to be handled in Council were lawful before the Council why not during it Especially the matters being so various as that the Legats were not capable of such Instructions all at once neither did this encroach on the liberty of the Council unless it can be shewed that the Council was obliged to follow it which it is clear they were not because de facto they many times opposed it Neither was any thing in matter of Doctrine voted in Council whatever instructions came in the male from Rome a considerable part resisting § 262 To Ï„. To Ï„. See what is said § 170 171. The Popes Pensions given to some poorer Bishops during so long a Session of the Council might be an effect of his charity not policy However it is clear that their assistance to him was useless as to Protestant Controversies and stood him in little stead as to those Catholick ones wherein a considerable part of the Council opposed him none of which were passed for him if any perhaps were hindred by his party from being passed against him this was the uttermost of any service done by his Pensioners As for many Titular Bishops sent and new Bishopricks erected during the Council whilst those things are only in general said and no particulars named they carry the suspicion of a groundless report § 263 To ν. To ν. The Councils determining things repugnant to Scripture 1 That no injunction repugnant to the Holy Scriptures is to be obeyed is on all sides agreed on But that some of the Councils decrees are contrary to the Scriptures as it is a thing affirmed by the Protestants the lesser so is it denied by the Council and its adherents much the major part of the Doctors and Church-Governours of the West We are to seek then which of them our duty doth oblige us to obey and follow Next 2 As to the Councils determining things not warranted by Scripture See before § 176. the two Propositions both Divine Revelation whereby the Scriptures warrant the Church in her defining and requiring a belief of such things to be lawful and in her injoyning such things to be practised as the Holy Scriptures have not prohibited or declared against This warrant from the Scriptures for any of their Decrees the Council wants not and affirms no further warrant from them as to such Decrees necessary § 264 To φ. To Φ I answer 1st That the Council of Trent allows no Tradition extra Scripturas or unwritten there to be sufficient ground of defining matter of faith unless it be Tradition Apostolical Traditiones saith It †See Sess 4. Decret de Canon Scrip. quae exipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis Apostolis spiritu sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt And ‖ Salv. Conduct Sess 15. Vult S. Synodus quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones c. in praedicto Concilio tractentur 2ly That any Council should make the word of God delivered by the Apostles either by Tradition written the Holy Scriptures or unwritten i. e. by them equally a ground of Faith where there is a certainty equal or sufficient of the one as of the other that it is Apostolical I see not how it can be liable to any Censure Of this thus Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 210. Your next inquiry is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility As for the necessity of standing Records which he there alledgeth from the speedy decay of an Orall Tradition this is sufficiently remedied if the Apostles Successors at least do commit to writing things which were by them orally received And thus Mr. Chillingw †We conceive no antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might stand very well together If God had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written So he hath sending us to our spiritual Guides †Heb. 13.7 17. Eph. 4.11 14. who do by Tradition of their Predecessors writings conveâ—â—â—â—â—â— to us that right sence of Scriptures which is dubious in the written letter of them 3 ly None can rationally deny that the Traditive Doctrine of the Church-Guides would have been a sufficient ground of our faith had the Scriptures not been written because it was so before they were written and is so still to some who cannot read them written or know that others read them right Of this also thus Mr. Stillingf †p. 208. It is evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of faith as to that revelation Because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and his Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrine of Christ before it was written and this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of the Scripture 4ly We find the first General Councils universally allowed to have grounded their Decrees upon the Argument of Tradition and the Doctrine or Interpretation of Scriptures descended to them from former ages as well as upon the Text of Scriptures and by both these not one of them singly to have defended their cause against Hereticks Of which thus Athanasius †Synodi Nicen decreta Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse and In eo Concilio illa sunt scripta quae ab initio ipsi qui Testes