Clergy much less to Bishops †Epist. Celest Etsi say they de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi in the Nicene Canon praecaveri quantò magis de Episcopis voluit observari c. And Dr. Field touching this matter hath these words ‖ Of the Church p. 563. The Affricans though within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeal of their Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a General Synod of Affrick wherein the Primate sate as President For otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the Canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus he For otherwise here meaneth he not when such Councils do not sit For surely he would not have a Provincial Council purposely new called upon every personal contention But this overthrows the arguments of the Affrican Bishops who also are said to have denied such Appeals not when Affrican Councils sit only but altogether Again S. Austin clearly justifies Appeals from Affrican Councils also This of the Affrican Controversie about Appeals of as little advantage to non-Appealants as it is of great noise if the matter be on both sides equally weighed Again §. 13. n. 3. Touching another ancient Contest that happened and is also urged by Protestants between the Cyprian Bishops and the Patriarch of Antioch decided in the 3d. General Council Can. 8. you may observe That whatever priviledge or exemption any Church or Province may have had from any Patriarch or his Council as to Elections or Ordinations yet no Church or Person hath been freed from a submittance thereto in point of Appeals or of Decision of Controverfies in matter of Faith Neither here can the Cyprian Bishops by vertue of any such Canon of Ephesus plead their particular exemption from the 7th Canon of Sardica or 9th of Chalcedon which Canon is also seconded by the Imperial Law in Cod. Tit. 4. c. 29. or from the 17th or 26th Canon of the 8th General Council which Canons command such submittance and allow such Appeals in which Appeals also the Inferior Patriarchs were subject to the Superior See before § 12 13 and below the Concession of Dr. Field § 16 n 5 And of the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarch over Cypras as to these matters still remaining after the Canon of Ephesus see S. Jerom ‖ Epist ad Pamachium in his controversie with John Bishop of Jerusalem Ni fallor hoc ibi i. e. in Concilio Niceno ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit totius Orientis Antiochia Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras cui spretâ communione tuâ communicare nos noveras aut si procul expetendum judicium erat Antiochiam potiùs literae dirigendae Totius Orientis and so Cypri Mean while in this necessary Subordination of the lower Clergy or their Synods to the higher § 14 1st Care was taken That Co-ordinate Churches 1. or Provinces or their Synods i. e. such whereof the one could claim no Jurisdiction over the other neither by ancient Custom nor Conciliar Constitution should usurp no authority over one another For which see Can Apostol 36. Conc Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Ephes c. 8. Conc. Constantinop c. 2 3 5. Compared with Conc. Chalced. Act 16. Which Canons and particularly the second and third of the Second General Council at Constantinop do not prove what some would infer That all Provinces are for all power absolute supreme and independent from whom might be no further appeal nor any other Person or Council as Superior take account of their Acts for the contrary known practice in antiquity shews this to be otherwise †See §. 12 13. and thus Provincial Councils would have no subjection to General but only signifie these two things 1st That neither Patriarch nor Primate or Metropolitan should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy or Province co-ordinate and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs i.e. over which neither by ancient custom nor constitutions of Councils he could claim any such superiority See the limitation Conc. Ephes c. 8. Quae non priùs atque ab initio c. And Can. Apostol 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt a clause that is still retained in these Canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal As for example Not the Bishops of Alexandria therefore to meddle with the affairs of Antioch Solius Aegypti curam gerant servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae Servatis i. e. without encroaching upon them Nor the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch to meddle with the Ordination of the Bishops in the several Provinces subjected to them Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace to whom Thrace owed no subjection 2ly That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the Supreme and last Court above any other authority in that Province and exclusively to the judgment of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces which are only co-ordinate with it See them below § 28. called by Gregory Episcopi alieni Concilii For observe that some of those Diocesses that are urged in the former Canon ‖ Conc. Ephes c. 8. to be independent viz. the Diocess of Thrace Pontus and Asia are in the 16th Act of the Council Chalced. where this very Canon was recited mentioned to be subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople subjected i. e. as to confirmation of their Metropolitans and as to Appeals see Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. 16. Though still their priviledge stood firm Vt Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae namely unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Diocesium ordinet sua Regionis Episcopos sicut Divinia Canonibus i. e. the Canons of Nice and these of Constantinople est praeceptum And as these Diocesses were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople so were others to those of Alexandria and Antioch The second necessary provision made by the Church §. 15. n. 1. was That in the Intervals of Synods the respective Presidents thereof should be authorized 2. as standing Church-Officers always extant and accessible to end controversies interpret and execute their Canons since these greater Bodies could not be so frequently as occasions might require without much trouble assembled †See below §. 16. n. 6 8. As also lesser causes were ordered to be finally terminated in some inferior Court without liberty of appeal in all Causes by whatever persons which was the chief matter stood upon by the Affricans against Pope Bonifacius in the case of a Presbyter from one superior Court to a further or also from the standing Ecclesiastical Officers to a future Council that so Contentions might not be unnecessarily prolonged nor the supreme Courts overcharged with business nor Justice deferred See Conc. Milevit c. 22. And Card. Bellarmin De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 24 Quastio de Appellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c.
practice relating to these Patriarchs and their Synods but the great necessity thereof as to the Vnity of the Churches Faith and Conservation of her Peace and that much more since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms by reason of which secular contrary Interests the several parts and members of the Catholick Church dispersed amongst them are more subject to be disjointed and separated from one another Which unity and peace if we reflect on * the great rarity of General Councils not above 5 or 6 in the Protestant account in 1600. years and * the multiplicity of Primates that are in Christendom all left by Dr. Hammond Supreme and independent of one another or of any other person or Council when a General one not in being and * the experience of their frequent Lapses into gross Errors For almost what great Heresie or Schism hath there been in the Church whereof some Primate was not a chief Abettor and * The Rents in the Church made by these apt to be much greater as the person is higher and more powerful is not sufficiently provided for though much pretended in Dr. Hammonds Scheme Come we then to Dr. Fields Model yet more enlarged The actions saith he ‖ Of the Chur. p. 513. of the Bishop of each particular Church of a City §. 16. n. 5. and places adjoining were subject to the censure and judgment of the rest of the Bishops of the same Province amongst whom for order sake there was one Chief to whom it pertained to call them together to sit as Moderator in the midst of them being assembled and to execute what by joint consent they resolved on The actions of the Bishops of a Province and of a Provincial Synod consising of those Bishops were subject to a Synod consisting of the Metropolitans and other Bishops of divers Provinces This Synod was of two sorts For either it consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and Nation only as did the Councils of Affrica or of the Metropolitans and Bishops of many Kingdoms If of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom and State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishop of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Vnity of it Here you see that roundly confest which Dr. Hammond concea'ld Again Ib. p. 668. It is evident That there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods Synods Patriarchal answering to Patriarchs National to Primates and that neither so depending of nor subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence And Ib. p. 557. That the Decrees of Popes made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops did bind the Western Provinces that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West Bind them so as that these had no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch and this Council for which see Ib. c. 39. p. 563. where he quotes the Emperors Law Novel 123. c. 22. Patriarcha Dioceseos illius huic causae praebeat finem nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente confirming the 9th Canon of Conc. Chalced. Again p. 567. 568. he saith That it is a Rule in Church-government that the lesser and inferior may not judge the greater and superior That if any Bishop have ought against his Metropolitan he must go as I shewed before to the Patriarch and his Synod to complain as to fit and competent Judges That the great Patriarchs of the Christian Church are to be judged by some other of their own rank in order before them assisted by inferior Bishops that the Bishop of Rome as first in order among the Patriarchs assisted with his own Bishops and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty though these later are not found always necessary or present at such judgments nor more of his own Bishops than those whom he can at such time conveniently assemble and consult with as appears in the Appeals of those persons named before § 13. n. 1. may judge any of the other Patriarchs That such as have complaints against them may fly to him and the Synod of Bishops subject to him and that the Patriarchs themselves in their distresses may fly to him and such Synods for relief and help See the same §. 16. n. 6. p 668 Nor doth he acknowledge such an authority of Judicature in these Church Prelates only as joined w th their Synods but also in them single and without them For since it is manifest that the constant meeting of the Provincial Synods twice as it was ordered at the first or once in the year as afterward did very early cease either by the Clergies neglect or the great trouble and charge of such Assemblies and so later Councils accordingly appointed such Synods to be held in stead of twice yearly once in 3. years nor yet are in this well obeyed Hence either all such Causes and Appeals to their Superious still multiplied as Christianity is increased must be for so long a time suspended and depending which would be intolerable and a quick dispatch though less equitable rather to be wished or the hearing of them must be devolved to these single standing Judges as directed by former Church-Canons Concerning this therefore thus the same Doctor goes on ‖ l. 5. p. 514. quoting the Canons of the 6th and 7th Council At the first saith he there was a Synod of Bishops in every Province twice in the year But for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th Council †Can. 8. decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed which Canon was renewed by the 7th General Council ‖ Can. 6. But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy Meetings we shall find that they met not so often and very early may this be found and therefore the Council of Basil appointed Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year and Provincial at the least once in three years And so in time Causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus He. And if this rarer meeting of Provincial Synods transferred many Causes on the
might be to suppress And judge you by these things how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 104. were in opposition to Austin the Monk who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church and objected against them Quòd in multis Romanae consuetudini immo Vniversalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent quòd suas Traditiones universis quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent All which was true and the Proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle restoring sight to a blind man See Sir Hen. Spelman A. D. 601. Pardon this Digression made to abate a little the Confidence of those who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor and the different observation of Easter Of which matter Mr. Thorndike in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior the visible Heads of which Resort he saith were Rome Alexandria and Antiochia speaks thus more moderately †They that would except Britain out of this Rule Just weights p. 40. of subjection upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head should consider that S. Gregory setting him over the Saxon Church which he had founded according to Rule transgressed the Rule in setting him over the Welsh Church Setting this case aside the rest of that little remembrance that remains concerning the British Church testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome as appears from the Churches of Gaul Spain and Affrick of which there is no cause to doubt that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome § 61 To proceed and from the Council of Arles and Sardica and Ariminum spoken of before ‖ §. 55. to come to later times we find the English Bishops either concurring and presenting themselves as members with the rest in those Occidental Councils of a later Date the several Lateran Councils that of Constance Basil and Florence or in absence acquiessing in and conforming to the Votes and Acts thereof which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils or at least over the Western part thereof which the present Reformation denies him For which see the Council of Constance much urged by Protestants as no Flatterer of the Pope and wherein the Council voting by Nations the English were one of the 4. Sess 8. 15. condemning against Wickleff and Hus such Propositions as these Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi Apostolorum Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares Petrus non fuit neque est Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae Papae Praefectio Institutio à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit Papa non est manifestus verus Successor Apostolorum Principis Petri si vivit moribus contrariis Petro Non est scintilla apparentiae quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam quod Caput semper cum ipsâ militanti Ecclesiâ conservetur conservatur Now the contrary Propositions to these authorized by a Council supposed not General but Patriarchal only are obligatory at least to the members thereof and consequently to their Posterity until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power de novo asking their consent Not many years after the Council of Chalcedon in the Patriarchy of Alexandria there succeeded to Proterius a Catholick Bishop Timotheus an Eutychian since which time also the Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia remain still Eutychian or at least Dioscorists And in the Patriarchy of Antioch to Martyrius a Catholick Bishop succeeded Petrus Fullo an Eutychian And in the Empire to Leo an Orrhodox Emperor succeeded Zeno an Eutychian And all these declared their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon Yet this did no way unfix with posterity the stability of its Authority or Decrees Neither can the modern Eutychians justifie their non-submission to that Council hence because they can produce some persons and those Patriarchs too that have in succeeding times but after a former more general Acceptation opposed it § 62 3 ly After the English and before them the British Bishops thus shewed § 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council upon what pretence 3. or new priviledge fince the Reformation these Bishops should plead any exemption from submitting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy an acceptation sufficient ‖ See before §. 40. I see not For 1 st The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Council irregular for it is granted by Protestants 1. that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council though not of a General of right belongeth to Him neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons or secular Prince hinder their journey †See before §. 16. n. 5 2. 2ly Neither can the absence of the Eastern Bishops here be stood upon because their presence not necessary in such a Council 3ly Nor can the secular power under which such Protestant Bishops live especially whenas no Heathen 3. but himself also a Subject of the Church opposing or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof I mean if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical and spiritual and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights of which enough hath been said formerly § 63 Bishop Bramhal's Plea That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects till by him incorporated into his Laws as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws unless first made the King's hath been spoken to before ‖ §. 55. Dr. Hammond's grand Plea on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Reformation See his Treatise of Schism c. 6 7 p. 115 132 137 138 142. viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriarchies to remove that of Rome to Canterbury helps not at least in this matter nor perhaps did he ever mean it should extend so far as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council For 1st He grants That the Prince can do no such thing so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church See Answ to Schism Disarmed p. 164. A Power saith he Princes have to erect Metropoles and hence he collects new Patriarchs but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular because he is in some doubt as appears in his Answer to
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
