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
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
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
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218. Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices § 220 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non-Residence § 235. 4. Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very 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 Church-Authority § 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 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
of Alexandria and the Eutychian party had great contest with the rest of Christian Bishops Anti-Eutychians proceeding so far that Dioscorus with his party presumed to excommunicate Leo yet was he and his party judged and condemned by the Anti-Eutychian party being a major part in the 4th G. Council the same Leo presiding there by his Legats and Dioscorus though the 2d Patriarch being not permitted to sit or vote in the Council And these Judgments approved by the Protestants Arius an Alexandrian Presbyter and Alexander the Bishop there had much controversie between them and accused one another before the Council of Nice yet Alexander in that Council sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest and gave his definitive vote against him And doubtless had Arius been a Bishop and the major part of that Council Arian Arius should have judged Alexander in the same manner Allowed examples in this kind might be alledged infinite 2 ly Now to shew §. 125. n. 1. that such judgments are lawful and obligatory notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party 2. formerly accusing and accused by the other of corruptions errours usurpations c. I beg these three things to be granted me having elsewhere sufficiently secured them 1 That the Church is delegated by Christ as the supream Judge on earth for all â—heological and Spiritual matters secure for ever not to erre in necessaries and that as a Guide 2 ly That the judgment of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church as being at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution and common practice of former Councils as appears by the subscriptions to them established the Representative thereof is to be taken for that of the Church or else the judgement of all former Councils even of the four first may be questioned 3 ly That the vote of the major part where all consent not in the same judgment must conclude the whole both for those Bishops sitting in the Council and those Bishops absent that accept it Which Judge §. 115. n. 2. that hath been of all former ages by whom Christians have been settled in truth against all former Heresies Arianism Nestorianism Pelagianism c. if any because he finds it not to suit with the late Reformation will now reject let him tell us what other Judge he can put in their place For if this ancient and former Judge must be supposed contrary to our Lords Promise deficient in necessaries and incident into Heresie Blasphemy Idolatry and then if a few of these ecclesiastical Governours surmising this against many a few Interiors against many their Superiors only after they have first made their complaints to them and propounded their reasons and been rejected may then apply themselves to procure the assistance and power of the temporal Magistrate one who may be seduced also and assist in a wrong cause and so may first sit down in the Chair and judge of the wilfulness and obstinacy of these others in defence of their supposed errors and crimes and then may proceed to a reforming of the Church or some part thereof against them things which a late opposer of this Council †Mr. Stillings p. 478.479 is necessitated to maintain will not thus the revolution of judging and governing in ecclesiastical affairs proceed in infinitum and necessarily bring in a confusion of Religion's as some Countreys have had late experience For This second Judge and Reformer and this Secular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries And then how is there any remedy of these crimes and errours unless there may be also a third Judge allowed to reform against them and then may not the Superiors and major part again take their turn to reform these Reformers And where will be an end of this Controversie who shall last decide Controversies Every Judge that we can set up being also a party and so to leave his Chair after that there appears another to question his judgment But if we are to stay in some judgment to avoid such confusion where more reasonably can we rest than in the three former Proposals § 116 And from them it will follow 1. That those who are no Bishops must be content not to be Judges or to have definitive votes in Councils and if any such have a controversie with or against Bishops must be content after their best informations preferr'd to the Order to be judged by the same Bishops who 't is probable upon some new evidence may alter their former sentences But yet suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes I see not what the Protestants can advantage themselves thereby as long as if any inferior Clergy all must have so and the greater number give law to the fewer For the inferior Catholick-Clergy in the time of the Council of Trent far out-numbred the Reformed § 117 2. Again from them it follows That if the Bishops are appointed the sole Judges of such matters and causes they do not cease to be so upon any either interest or siding which they may be shewed to have in the cause And