oculati Ministri verbi fuere tradiderunt Fides enim quae scriptis decretisque Synodi sancita est ea est totius Ecclesiae And ‖ Epistol ad Epictetum Ego arbitrabar omnium quotquot unquam fuere haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam fides quae inibi à Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est satis mihi idonea essicaxque videbatur ad omnem impietatem evertendam pietatem ejus quae in Christo est fidei constituendam 5 ly Protestants in some point of faith ground their belief only or at least sufficiently on Tradition †Stillingf pt 1 c. 7. namely in this That the Scriptures are God's Word and consequently must allow any other Tradition of equal evidence a sufficient ground of any other Article of Faith and so do When you can produce saith Mr. Stillingf ‖ p. 210. aâ— certain evidence
such Superâ—ours Elâ—e the publick faith suppose of a General Council cedentis de suo jure and engaâ—ing exemption and impunity to some Heretick in a matter belonging to its Jurisdiction or also private Faith where is not such prohibition once given to a publick Enemy are affirmed to remain afterward inviolable P Layman Theol. Moral l. 2. tract 3. c. 12. Faedera publica Genâ—â—um jure intrâ—ducta sunct Idq propter necesâ—itatem Quia nisi faedera pubâ—â—ca sen inter dive sos principes aut reâ—publicas sâ—n inter Principem suâ—ditos ejus v.g. rebellantes to whom he adds Hereticks upon the same ground § Diâ—e 4â— Nec hac it a magnum â—â—th he vidâ—ri dâ—bet sperantibus in Dâ—o Christo summo Ecclesiae â—â—fensore qui auxâ—â—tum fâ—rt in tempore opportâ—no inita omnim de servanda essâ—nt nulla pax aut soâ—iâ—tas inter humanum Genus consâ—stere pâ—ssit And more particâ—larly concâ—rning Hereticks thus Becanus de side Haeret. servand c. 12. Quaestio est an quando Catholiâ—us Prinâ—eps sive saecularis sit sive Ecclesiastâ—â—â—â— câ—nâ—edit Haeretâ—â—is salâ—um conductum liâ—eâ—e venienâ—i râ—deundi â—sive id saciat jure communt sive speciaâ—i i. e. this later way debeat illis servare fidem neene Affirmant saith â—e uno consensu emnes Catholici where he instanceth also in the practice of the Emperour Charles the Fifth to Luther and goes on Hic valdâ— mirer adreâ—sâ—rios qui elsâ— hac audiant a nobis tamen elâ—mant noâ— câ—ntrarium doâ—ere But see the same prosessed joyntly by the Council of Basil and the Emperour in their Safe-conduct to the Bohemians securing them not only from the hand of violence but also of justice whose words in the close of it are these Promittimus sine fraude quolibet dolo quod nolumus neque debemus quacunque occasione praetensa uti authoritate vel potentia jure statuto vel privilegio legum vel Canonum quorumque Conciliorum specialiter Constantiensis Senensis quacunque forma verborum expressa in aliquod praejudicium salvo Conductui per nos concesso What more clear than this for the lawfulness and undispensableness of such publick faith though given in the largest form and most derogatory to the Engagers rights § 95 Only some Cases there are wherein all judicious Protestants I suppose consenting Faith given may not be kept to any person whatsoever and so neither to Hereticks such as these 1 st If the faith be given not absolutely but conditionally the Condition wanting or failing the faith or promise given with and limited by it is voided 2. So also if the matter of the faith oath or promise be a thing unlawful to be done neither here may such faith either lawfully be given or given be observed If the matter be unlawful I say either by the divine law if and though it be the publick faith given by a suprem Authority or also by any humane law if it be a faith given by Inferiors and Subjects to such laws Among which unlawful things and that jure divino is to be numbred if Faith be given either by Prince or Subject in any thing which invades anothers right or assumes to our selves what only is in anothers lawful disposal and so involves doing wrong to a third person which it is never lawful to do though cedere de nostro jure is a thing very lawful So for Example in the particular matter of Hereticks If the supreme Temporal Magistrate should pass his faith to one suspected of Heresie to free him from any Trial thereof by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal or to free him found guilty thereof from the sentence of Excommunication a right belonging to the Church and independent of secular Powers or to introduce or continue him excommunicated in the Catholick Church-Assemblies such faith as it is unlawfully given so neither given can it lawfully be observed Again when the law of a Prince or State restrains to professed Hereticks the publick Exercise of their Religion or imposeth some mulct upon them and this law is here supposed just if a Subordinate Officer or private person engage his faith to some Hereticks to the contrary such faith to them is not to be kept as promising a thing not in his but rather anothers lawful power and disposal And the same it were in a privat mans faith given to conceal an Heretick or a Robber or the like where the law of the State obligeth all persons