the Catholick Universe met together there never hath been any but in those which are generally by Protestants as well as Catholicks reputed and admitted for such sometimes we find a greater sometimes a smaller number according to the propinquity of the place the peace of the times the numerosity of Sects c. So the four first General Councils all held in the East by reason of the Heresies they opposed chiefly reigning in that Coast consisted mostly of Oriental Bishops The first General Council of Nice had present in it only 2. Presbyters the Bishop of Rome's Legates and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches The 2d General Council of Constantinople had in it no Occidental Bishop at all but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Council assembled in Rome not long after it The 3d. General Council of Ephesus had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome and his Occidental Synod The 4th of Chalcedon had only 4. Legates sent thither from the Bishop of Rome after that the Western Bishops assembled in several Provincial Synods had communicated their judgment to them in the Controversie then agitated and besides these 2. Affrican Bishops and one Sicilian Where note That the 3d. also of these Councils transacted most of their business and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch and his Bishops who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius though afterwards he and his consented also to his Condemnation And that the 4th Council acted all things without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch whom also they deposed for his favouring the Heretical Party and for his Contumacy against the See of Rome See Conc. Chalced. Act 4. Yet all these Councils whether the Bishops personally present were fewer or more were accounted equally valid § 34 from the After-acceptation and admittance of their Decrees by the Prelates absent i. e. the acceptation of such persons as if present had had a Vote in them All which Prelates were they personally present in the Council or the much major part of them there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Catholick or of any other Members thereof to confirm its acts nor are they any way capable thereof because the remainder of the Church diffusive I mean of those who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs must be concluded in their Judgment and Sentence by this supposed much-major part thereof that are personally present in the Council But this wanting the other compleatsits defect And upon such Acceptation it is that the 2d. and the 5th of the Councils called General held at Constantinople without the Pope or his Legat's presence therein yet bear the name of General because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus and his Occidental Council convened not long after it and the latter after some time accepted by Vigilius and his Successors with the Western Bishops as on the contrary for want of such Acceptation the 2 d. Ephâ—sin Council though for its meeting as entire and full as most of the other called Oecumenical yet was never esteemed such because its Decrees though passed by a major part of the present Bishops were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council and by Him and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates out of it § 35 And upon this General Acceptation also inferior Councils may become in their Obligation equivalent to Generall since however the Churches Testimony is received whether conjunctly De Concil l. 2. c. 28. or by parts yet Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis So Bellarmine observes ancient Councils less than General very frequently to have determined matters of Faith Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum paucorum Episcoporum Euseb l. 7. c. 24. nec alii multò plures in toto mundo conquesti sunt sed ratum habuerunt Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum in quo nullus fuit Latinorum Latini probaverunt Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia Milevitanum Carthaginense Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum antequà m adessent Latini Latini voluerunt cognoscere rem gestam cognitam approbaverunt All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them Neither did or ought such inferior Councils when necessitated by contentions and disputes define any such thing hastily or rashly but as they well knew before any such Resolution the common Sentiments of the Church Catholick herein Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts. § 36 Next Concerning the just quality measure and proportion of this after-Acceptation several things are to be well observed 1. 1 st That it is not to be extended in a Latitude of Christianity much greater beyond the bounds of the Church Catholick Which Catholick Church is many times of a narrower compass than the Christian Profession all Heretical and Schismatical Churches I mean such as have made a former discession in Doctrine or external Communion from their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors and being but a part have separated from the former whole standing contradistinct to it So after the Nicene Council in Constantines time the Arrians and in S. Austins time the Donatists were esteemed though Christians yet no Catholicks and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity opposite to them Of which thus S. Austin †Contra Episc Fuâ—d c. 4. Tenerme justissimè in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen quod nomen non sine causâ inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit Therefore upon the growth of many Heresies after the Heathen persecutions ceased instead of these words of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints i.e. in it we read in this Creed as explained by Councils I believe One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church 1. One to distinguish it from many varying Sects pretending also to be true Churches of Christ 2. Holy i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith Manners Sacraments Government Discipline delivered by our Lord and his Apostles and in particular Holy as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness but not Holy so as that some external Members thereof may not be by their own default internally unholy and unsanctified and no true Members of Christ 3. Apostolick i. e Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinations and preserving their Traditions for Doctrine Government and Discipline And therefore here the other Clause the Communion of Saints is omitted as sufficiently included in the former Explication which is observed also by Dr. Hammond of Fundamentals p. 69 83. So in the yet more enlarged Athanasian Creed we find the Catholick Faith used in a restrained sence opposed to all those Heresies that are rejected by
that Creed And to this notion of Church Catholick See in Disc 1. § 37. 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting § 37 2ly This Acceptation in respect of the Catholick Church i e. of those Prelates that be not formerly by any Herefie or Schisme shut out of it cannot rationally be required absolutely universal of all but only of the considerably Major part of them for in a Government not simply Monarchical whether Ecclesiastical or Civil no Laws can be promulgated nor Unity preserved if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part and it hath been shewed at large Disc 2. § 25. which I desire the Reader to review and consider well because much weight is laid upon it that the Decrees of the first 4 General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule and Warrant to posterity Nor otherwise can any new Heresie patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick as the most pernicious Heresies have ever been he ever legally suppressed so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest See what hath been said of this in Disc 1. § 28 38 39. Disc 3. § 11 37. That strict condition therefore which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize and ratifie the Definitions and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation seems not reasonable Namely That after their promulgation at least if not before they should be accepted by each Provincial Council and acknowledged to agree with that Faith which they had originally received of Her § 6. n. 8 12. Or That such Conciliar Declarations should be universally received by all Churches Her § 14. n. 4. because such are saith he Christians and Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome and consequently their Negatives as evident prejudices to and as utterly unreconcileable with an universal affirmative as the Popes can be c. Like to which § 12. n. 6. he argues thus concerning the absence or dissent of any Bishops from a Council That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council I add or when met do consent for if there be any left out why may not the promise be good in them though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council And § 5. n. 3. That if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places it is not qualified for our belief as Catholick in respect of place because the Faith being one and the same and by all and every of the Apostles deposited in all their Plantations what was ever really thus taught by any of them in any Church will also be found to have been taught and received in all other Apostolical Churches And § 10 n. 2 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th General Council not obliging because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council that of Eliberis which is not true yields saith he an irrefragable proof that the Doctrine of the 2 d. Nicene Council was not testified by all the Churches of all ages to be of Tradition Apostolical I say such an universal acceptation as this of every Church or Province seems upon any such pretence unreasonably exacted 1 st Because all Conciliary Definitions are not as he saith there they are only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches planted by them but are many times Determinations of points deduced from and necessarily consequential to such clear Traditionals whether written or unwritten 2ly Because if the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition yet it is possible that some particular Church may in time depart from such a Tradition entrusted unto them else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition and so when their acceptance is asked may refuse to acknowledge what all the rest justisie And all this clearly appears in those Bishops or Churches that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Councils and in the opposition of S. Cyprian and his Bishops concerning Rebaptization § 41 3ly For the manner of this Approbation of such major part It is thought sufficient if it be a tacit and interpretative Approbation only and not positive or express 3. for who can shew this to most allowed Councils Namely when such Decrees being promulgated they signifie no opposition thereto Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ System fidei c. 23. p. 262 Neque tamen dubitandum est quin statim obligare incipiant actus Conciliares si non appareat Ecclesiarum non dico hujus vel illius vel aliquorum protervorum hominum reclamatio nam praesumendum est omnes consensisse si non constet oppositum ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula ubi post alia dicit Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit necessariò credendum est And thus Dr. Hammond of Heres § 6. n. 15.16 When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on it is then promulgated to all and the universal though but tacit approbation and reception thereof the no considerable contradiction given to it in the Church is a competent evidence that this is the judgment and concordant Tradition of the whole Church though no resolution of Provincial Synods which was used before some General Councils hath preceded But if their Acts are contradicted and protested against this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council And Archbishop Lawd § 26. p. 195. saith It is a sufficient confirmation to a General Council if after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The whole Church admit it saith he And the whole say we or such a major part of the whole as ought to conclude the rest Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity to such Decrees in mens profession and practice For it is all reason that where we cannot have Quod creditum est ubique ab omnibus semper by reason of some divisions in the Church we hold to what is nearest it quod creditum est in pluribus locis à pluribus diutius or antiquiùs For the plures pluribus locis joined in one Communion with the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church here on earth are the securest Expositors to us of quod antiquius or quod creditum semper See Disc 3. § 11. 4ly For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council or only to some § 42 whilst some other Decrees are disclaimed as sometimes happens Here also 4. so far as a due Acceptation is extended so far is our Obligation nor can any reasonably argue that if some Acts of a Council are by some after-opposition rendred invalid therefore no other things pâ—ssed in that
Council and generally approved have force § 43 5ly What is said here of the non-approbation of some Prelates or Churches as frequently happens it s not invalidating a Council 5. or its Decrees must be said also of the absence of some Prelates from the Council or of their non-concurrence when sitting in it their absence 1. Either voluntary as of those who heterodox in opinion and fewer in number foresee that probably they shall be over voted by the rest as the Arrian Prelates did absent themselves from the Council of Sardica and so might also have absented themselves from that of Nice or again the Eutychian Prelats from Chalceâ—on notwithstanding whose absence or non-concurrence the Council will not cease to bear the just title of General provided that it consist of a major part of the Christian Churches and have the concurrence of the Prime Patriarch without whom nihil finiendum Otherwise an Heretical or Schismatical Church can secure themselves as they please from being condemned by any General Council which as long as they are absent will be called not General and so its force cannot extend to them Nay otherwise after any defection from the Orthodox Faith or after any considerable Schism in the Church now there can never be any more Oecumenical Councils because forsooth that party fallen away will give no meeting to the other too prevalent and thus General Councils cease to have any being when there first begins to be any need of them Of this thus a Learned Protestant ‖ Dr. Field p. 651. with intention to make the 5 th Council a General one without the presence of the Pope and his Occidental Bishops The Presidence and Presence saith he of the Bishop of Rome is not so necessary in General Councils but that in case of his wilsul refusal a Council may proceed and be holden for lawful without his consenting to it And As a Council may be holden in such a case i.e. they refusing to come without the presence and concurrence of the Roman Bishop and those that are subject to him so being present if be refuse to concur in judgment with the rest they may proceed without him and their sentence may be of force though he consent not to it What then they presume to affirm thus of the Roman they must not deny of their own Bishops This that the voluntary absence of some Prelates doth not invalidate a Council or its Acts.2. Neither yet doth the absence forced of some others if such as being formerly justly eâ—communicated or anathematized have now no right to any voting in such Councils though perhaps if admitted these might equal the Orthodox in number Thus Gelasius Bishop of Rome †Epist ad Episcopos Dardaniae concerning the Eutychians when very numerous in the East and also of the Favourers of them not to be admitted to a Council Ecclesiastici moris non est cuni his qui pollutam habent communionem permixtamque cum perfidis miscere Concilium And Meritò ab Apostolicâ sede caeterisque Catholicis non jam consulendi erant sed potiùs notandi c. 6ly What hath been here said of the necessary Constitution or Composition of a General Council § 44 and Ratification of its Acts must be said exactly on the same ground 6. concerning a Patriarchal or other inferior Council that it is not necessary that all the Bishops of such Patriarchy be assembled or absent do accept and ratifie it to make it Legal or Obligatory § 45 2. This said concerning the necessary Composition of a General Council come we next to the Presidency and Moderatorship therein 1. Where 1 st As it hath been already shewed in all the other Synods ‖ §. 9 c Protestants consenting †§. 16. that the Presidentship in them without any new election made by the Council or yet by the secular power belongâ— to him who hath the prime place and dignity the presiding in the Provincial Council to the Metropolitan in the National Council where be may Metropolitans to the Primate of them c. which President also had in these Councils a negative voice †See before §. 10. so it seems all reason that iâ— a General Council also that Prelate should preside who is the Bishop of the chief See and to whom in all ages all other Churches and Prelates have allowed the Primacy i. e. the Bishop of Rome See 2. Gen. Counc c. 5. All reason I say That the Primate of the Patriarchs Preside in a General Council as the Primate of the Metropolitans in a National And that what other Priviledges these other Presidents enjoyed in those Councils the same at least though we set aside here his universal Pastorship He should enjoy in This agreeable to that ancient Canon and Custom in the universal Church mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13. And Sozamen l. 2. c. 13. And vindicated by Pope Innocent apud August Epist 91. And yet more anciently by Pope Julius against some Oriental Bishops apud Athanas Apol. 2. Sinâ— Romans Pâ—â—tifice nihil finiendum § 46 2 ly If in this Matter Prescription may be of any force de facto the Prime Patriarch the Bishop of â—ome in the ancient Councilâ— General hath always bean allowed this Presidentship As will appear to any reviewing the Church-History for the first 8. General Councils In 4. of which Councils namely the 4th 6th 7th and 8th the Protestant grant it without dispute Next For his Presidency in the 3d. General Council it seems evident enough ‖ l. 1. c. 4. Conc. Eph. pars 2. Act. 1. from the testimony of Evagrius ‖ that Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was deputed by him to execute this Office who saith That the Bishops meeting in that Council Cyrillo locum Celestini Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis obtinente accersunt Nestorium c. whose Deputy also Cyril was made before for the excommunication of Nestorius by the Authority of the Apostolical See as appears in the Pope's Letter to Cyril †Act. Concil Eph. Tom. 1. Nostrâ vice loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententiam exequêris c. For the 2 d. and 5 th General Council both held at Constantinople as it is true that the Pope presided not in them because indeed neither He nor his Legates were present in them so it is true that these Councils were not General till they were after their Session accepted by him and the other Western Churches But yet both these Councils apparently enough yield the Presidency to him in general Councils the 5 th which much courted his presence in express terms in Eutychiâ—â— the Patriarch of Constantinople his Letter to him ‖ Petinius ‖ Conc. Constan Collat. 1. presidente nobis vestrâ Beatitudine communi tractatu eadem capitula in medio proponenda quari c. And the 2 d. in that which infers his presidency whilst the Bishop of Constantinople who in the absence
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