indeed if we consider * their former common Tenents and practises in those things which upon some opposition they meet afterward to judge * to what side of a controversie the major part of them hath formerly inclined or also declared for it something of what they judge tending to their Honour another to their Profit another to their Peace in some sence they may almost alwaies be said to judge in their own cause or on their own side So when ever they are divided into two opinions or parties who ever of them judgeth here and none may judge beside them judgeth in his own cause And so it is when any one opposeth the Church in any of her Traditions or Doctrines formerly owned by her For instance when one opposeth the Order of Bishops the just obligation of the Churches Decrees questioneth * whether the Church-Governours succeeding the Apostles hold such or such their authority immediatly from Christ independent on secular Princes * Whether the receiving of Holy Orders be necessary for administring the Sacraments * Whether Tithes be due jure divino In all these we must say that the Church is appointed by God Judge in her own cause Or if in some of these things not the Clergy but the Laity be the right Judge yet so we still make him who judgeth to judge in his own cause and in a matter wherein he is interessed whilst he so much againeth in those things as the other loseth Of this matter thus Mr. Chellingw †p. 60. In controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Controversie whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party § 118 But now suppose judging in their own cause must by no means be allowed to any and so the Church about any difference being divided
Conditions Luther the first Parent of this new Sect being questioned for his Doctrines and upon this cited to Rome first made Friends to have his cause tried in Germany having been heard and condemned in Germany by Cardinal Cajetan for one a moderat and learned Prelat he now appeal'd to Rome and to the Pope But well perceiving that his Doctrine would also be most certainly condemned there as it was he suddainly intercepted this Appeal with another †See Adam vitae Lutheri made from the Pope to a Council having some ground to imagine that such a Body would never be conven'd to hear his cause nor the Pope call them together from whom was expected a severe Reformation of Him and his Court But afterward seeing that in good earnest such a Council there would be for a Bull was published for one to be held at Vicenza in 1â—37 and well discerning that neither thus the usual former laws of Councils being observed or only this law of all Assemblies that the much major part shall conclude the whole his Doctrine could stand as indeed it did not He began now to vilifie Councils and put out a book De Conciliis in 1â—39 wherein he declares no good but much hurt to have come to the Church by those that had been held formerly not sparing the very First reverenced by the whole Christian world not that of Nice not that of the Apostles Act. c. 15. Some of his Invectives I have set down already in Disc 3. § 78. n. 3. and so here forbear to repeat them Upon this therefore his last Appeale was from Councils to the Holy Scriptures defending himself with a Si Angelus de Coelo Gal. 18. Attendite à falsis Prophetis ‖ Matt. 17.15 Oves meae vocem meam audiunt †Jo. 10. Omnia probantes ‖ 1 Teess 5.21 c. And here he knew himself safe as any Heresie though never so absurd would be in chusing that to be the Judge or decider of the Controversie which could never deliver any new sentence on any side and where the meaning of its former Sentence deliver'd already which all will stand to were it known is the controversie to be decided But his followers rather than utterly to decline a Council which they had formerly to avoid the standing Church-authorities often called for thought sit to change the ancient form thereof and to clog it with such Conditions as if accepted should perfectly secure them from any danger from it Now the Conditions as they are most fully set down in Soave p. 642. though often mentioned elsewhere †See Soave p. 18 65 80. 1. 2 3. are these 1. That it should not be called by the Pope 2. That it should be celebrated in Germany according to the Canon ut illic lites terminentur ubi exortae sunt 3. That the Pope should not preside in but only be part of the Council and subject to the determinations thereof 4. That the Bishops should be free from their Oath given to the Pope that so they may freely and without impediment deliver their opinions 5. That the Protestant Divines sent to the Council might have a deciding voice with the rest 6. That the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council end all humane authority excluded § 128 Where note that by humane authority they would exclade amongst other things Apostolorum traditiones Concilia authoritates S. Patrum Which together with the Holy Scriptures as necessary to know the true meaning of them where it is disputed was the Rule that the Council entertained to decide present controversies by Of which see Soave l. 4. p. 344. and 323. where he saith the Council prescribed this Rule to the Divines in their disputations about the Articles proposed to them That they ought to confirm their opinions with the Holy Scriptures Traditions of the Apostles sacred and approved Councils and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the Holy Fathers to avoid superfluous and unprofitable questions and perverse contentions Which rule to judge controversies by was also mentioned