to detect them Mean while where none of the forenamed cases happen where the matter of the pact is no sin and no sin it is that offends against no law nor only conditional Faith given to whomsoever by what person soever is affirmed no way dispensable or remittible unless the party to whom it is given relax it neither upon the plea of Fear in making it I say no superior law voiding such pacts nor upon any damage temporal or spiritual coming by it For some spiritual damage to be sustained thereby affords no sufficient ground to pretend an action unlawful Since the damage both spiritual and temporal to the world would be far the greater when none by reason of these and the like Exceptions could have any security of anothers faith since such Pacts and Oaths most what are made from some temporal necessity constraining men thereto and frequently do infer some spiritual or temporal damage or do some otherwayes hinder some publick or private good § 96 To this purpose Molanus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 14. concerning the publick faith when given to another where the matter of it is not unlawful That it is undispensable or unrelaxable by any even the Pope himself arguing thus from the ill Consequences thereof Si Romanus Pontifex semel in fidei publicae transgressione dispensaret haec non foret legitima dispensatio sed potius dissipatio quia deinceps nemo posset securus esse habito a rege aut alterius Tituli Principe salvo Conductu solenni juramento eo quod semper periculum foret ne Regia Potestas id via dispensationis à Pontifice extorqueat quod semel concessum esse novit Where he urgeth Heb. 6 16. Omnis Controversiae eorum finis ad confirmationem est juramentum and Soto who faith ‖ De Jure l. 8. q. 1. c. 9. Pontificem non posse relaxare juramentum cum praejudicio ejus cujus interest And thus Layman on the same subject †l. 2. Tract 3. â— 12 Si a Christiano v. g. Rege cum Infidelibus and the same he repeateth afterward cum Haereticis and before cum Subditis Rebellantibus publicum soedus fiat nulla unquam ratione seu directe seu indirecte Summus Pontifex relaxare potest Ratio est Quia cederet in maximum detrimentum ac contemptum ipsiusmet etiam Ecclesiae Quamobrem si quando foedus a Catholico Rege cum Infidelibus legitimâ potestate constitutum cedere postea videatur in Ecclesia
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
now you may see the reason of what Soave said above and the great point the Protestants had gained if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil though that Form names with the Scriptures Concilia Doctores praxin Apostolicam primitivae Ecclesiae for the judge of Controversies But why is the Tridentine Council so averse you will say that Scripture only should be the Judge or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion For this reason because when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture as mostly it is it is fit the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein or else what end can be of such Controversie when those against whom the Councils declare shall so often say the Councils declare against the Scriptures i. e. their sense of them But here it is sufficient that though the Safe-conduct as to the way which the Protestants demanded of the trial of their Doctrines was excepted against of which more by and by yet as to the security of their persons it was unquestioned Thus much from § 82. that no deficiency in the Summons place or Safe-conduct hath rendred this Council illegal or non-obliging CHAP. VII 8. That this Council is not rendred illegal by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope § 105. 9. Nor yet by the Bishops or Popes being a Party and Judges in their own Cause § 113. 1. Not by the Bishops their being Judges Ib. Where Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies justly rejected § 118. 2. Nor by the Popes being Judge § 122. § 105 8 ly NEither doth the Oath 8. that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope hinder this Council consisting of those Bishops from being a free legal and obliging Council The sum of which Oath is Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae Domino meo Papae N. ejusque Successoribus Canonice intrantibus Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae Regulas Sanctorum Patrum adjutor ero ad defendendum retinendum contra omnem Hominem Regulas Sanctorum Patrum or Regalia Sancti Petri as it is in later Pontificals which Regalia I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in or near them as also non ero in Consilio ut vitam perdat and several other Passages in the Oath seem to be Jura honores privilegia authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae Domini nostri Papae successorum praedictorum conservare defendere angere promovere curabo Nec ero in Consilio in facto seu tractatu in quibus contra Dominum nostrum vel Romanam Ecclesiam aliquae sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum juris honoris status potestatis eorum machinentur § 106 1. Where note first That it is the ordinary 1 and