and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints and Appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by Canons and Imperial Laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And the Protestant-Primates saith Bishop Bramhal †Vind. c. 1. p. 257. use the same customs of judging Church-Causes without calling Synods Now what is in this kind conceded to Metropolitans much more ought to be to Patriarchs whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial nor ever was a set time appointed for these as for the other This said concerning the Calling of General Councils its belonging of right to the Church and in it to the Supremest Prelate § 49 3ly It is not denied but that the Emperor had and since the dissolution of the Empire other Princes joined 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Prelates as being their Subjects of calling these both in assistance to the Church in her necessities and also in order to their own Civil affairs when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church Provided this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent consent either before or at least after the Indiction of them Of which thus Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 12. Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt fic tainen ut possit etiam alius Pontifice consentiente Conciliâ—m indicere quinetiam satis sit si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat confirmet at si nec ipse indicat Concilium nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem illud non Concilium sed Conciliabulum fore § 52 And this thing is made good by the ancient practice where As the Emperors being by their secular power much more effectual promoters thereof were prevailed with to call the first General Councils so this was not done but either from the first Motion or with the consent of the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Head of the Church as appears concerning all the first 6. General Councils in the acclamatory speech of the 6 th Council at the conclusion thereof to the Emperor Arius Divisor c. They naming 1 Sylvester 2 Damasus 3 Caelestinus 4 Leo 5 Vigilius 6 Agatho Bishops of Rome joined with the Emperor in the promoting all these Councils And to come to some particulars Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus and to the Council assembled with him at Rome Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae Reverentiae i. e. of Damasus singly this Council not then sitting when the Orientals met first in Council though it did when they writ literas missas Theodosio summâ pietate Imperatori Concerning the 3 d. Council thus Prosper in Chronico Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ Coelestini authoritate Concerning the 4 th Thus the Emperor to Leo in the Epistles pertaining to that Council Superest ut si placuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire c. Synodum celebrare hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur nostris utique desideriis vestra Sanctitas satisfaciet Sacrae Religioni quae utilia sunt decernet Si verâ— hoc onerosum est ut tu ad has partes advenias hoc ipsum nobis prâ—priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum ubi nobis placuerit omues sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire quae Christianorum Religioni atque Catholicae Fidei prosint sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit suâ dispositione declarent To which add * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister to the same Pope Propterea tua Reverentia quocunque modo prospexerit significare dignetur ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi Thraciae atque Illyrici sicut etian nostro Domin piâ—ssimo Imperatori placuit in unani Civitatem velociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire illic facto Concilio de Catholicâ confessione c. te authore decernant And * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the first Act of that Council Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authoritate Sedis Apostolicae quod nunquam factum est nec fieri licuit The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Oriental Bishops against John Bishop of Constantinople And that of Gelasius who lived about some 40. years after in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum i. e. the second Ephesin non consentiendo sola summovit authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Lastly If the ancient Canon that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum stand good the calling such Councils by Emperors without the Mandate or confent also of this Bishop will be to no purpose because nothing can be established therein without his concurrence Thus much of the power of Calling General Councils CHAP. IV. I. Head Of the Generality and just Authority of the Council of Trent 1. That the Western Churches and particularly that of England are not freed from subjection to this Council though it were not General if Patriarchal § 53. 2. Or if only so General as those times were capable of § 65. 3. That it is not hindred from being General by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches § 66. 4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy § 67. § 53 THese things touching Church-Government from § â—9 being premised in general a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent as occasion requires I proceed to a more particular consideration of the first Head proposed before ‖ §. 8. concerning the Generality and just Authority of this Council to oblige all the Churches Subjects especially those of the West 1. Where in the first place it is to be noted That supposing this Council of Trent no legal and free General yet if it be a free and legal Patriarchal Council thus it will stand obligatory at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction to the Reformed and particularly to the English Church For 1 st It hath been formerly cleared both by the Church-Canons ‖ See before §. 11 12. c. and the Concessions of Protestants †§. 16. n. 4. c. That as a Diocesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses or to a Provincial where the Metropolitan presides and again a Provincial or Metropolitan Synod to a National or that composed of many Provinces
wherein the Primate of the Metropolitans presides so again is this National Synod the Catholick Church in many Nations being but One subject to that composed of several Nations and their Primates called and presided-in by one of the principal Patriarchs Neither whatever Superiority such Patriarch really hath needeth he for the subjection of such Primates and their respective Churches to this Patriarchal Council any other power over these Primates save what these Primates are granted to have over the Metropolitans whose Proyincial Synods we see are subjected to a National or the Primate's Synod Neither if it could be proved that the chief Patriarchs have over National Primates no superiority of power or at least that some particular Provinces as to Ordinations or some other Jurisdictions are utterly exempt from Patriarchal authority may therefore such Provinces pretend freedom from any obedience to the Decrees of a Council Patriarchal wherein some one of these Patriarchs presides no more than they can justly pretend freedom from a Council Oecumenical on the same account in which Council Oecumenical or General though the same Primates should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical Person their Superior yet could they not deny the Council to be so Subject then are National Synods and Churches to Patriarchal and to this end every Church as Dr. Field observes p. 513. cited before § 16. n. 5. is subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporated into the Vnity of it Of the necessity of which Union of Churches in Patriarchal Synods in the so much more difficult and chargeable assembling of such as are absolutely Vniversal see before § 16. n. 4. § 54 2. Next The Church of England one of those the most anciently professing Christianity 2 which it is clear it did before Tertullian's time ‖ See Tertullian Apol. ad versus Judaeos c. 7. Origen in Ezech. Hom. 4 Bede Hist Angl. l. 1. c. 4. never pretended subjection to any other Patriarch or his Council than this of the West to whom also it ascribes its Conversion without dispute as for the Saxons or English if not also as for the Britains And accordingly both in ancient and latter times if the mos antiquus obtineat in the 6 th Canon of Nice be of any force it hath always ranged it self and appeared in the Western Councils as a Member of this Patriarchy and of the Latine Church and from time to time concurred in the passing of those Canons which have established the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and of these Patriarchal Councils § 55 After several Christians suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's time In the Council at Arles in France 10. years before that of Nice assembled by Constantine who being born in England and his Mother an English woman and a Christian and being after his Father's death here also first declared Emperor by his Army may be presumed to have had some particular respects for the Brittish Clergy we find the presence and subscription of several Brittish Bishops acknowledged by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schism p. 110. and B. Bramhal †Vindic. of the Church if England p. 98. and of which thus Sir Henry Spelm. A. D 314. Aderant è Britanniâ celebriores ut videtur tres Episcopi Surely in dignity much preceding and much ancienter than the Bishop of Caerleon nempe Eboracensis Londinensis de Civitate Coloniae Lodunensium quae aliàs dicitur Camelodunum una cum Sacerdote Presbytero Diacono qui Canones assensu suo approbabant in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos The first Canon whereof setleth the matter of Easter to be kept through all the Churches on the same day and the divulgation of this through all Churches was committed to the Bishop of Rome the Western and Prime Patriarch secundum consuetudinem saith the Canon Again at the Council held at Ariminum and before this in that of Sardica assembled A. D. 347. some 20. years after that of Nice is found the presence of the Britain amongst other Western Bishops witnessed by Athanasius who was present there himself in his second Apology And therefore may the Canons of that Council be presumed among the rest to be ratified by them or at least being passed by the major part of that Occidental Council to oblige them Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop how they allow and ratifie his supreme Decision of Appeals c. Protestants are not ignorant and therefore to evade it make such exceptions as these ‖ B. Bramhal Reply to S. W p. 24. 1. That it doth not appear That the British Bishops did assent to that Canon But this matters not the major part in Councils concluding the rest and neither doth it appear on the other side but that they did approve it which also is to be presumed where appears no contradiction 2 Again urged That it was no General Council But it sufficeth for the Britains if it were at least a compleat Occidental Council 3. Pleaded That these Canons of Sardica were never incorperated into the English Laws and therefore did not bind English Subjects But Church-Canons and Decrees in matters Ecclesiastical do oblige all the Members of the Church though Princes oppose Oblige Princes also if Christian and so the Churches Subjects And the Author that requireth this incorporation of Church Canons into the Princes Laws explains himself elsewhere ‖ Schism guarded p. 160. to mean only that Church-Decrees oblige not as to the using any coactive power in his Realms for the execution of them without the Princes leave because saith he such external coactive Jurisdiction is originally Political a thing granted him so that before such leave or enrolment the Churches Decrees oblige both Prince and People if Christian in foro Conscientiae the disobedient justly incurring the Churches censures the thing we here contend for Lastly The 9 th Canon of Chalced. a subsequent General Council is pretended to contradict these of Sardica in giving the Supremacy in Appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople But I need not tell him that this Constantinople Supremacy is not for the West but East which is for the Controversies of those Provinces there subject to that Patriarch § 56 And from the presence of the Britain Bishops in these ancient Councils if I may make here a little digression appears the ignorance of the Abbot of Bangor if the Relation be true in being such a stranger to the Popes Person Authority or Titles after A. D. 600. after all that power exercised by him for so many Ages in the Western Provinces conceded by Protestants see Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. from c. 32. to c. 40. after so many missions of several holy Bishops from the Pope of Rome either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland or to reform it * Of Fugatius and Damianus very early sent by Pope Eleutherius in King Lucius his days which King
Divinâ Ordinatione changed into per institutionem Christ The great dispute in the Council was not whether the Order or Bishops as superior to Priests and as including the power of ordination and confirmation but whether the Jurisdiction of all Bishops especially as to some points thereof was jure divino viz. as to the just extent and subject matter of such Jurisdiction and the exterior and forensick exercise thereof wherein some Bishops enjoy a much larger power and compass which extent of power seems to depend on superiors as doth also the exercise of Absolution in Priests and is liable to be suspended taken away transferr'd diminished and this necessary for avoiding confusion †See Soave p. 623 734. And here as nothing was determined against the Pope in this matter so nothing for him And that no more in it should be decided than was decided all the Council consented in the Session and in the Congregation held before it all save the Spanish Bishops and therefore more consented to this than only the Italians and the Popes party see what Soave saith p. 737 738 725 735. where he relates That the Cardinal of Lorraine and the other French Prelats did not hold the â—â—â—itution and Superiority of Bishops de sure divino to be necessary to 〈…〉 mined in Council but rather that it ought to be omitted Now 〈…〉 the Pope if he had a major part of the Council on his 〈…〉 hinder the rest for carrying any thing against him by their votes yet could he not over-aw the rest thus to vote for him who having much more dependence for their Estates on their Temporal than their Spiritual Supream and backed by their Princes and their Embassadours in the Council these also generally much more favouring the Bishops than the Popes rights were secure enough against his power even the Italian Prelats also except that much smaller part of them whose preferments lay in the Popes Dominions § 155 3. Concerning the Popes Supremacy in the Church or Superiority to Councils though the Spaniards 3. and all the rest of the Council consented in as full terms as the Council of Florence had expressed it to decree and insert it in this Council also and though only the French Bishops who were not above the tenth part of the Council resisted yet the Pope for peace sake because there was not a full accord ceased to prosecute the determination thereof and the Article drawn was laid aside See these things more fully related in Pallavic History l. 19. and l. 24. c. 14. n. 12 and see there †l. 19. c. 15. n. 3. the contents of Carlo Borrhomeo's Letters to this purpose But the same thing of the Spanish consenting with the Italians for declaring the Popes authority according to the form of the Council ef Florence appears in Soave p. 737 738. though he much more compendious than Pallavicin in this part of the History perhaps for want of intelligence of which he complains in the beginning of his seventh book p. 583 And the same Author saith elsewhere p. 732. That an order came from the Emperour to his Embassadors to use all means that the authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council because he saw the major part was inclin'd to enlarge it Yet we see the Pope did not prosecute such advantage Neither doth that phrase accidentally used in Sess 25. Reform 1. cap. Sed ad S. Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales pertinere decernit quorum consilio apud Sanctum Romanum Pontificem cum universalis Ecclesiae administratio nitatur c. which the French Embassador Ferrieres so highly aggravated that it yielded to the Pope superiority over Councils †Sorve p. 818. truly prove any such thing neither passed it from the Council as any Decree neither in the reading in the Congregation of this 1 cap. of Reform wherein were some things corrected did the French Bishops except at this †Soave p. 803. which certainly they would have done had they apprehended such danger in it For also the French were not such opposites to the Popes pre-eminency of authority but that their Leader the Cardinal of Lorraine proposed in the Council this Article for it Pallav. l. 19. c. 6. condemning any that should say That Peter by the institution of Christ was not the Prime amongst the Apostles and his supreme Vicar Or that it was not necessary that there should be in the Church a chief Bishop Peters Successor and equal to him in the authority of Government and that his lawful Successors in the See of Rome have not the right of Primacy in the Church And the French Bishops though they disallowed this form Datam esse à Concilio Pontifici Romano potestatem pascendi regendi universalem because Ecclesia universalis here if taken collectively would prejudice the French Churches opinion of the Councils superiority to the Pope †Pall. l. 19. c. 13. n. 6. c. 12. n. 11. l. 21. c. 14. n. 12. Soave p. 657. yet they yielded to this form potestatem regendi omnes fideles omnes Ecclesias or pascendi omnes Christi oves if omnes be not taken conjunctionl And for that Supremacy of the Pope over the Church that is denied by Protestants Soave giving reasons why Henry the 8th prudently declined a Council thus secures this Supremacy Papal from any censure of the Bishops saying †§. 〈◊〉 70. That it was impossible that a Council composed of Ecclesiastical Persons should not maintain this his power which is the main pillar of their Order Because this Order saith he by the Papacy is above all Kings and the Emperour but without it is subject to them there being no Ecclesiastical Person that hath superiority but the Pope Thus he usually exstracting the Original of all mens actions not out of Conscience but Policy Yet in these points we see the Popes supposed major party in the Council carried nothing for his advantage But how much the former bounds of the Episcopal Authority were enlarged by several Decrees of this Council that were confirmed and ratified by the Pope wherein at least they are substituted his perpetual and standing Delegats for transacting many things of great consequence formerly dispatched by Himself and his Officers See below 205 211. c. Mean while whether or how much the Pope or his party when stronger there might be faulty in hindering any points to be determined which the rest of the Fathers in the Council desired should be so I cannot say because I cannot judge whether such things are necessary to be determined as some of the Council said they were a few or better not as others the most But if the Pope be culpable for having abstracting here from Protestant-Controversies as hath been shewed †hindred by his Italian adherents something § 150 that otherwise would have passed He seems to make an amends for it in the not passing in Council several other matters which