in the Safe-conduct Quod causae controversae secundum Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum S. Patrum authoritates tractentur in praedicto Concilio and which also long before this was mentioned in the beginning of the Council Sess 4. where a Decree was made Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei c. scripturam sacram interpretari audeat contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater ecclesia aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum And such an advice and rule as this we find given not long after the second General Council to Theodosius the Emperour in a time much over-run with divers Heresies which Emperour thinking that all Sects might easily be united in the Truth by convocating them all together and permitting a free Disputation Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople with others rather perswaded him to take this course Vt fugeret to give you it in Sozomen's words ‖ Sozom. l. 7. c 12. Socrat. l. 5. c. 10. institutas cum sectariis disputationes utpote rixarum atque pugnarum fomites Sed ex ipsis quaereret reciperent ne eos qui ante ecclesiae distractionem interpretes ac Doctores fuissent Scripturae sacrae Etenim si borum Testimonia rejecerint à suis ipsorum consortibus explodentur sin autem sufficere eos ad controversias decidendas arbitrabuntur produci oportet eorum libros c. By which books they would soon be convinced of their errour which advice the Pious Emperour commending and proposing this way of ending Controversie to the Heads of the Sectaries they soon discovered to him their Tergiversation and He there upon authorizing only the Catholick Religion vigorously undertook the suppression of the rest Suitable to this among those General Proposals made by the Pope's Nuncio's in Germany and elsewhere before the sitting of this Council this was the first †Pallavic l. 3. c. 13. n. 2. â— Soave p. 64. That the Council might be free and be celebrated in the manner used by the Church even from the beginning of the first General Councils and the second That all those who met in the Council should engage to submit to the Decrees thereof Things to which the Protestants would no way consent The clause contained in the Safe-conduct of deciding controversies per probata Concilia c. they excepted against see Soave p. 344 and 372 and before § 104. and they refused also to stand to any Council that should proceed as the use had been for 800 years before †Soave p. 18. Here then at that time thus the case stood The Pope and the Tridentine Fathers were for admitting the Protestants for excluding the Form a of Council agreeable with the former and again the one for admitting the other for excluding a
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
examine whether there be not still some distempers left unprovided therein of a cure as whether many which were before are not remedied thereby and whether the times preceding this Council were not much more depraved than the present Which I think you will not doubt of if you read both in the narrations of Catholicks and Protestants the gross corruptions of those dayes So that I may say the unhappy reformation from that Church occasioned a happy one in it and a schisme by divine providence bringing good out of evil served much to purifie the Catholick Religion But of this Reformation as to the particulars I shall speak more fully in the fifth Head § 203. c. CHAP. X. 6. That no violence was inferred upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to the General Approbation By 1. The Popes Legats proposing the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not â—oting by Nations but the present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. § 169 6. NEither seem those things which are so frequently objected * to infer any violence or make any trespass as they were used 6. upon the liberty of the Council as to the defining any thing therein contrary to its general Approbation or * to be in themselves unjustifyable Namely these 1. The Popes Legats proposing in publick the things to be handled in the Council 2. Their consulting in all matters and receiving directions from the Bishop of Rome and his entertaining also a Council at Rome to advise with 3. The presence in the Council of such a multitude of Italian Bishops and the voting there not according to the plurality of Nations but of their Representatives present in the Council 4. The Popes giving monthly pensions to several Bishops 5. Admitting titular ones in the Council 6. The prohibition of Bishops proxies to give definitive votes To the first To 1. The Popes Legats proposing the things to be handled there § 160 1. For the lawfulness and necessity of certain persons to direct what things shall be handled what order in them observed c. in such great Assemblies I desire you to read Soave's discourse p. 135. where speaking of Councils he goes on thus After a certain time passions of men and charity being mingled together and there being a necessity to govern them with some order the chiefest man amongst those that were assembled in the Council either for learning or for greatness of the City or Church whereof he was c. took upon him the charge to propose and guide the action and collect the voices After that it pleased God to give peace to Christians c. the action was guided by those Princes which did call them together proposing and governing the treaty and decreeing interlocutorily the occurring differences but leaving the decision of the principal point for which the Council was congregated to the