue of the Sacraments relating thereto and hath challenged the Honour of being the last Prophet sent from God unto himself * In whom the Dragon seems to have shewed his greatest Apoc. 13.2 and last Art after the world was somewhat well acquainted with his former snares For whereas heretofore he thrust all the world into Idolatry now out of the envy which Satan bears to the Honour given by the Church to the glorified Saints his Disciple and Champion this false Prophet becomes a professed enemy to all former Idolatry and much displeased he is with Christianity upon this account And again out of the envy Satan bears to the Divinity of our Lord a great zealot this his false Prophet is for the worship of one only God that saith he hath neither wife nor child Yet who in opposing and denying the Divinity of our Lord Jesus the Son hath lost and depriv'd himself of God the Father too in St. Johns consequence For 1 Jo. 2.23 He who denieth the Son i. e. that Jesus is the Son or ver 22. that Jesus is the Christ or 1 Jo. 4.3 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh i. e. come from heaven or from God into the flesh all which this false Prophet expresly opposeth He that thus denies the Son the same also hath not the Father saith the Apostle And so this man of sin retaines no title either to God the Son or God the Father either to the God of Christians or to the Heathen God's whom also he hath cast off § 314 * Who hath planted himself in all the primitively famous Churches to whom our Lord or his Apostles directed their Epistles except one where the woman cloth'd with the Sun hath hitherto had a place provided for her and Apoc. 12.6 14.2 Thess 2.4 Apoc. 13.3.12 13. Apoc. 13.3 4. amongst others in God's Temple at Jerusalem from the possession of which no Christian Heroical attempts have been able hitherto finally to expell him * Who possessing all the middle of the earth and having thrust up the Church as it were into a corner and the outerskirts thereof the Islands of the West hath erected a new dreadful Empire and reviv'd the Image of the former Heathen State that persecuted the Church in the beginning and which long since seemed to have received its mortal wound which he hath wonderfully cured And seated this his Empire in the very same place and turned the St. Sophia heretofore the glory of Christian Churches into a Mosche * Whose miraculous conquests have made the world to wonder after him and to Adore him saying who is like to him who able to make war with him Apoc. 13.3 4. * With whose persecution no former can be compar'd either for duration of time or by his facile and sensual Religion slaughter of souls * Who also hath afflicted Christianity now for above a 1000 of the Protestants 12 hundred and sixty Daies ‖ Apoc. 12 6.14 13.5 11.3 Dan. 7.25 12.7 taken for years near upon the same time that they may see the â—numbers also fit Him as they say the Pope hath oppressed it Only the Antiquity of the Churches pretended Idolatry said to be about or before A. D. 400. †Mede Apostacy of latter times c. 14. Dr. More Synops Prophet c. 7. n 7. Apoleg p. 552. forceth them to begin their account of the Popes Apostacy and oppression of the Faith so early as justly computed it happens to be already expired Yet expired without any alteration of affairs observed at this time correspondent to the Prophecy for that change at the Reformation a great one indeed on the other side comes too early whereas the account applied to the Mahometan Apostacy being of 200. years later date suffers as yet no contradiction from the event § 325 * Who by all these things by abrogating the Laws and Worship not only of all the former Heathen Gods but also of the Christians and the true God and instead thereof setting up his own 2 Thess 2.4 hath opposed and exalted himself above all that is
enjoyed Of which persons thus S. Austin †De vera Relig. c. 6. Saepe sinit divina Providentia expelli de congregatione Chrstianâ etiam bonos virâ—s quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum paticuâ—â—ssime pro ecclâ—siae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel schismatis i. e. segregationis conventiculorum as he explains it afterward vel haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quam vero affectu quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns And De Baptism l. 1. c. 17. of such persons he saith Ibi magis probantur quum si intus permaneant only with this exception Cum adversus ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur sed in solidâ unitatis petrâ fortissimae charitatis robore radicantur Thus he in the defence of such § 334 But If an unjust Excommunication should further warrant any to erect Anti-communions and then a private person may also pass sentence of such injastice against the Church who sees not that this pulls down the whole structure of Church-Government and fills it full of schisms and is the same in the Church as this would be in the Civil State if a Subject unjustly condemned to some mulct or imprisonment should presently raise and head an Army against the Prince and with it detain from him some part of his Dominions No man is authorized by suffering injustice to do it § 335 See Christian Reader how many bars are set to keep us within such a degree of subjection to the Church as prevents Schism 1 If we are of those that do not profess certainty of the contrary to that which the Church teacheth as the most of Christans are such here Protestants †See §. 295 agree that we owe the obedience of assent and submission of judgment to the supremest known Church-Authority that presides over us 2 But next suppose we pretend certainty of a Truth against this Authority yet in case this truth be not of much concernment Here Protestants ‖ See §. 331. consent that we are to yield the obedience of silence and non-contradiction to it 3 But if the Truth be of moment and so supposed that neither silence may be used herein yet are we still tied at least to yield a third sort of obedience a passive one to the Churches censures even to that of Excommunication though supposed unjust without erecting or resorting to any Anti-Communion to that of our Superiors and of the whole i. e. the Communion Catholick 4 And then whatever degree of obedience a Person well considering these things shall judge due to be yielded to Church-Authority in General I hope the former Discourse by clearing the Legality of it hath justly vindicated to the Council of Trent 5 And this Council once submitted to infers as to all the principal modern Controversies an universal Settlement and Peace Now the great Pastor and Bishop of Souls in an accptable time â— Pet. 2.25 bring home all those Sheep that are yet going astray and hearken to the voice of Strangers into the happy Communion of all his Saints That there may be one Fould and one Shepherd unus Dominus una Fides unum Corpus Jo. 10.16 Eph. 4 â— 5 To Him Allpowerful and Good and the constant lover of his Spouse the Church be given all Glory and Praise in the same his Church forever Amen FINIS ERRATA Page 8. line 19 dele 9. 2. read formed 16. marg r Milevit 28.40 r Catholick 41. r. National 36 marg r. § 34. c. 37 marg r. § 37. 38 marg r. § 38. 39 marg r. § 40. 47 marg r. 667. 79 marg r n. 102. â—6 23 r. Trent 128.3 r. would 136.20.1 obstructions 137.6 r. fifth 149.29 r. Politician 153.25 r. Olaus 26. r. Vpsal 160.23 r. which was established 171.26 r. Hebraei 198.5 r. testimonialibus decimam tantum unius aures Ib. 8. r. Emolumentum ex eisdem ordinum 200. marg r. Agathens 216.13 r so both a 220.40 r. To aâ— 1 see 221. 6. r. To â— 2 § 164. 239.9 r. Rusticks those p. 240. 33. r. Ceriuthus 241.22 r. Caput unum 242.31 dele if we are 245.40 r. it is 246.31 r. to divine 246.19 t schismatis 249.34.34 r. 1st That 251.4 r. Terentianum Maurum 257. marg r Bezam 258.1 r. summi 259. marg r. guarded Ib. marg r. Answ to 264.29 r. in the 164.41 r. iis me 265.23 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi cerei 265.26 r. proferam 266.21 r. consultius 268. marg dele § 207 and § 297. Ib. 19. dele Praestantium virorum Epistolae 273.32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 281.40 r. Censurer 283. marg Forbearance 284.42 r. them As 287.26 r. or Divine l. 32. r. we kneel before and embrace kiss c. 288.32 r. and there the Churches doctrine The Reader is desired to correct with his pen the Errata page 128-287 line 32-and -288.