would have served much for his ad-advantage when but a few seem'd discontented therewith § 156 But in the next place let us now suppose that the Council un-oppressed the contrary party there had carried all these points against the Pope there could have followed that I discern no such great advantage to Protestantisme thereby as some boast of You may see the consequences endamaging the Pope set down by Soave p. 609 645. some of which are of no great moment and others not truly consequent Certainly the Bishops who contended for their Jurisdiction jure divino intended no such thing as to equal every one himself with the Pope in the Government of the Church or to overthrow thereby * the former Church-discipline * the pre-eminent authority of Primats and Patriarchs conceded by former Councils and * all the jus Ecclesiasticum This may be seen in their argumentations wherein some pleaded a Jurisdiction belonging to all Bishops jure divino and received immediatly from Christ but this not equal with the Popes others their Jurisdiction received jure divino but the use application and matter thereof received from the Pope Soave p. 597 607. 618. 637. Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 3. The French allowing from Christ the Popes superiority as was shewed but now †§. 155. only confining his authority within the Canons Soave p. 640. and the Spaniards who most stickled for Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino yet willingly conceding to the Pope all the power that was acknowledged by the Council of Florence and desiring that both these might be established together as hath been shewed above insomuch as Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 6. saith It seemed to some that the contention was reduced to meer words whilst the one would have the Jurisdiction of Bishops to be immediatly from the Pope the others from Christ yet so that the use and matter of such Jurisdiction depended on the Pope And therefore I see no weight in those words of B. Bramh. schis guarded 10. Sect. p. 474. who to S. Ws. asking whether if the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces had been present in the Council to counterpoise the Italians he would pretend that they would have voted against their Fellow-Catholicks in behalf of Luther and Calvin answereth thus I see clearly that if the Bishops of other Countreys had been proportioned to those of Italy they had carried the debate about Residence yet is not Residence even amongst Protestants voted jure divino the divine Right of Episcopacy and that had done the business of the Western Church and undone the Court of Rome Done the business of the Western Church what meaneth he So as the Pope would have ceased to have had any Supremacy over them why those also allow and submit to it who still hold Episcopal Jurisdiction jure divino as none in the Roman Church are obliged to hold the contrary But suppose the Pope disarmed of Supremacy are thus all the other main differences in points of faith between Protestants and these Western Bishops stated on the Protestant side Or will the Reformed now declare them controversies of small moment as Bishop Bramh. in a vehement assaulting of the Court of Rome seems to relax other quarrels with that Church and yield them to their Adversaries But had any the art first to accord these speculative points of difference which the Protestants have with the Western Churches he need not fear that the Popes supremacy could put any bar between the two Religions Which supremacy those Catholick Bishops or Churches that do most abridge and have their free liberty to maintain what in the Council they would have voted concerning this matter do yet continue in the other points as violent and stâ—ff against the reformed as any § 157 5. Thus much of the Popes and Councils proceedings in those three great points of contention Next concerning the Popes carriage toward the Council for other matters of Reformation 5. wherein he is so much accused to have made unjust obstructions Pallavicino in vindication of Pius the 4th in whose times these Reformations were most agitated and proceeded in hath these words l. 24. c. 12 n. 13. Pius the 4th frequently enjoyned his Legats that a Reformation should be made of his Court and of his Tribunals and especially of the Cardinals which reformation he attempting first at Rome in vain remitted it the more earnestly to the Council as may be seen in C. Borrom letters Pall. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 6 7. without any acquainting him first with it frequently grieved and complained that it was not done commended whatever was determined in the Sessions concerning it though unlooked for contrary to his expectation and most damageful to his treasury and to his Court Which words of his are verified both by the frequent Letters to this purpose written to the Council by Carlo Borrhomeo according to the Popes order †Apud Pallav l. 20. c. 5. n. 5. l. 21. c. 6. n. 1 2 6 7. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5 12 13. which you may read at your leasure and by the testimony of Lorraine and others in the Council And indeed how could this be otherwise since Carlo Borromeo that holy man was his chief Adviser and chief Minister to the Council in this and all other affairs who was himself one of the severest Reformers yet not besides the Canons that ever the Church of Christ hath known as the history of his life written by Giussano sheweth § 158 And that actually by this Council a great and severe reformation was decreed the Court of Rome much rectified the Popes Revenue much diminished the Jurisdiction of Bishops whether held immediatly or mediatly from Christ here it matters not much enlarged Residency of Bishops whether it be jure divino or Ecclesiastico strictly enjoyned former dispensations and appeals much restrained I refer you to what the Articles themselves especially in the five last Sessions under Pius make appear and to what is said below in the five Head †concerning them §. 207. c. and * to the testimony of the French Bishops set down above § 77. with whom it was a chief motive to request of the King the accepting this Council because the French Church stood in so much need of the reformations established therein than which say they they could find none more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the body Ecclesiastical and * to the testimony of Soave himself recited above § 124. and below § 204. touching the heavy complaint of the Roman Court concerning this reformation and their endeavours with the Pope to hinder for this cause the confirmation of the Council If its laws are not since every where so well observed I desire that the Council or the then Pope may not be indicted for this fault Neither are we for trying the benefit of that Council so much to
therein obliged to believe the Articles §. 195. n. 1◠or Canons of Trent or of other Councils in any other sense 3. than that which we have but now mentioned †§. 192. For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession Haec vera Catholica fides extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest cannot be understood distributively in such a manner as if every Canon of every lawful Council is necessary explicitly to be known and assented to that any one may attain Salvation which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith See Bellarmin de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14. Multa sunt de fide quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem I add nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur But either * it is to be understood collectively In hac Professione continetur vera Catholica Fides c. that all the fides extra quam nemo salvus is contained in that profession which expression respects chiefly the Apostles or Nicen Creed set in the front of the profession as appears by a like expression Fundamentum firmum unicum applied to that Creed alone in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess For if only some part of that profession of faith which is made in that Bull be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation this phrase is sufficiently justified extra quam i. e. totam i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved non est salus As saying that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God without believing which there is no Salvation argues not that every thing delivered in these Scriptures is necessary to be believed for Salvation but that some things are Or * It is to be understood distributively but this conditionally in such a sence as extra quam nemo salvus esse potest i. e. if such person opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths †See before For in so doing though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith § 192 he becomes therein obstinate and Heretical and disobedient to his spiritual Guide declared by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries and so in this becomes guilty of a mortal sin which unrepented of exlcudes from Salvation Where also since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary hence though all her Definitions are not in such yet his obstinacy in not yielding assent to all matters defined runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull §. 195. n. 2 when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter crediderit salvus esse non poterit which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew That some Points may become necessary for salvation to be believed when once defined by the Church that yet are not absolutely so necessary or fundamental according to the Importance of the matter All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental or necessary ratione Medii to Salvation that none can possibly attain it without an explicit belief of them Here a late Protestant Writer †Stillingf p. 70 71. in answer to this can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss than that we have now given viz. That as to some of the Athanasian Articles Haec est fides Cathol c. neither infers that they are necessary to be believed from the matter nor yet from Church-Definition but necessary only if there be first a clear conviction i. e. not from Church-Authority but from Scripture that they are Divine Revelation Where the authority of the Church in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed as to any obligation of her Subjects to conform to it seems quite laid aside since upon a clear conviction that those Articles are Divine Revelation from whatever Proponent one stands obliged to believe them and without such conviction neither stands he so obliged by the Church Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition from the Quam nisi quisque fideliter c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scripture Since Protestants then take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles it is but reason that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius § 196 4. Lastly If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence as Protestants fetter them with Namely 4. That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles as absolutely necessary to salvation As Bishop Bramhal †Rep. to Chalced. p. 322. Which whether true or false one is to swear to as much as to his Creed As Mr. Thorndike †Epilog Conclus p. 410. That whereas the Church of England only excommunicates such as shall affirm that her Articles are in any part erroneous the saine Church never declaring that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith by the Church of Rome every one of them if that Church hath once determined them is made fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens belief As Bishop Laud ‖ §. 15. p. 51. That supposing the Churches Definition one passed that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation i. e. by this Proposal or Definition as what is necessary from the matter And That an equal explicit faith is required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to salvation of believing both of them As Mr. Stillingf †Rat. Account p. 48. If I say Pius his Haec est Bides Catholica must be taken in such a sence and then it be considered also that by the Bull this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it but to all other Definitions also of all other former allowed Councils the Consequent is that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation and that for want of necessary faith the far greater part not only of Christians but of Roman Catholicks viz. all that do not explicitly believe and therefore that do not actually know every particular Definition of any precedent Council when as who is there among the vulgar that is not ignorant of the most of them who amongst the learned that knows them all Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words and that they only declaim against their own Fancies When as indeed to render
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
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 the Council touching Reformation were meerly Delusory § 6. THE most General Councils that can be procured joyned also with S. Peter's Chair § 1 being asserted in the former Discourses †Of the Guide in Controversies as the Supreme and Final Judge and Decider of Ecclesiastical Controversies And of these Councils That of Trent being as the last so particularly applied to the Examining and Determination of all those Points of Difference which have lateliest afflicted these Western Churches so that if the Protestant Party could be induced to accept and acquiesce in its Judgment all modern Controversies of moment were ended it seems necessary for perfecting the Design of the former Discourses in the last place so far to vindicate the Supream Legal and Obliging Authority of this Council from the many Objections which Protestants bring against it as that the more moderate among them may clearly see that if they are willing to submit either their Judgment or their Silence to any such Council as the present times of the Church can afford they have no just reason to deny it to this of Trent To manifest which I will first set you down the chief Particulars that are ordinarily urged by the later Reformed Writers against It And then shew you what in the same Particulars may be said for it leaving both to your sober Arbitrement as in a matter which is of no less concernment to you than the setling of your Faith in so many weighty Points of Religion as this Learned and Wise Assembly hath determined About which Points others still remain questioning and disputing Divided as from the Church so among themselves and uncapable of a Remedy I wish you in the Reading of this accompanied with Soave's History on the one hand and that of Pallavicino on the other to whom for avoiding tediousness I shall often refer you To the first as an Author of much Reputation with Protestants and one who it seems would let no Falficy pass prejudicial to their Interest To the second as One who though of an opposite side yet contrary to Soave's practice is careful in matters of Weight to signifie the Writings from which he extracts his Intelligence Nor do I herein exact from a Protestant Reader more credit to him that his Margin or other known History secures Yet if that be true that Cesar Aquilino a Roman Catholick and quoted for this by a late Protestant Writer ‖ Stillingst Rat. Account p. 481. saith of him That he hath done more disservice to the Church of Rome by his Answer than ever Father Paul the unmasked Pietro Soave did with his History I have reason from this also to hope that what I shall have occasion to cite out of him will pass with the more credit and better acceptation to a Protestant Reader since both the first and second of these Histories are still pretended to advance their Cause And yet further since the things wherein Aquilino saith ‖ Aquilino p. 95. this disservice consists are these Quod in illâ Historiâ offendatur Romanorum Pontificum fama Haereticorum dictae enumerantur amplificantur Rixae Contentiones Scandala inter Catholicos quae in Concilio acciderunt sigillatìm referuntur out of the Vatican Archives he perused Quae bona recta he means advantageous to the Catholick Cause à Petro Soave enarrata vel minuuntur vol praetermittuntur vel in contradictionem vocantur in all which Pallavicino seems only censured for not writing more cautiously and partially on the Roman side 2 and for not drawing the Council and the Actions of it much fairer and smoother than the Truth in those secret Papers and Records he consulted did discover them 3 lastly for imprudently publishing what the greatest Patrons of this Councill are said †Soave 7. l. Init. to have hitherto with the greatest Art concealed I shall I say the more confidently for this make use of his Testimony without any further Vindication of his Veracity desiring Protestants to make their advantages of an Author reported so much assisting their Pretensions and partaking so little of the Arts of a Politician and that valued more the fidelity of an Historian than the promoting of the Roman or his own Interest which Himself also sometimes as freely professeth as they say truly observing That History is like a Picture then better and more commendable when it represents not what is fairest but what likest to the Original § 2 This Council then being assembled since Luther's Reformation and purposely disallowing and condemning it very solicitous and diligent have the Reformed likewise been in multiplying Arguments against it Especially they being assisted with the History thereof delivered by Petro Soave Polano i. e. as is supposed by Protestants Father Paul a Venetian Friar Yet indeed against whose sincerity in composing this work there seem not wanting many real Exceptions if you please to consider with me 1 First That he lived in the time of the great dissention between the State of Venice and the Pope and then also was engaged in Writings against the Pope's Proceedings whence he may be suspected in this work also to have been too much biassed by a contrary Interest 2 Again That whenas he was but eleven years old at the concluding of this Council and so could write nothing out of his own knowledge but out of the Relations and Notes of others Printed or Manuscript yet very seldom in things of so great moment doth he inform the Reader whence he extracts his matter and is contradicted in many of his Relations by Pallavicino referring herein to the Records of this Councill extant in several places and to many other Writings sufficiently common of such Persons as were Members of the Council or publickly employed in its Affairs the Names of which he sets down in his l. 18. c. 10. n. 14. and out of which he saith he compiled a good part of his own work yet none of which Writings as he collects from several passages of his History had come to Soave's view 3 Next That for those things wherein this Author lies under no suspicion of Errour as to the matter related yet seems he frequently very culpable as to the Colours he lays upon it For whereas no action can be for its substance so good but that it may be vitiated and change its nature from several Circumstances so often as it is done out of an ill intention or for some impious end of Policy Ambition Covetousness or the like Nor again scarce any Truth can be in its own light so clear and evident but that some Veri similities may be ranged on the other side to obscure and cloud it this Author for the first of these through the course of his History may be observ'd contrary to the Modesty which is particularly