common opinion of the assembly as also it cannot be denied the Legats did themselves giving their vote last †Soave p. 138. This was done * in the first Council of Ephesus before the Earl Candidianus sent President by the Emperour and more clearly * in that of Chalcedon before Marcianus and the Judges by him appointed * in that of Constantinople in Trullo before Constantine Pogonatus where the Prince or Magistrate that was President commanded what should be handled what order observed who should speak and who be silent so much not practised in the Council of Trent and so did decide and accommodate the differences in these things Yet closer p. 330. The judgment of the Church saith he as was necessary in every multitude was fit that it should be conducted by one who should preside and guide the actions propose the matters and collect the points to be consulted on This care due to the most principal and worthy person was alwaies committed to the Bishop and then by consequence in a multitude of Prelats to the most Principal Bishop among them Thus Soave In this matter therefore you see the same things were done in former Councils as in Trent and when this done by a Bishop the doing justified can the same practice then in both leave those Councils free and render this inslaved § 161 2. After this of Soave see the Popes defence in his Letters written to the Emperour and King of Spain upon their complaint of it Apud Pallav. l. 20. c. 8 n. 4. and c. 10. n. 17. That the words proponentibus Legatis were composed by the Synod it self without his knowledge approved first unanimously in a general congregation and afterward in the first Session †Sess 17. Decret de Celebrand Conc. i. e. under Pius which is the 17 th Session of the Council with the opposition of two only Soave saith of four two more desiring a qualification of it That since Princes desired the Councils freedom from this he was content it should be so though he well foresaw the unbridled licentiousness that would come thereof See the Legats defence likewise in answer to the King of Spain Pall. l. 16. c. 6. n. 5. and Pallavicino's in answer to Soave l. 23. c. 12. n. 7. Lastly if you desire more satisfaction see the unanimous explication of this clause proponentibus legatis both by the Legats and Council importun'd thereto by the King of Spains Letters to whom the Proposals of Princes to the Council as well as of other Prelats in it seemed by this clause to receive some obstruction Sess 24. c. 21. de Reform S. Synodum explicando declarare mentis suae non fuisse ut in praedictis verbis solita ratio tractandi negocia in Generalibus Conciliis ullâ ex parte immutaretur neque novi quidquam praeter id quod sacris canonibus vel generalium Synodorum formâ hactenus statutum est cuiquam adderetur vel detraheretur By which Declaration saith Soave †p. 781. that difficulty so much agitated received an end with satisfaction of all And a Comment on this Decree may be the free practise of the Fathers of this Council and also of the Agents of Princes not less after it than before it § 162 3. Again Though the proposal of matters to be considered in the Council were necessary for order-sake to be committed to the care and super-intendence of some particular members and of whom rather than the more dignified yet it may be observed through Soaves whole relation of the actions of this Council that no matter whereof the proposal was desired or prosecuted by the major or a considerable part of the Bishops unless perhaps the Councils proceeding in the reformation of Secular Princes the Articles whereof are set down in Soave p. 760
which though advanced by the Clergy all the Embassadours and Orators unanimously opposed †See Soave p. 760 766 769. was stopped by the Legats power though I grant several times diverted or dissuaded by their advice and that proposals also were not unusually made in the Council by others if we may believe Soave proposals both most contrary to the Popes interest and most displeasing to his Legats To name some Such were * those concerning the two great questions about the Institution and residency of Bishops whether jure divino * Articles of Reformation to be joyned in their consultations with those of Doctrine and Religion * The abrogating or moderating of the priviledges and exemptions of Regulars from the Episcopal power * the abrogation or moderating of Commendams Dispensations Union of Benefices Of pensions and reservations of profits out of Ecclesiastical Benefices * Ordination of Titular Bishops Appeales to the Pope * The Councils representing the universal Church All which and many more were agitated in the Council the Legats as Soave represents them relucting yet not offering to infringe the liberty of the Council where they saw the inclinations of a considerable part bent that way So concerning residency and exemptions Soave tells us the truth of the History frequently constraining him to contradict those maximes which are elsewhere laid down by him to infer the slavery of the Council That the Legats were inforced to consent that both should be considered of and that every one speak his opinion of them and that some Fathers should be deputed to frame the Decree that it might be examined Concerning the Articles handling Reformation p. 144 145. he saith The number contending for them was so great that the Legats were confounded And that they yielded to their desire being constrained thereunto by meer necessity Concerning abrogating the exemption of Regulars p. 761 and 167 170. he saith It was a thing moved by the Bishops and that