customary Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Council and that it is for substance the same oath as hath been usually sworn in former ages precedent to many other Councils without being complained of or conceived any way to abridge their Liberties Nor is it now a grievance save to such as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights § 107 2 ly That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours 2. is required by the Reformed themselves and every Bishop in the Church of England at his Consecration takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop and the Metropolitan Church and their Successors And though in a thing so far as it is granted lawful it matters not how new is the practice yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patriarchy hath been also anciently used See the order in Conce Tolâ—t 11. can 10. Omnes Pontifices Rectoresque Ecclesiarum tempore quo ordinandi sunt sub cautione promittant ut fidem Catholicam custodiant atque obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi dependant where why omnes Pontifices praeeminenti sibi may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch as of the Metropolitan I see nothing to hinder And see apud Baron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man and other Bishops of those times at their Ordination Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps vicarioque tuo B. Gregorio Papae successori ejus me omnem fidem puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibere in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere Again Fidem puritatem meam atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae i e. Petri cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi solvendique data est praedicto vicario tuo atque Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist l. 10. ep 31. Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus sub anathematis Obligatione promitto sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi atque ejus vicario Beato Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem haec Sancta 4or Evangelia c. where though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it ‖ See Stillinsl p. 490. yet the word promitto sancti Petri Apostolorum Principis vicario me in Communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum in this as also me fidem atque concursum tibi utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturumâ— in the precedent Form include a fidelity and subjection to St. Peter's Chair and that the Bishops in those ancient dayes sware no less to continue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome than in the unity of the Catholick Church Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable and therefore in the same Form it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae and those who desert it are said to depart à radice unitatis Now this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case why may it not be so at another time And if this Council of Trent by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope may not be thought Free to proceed against any disorders in this See neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths since that Toletan Council since Gregories or Winfrids times be thought so § 108 3 ly Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience only to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require Donec Pontifex est dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum sacros Canones jubere potest sed non jurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in Concilio vel
554. and 738. Concerning the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating only in one kind and that under every kind and every part of it separated all Christ is contained See Soave p. 324 325. Vpon the 8th Article saith he all made use of long discourses though all to the same purpose Their principal reasons to condemn it were c. That as much is not contained under one species by concomitancy as under both was thought to be heretical and p. 519. They all agreed that there was no necessity or precept of the Cup. Though this was not so unanimously agreed upon and therefore left undecided whether some greater measure of grace was not received by communicating in both than in one kind See Pall. l. 12. c. 2. and l. 17. c. 7. n. 10. Again Concerning the permission of the use of the Cup when as the Pope and his Legats upon the earnest sollicitation of the Emperour and many other Princes were all inclined to a discreet indulging thereof yet the major part of the Council went against them for the negative See Soave p. 459 519 567. And chiefly the Bishops of those Countries where were no Protestants because all the Council having agreed that the cup was not necessary all Christ being in both the kinds they imagined that diversities of rites in several Nations especially in the most principal ceremonies which end in schisme and hatred Soave p. 459. And with much ado was it procured at last that the judgment of this permission should be remitted to the Pope but