proper to Hâ—storians to asperse and blemish the most specious and candid actions of those though the most sacred Persons whose interests he disfavours with some or other uncharitable Gloss upon them and to represent the fairest fruit they bear still worm-eaten with some corrupt Design or malignant Intention for which a bare possibility thereof seems his sufficient warrant to affirm it And again for the second constantly after each Session of this Council He under the Mask of the vulgar talk and common Fame takes liberty to sum together all that which he apprehends may any way disparage the precedent Decrees and that which perhaps never entred into any ones save his own fancy 4 Lastly That he was a Person with whom the Arch-Bishop of Spalato had an intimate Acquaintance and of whom also he gives this Character in the Preface to the first Edition of this History London 1619. which Preface is omitted in the latter as some think because it too manifestly discovers the Historians Dis-affection to those whose actions he relates That he lived so in the Roman Captivity as to guide himself by a right Conscience rather than the common Customs That he had a great Zeal to the purity of Religion against such unexcusable i. e. Roman depravations thereof That he abhorred those who defended the Church of Rome's abuses as holy Institutions and professed Truth wherever found was to be embraced That this his work was only known to him and some others his great Confidents From which as also from some Extracts out of his Letters holding correspondence with some French Hugonots mentioned in Casoni's Preface to the Second Volume of Pallavicino may easily be gathered that his Religion was much-what of the same temper and complexion with that of Spalatensis Unless perhaps we may think that after his writing this Book he return'd to a better mind and that from this change came that reluctance of his Spalatensis mentions ‖ Prefat to Soave's History for communicating this work Nay as the same Bishop relates it ‖ a Purpose to have quite suppressed and made it away Destinato ad essere sommerso dal suo Genitore Which thing as he imputes to his fear of some danger from it so Charity will rather judge that it proceeded from remorse of Conscience when in a pious reflection upon his former Conceptions he discern'd that in stead of an History he had brought forth a Satyre against Gods Truth and his Church and the most Supreme and Sacred of those Governors whom our Lord himself had appointed over It and Him However This his History hath not so far corrupted the truth of Affairs as not to contain in it many Evidences very advantageous to the Catholick Cause and so much remains sound in it as may serve very well to confute that which is vitiated and in the main things that are charged against the Pope and Council especially concerning the Councils Liberty this History is found as it were to destroy it self by its own Contradictions A thing which observed by Phil. Quorlius an Italian Doctor produced his Book entituled Historia Petri Soavis ex Authorismet assertionibus consutata This account in my entrance I thought fit to give you of this Author that you may see what just credit on such a Subject he deserves out of whose Quiver the Reformed have taken most of those arrows with which they seek to wound this Council The chief of which I shall first summarily relate to you and so proceed to its intended Defence § 3 First then it is Objected by the Protestant Divines That this of Trent can no way truly be called a General Council as it is stiled by the Romanists 1. α. α Because it is necessary to the Generalness of a Council that some be there and those Authorized from all particular Churches See Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 3. where he quotes Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 17. for it §. 4. ut saltem But none from the Eastern Churches were present in this of Trent or so much as summoned or afterwards approved or consented unto its Acts And the number of the Bishops β. who were present from other Churches was frequently so small that in many Sessions it had scarce 10. Arch-Bishops or 40 or 50 Bishops present Bishop Lawd § 27. n. 2. And That it had not so many Biships present at the Determination of the weightiest Controversies concerning the Rule of Faith as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a Months warning B. Brambal Vindic. c. 9. p. 247. And see what Soave saith to the same purpose l. 2. p. 163. Add to this γ. γ. That it was not lawfully called so as General Councils ought and used to be namely by the Emperor and other Christian Princes but only by the Pope this was one of Henry the 8th's Pleas in his Manifesto's against it Lastly δ. δ. That the Popes themselves as many as lived in the time thereof would never consent that this Council should be affirmed to represent the Vniversal Church prudently foreseeing that if this were granted as in the Council of Constance it was the Council as being the whole would put off its subjection and depend no longer on the Pope that was but a part of it nor would need his confirmation to render it what it was before viz. the Representative of the whole Church thus Dr. Hammond Her 11. § n 8 9. This against its being a General Coucil § 4 2. That neither was it a plenary Patriarchal Council 2. for the West ε ε Because from some Churches in the West as from the Britannick and some other Reformed Churches there were no Bishops present there who also had just cause for their not coming thither B. Lawd ib. n. 2. neither can it justly be pleaded that they were Heretical or Schismatical Churches being never condemned by any former Council B. Brambal Answer to Chalced. p. 351. ζ. ζ. And of other Western Churches save only Italy present very few in all the Sessions under Paul the 3d. but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the sixth Session under Julius the 3d. B. Lawd ib. n. 2. â— And Twice so many Bishops out of Italy present as there were out of all other Christian Nations put together B. Bramb Vind. p. 247. as appears at the end of the Coucil where the Italians are set down 187. and all the rest make but 83. B. Lawd § 29. n. 2. Neither was this Council after its rising fully acknowledged or received by the Western Churches nor by the Britannick and other Reformed Churches Nor by the Gallican Church of the Roman Communion And Let no man say saith B. Bramb Vind. p. 248. that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline not of Doctrine for the same Canonical Obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General I add or other Superior
Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine § 5 3. ' That it was not a Free and Lawful Council 3. 1. λ. Where the accusers or the accused take λ. 1. whether you please namely the Pope and the Bishops persons of the same perswasion and communion with him sate as Judges in their own cause namely in a Question of the Popes Supremacy and of the corruptions of that Church see B. L. § 27 n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's μ. μ. Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were condemned by the Council 2. ν. Where was no security in the place of Meeting ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted since the cruel Decrees and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss though armed with a safe Conduct ξ. Whither also ξ. notwithstanding this some of the Protestant party being come yet they were not suffered to propose and dispute their cause And again Ï€. Where after dispute Ï€. had it been granted them yet they if no Bishops could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest but must after the Disputation have been judged and censured by their Adversaries 3. Ï‚. Where all the Members of the Council Ï‚. 3. that had a vote had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy and none had suffrage but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome and were professed enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Council B. Lawd § 27. n. 1. 4. σ. σ. 1 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council but only what the Popes Legates proposed the Popes Commission running Proponentibus Legatis σ 2 * where nothing was determined σ 2 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome himself not vouchsafing to be present therein and therefore it was commonly said that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male 5. Ï„. Ï„. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope and many Bishops were introduced who were only titular and ‖ B. Bramb Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishopricks also erected by the Pope during the Council all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes and hence such an unproportionable number there of Italian Bishops § 6 4. v. Suppose the Council in all these Objections cleared v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical and Legal yet have the Reformed this Reserve after all wherefore they cannot justly entertain it * Because some of the Decrees and Definitions are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures or at least not warranted by them φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures as the Nicene and other primitive Councils did but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in matter of Faith Concerning which thus Arch-Bishop Lawd § 28. The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or in necessary sense or the Council is not Lawful For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority to make the Council Authentical and the Decisions of it de fide than any confirmation of the Pope can be Now the Council of Trent we are able to prove had not the first but have departed from the Letter and sense of Scripture and so we have no reason to respect the second See likewise § 27. n. 1. Where he asks How that Council is Legal which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie and make it to be de fide though it hath not the written word of God for warrant either in express Letter or necessary sence and deduction but is quite extra without the Scripture See also Mr Stillingfl p. 477 478. χ χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to or at least not warranted by Primitive and Apostolical Tradition ‖ Soave p. 228. And in the last place Dr. Hammond of Her §. 11. n. 3 7. Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's in these and in many other slight matters if truths upon all those who shall dissent from or at least who shall contradict their Judgment in them this one Council having made near hand as many Canons as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together ‖ Soave p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds * drawn up bp Pius the 4th according to the order of the Council ‖ Sess 24. c. 12. de Refor and * imposed to be believed by all who would enter into the communion of the Church contrary to the 7th Can. of the Third General Council at Ephesus All these Articles Imposed too as Fundamental and to be assented to as absolutely and explicitly for attaining salvation as the Articles of the Creed and so that in disbelieving any of them it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire which Articles are concluded there as the Athanasian Creed with an Haec vera Catholica Fides extra quam nemo Salvus ‖ See Archbishop Lawd p. 51. Bishop Bramh. Vindie of Church of England p. 23â— 231 Reply to Chalâ—ed p. 322. Dr. Hammond Ars to Cath. Gent. p. 138. and to Schism Disarm'd p. 241. Dr. Fern Considerations touching Reformation p. 45. Stillingfl Rat. Acccâ—nt p. 48 c. So that saith Mr. Thorndyke †Fpilog Conclusion p. 413. it was the Acts of this Council that framed the Schisme because when as the Reformation might have been provisional till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace but by yielding to all their Decrees 5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine And next §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation which also are very numerous and 5 one would think the more the better yet these also are not free from their complaints ω. ω. That these Decrees are meer Illusions many of them of small weight taking Motes out of the eye and leaving Beams That the Council in framing them imitated the Physitian who in an Hectical Body laboured to kill the Itch That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved and some Symptomes only cured That in some of more consequence the Exceptions are larger than the Rule And αα αα That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them as he pleaseth Thus Soave frequently That nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council and it ended ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it ‖ Stillingfl Rat. Acc. p. 480
See below § 16. n. 6 8. This in the third place from § 12. of the Churches subjecting both Ecclesiastical Persons and Councils One to Another the less to the greater in point of Judicature and Authority for preventing of Schismes 4ly When the two Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers that are subordinate §. 15. n. 2. do dissent the obedience of the Subjects of both in such case being once apparent was to be rendred to the Superior So if a Diocesan or Provincial Council ought to yield to a National the Subjects of such Province or Diocess when these two Councils clash ought to conform in their Obedience to the National not to a Diocesan or Provincial Council against it Now §. 16. n. 1. for such a subordination of the several Church-Officers and Synods forenamed and for Obedience when these dissent due to the Superior the two points last mentioned I will to save the labour of further proof give you the Concessions of Learned Protestants though this be done with some limitations accomodated to the better legitimating of their Reformation of which limitations see below § 16. n. 4. n. 7. and again § 28. desiring you also to peruse those set down already to the same purpose in the second Discourse § 24. n. 1. c. Of this matter then thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case between the Church of England and Rome p. 48. The Church of Christ is a society or company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13.17 And he that will not hear the Church is to be as a Heathen and a Publican Mat. 16. And applying this to the Presbyterians and other Sects dividing from the English Bishops and Synods ‖ p. 46. They have incurred saith he by leaving us and I wish they would sadly consider it no less than the guilt of Schisme which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or Sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and Sacriledge unto it And thus Dr. Hammond §. 16. n. 2. somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism c. 8. p. 157. The way saith he provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Vnity of the Faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence 1st Their resolving c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans of the Metropolitans in every Region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a primacy of Order or Dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and greeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses And when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial Patriarchal General Again Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these beginning at the lowest and so ascending to the highest Those Brethren or People saith he ‖ 7. which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained or appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks †8. In like manner if we ascend to the next higher Link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Brethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt Next For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates §. 16. n. 3. § 20. he goes on thus It is manifest That as the several Bishops had prefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans he having shewed in § 11.12 the first Institution thereof Apostolical in Titus and Timothy nay we must yet ascend saith he one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs Concerning whose authority having produced several Canons of Councils § 25. he concludes thus All these Canons or Councils deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops from the Apostles and first Planters of the Churches wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the authority which these have by Canon and Primitive Custom over them And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors he affirms also due on the same account to their several Synods †Answ to Catholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29. It is evident saith he That the power which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council where these Bishops are assembled and the despising of that Council is an offence under the first sort of Schism and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors whereof it is compounded Thus Dr. Hammond ascending in these subordinations as high as Primates But Dr. Field Bishop Bramhal and others §. 16. n. 4. rise one step higher to the Proto-primates or Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called and their Councils And strange it is if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest that Dr. Hammond could pass by these in his speaking of the remedies of Schism with so much silence not mentioning Patriarchs but only as taken for Primates or their Councils See * Answ to Cathol Gent. c. 3. n. 9 10 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial National Oecumenical Councils but passeth by Patriarchal and * Schism p. 158 where he names Provincial Patriarchal General but useth Patriarchal there for National or the Council presided-in by the Primate to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch Strange I say considering not only the clear evidence of ancient Constitutions and
Metropolitans sole Judicature much more did that rarer assembling of a Patriarchal or General Council leave appeals in greater Causes to the single Arbitrement of the Patriarch assisted with his ordinary Council or Consistory Here §. 16. n. 7. then you see in Dr. Field the ground of a thorow Union in Christs Church whereas that of Dr. Ferne and Dr Hamond though it served their turn for the remedy of a Presbyterian defection or the extravagancies of some particular Bishop yet afforded no standing cure as it did concern them it should not for those of a Primate or for any National Division Only one Reservation Dr. Field hath in this place perhaps with an eye to protect the Reformation thereby which Dr. Hamond I conceive thought it not safe to trust to That the Bishops of a Province subject to a Metropolitan or the Metropolitan and his Bishops subject to a Patriarch may declare in what cases he incurreth the sentence of Suspension Excommunication Deposition or Degradation pronounced by the very Law and Canon it self and so may withdraw themselves from his Obedience Thus he Where suppose this â—e would have should be granted him concerning a General Council all of â—t united and declaring such a thing if such a thing may be of the Supreme Prelate of the Church and President of this Council because there is no Superior Person or Court of Judicature whereby this President may be tried And also granted concerning such proceeding against any Subordinate Superior as against the Metropolitan or Primate whenever he freely confesseth that transgression of the Canons which they charge him with for in such a case their obedience is due not to him any longer but to the Canons and to his Superiors that maintain them But most presumptuous and unreasonable it seems for Subjects to make any such Declaration and withdraw Obedience whenever such matter is in contest between them and him and a superior person or Court provided to decide it and yet more unreasonable if a part only of the Subjects suppose of a Primate or Patriarch should declare so when another part withstands them and declares the contrary And see Can. 10. of the 8. General Council punctual against any such Delaration or Discession before a Judgment Nullus Clericus ante Synodicam Sententiam à communione proprti Patriarchae se separet c. Idem de Episcopis statuimus erga proprios Metropolitanos similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarchum suum This of Dr. Field See the places quoted out of B. Bramhal to the same purpose Disc 2. § 24. n. 1. And Disc 1. § 27. The like is acknowledged at large §. 16. n. 8. by the Archbishop of Spalato and amongst these Patriarchs the supereminent Priviledges of the first or Roman Patriarch the evidences of Antiquity producing such a consent in these Learned men are displayed by him in his Repub. Eccles l. 3 c. 2 10. There c. 2 n. 1. having named the other lower subordinations of Church-Governors ad vitanda Schismata he goes on Ac demum Primatibus Metropolitanis Episcopis unus Patriarcha in totâ integrâ aliquâ Provinciâ in certis similiter causis praeside ret Et quia non semper adeo facile est Episcopos comprovinciales or compatriarchales much more in vnum convenire expedien fuit ut Metropolitant Primates Patriarchae multa soli absolverent qua Synedi absolvere debuissent essentque quasi totius Synodi Vicarii Commissarii Further of these Patriarchs he saith ‖ l. 3. c. 10. n. 26. Siâ—ut Metropolitanus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere corrigere debeat emen dare ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus sive in judiciis actis suis ne etiam in hoc Synodus etiam semper cum incommedo conveniat à Patriarâ—his voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo lex Mâ—tropolitanos emendari nisi tam gravis sit causa publica praesertim fidet ut totius regionis Synodus sive Oecumenica debeat convenire Quoting the words of the 8. General Council Can. 17. sayâ—ng the same Senioris novae Romae Praesules c. Metropolitanorum habeant potestatem ad convocandum eos not this in t mes of Heathenism but when Christian Religion flourished under secular Princes already subjected to it urgente necessitate ad Synâ—dalem conventum vel etiam ad coercendum illos corrigendum cum fama cos super quibusdam delictis forsan accusaverit Further ascending to the Roman Patriarch he thus goes on to declare his privâ—ledges ‖ l. 4. c. 9. n. 1. Habebat etiam Romrnus Pontisex Patriarchalia privilegia palliuâ—â— sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere eosdâ—m à lege divina velsacris Canonibus deviantes corripere in officio continere controversias inter cosdem exortas componere causasque eorundem interdum i. e. in causis gravioribus audire decidere totius Patriarchatus Concilia convocare n. 14. Ex loâ—o sui primi Patriarehatu sSacrorum Canonum primus habebatur praecipuus observator custos ac vindex quos si alicubi violari cognosceret acâ—r monitor insurgebat n. 15. Ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque provinciae regionis not only of his Patriarchy qui se ab Episcopis propriae provinciae gravari sentinent in judicits Ecclesiasticis tanquam ad sacram anchoram consugerent apud ipsum innocentiam suam probaturi Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant ab objectis criminibus tanquam si essent supremi judices absolvebant and this so anciently as Cyprians time and before the first General Council of Nice n. 16. Ille propter summam ipsius existimationem commune quasi vinculum nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae Communionis in tota Ecclesiâ Catholicae Communionis dux arbiter ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret vel adimeret caeterae quaeque Ecclesiae omnes ordinariè darent pariter vel adimerent So Spalatensis §. 16. n. 9. Mr. Thorndike first in general saith †fast waâ—gnte p. 41. That the Soul of the Visible Unity of the Church consisteth in the resort of inferior Churches to superior of which he discourseth more largely in Right of the Church c. 2 and in the correspondence of Parallel-Churches That the Church so stated is a standing Synod able by consent of the chief Churches containing the consent of their resorts i. e. of the inferior Churches resorting to them to conclude the whole That Rome Alexandria Antiochia were from the beginning of Christianity visible Heads of these great Resorts in Church Government which the Council of Nâ—ce made subject to them by Canon-Law for the future ‖ p. 39. our British Church not excepted †p. 40. And more particularly in justifying the Authority of the Roman Patriarch and the Canons of Sardica concerning Appeals to him Shall I not ask saith he what