the Pope and Legats desired to maintain the Regulars Priviledges Concerning admission of the Protestant Divines to disputation p. 365. he saith That this opinion being embraced frist by the Germans then by the Spanish Prelats and at last somewhat coldly by the Italian the Legat remained immoveable and shewed plainly that he stood quiet being forced by necessity And concerning the reformation of Princes p. 769. he saith That the Legats gave forth this Article being forced thereunto by the mutiny of the Prelats If you would see more instances in Soave of the Councils bridling and over-ruling the Legats I refer you to Quorlius l. 2. first and second Chapters a diligent Collector of them So p. 656. concerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Emperour and by the French †Soave p. 513 652. which were thought to intrench too much upon the Popes priviledges Soave brings him in giving such instructions to his Legats That they should defer to speak of them as long as was possible That when there was necessity to peruse them they should begin with those that were least prejudicial c. That in case they were forced to propose them imparting their objections to the Prelats their adherents they should put them in discussion and controversie So very frequently in his History you shall find him as if he had forgot himself concerning what he affirms elsewhere of the domineering and tyranny of the Pope and his party revealing the distractions the fears the complaints and upon this the subtile Artifices of the Pope and of his Legats probably such as his own wit could contrive who with his fancy presumes to enter into all their secrets and speaks as if he had the Art of discerning thoughts and intentions as clearly as others do actions and Records and many times as you have seen after all these he represents the Legats yielding and going along with the stream because they could with no Art withstand it But if indeed the proponentibus Legatis was intended or executed in such a manner as Protestants affirm so as that nothing could be moved in the Council but what they pleased though a major part desiring it nor any thing pleased them that it should be moved which was prejudicial to the Popes interest or Grandeur this surely would have remedied and prevented all these fears and jealousies of the Pope and Court of Rome supposing his Legats as Soave alwaies represents them still true and faithful to him But I ask what matter of moment was there how much soever distastful to the Pope or Court of Rome that being presented once in Trent was strangled before it came to be proposed and agitated in the Council The Articles of Reformation that were exhibited by the Imperial and French Embassadors were after some delay taken into consideration in the 24. and 25. Sessions †Soave p. 751 759. And here when some Embassadors proposed that Deputies might be elected for each Nation to take care in the Council of the special interest of it The Cardinal of Lorraine and the other Embassadors both the French and Emperours contradicted it saith Soave alledging that every one i. e. in the Council might speak his opinion concerning the Articles proposed and propose others if there were cause so that there was no need to give this distast to the Pope and the Legats Such a Liberty then de facto there was used in the Council But I say not whether alwaies with that discretion that was needful or whether not with some Contradiction of some persons of a sounder judgment than the rest Or whether the Legats did not well in putting such bounds to this liberty as they well could either by using perswasions to the contrary or by interposing delaies till the first fervour was a little cooled as to many points which they saw unprofitable difficult and apt to divide the Council into parties and not tending to those end for which this Council was chiefly assembled Especially whilst they endeavoured to win the relucting party though this were not very numerous with reason and treating rather than force or overvoting them in Council § 163 4 ly Such a sole priviledge of proposal to be appropriated to the Legats of the Apostolick See further than for order sake seems needless to be contended for For if as Soave often saith the major part of the Council being Italians were at the Popes devotion for deciding all matters what mattered it who or what was proposed 5 ly You may observe That no such prescription as proponentibus legatis was made to the Councils proceedings till Pius his time and yet that all things there run in the same course before as after it Neither do any Protestants esteem the Council more free or equitable unto them under Paul's or Julius's than under Pius's conduct 6. Lastly which must be often said as to the most or all the Protestant Controversies concerning doctrine the Legats proposal could be no disadvantage in condemning which doctrines