this without any recommendation to him at all though by some desired of such a permission and this remitting it to the Pope not conceded by all or most but only by so many as made the major part and therefore saith Soave p. 576. this concession was put amongst the Articles of Reformation Concerning the being of a Purgatory the lawfulness of the Invocation of Saints and veneration of Images Soave p. 799. In matter of Saints they easily agreed to condemn particularly all the opinions contrary to the uses of the Roman Church and p. 803. The Legats held a congregation the next morning in which the decrees of Purgatory and of the Saints were read and afterward the Reformation of Friars read and all approved with very great brevity and little contradiction See the same in Pall. l. 24. c. 5. n. 5. Concerning the Holy Scriptures or the Divine service not to be used in the vulgar tongue I find nothing decreed in the Council save only concerning one part of the service the Mass and of it only this Visum est Patribus non expedire ut vulgari passim linguâ Missa celebraretur Quamobrem retento antiquo probato ritu c and Can. 9. Si quis dixerit linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere c. Anathema sit where you may observe that Soave I am afraid to make these decrees of the Council the more odious or to have something more to say against them in relating the one Canon leaves out passim and in the other leaves out tantum p. 573 574. And to these all unanimously consented Ibid. The Fathers saith he assented to the decrees except only to that particular that Christ did offer himself Concerning Priests non-marriage and the universal capability of the gift of chastity and lawfulness of the vow of continency the 9th Canon of the 24th Session the words of which are these Si quis dixerit Clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos vel Regulares castitatem solemniter professos posse matrimonium contrahere contractumque validum osse nono bstante lege Ecclesiasticavel voto posseque omnes contrahere matrimonium qui non sentiunt se castitatis etiamsi eam voverint habere donum Anathema sit cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari This Canon I say was generally assented to by all the Council See Soave p. 783. The doctrine and the anathematismes of Matrimony were read to which all consented and p. 747 The Article of the promotion of of married persons to Holy Orders being proposed the Fathers did uniformly and without difficulty agree on the negative See likewise p. 678 679. Concerning Episcopacy Any thing therein opposit to Lutheranisme as the Superiority of Bishops to Priests c Sess 23. c. 7. was unanimously defined See Soave p. 599 and 738. Thus you see I have run through the chief differences §. 151. n. 1. to add more is easie but needless giving you in the close the general observation of Soave p. 230. That which hath been related saith he in this particular the Controversie concerning the certainty of Grace and perhaps did happen in many matters i. e. the members of the Council to differ in their judgment occurred not in condemning the Luther an opinions where all did agree with an exquisit unity To which words may be added what Archbishop Lawd confesseth § 27. n. 1. That none had suffrage in the Council but such as were professed enemies to all that called for reformation Therefore no Bishops that were present in that Council for all such had suffrages but were enemies to all that called for reformation And this being so surely there needed to be used no tyranny over such persons for so much as concerned the Protestant controversies What will be said here I know not shall we pretend that this unanimity of the Council against the Lutheran tenents rose out of ignorance of the grounds of their doctrine But they read their works and diligently collected out of these what doctrines were fit to be condemned which they could not do without seeing also in them the reasons and foundations of such doctrines Or arose it out of fear which some of the Council well inclined had of the rest The Archbishop § 29. n. 4. seems to say some such thing For ought A. C. knows many might agree with the Protestants in heart that in such a Council durst not open themselves But so in the Council of Nice for ought we know many might agree with the Arrians How can we have any judgment or sentence from Councils if we appeale from their mouths to their hearts inscrutable by us But if the Archbishops many were an inconsiderable part of the Council then still it is confest that the main body of the Council were against the Protestants which we were here to demonstrate If his many were a great and considerable part of the Council so as the act of the rest without them would have been invalid then why they should so fear as not to open their mouth I see not Or lastly arose it out of that fear which all the Council had of the Pope But then why did they in matters which more nearly concerned the Pope so freely vote against what he and what his Legats approved even some of the Italians with the rest ‖ See below §. 153 168.
jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to present Church-Authority § 292. That learned Protestants have so determined this Point § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311. § 281 NOw a Judgment once set free from the three former great Arts of the Will to misguide it as any ones Secular Interest shall require will begin to consider 1. In opposition to the first of them mentioned before § 274 keeping the judgment in ignorance as to Divine matters and imploying it wholy about other studies That since a right perswasion in Religion is of so great consequence to salvation All those who are not settled in their Belief upon the Basis of Church Authority and so under it remain in a sufficient security of their Faith as to all those points wherein the sense of the Holy Scriptures is disputed and controverted by several parties as for example in these Whether Justification is by Faith alone Whether there be Evangelical Councils as well as Precepts Whether Christ our Lord be Co-Essential with God the Father Whether exhibiting his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Whether there be a Purgatory after this life for some imperfect souls though departing in God's Grace or the like All such I say since they have taken the guidance of themselves in Spirituals into their own hands have great reason themselves to fall most attentively to the study thereof For it were to serve God too carelesly and at hap hazard to cast off Church-Authority for the Exposition and Sence of God's Word in these disputed and difficult matters and not himself to use any other indeavour at all for the right understanding of them And in such indeavour he ought not only to take a perfunctory view of some places that may seem at the first sight to represent to him what he would have but to seek out all those Texts that both sides build upon and then diligently to examine and compare them For though some Texts may seem never so plain as to the Literal and Grammatical sence as what more clear than Accipite comedite Hoc est Corpusmeum Matt 26. yet scarce is there any sentence where the terms are not capable of several acceptions Figurative and Non-literal Or if they be not all sides must necessarily agree in their sence and so about such Texts be no dispute And again there being a necessary consonancy and agreement in every title of Scripture no place how plain soever for the expression it seems to be may be so inter preted as to contradict another that seems as clearly to say the contrary He ought also to weigh not only the immediat sence of Scripture but the necessary consequences and since whatever things are not opposit to Scripture are truly lawful and practicable to discern the true and not only pretended repugnances thereto He ought also to examin Translations peruse the Comments and Expositions of others Modern Ancient For all these things that Authority most exquisitly doth whose judgment and conduct he declines Lastly he must be a Divine who will not be guided by Divines for of the true way of Salvation none can securely be ignorant And what Prelatical Protestant allows this in an Independent or Fanatick when he will neither guide his ignorance by following the learned nor remove it by study § 282 As for Salvation to be had in any Christian Profession though it may be true in a Church where all fundamentals are truly believ'd and Baptism rightly administred for so many as are invincibly ignorant of any better or perhaps other communion for Children and Rusticks those of an immature age or of very low imployments void of literature and publick converse and by their mean condition and inexperience destitute of any improvement of their knowledge yet for all the rest who have better means of understanding Divine matters and of searching the grounds of their Faith and state of their Communion and on whose direction and example every where depend the other meaner and younger sort of people and by their default miscarry ‖ 1 Cor. 8 1â— For these I say their case seems very dangerous who happen to be in any separated Society out of the external Catholick Communion Since the One God will be worshipped as S. Austin †Epist 48. answered those Latitudinarian Donatists not only in verity but unity and again hath left marks and Testimonies sufficiently evident for the discerning and distinguishing that Catholick Communion wherein he will be worshipped from all other Heretical or Schismatical Societies All those therefore who either through their own fault do not know this Communion because they will not search or knowing it yet voluntarily still remain in any other divided from it must needs be in a very perillous Condition The first because their ignorance in a thing so manifest and withal so important must needs be very gross and unexcusable The second because any long stay in any such separated Society to one convinced seems both by the Scriptures and by the Church frequently prohibited And were it not so at least brings so much detriment and damage to the spiritual Condition of such a person as is no way to be recompenced by any other fancied advantages injoyed therein Which things it will not be amiss to discourse a little more fully if perhaps some Laodicean complexion may receive some benefit thereby § 283 1st Then The remaining in any such Communion is prohibited by the Scriptures in many places Eph. 5.7 8. The children of light are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness nor to be partakers with them but to reprove them 2 Cor. 6.14 Light and darkness Justice and iniquity Believers and Infidâ—ls the Temples of God which all good Christians are and of Idols are to have no fellowship or communion together But Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord. And 1 Cor. 3.16 Si quis Templum Domini violarerit disperdet illum Deus Nor may such separation be understood from Infidels Heathens or non-Christians only For 1 Cor. 5.9.11 If a Brother i. e. one that professeth Christianity with us be a Fornicator an Adulterer an Idolater a Drunkard with such a one we are charged not to eat But to with-draw our ordinary converse from him i. e. where no duty of