in the greater nearness of several Christian Bishops in France yet addressed himself to the Pope as the common Father of the Western Church Afterward * Of S Germanus about A. D. 430. sent by Pope Celestine saith Prosper †In Chronico one who lived also in these times accompanied with Lupus another French Bishop who also consecrated Dubritius that was the first Archbishop of Caer-Leon * of Palladius and Nenius and Patricius all made Bishops at Rome and sent thence to the Picts Scots and Irish Concerning which see the Church-History in Bede Baronius Spelman And besides this * when the Irish Bishops yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time that the British are said to deny it as appears both for that they are said by Bede ‖ l. 3. c. 3. the South Irish at least to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter * ad admonitionem Apostolicae Sedis Antistitis and also for that about this time they sent Letters to S. Gregory then Bishop of Rome to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianisme to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo caeteris Episcopis in Hiberniâ Catholicis l. 9. Epist 61. § 57 Hence also is discovered the unreasonableness of the said Abbot's denial of his obedience to the Pope or pleading subjection only to the Archbishop of Caerleon exclusive to any other superior whatever For waving here the Question whether the Pope by his single authority could subject the Archbishop of Caerleon and his Province to S. Austin Archbishop of Canterbury done afterward in Henry the first his time with the approbation of Protestants and therefore which might have been done in S. Austin's yet subjected was this Britain-Clergy to the Canons of Arles and Sardica of which Councils their Representatives were Members and so subjected to the Western Patriarch also for any authority which these Canons peclare to be invested in him and from the same obligation of obedience was their Conformity in the celebration of Easter with the rest of the Western Churches which was required by the first Canon of the Council of Arles in this Abbot's time most unjustly refused § 58 Mean while whatever independence can be shewed to have been challenged or Unconformity practised by the Abbot of Bangor and others within the Province of the Archbishop of Caerleâ—n yet there is no reason that the same should be extended or applied to the Nâ—tional Church of the Britans in General For the first Archbishop of Caerleon is Dubritius who being a Disciple of S. German sent from Rome and being consecrated Archbishop of this City by him and Lupus it is probable was for his time conformable to the Customs of the Roman See and contrary to those owned in Austin's t me by these Britains But however This of Caerleon was but an Archbishoprick of a late erection the 3 d. or 4 th from which Duâ—ritius probably must possess that Chair when Austin came But the Britains had long before Dubritius his time other Bishops much preeminent to Caerleon * The Archbishop of York the chief Bishop of the whole Nation as that City then was the principal City the Roman Praetorium being there see Spelm. Appar p. 22. â—a Bishop of London and Bishops of some other places appearing formerly in several Councils Of which Bishops Todiacus Archbishop of York and Theonus Bishop of London being persecuted by the Saxons fled into Wales with their Clergy A. D. 586. within eleven years after whose flight thither Augustine came into England and upon it their persecution in part ceased Now there being no mention of any opposition made by any of these Bishops or their Clergy which in eleven years space could not all be deceased to Austin but only by the Welsh under Caerleon what can be imagined here more reasonable than * That they conformed to the rest of the West in such submission to its Patriarch as was due to him by the Canons of those Councils which their Predecessors had allowed and as was rendered to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland see Greg. l. 9. Epist 61. as likewise * That they celebrated Easter according to those Conciliary Canons and the Roman manner and lastly * That returning into some of those parts of Britain from whence they fled they assisted Augustin in the conversion of the Saxons § 59 From the presence then of the Britain Bishop in these ancient Councils also appears the insufficiency of that Argument which would prove the ancient Britains former non-subjection to or conversion by the Western Patriarch or his Missives from their having at Austin's arrival a different observation of Easter from the rest of the West For 1 st It is manifest 1. that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein manifest both from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles which Council determined this matter of whom Sir Henry Spelman saith ‖ A.D. 314. Qui Canones assensu suo approbabant in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos And also from Constantine's Letter †Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 6. to perswade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world in the observation of it He naming there among other Churches particularly this of Britain unless any will say that whilst the most eminent Provinces of Britain kept it after the Roman manner yet the Welsh and Scots then kept it otherwise But since S. German and Lupus who came hither two several times and from whom Dubritius their first Archbishop of Caerleon received his education solemnly kept their Easter here with the Britain Clergy See Bede l. 1. c. 20. it follows either that their observation of Easter was then altogether Catholick or that if it was otherwise yet by reason that the difference happeneth not in every year it was that year by these Bishops not taken notice of § 60 2 ly It is clear also That as these Britains varied from the Roman Custom in this so did they from the Easter Quartodecimans in Asia and therefore may not for this 2. be thought to have derived their Christianity from thence The Britains keeping their Pasch constantly on the Lord's Day only when the Lord's Day happened on the 14 th day of the Moon they kept it with the Jews and Quartodecimans contrary to the Roman Custom that observed it in such year on the Sunday following for which see Bede l. 3. c. 4. 25. 3. Lastly Bede ‖ Hist l. 2. c. 19. speaks of this Errour in the Scotch Nation and the same may be presumed in the British Nuperrimè temporibus illis hanc apud eos haeresin exortam 3. non totam corum gentem sed quosdam ex iis hâc fuisse implicitos Which Honorius and other Roman Bisheps with their Letters Se Bede Ib. endeavoured as soon as
necessary here to be said for those inconsidering persons with whom speaking last serves for an Answer since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions clears it I say by that common Rule owned also by Protestants themselves †Stillingfl p. 536. That in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western at the making of the Decrees yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth exâ—post-facto make the Council I add or any Session thereof truly Oecumenical Yet in the last place I need not tell you that the Articles made under Pius alone from Session 17-to its Conclusion the ratification of which is here not questioned are so many and so principal as that these utterly ruine the Reformation though the rest of the Council for the paucity of the Representatives were cassated Amongst these Decrees are The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Coelibacy of Priests Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Celebration of the Divine Service in a more generally-unknown Tongue the Assertion of Purgatory the Sacrifice of the Mass and several others § 77 6. Or 6ly If this Council under Pius also seem not sufficiently numerous 6. because more than half of them were Italian Bishops yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward by the Bishops of those Nations who had sometimes none and other times but few Representatives in it sufficiently repairs this defect also See before § 36 37. Now amongst all those Catholick Churches the Acceptation of the French is only that which can be doubted of And concerning this you may observe 1st That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France 1. as well those absent as those present in the Council See for this the many Petitions made at several times by the whole Clergy assembled to the King that he would receive it like the rest of Catholick Princes set down in Review of Council Trent l. 1. c. 2. There 1576. the Archbishop of Lyons in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois doth in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France speak thus unto the King They most humbly desire you that according to their more particular Requests exhibited in their Remonstrances you would authorize and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent which by the advice of so many Learned men hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor Wherein Sir they hope and expect from you as a most Christian Ring the assistance of your authority to put this Reformation in execution where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation as well as Doctrine Again 1579 in a like Assembly of the Clergy at Melun the Bishop of Bazas in their name speaks thus to the King The Clergy entreateth your Majesty that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline reform themselves in good earnest Amongst all the Rules of Reformation Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost and written by the Holy Council of Trent in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous nor more proper for the present malady and indisposition of all the members of the Body Ecclesiastical but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church upon pain of being reputed Schismatical against the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome and of incurring the Curse of God and eternal damnation Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause spake at Fountainâ—leau in this fort The Council of Trent is received kept and observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates this Kingdom only excepted which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it to the the great scandal of the French Nation and of the title of Most Christian wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured So that under colour of some Articles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire c. A. D. 1585 the same request was renewed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German in Paris Not the Gallican only but the whole Church Catholick doth summon intreat and pray you to receive it the Council of Trent No good Christian can or ought ever to make any question but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See the consent of all Christian Princes who sent their Ambassadours thither who staid there till the very upshot without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published There being such a number of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and learned men from all parts yea not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom sent thither by the late King your Brother who having delivered consulted and spoken their opinion freely did consent and agree to what was there determined And since the writing of the Review A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris Cardinal Perron and Cardinal Richlieu then Bishop of Lusson prosecuted again the same request And though this without success yet of the solemn Acceptation of this Council the next year after at least by the Representatives of the Clergy thus Spondanus ‖ In A. D 1615 n 7 In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis 1614 quanivis nobilitas vota sua junxisset viz. Vt sacrum Concilium Tridentinum Regia authoritate promulgaretur in Râ—gnâ— praestitum a Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Abbatibus ac caeteris qui aderant ex cunctis Regni provinciis Delegatis viris Ecclesiasticis extitit quantum in ipsis suit dum scilicet unanimi 〈◊〉 â—mnium consensu illud recipientes suis se functionibus observaturos promiserunt ac jurarunâ— After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country ‖ A D 1546 n 4 Non solum non in Decretis Fidei ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae ullum unquam fuisse objectum dubium Sed ipsa Dicreta Reformationis tam ab ecclesiasticis susceptafuisse quam etiam paucis quibusdam exceptis chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with ecclesiastical commendams Singillatim Regiis Constitutionibus recepta per Ministros Regios executioni mandata These I have transcribed to shew you the French Clergies conformity to this
were his fears groundless as you may see if you please to view in Pallavic Hist l. 8. c. â— and in Soave p. 203. what fright the Council was put in A. D. 1546. under Paul 3. by the Protestant army hâ—ving taken Chiusa and â—rawing near to Tirol and again yet more A. D. 1552. under Julius The third The more particular relation of which though mentioned before is worthy your knowledge †See Spondan A. D. 1562. Soave p. 374. c Pallavicin l. 13. c. 3. At this time several Embassadors from Protestant Princes came to Trent desiring a safe-conduct for their Divines being very serious in this business as the Council supposed who suspected nothing of a War intended of which safe-conducts one and a second drawn up how full and punctual I desire you but to peruse it as set down in Soave p 370 or in Conc. Trid. Sess 15. yet pleased them not because not containing also in it those conditions which they required to be observed in treating their controversies one of which conditions was that the holy Scriptures only should be judge Yet upon this Conduct about the middle of March came some Protestant Divines to Trent four from Wirtenberg and two from Argentina who exhibited a Confession of their Faith and then earnestly desired a conference with the Divines of the Council about those controversies which conference was for a little while delayed by reason of the sickness of the Popes Legat of which sickness he died within a few weeks and for that the Council had not as yet determined the manner and form of their treating with them Now this being the only appearance that ever the Protestants made in the Council By this saith Soave p. 362 both the Emperour and the Electors were assured that Maurice the Duke of Saxony though there were great levies made of Souldiers did not attempt any thing of war But whilst this was acting at Trent the Protestant Princes having secretly made a League with the French King were preparing a suddain invasion upon the Emperour secure and suspecting nothing and when the time came to play their mine The Saxon Embassadors saith Soave p. 374. went secretly out of Trent and returned home divers waies but when their Divines departed he mentions not The Protestants arms prosper the surprized Emperour being able to make little or no resistance they take Ausburg and afterward Ispruck some three dayes journey from Trent the Emperour with his Court flying out of it at mid-night in great confusion and thus the danger drawing so nigh Trent the Bishops fly away and the Council is dissolved the 28 of April not daring to stay till the appointed time of the Session the first of May and the sick Legat carried thence to Verona where within three dayes he died Now from the coming of the Protestant Divines which was about the middle of March till the Protestants appearing in arms and besieging Ausburg which was on the first of April and so putting the Council in a fright was not above a fortnight and yet see what a complaint Soare p. 375. makes How these Protestant Divines were delayed from time to time not admitted to dispute not to be heard glad to divulge printed copies of their Confession because the Legate concealed it By this you may see how unfree this place was to the Protestants and how secure for the Catholicks by vertue of the Popes great power there See again in Soave p. 779 the fears of the Council A. D. 1563. upon the Emperours being sick as from whom they had their Protection and whose safe condâ—ct expired with his life § 91 6. Lastly The Councils opposing the Pope so constantly in some though not Protestant points 6. and their great unanimity in their condemning most of the Protestant tenets shew the place sufficiently free for where there is compulsion used there would appear some reluctance § 92 3 ly For the Safe conduct It was granted when desired to the Protestants for the security of their persons as full as could be demanded 3. The clause put in the first Safe-Conduct which you may see in the Council Trid. Sess 13. quantum ad ipsam sanctam Synodum spectat is excepted against in Soave †p. 344. as if not involving the Pope but besides that the Protestants might have had the Popes Safe-conduct if they pleased but they omitted and probably disdained to ask any such thing besides this I say this Safe-conduct was subscribed by his Legat in his stead and what could the Protestants fear when the Pope had there no secular Power and when the Council for any other spiritual power of his should side with them according to the obligation of the Safe-conduct against him But yet to give content this clause in the two following Safe-conducts which see in Council of Trent Sess 15. under Julius and again Sess 18. under Pius was omitted § 93 But after all this 1 st The doctrine said to be common in the Church of Rome that fides non est servanda Haereticis and 2ly the practise of the Council of Constance according to it in their putting to death Jo. Husse are brought as arguments that there can be no security in Safe-conducts how full soever for men once accounted Hereticks Of which Council of Constance it is urged as a Constitution in Soave p. 368 and elsewhere That saith or Safe-conduct given by the Emperour Kings or others to Hereticks or persons suspected ought not to be observed and if the Emperour 's not to be observed we may also infer not the Council's § 94 But here first The doctrine of those learned men in the Church of Rome who have written of this subject is much wronged or mistaken This question Whether saith given be to be kept to Hereticks as also Whether to Infidels and Heathens to Enemies to Subjects in Rebeâ—â—ion Princes at such time parting with their Rights c. being alwaies stated by them affirmatively and Faith maintained to be kept as much to any of these as to Catholicks themselves And if this be the publick Faith of the i. c. Prince or sâ—prem temporal Magistrate this Faith is declared to be jure Gentium unviolable as without which no peace nor society could be maintained in the world and by no person whatever not the Pope himself to be dispensible or relaxâ—ble Nullum scio Theologum saith Molanus sometime Divinity Professor at â—ovain ‖ De sid Haeret servand l 3 c. 10 neque etiam clari nâ—minis Jurisconsultum quâ—n conformiter dâ—ceant fidem pullicam Haeretico servandam esse Fateor quidem esse aliquo numero Jurisconsultos qui doceant Fidem privatam haeretico servandam non â—sse quia hosits est publicus But this is upon supposing the law of a Superiour prohibiting to privat men the â—ngagement of any such faith to such publick Enemies being a thing contra publicum bonâ—m or contra salutem animarum declared by