overthrown by it To β β. To β. β. See before § 204. the contrary declared by Soave This briefly here to the Protestant Objections the satisfaction of which hath been more largely prosecuted through the whole Body of the former Discourse And thus through many obstacles I have at length finished my Design the Vindication of a Council which once admitted hath passed a peremptory sentence against the new pretended Reformation and determined all the chiefest modern Controversies CHAP. XIII Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding Assent to Church-Authority § 271. 1. The Necessity of following our Conscience 2. The Certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinion and seeming Reason § 278. § 270 AFter all this pains taken for establishing the Legal Authority of this Council some perhaps will wish this labour had been rather spent in a confirmation by solid and evident arguments of the Truth of its particular Decrees because though we have our end and though this Council should be granted justly to claim all that obedience which will be confessed due to the most supreme Church Authority Yet this most Supreme Church-Authority is denied by Protestants rightly to challenge obedience from its Subjects especially that of assent in several cases Whereof two are much urged and so seem necessary here to be a little more exactly considered before I dismiss the Reader that the precedent Discourse may not be frustrated by such pretences of its desired effect § 271 The first Guard That is used against obedience to such Authority is this That none can be justly obliged to obey any humane Authority so as to go against his conscience or profess any thing truth which he thinks error For though such person erre in thinking such thing an error yet must such an erroneous conscience and not such Authority in this case be followed and obeyed The second is That at least none are obliged to obey the Definitions or Judgment of a legal Church-Authority where such are not only perswaded in conscience but demonstratively certain as some affirm they are of the contrary to its Definition and that therein it manifestly erreth § 272 These two then shall be considered in their order And to the first of them I return this 1. That where Conscience or Judgment for these are both one proposeth any thing for truth yet not without some doubt and fear of the contrary here the Will or the Person ought to suspend action and put the Judgment first on a further search 2ly That where such sear is not the Judgment erring or not erring is indeed to be obeyed because the person alwaies supposeth this not to erre but to propose what is right since he hath no way to know when it erres but by it self And it also can never erre knowingly or willingly 3ly Yet That in the action wherein he followeth it when erring he may much offend God and this more or less according to the quality of the error namely where the Judgment or Conscience doth not invincibly but culpably erre and hath means of being better informed and so of discovering its error So the Jews when killing our Lord and his Apostles most grievously offended God in following an erroneous Judgment or Conscience dictating to them that they did God good service herein And indeed it is a great art of the Devil as much as he can to put out the eye of the Judgment to make men act more resolutely where Conscience leads them on he finding that the zeal of ignorance doth him far more service than a timorous hypocrisie and dissembling against Conscience could ever do § 273 Now here you see our freedom from Guilt in not submitting to Authority is devolved wholy on this our care that this our dissenting Conscience or Judgment be rightly informed seeing our non-obedience finds not the least patronage or excuse from a Conscience culpably erring And with this care of well-informing the Judgment or Conscience it is the Will that is intrusted though the understanding doth the work For we must know that though the Understanding in its assents or dissents acts necessarily and cannot but know and believe what it knows and believes and doth generally in all its acts follow the evidence of its object so far as it appears not the command of the will And therefore Secondly as to those Principles that are per se nota and self-evident as That every whole is bigger than a part The same thing cannot be and not be Equals taken from Equals the remains will be equal Good is to be followed Evil avoided the Judgment cannot suffer the least corruption or alteration from the Will Whence it is that as to such Principles all men how differently soever ingaged in their affections do fully consent and agree Yet as for other propositions the truth of which is not discerned from any self-evidence but learn't by proofs and arguments drawn from some other things better known here the truth of such proposition cannot be attained but by the industry and application of the intellect to the study and discovery of such proofs and again such application of the intellect to one thing or another for a little or a long time depends wholy on the Will And thus come our opinions and tenents to be subjected to our Will and she again is so commonly to our secular interests And she thus by applying the Intellect or Judgment to what things and how far she thinks fit makes in it what impressions she pleaseth And then after all this excuseth her self that she is led by it that it is appointed her Master and Director that it alwaies necessarily assents to what appears truth to it and that she regularly practiseth and lives according to its dictates And she corrupts it in those who deny obedience in spiritual matters to that Ecclesiastical Authority to which it is due commonly by one of these three waies following Which charity towards those who are frequently thus deceived obligeth me here first to set down more particularly and then to consider some remedies thereof § 274 The Will then is wont to abuse the Judgment or Conscience 1. Either first by keeping it in much ignorance as to those things wherein more knowledge may happen to be prejudicial