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
the whole Council hath been shewed †to be so unanimous § 150 § 164 To the 2d The Consultation in every thing made with the Pope 1 st Whereas it is usually urged by Protestants out of Soave †Seep 481 507. That as none could propose any thing in the Council save the Legats so the Legats might propose nothing till they had received a Commission from Rome That nothing was resolved by the Fathers but all in Rome and the Council guided by the Holy Ghost sent thither from time to time in a Cloak-bag from Rome †p. 497. much more is charged than is true For a proposal of the matter◠from time to time to be discussed in Council was made and digested in Trent by a general agreement of the Fathers unknown to the Pope as appears throughout this History After which resolved 1 st some Congregations of Divines disputed the point and considered the matters proposed at which any of the Fathers that would might be present 2. After this arguing followed the Congregations of the Prelats for framing the heads of Doctrine and Reformation according to the most common opinion 3. Then a General Congregation of the same Prelats for giving their votes concerning them and 4 lastly the Session when they were voted again and so published See Soave p. 167. Now all or most part of these saving the last the Session were usually passed without the Popes knowledge or concurrence and the Legats themselves are sometimes found differing from one another in their votes as they were in that of residence †Sav. p. 518. and 496 at which time also some other Bishops gave their vote with reservation to consulting of the Pope which shews the Popes mind though in a matter so much concerning the Apostolick See was not then known But after these General Congregations was usually notice of such Decree as was passed therein sent to Rome before its being voted again and published in the General Session And of this a charge is also given to his Legats by Pope Paul the Third in Soave p. 164. though I find not that Pius required it Nay if we may believe this Historian he seemeth in some places to decline it as appears in the quotations here following The Decree thus sent to Rome was there also by the Popes Council examined and his judgment returned to the Legats concerning it which when differing from that of the Council which thing seldom happened except in the questions between the Episcopal and Papal Rights the Legats endeavoured to procure by common consent either some alterations or at least an omission of such Decree in the following Session but this with all freedom of the Council still observed a good part of whom was also still animated against the Popes interests by the Embassadors of Secular Princes nothing being done against the satisfaction of any considerable part of the Council the uttermost of the Legats attempts then extended to procure an omission of that to which the Pope would not consent not any determining of what he approved when thereby was feared the alienating of some Nation from the Roman Faith and if thus something was hindred by their intermise from being passed by the Council which otherwise would have been so yet nothing was advanced to be passed which otherwise would not have been and so the Conciliary Acts have suffered no prejudice by it Nor any hurt done save that thus men are left to their former Liberty still in some points wherein the Council would have restrained it a thing I hope the Reformed will not complain of you may at your leisure particularly view in Soave the liberty the Council took to examine the Popes proposals in the Institution of Bishops †p 657. 723. and Papal Supremacy and the alterations which were made in them § 165 2. In the next place I will give you the Pope's plea for himself against those 2. who accused him for thus abridging the freedom of the Council To this matter then friendlily complained of by the Emperor in a letter to him thus answered Pius the 4th in another See Pall. l. 20. c. 8. n. 7. That he never gave any such command as that nothing should be decreed in the Council without consulting him first That in things more difficult the Delegats demanded his advice nor could or ought he to deny it them That it crossed not their liberty was not undecent or unusual that the Council it self should desire the judgment of the Apostolick See Nor was it unfitting that the Pope being to give Counsel to his Legats should first take it with the Cardinals men of great judgment and learning especially be not intending that his advices should impose any necessity on the Council to follow them Thus Pius me thinks with much reason And it is manifest that the Council in many things did not follow them And though little was decreed by the Council against that which came from Rome yet both all that came from Rome was not decreed and much decreed that came not from Rome the Pope often desiring them especially for reformations to proceed without consulting him and in Soave p. 503. complaining to his Cardinals of those in the Council who referred themselves unto him because saith he the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his own opinion and not lay the things of difficulty upon the back of another i. e. the Pope that themselves might avoid hatred and envy As also the same Author †p. 723. relates That his Legats sending to Rome the Articles that were drawn up in the Council of the Institution and residence of Bishops the Pope reprehended the Legats for sending them Because he knew that the major part in the Council were good Catholicks and devoted to the Church of Rome and in confidence hereof he was content that the proposition and resolution should be determined in Trent without his knowledge The same Author †p. 684. makes him further in defence of his Instruction from time to time sent to his Legats and to the Council answering the same letter of the Emperour on this manner plausibly enough though as Pallavicino taxeth him misrelating in several things the contents of the letter †l. 20. c. 8. n. 9. That no Council was ever celebrated in absence of the Pope but that he hath sent instructions which the Fathers have also followed That the Instructions do still remain which Pope Celestine sent to the Ephesin Council Pope Leo to that of Chalcedon Pope Agatho to that in Trullo Pope Adrian the first to the second of Nice Pope Adrian the second to the eighth General Council of Constantinople And thus also he makes him to plead his cause at Rome before the Cardinals †p. 503. That he could not chuse but be troubled with that which was spoken concerning the liberty of the Council and that to consult of the matters at Rome
was to violate it saying that it was a strange thing that he who was head of the Church and the Cardinals who were principal members and the other Prelats in Rome who have voice in the Council should be accounted strangers and might not be informed of what is handled therein and speak their opinion when as those who have no lawful part in it hold it lawful to intermedle and that in an ill sort That it is plain that the Prelats went to Trent with commission from their Princes according to which they proceed and that the Embassadors by letters and perswasions do compel them to follow the interest of their Masters and yet for all this no man saith which should be said that the Council is not free Thus Pius in the Consistory And indeed had not only the Pope but also all the absent Bishops in the world assembled a Council of their Clergy and sent their judgment from time to time to Trent so long as the Council was not obliged to follow it this would have brought no subjection or dishonour but have added more reverence to its Decrees enacted after they had first been sifted by so many several Examinations Nor do I see how the Popes Paul or Pius their Consultations with their Council of Bishops at Rome before every Session of Trent concerning the points to be determined therein and upon it declaring their judgment to the Legats or to the Council provided they use no unlawful practises for the corrupting of any ones judgment should be more thought to prescribe to or to diminish the freedom thereof than the precedent consultations used anciently in Provincial Councils concerning some point afterward to be defined in a General was held prejudicial to it or than Pope Celestines or Leo's precedent Letters to the third and fourth General Council declaring their judgment concerning what was to be discuâ—sed there may be thought an unlawful prescription to them though the Hereticks condemned by these Councils excepted against it And de facto what Secular Prince was there whose Orators in the Council acquainted him not continually with the actions thereof and accordingly received new instructions for their negotiations § 166 To what hath been said I have one thing more to add That as such a frequent reconsulting the Apostolick See was unusual in many former Councils so there was not thereof in them the same necessity because such Councils being assembled for the determining some one or a few points of Controversie the Popes Legats received full Instructions concerning the faith of the Roman See therein before their first coming but in so many controversies of all sorts as here came to be agitated it was impossible for that Bishop either fully to pre-inform his Missioners or to foresee the questions As Canus who was one of this Council long since observed in Com. loci l. 5. c. 5. And if it be said that the Popes presence in the Council might have prevented all such trouble and offence his absence seems rather eligible for this that so he might do all things with more mature advice and less precipitancy on whose judgment the affairs of the Council did chiefly depend to which may be added what himself urgeth to the Emperour †Pallav. l. 2. c. 8. n. 4. that his personal presence there then would have seemed to tend much more to the overawing and oppressing of the Councils liberty § 167 To the 3d. 1 The great number of Italian Bishops and To 3. 2 the not voting by Nations Of the first of these the thing being confessed these things may be said * That such a thing without the Popes particular design would have happened these Bishops being much nearer than those of Spain and France and not having the like impediments of Lutheranisme and National Colloquies as the Germans * that suppose the Pope had sent them all the charitable may clearly see another cause thereof than only their driving there of the Popes interest namely the sometimes great scarcity of Bishops in the Council especially at the first opening of it * That if other Bishops were hindered to be present the frequency of the Italians how numerous soever if of such as had lawful Suffrages cannot be blamed though the absence of others be excused That as the Pope was diligent to send in these so was he very solicitous by writing to their Princes to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations as appears frequently in the History and so also was the Council it self and the Italians therein which Council also had proceeded to lay heavy mulcts upon the Absents had not the Embassadors interceded and in part excused them Of which see before § 71. * That though the Italian Bishops in general are confessed to be inclined more than others to maintain the Popes honour and greatness yet so many of them as were not beneficed in the Popes state and subject to his temporal Dominion which was very inconsiderable in respect of the rest of Italy if we may believe Soave were addicted much more to their own Princes in things wherein their Embassadors craved their assistance than to the Pope as on which Princes they had a greater dependance in respect of their Estates their Parentage c. than on the Pope Therefore we find not only those of the Imperial or Spanish States of Italy but the Venetians and Florentines in several things to have divided from those of the Papacy See Soave p. 504. 559 558. * That nothing could be passed in the Council as to matters of doctrine if a considerable part contradicted though a major part favoured it and that the non-Italians were never but accounted in respect of the Nations represented by them a considerable part so that to hinder something from being voted such a number of Italians was or might be made use of but to vote any thing they alone were esteemed uneffective and the omissions of the Council may be sometimes charged upon them but not the Acts. * That whether the Pope had the Suffrages of the Italian Bishops at his beck or no he had no need of any such assistance for the Protestant-Controversies in condemning of which Soave confesseth the votes of the whole Council to concur as hath been shewed before as to many particulars § 150 and see Soave p. 182 183. saying That as to those points like a City beleagred the factions among them ceased and all joyned against the common enemy § 168 Lastly as to those Controversies wherein the Council was more divided and the Popes single interests were more nearly concerned * That de facto he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops nor the major part of the Council at his command to vote what he pleased This also frequently appears from Soave's own relations In these he makes often mention of the Bishops of Naples and Lombardy the greatest part of Italy their conforming to the Emperor their Soveraigns inclinations
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
esteemed this a sufficient and lawful Communion and no way offending against any command of our Lord enjoying the contrary 2ly It is a thing not denied by Protestants that Christ now no more divisible is totally contained in or exhibited by every particle of either Symbol 3ly These things supposed the Council maintains Ib. c. 12. that the Church did not change the former ordinary custom of receiving in both kinds without great and just cause moving her thereto 4ly But yet the Council grants also That some just Motives there may be for restoring the use of the Cup especially as to some particular places or persons and lastly referreth the judgment of these and Concession of it to the Pope's prudence the impediment that no such Dispensation was conceded by the Council it self upon so much importunity used by several Princes who having their States much imbroiled with new Sects hoped by this way to give them some satisfaction being this That the Fathers in the Council did not unanimously concur in the same judgment but the Spanish Bishops chiefly made great opposition to it as they not having the same motives which others for such an alteration and much fearing least some Division might happen between National Churches from the Communion celebrated in a several manner †See Soave p. 459 Neither were the rest willing to pass such an act with the displeasure of so considerable a party Though if we may believe Soave the Legats of the Pope then Pius Fourth who of himself also was well inclined to grant it ‖ See Soave p. 459. laboured much for the Concession of it †Soave p. 567. Of which Concession these conditions also were proposed by some in the Council †Soave p. 525. That the Cup should never be carried out of the Church and that the bread only should be sufficient for the sick that it should not be kept to take away the danger of its sowring that they should use little pipes to avoid effusion as was formerly done in the Roman Church And when it could not be passed in the Council Pro being strongly opposed as was said by the Spanish Bishops and others where the Reformed Religion had taken no root it was with much diligence by the same Legats procured that it should not be voted contra but referred to the Pope and this reference also first was drawn up with a clause of the Councils approbation of the Concession thereof if he so pleased in this manner ‖ Apud Pallav l. 18 c. 7. n. 13. That since the Council could not at present determine such affair They remitted it to the judgment of his Holiness who premising the diligences that he thought fit should either with the Conditions forementioned or some other according to his prudence allow the use thereof if it should seem good to him with the vote and approbation of the Council But neither would such clause pass See Soave p. 569. But to the Pope at last it was referred unbyassed any way by the Council to do that in it Quod utile Reipublicae Christianae salutare petentibus usum Calicis fore judicaverit †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. fin § 242 And so it was that after the Council ended the Pope upon the Petition of the Emperour and some others ‖ Soave p. 823. granted the use of the Cup to some parts of Germany Though this practice not having such effect as was hoped for reducing Sectarists as who differed from Catholicks in so many other points for which though they seem to have less pretence yet they did retain in them no less obstinacy neither did it continue long amongst the Catholicks who desired in this matter to conform to the rest of the Church The same practice was likewise indulged formerly by the Popes to the Greeks in Polonia to the Maronites and others reconciled to the Church of Rome that they should still receive the Sacrament in both kinds after their former manner viz. the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood and both delivered them out of the Chalice in a Spoon Indulged also by Pope Paul the Third †Soave p. 293 â—â—4 in the Cessation of the Council to those in Germany who should humbly demand it nor did condemn the Churches contrary practice and so that it were done neither in the same time nor place with that Communion which is given by decree of the Church this caution I suppose being inserted to avoid the offence which others communicating only in one kind might take thereto Indulged also formerly to the Bohemians and Moravians by the Council of Basil See Histor Bohem. apud Aeneam Silvium c. 52. His Boemis Moravis qui consuevissent sub binâ specie panis scilicet vini divinae Eucharistiae communicare licebit And should any Pope or Council restore the use of the Cup generally to the whole Church yet can this no way infer any variation of the Churches Faith or Confession of her former Error For in such matters of practice where no divine precept confineth us to any side the doing one thing is far from inferring a confession of the unlawfulness of having done the contrary unless the Pope or Council should restore the Cup upon this reason because our Lord hath expresly commanded it But then as this would shew a fault so it would no less condemn the practice of antiquity than the present §. 243. n. 1. To To The too much frequency of Excommunication See the Provision made by the Council against it Sess 25. De Reform Gener. c. 3. Excommunication to be forborn where any other punishment effective can be inflicted To σ. To σ. Disorders of Monasticks See the reformation of them delivered Sess 25. in 22. Chapters Wherein amongst other things it is ordered * That frequent Visitations be made of such Houses for the strict obâ—ervance of their Rule and for this purpose those Houses formerly subjected immediatly to the Pope are submitted to the Bishop as his Delegat * That none living in any such Houses retain any Propriety nor any superfluous expence be made therein not suiting to the vow of Poverty * That Monasticks never depart from their Convent for the service of any place or person or any pretence of other imployment whatsoever without a Licence obtained in writing from their Superior otherwise to be punished by the Bishop as Desertors of their Profession * That none shall have leave to wear their habit secretly None be permitted to depart from an Order more strâ—ct to one of more liberty * That the Bishop take care That any offending scandalously out of his Convent receive due punishment * That all Superiours and Officers be elected by secret scrutiny * That no Estate or Goods of any Novice save for his food and apparel be received by any Monastery before his Profession that so after his Noviceship ended he may retain a perfect freedom to depart
interrogatio est Quid rei nobis cum Patribus cum carne aut sanguine Aut quid ad nos attinet quod Episcoporum pseudo-Synodi constituunt c. In those more confident times also § 306 the Centurists freely set down in the several ages the errors of the Fathers which in the modern Controversies misled the latter Roman and Greek Churches Hospinian in the Preface to his Histor Sacrament to Antiquity urged as opposing the new reformed opinions and practices returns for answer * the command in the Prophet Jeremy In statutis Patrum vestrorum nolite ambulare And * that saying of our Lord Sine causa colunt me mandata doctrinas hominum docentes and * that of St. Cyprian Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est and of S. Austin Antiquitatem praejudicare veritati nec posse nec debere The forementioned Dudithius in his discontented Epistle to Beza †See Beza Epist 1. Si veritas est saith he quam veteres Patres mutuo consensu sunt professi ea à Pontificiis tota stabit § 337 And several later Protestants and other Dissenters from the Church of Rome there are who have been ingenuous in the same confession Grotius in the beginning of his Votum pro pace giving an account of his reading of the Fathers Collegi saith he quae essent illa quae veterum testimonio manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita videbam ea manere in illa ecclesia quae Romanae connectitur Is Causabon cited by Arnauld in his late answer to Claude an Hugenot Minister with many others which you may view in his 1. Book 5. chap. in his Epistle to Witenbogard †§. 207. praestantium virorum Epistolae written 1610 a little before his coming into England when he seems to have been in some greater dissettlement speaks thus Deum toto affectu veneror ut mala ecclesiae suae qui potest solus velit Sanare Me ne quid dissimulem haec tanta diversitas in Protestants à fide veteris ecclesiae non parum turbat Ne de aliis dicam in re sacramentorum à majoribus discessit Lutherus c. Then speaking of Peter du Moulin his making as other Protestants usually do those Tracts of the Fathers †§. 297. that are urged to confirm the Roman Doctrine spurious and counterfeit As. S. Ambrose de sacramentis Cyril Herosol Cateches Mystagog Gregory Nyssens Catechetical Oration he thus goes on Jam quod idem Molinaeus omnes veterum libros suae doctrinae contrarios respuit ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cui mediocriter docto fidem faciet Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus falsus Gr. Nyssenus falsus Ambrosius falsi omnes mihi liquet falli ipsum illa scripta esse verissima quae ipse pronunciat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Causabon § 308 1. More general yet that confession of Socinus Ep. ad Radecium Legantur saith he Pontificiorum scripta adversus Lutheranos Calvinianos satis intelliget si praeter sacras literas illorum Patrum produced by the Pontificii authoritate sit standum nobis omnino causa cadendum esse And indeed the followers of Socinus despairing as to their chief points concerning God's Attributes and the Trinity to produce any just plea from ancient Church-Authority do also more candidly relinquish this interest as to those other Controversies which they in common with other reformed maintain against Catholicks In defending which points when the Fathers are urged against them their ordinary answer is 1 That Error and Antichrist came into the Church so soon as the Apostles by death went out of it And therefore they make even the Apostles themselves not the Roman Empire for that they say would keep out Antichrist too long to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thess 2. 2 That the Fathers would have the Holy Scriptures to be believed rather than any thing they say 3 That the Fathers are not to be believed in any thing they say contrary to the Scriptures and that if Antiquity be to be followed the Prophets and Apostles are the most ancient these persons impudently calling by the name of Prophets Apostles Scriptures that private sense they impose upon them See for this Volkelius de vera Relig. l. 3. c. 40. and l. 4. c. 22. and frequently elsewhere and see Beza in his first Epistle applying like plaisters to the wound of Dudithius § 309 Chillingw also more candidly than many of his followers in his new Socinian way that all necessaries to all manner of persons using their industry are clear in the Holy Scriptures seems very little solicitious in engaging the Fathers or other Antiquity on his side by reason of the evidence in Holy Scriptures of all necessaries and the needlesness of deciding any non-necessaries I for my part saith he in the latter end of his work after his declaring not the Articles of the Church of England not the harmony of Protestant Confessions but the Bible the Bible to be his Religion after a long and as I verily believe and hope imimpartial search of the true way to eternal happiness do profess plainly that I cannot finde any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only i. e. of the Bible not of the Church for as for this latter he goes on I see plainly and with my own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive Interpretations of Scripture few or none found no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only not any it seems of Antiquity or of the Primitive Church yet out of which the Catholicks alwaies convinced Heresies for any considering man to build upon Thus he down-right § 310 And therefore it is considerable That in his answers to the Motives of his turning Catholick †See the conclusion of his Preface §. 41. c. that you may see the Authority of Antiquity and of Church-Tradition had a great hand in leading him to Popery but none at all in reducing him to Protestantisme he is not sollicitous at all to deny or disprove the truth of these motives but to traverse the consequence he formerly made from them So to the first Motive to the Roman Catholick Religion viz. That a perpetual visible Profession is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so far as concerns the points in contestation He answers not by denying any such visible profession to be wanting to Protestants But that any such visible Profession without any mixture of falshood is not necessary Again to the Fourth That many Points of Protestant Doctrine are the opinions of Hereticks condemned by the Primitive Church He answers not by denying the Protestant Doctrines to be condemned as Heretical by the
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
against Conscience 2. And again That to one liable to error in some things yet some other things may well be so plain and manifest that he may have abundant certainty thereof And 3. That such a Demonstration of his Certainty as proposed to any that understands the terms satisfieth and convinceth him is good But these granted yet a Judgment well purged from Secular Interest will here also consider 1. That it is no such easie matter as it is thought to arrive at certainty in things intellectual where our sences do not assist us and especially those that are Divine and Spiritual * where these things not being collected by Reason but originally delivered to us by Divine Revelation both the matters are many times very mysterious treating of the perfections wisdom and waies of God His Divine Laws and Sacraments things above our natural reach and the words also signifying these to us are many times not free from several acceptions literal and figurative else all persons would agree in the same sence so that apparent contradiction in the words by distinguishing of some term is none in the sence but both the verbal Contradictories very true * Where again these Revelations being many and all most certainly true none may be taken in such a sence as to contradict any other And lastly * where the true essence of things abstracted from all their Accidents which accidents again cannot be known to us to be so but by an actual separation being not perfectly known to us hence also though it be most certain to us that two contradictories cannot be true yet is it most difficult to discern what things truly contradict For it is a Contradiction only when the same thing is denied of or removed from its felf As this a man is not a man Or this A man is white and not white where the formal Contradiction being resolv'd is whiteness is not whiteness Manhood is not Manhood And it is no contradiction but truth when ever a thing is denied of any thing not it self Therefore this what is or is not the thing it self or its essence must exactly be known before a true and reall contradiction be so And this difficulty which is indeed in all nature must still be the greater in these things spiritual and more remote from sence of which we are speaking Cum res tanta sit saith St. Austin †See before §. 293. ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit omnesne putas idoneos c. And Tu in eos libros qui sancti Divinarumque rerum pleni c sine Duce irruis And Nihil est facilius quam non solum se dicere sed etiam opinari verum invenisse sed hoc reipsâ difficillimum est And therefore in that excellent Treatise †De utilirate Credendi he adviseth them first laying aside such fancies of certainty to believe the Church Quo illuminaturo praeparentur Deo And indeed who is there if he reflect upon the many seeming certainties that he hath had in some opinions afterward forsaken that will not perceive that this conceited certainty is an ordinary fallacy which those who know least and so have least reason to think themselves certain are most subject to Qui ad pauca respicit facile pronunciat § 319 But then further If in those things Divine this particular point wherein we pretend a certainty be such as that the supremest Church-Authority proposeth to us the contrary as certain an Authority not to mention here the supernatural assistance promised them of the same or better abilities than we for their Intellectuals and that hath all the same external means and Grounds of the knowledge of such point as we perhaps more to whom also all the Grounds Motives Arguments of our certainty of it have been communicated persons likewise we ought to presume of as much diligence in searching truth as much integrity and freedom from passion and interest as our selves For these judge for themselves as well as for their Subjects and set down their own as well as prescribe anothers faith this I say will make any such conceited certainty on our side yet much more irrational See more said of this in the 4th Disc § 11. And lastly besides all this our pretended Demonstrations being put to the trial according to the former Protestant Definition of a demonstration will prove constantly false as from which so many rational and learned persons hearing or reading them continue to dissent Neither here will the plea of the perspicuity and clearness of the Scriptures in such point ordinarily the chief pretence we have for our certainty any way relieve us or release our obedience to these Governours but rather promote it Because if these Scriptures to us clear so will they be to them Or if these Scriptures like the Israelites Cloud be light to one and darkness to another our humility ought to believe that the light side of it will be rather toward the Church-Governours than toward us when singular and differing from them who also are appointed to enlighten us ‖ Mat. 5.14 § 320 The four main points that are maintained by the supreme Church-Authority to which Protestants refuse conformity and at which they take most offence and many of them charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Sacriledge 〈◊〉 1. The corporal presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist and consequently Adoration of them as present 2. Worship and Invocation of Saints 3. Veneration of Images 4. Communion in one kind As for a fifth which might be added The language that ought to be used according to several Nations in the Celebration of the publick Service of God I here omit it Supposing this might be easily so accomodated as solely to be no hinderance of an union where all the other real Controversies are accorded between the two Churches For the First then of these four points the corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist § 321 from which follows Adoration Since as hath been shewed in the first Discourse § 62 and more copiously in the Historical Disc of the Eucharist § 35. a possibility thereof is not opposed by many of the Reformed and the true sence of Hoc est Corpus meum and of other Scriptures whether de facto these do declare it so present is that by which this Question between the two Parties must be decided I see not what Demonstrative certainty any Protestant can rationally pretend of the sense he gives to these Scriptures in opposition to that other sence of them which is maintained by Church-Authority and hath been by so many Councils expresly declared long before Protestancy thought on Of which Councils see 1 Disc § 57. c and this after so long and subtile disputes for about three hundred years viz. from the 2d Nicen Council to the daies of Berengarius and after so diligent an Examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius Bertram and others
of Learning in the modern Greek and other Oriental Churches as also that of the Moscovites ‖ l. 5. c. 1. even amongst their Monasticks Priests and Bishops which industrious disparaging of their Science shews he hath no mind to stand to their Judgement He relates their many Superstitious and ridiculous Rites and Ceremonies in Religion their extreme Poverty and so how easily they are to be gained to say or do any thing with the Money or to speak it in better Language with the Charities which the Latines frequently bestow on them Hence these Nations being so ignorant their sentiments in Religion are less to be valued 2. He proceeds ‖ l. 2. c. 2. c. to tell us the many opportunities §. 321. n. 4. the Latines have had of introducing Innovations and propagating the Roman Faith in those Countreys 1. By so many Western Armies that have passed thither for the Conquest of the Holy Land and have settled there to maintain their Victories and so kept the Orientals in Subjection for near 200 years By the inability of the later Grecian Emperours to defend their Dominions and so their often endeavouring to accommodate Religion after the best way for their Secular advantages and that was by a Conformity in it with the West 3. By the continual Missions of Priests and Religious of all Orders each of them striving to have some plantation in the East especially the Missions of Jesuites thither who by their manifold diligence in instructing their children educating their youth distributing many charities to the necessitous playing the Physitians teaching the Mathematicks c. insinuate also into them their Religion having corrupted also several of their Bishops Hence we may imagine these Missions of the Latines having thus overspread the whole face of the East and practising so many Acts to change its Faith it will seem a hard task to prove concerning any particular Testimony procured from thence that the persons subscribing it are no way Latiniz'd no way tainted in their judgement and that they are not already circumvented and won over in some Points though perhaps they may still stand out in some others All this He doth to shew the great industry of these Missions to pervert the Truth there But indeed manifests their indefatigable zeal and courage through infinite hazards to advance it negociating the Conversion of Infidels as well as the instruction of ignorant Christians And Roman Catholicks are much indebted to M. Claude for his great pains in giving so exact an account of their Piety 3. Having premised such a Narration as this §. 321. n. 5. to be made use of as he sees fit for invalidating the Testimonies of the modern Greeks 3ly He declares that he doth not undertake at all to shew that the Greeks concur with Protestants in their Opinion concerning our Lords presence in the Eucharist and much complains of his Adversary for imposing such an attempt upon him L. 3. c. 1. It is not our business here saith he to shew whether the Greeks have the same Faith which we Protestants have on the subject of the Holy Sacraments This is a perpetual Illusion that M. Arnauld puts upon his Readers but whether the Greeks believe of the Sacrament that which the Church of Rome believes And l. 3. c. 13. He saith He would have none imagine that he pretends no difference between the Opinion of the Greeks and Protestants and he thinks that none of the Protestant Doctors have pretended is And Ibid. after his stating of the Greek Opinion To the censure that he makes it peâ—â— raisonnable he saith * p. 336. That to this he hath nothing to answer save that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere That both the Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity p. 337. and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1st as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it †Epist P. Melancthoni à toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christs Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christs natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2. Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again †l. 3. c. 13 p. 326. l. 4 c. 9. p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctifyed Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Fathers words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 321 4. Having said this n. 6. That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christs Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Articles of their Faith His words upon D. Arnaud's resenting it That whereas he contented himself only to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these *
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in