entirely his To these may be added all those Texts requiring the glorifying of God in our publick worship of him in the Society of his true Church and in the Confession of Christ before men Confession of him with the mouth as well as believing on him with the heart Rom. 10.9 10. of all persons with one mouth as well as with one mind Rom. 15.6 Which Texts seem in a special manner to imply that Confession which is made in the publick Assemblies of the Church Which Assemblies therefore were never intermitted in its greatest persecutions from the Civil Magistrates To these again may be added those many precepts of Vnity and Charity injoyned amongst all the fellow-members of Christ Eph. 4.3 11 12. 1 Cor. 10.16 c. Phil. 1.27 28. Jo. 10.4 5. which Texts seem to extend and oblige to all the external as well as internal acts thereof especially for what concerns Gods publick service and worship And that Article of our Creed that we believe one Church Catholick and Apostolick ie One external visible Communion upon earth united in its members that alwaies is and shall be such seems not sufficiently asserted and professed by any who forbears to joyn himself openly unto it Such a denial before men of the Body of Christ his Church seems not to fall much short of the crime of denying before men the Head Christ Himself But chiefly there where this Church the Spouse of Christ happens to be under any disgrace or Persecution here our taking up the Cross with her and the Doxology of Confessing him and her seems yet more zealously to be imbraced and no such opportunity of so highly promoting our Eternal reward upon any Secular inductive whatsoever to be omitted For which consider Heb. 10.25 § 286 2. This of the remaining in any such separated Congregation prohibited in Scriptures and the contrary also there required Next It is also both prohibited by the ancient Canons of the Church and disallowed by her practice For the Canons see those early ones Can. Apost 11 12 13. 12. Si quis cum damnato Clerico veluti cum Clerico simul oraverit iste damnetur 11. Si Quis cum Excommunicato saltem in domo locutus fuerit iste communione privetur Which Canon calls to mind again 2 Jo. 10. And ‖ l. 6 c. 13. Eusebius reports of Origen when yet a youth that necessitated by reason of poverty to live in the same house with Paulus one not Orthodox in the Faith yet he forbare to be present at Prayers with him Quippe qui ab ineunte aetate Ecclesiae Canonem obnixe observasset probably those Apostolick ones before named See Concil Laodicen held by the Catholicks in the time of the reigning of Arrianisme before the Second General Council Where as it is decreed Non oportere cum Paganis festae celebrare c. 39. And Nonoportere à Judaeis azyma accipere c. 38. So Non oportere cum Haereticis vel Schismaticis orare c. 33. And non oportere Haereticorum benedictiones accipere can 32. See Concil Carthag 4. held A. D. 436. a little after S. Austins death can 72. Cum Haereticis nec orandum nec psallendum And c. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excommunicato sive Clericus sive Laicus excommunicetur So it is then that all Hereticks and Schismaticks such as make Congregations and celebrate the publick Divine Worship separate from the Church stand Excommunicated and Anathematized by the supreme Church-Authority in several Canons of Councils And hence all those stand so too who communicate with them in such their service For This freequenting and joyning with them in their service is an external profession of such separation which external Profession alwaies it is that the Church not knowing Hearts proceeds against in her Censures And the Church in her expelling such Congregations from being members any longer of her Communion may be imagined much more to prohibit any pretender to her Communion from being or appearing a member of theirs And though the modern Church laws in several cases may perhaps have remitted some of the ancient rigor that restrains our presence with known and declared Hereticks in the Catholick Divine Service or Sacraments and hath admitted some limitations Yet the communicating with any of a separated external communion in their Divine Service or in such Holy things or Divine Worship as are commonly understood and taken for a distinctive note of such separation from that Church which is the Catholick such a dissembling of ones Religion is at no hand lawful but is a denying before men of Christs Church and so of Christ since who thus denies conjunction with the Body denies it with the Head also that is joyn'd to this Body Nor was there in any times the least dissimulation in any thing required as an external Tessera and Touch-stone of their Religion I say not a non-professing of our Religion but a professing against it ever suffered or excused in the greatest Persecutions Though other usual ceremonies and practices of the Church not distinguishing so essentially and properly her Communion nor this communion made a necessary consequent of them but instituted and performed for other ends may amongst Separatists be dispensed with and omitted As fasting or abstinence on daies appointed for them Provided no great scandal happen thereby But whatever compliances with Separatists for our Secular conveniences may be lawful yet since all suffering for the Catholick Religion is a degree of Martyrdome it is much nobler by keeping the strictest distance to aspire to what is most perfect than by seeking inlargements to hazard the doing of some thing unlawful § 287 Next For the Churche's ancient Practice piz the Catholicks neither going to the Prayers or Sacraments of Sectarists nor admitting these to their own Their Letters Commendatory mentioned Câ—n. Apost 13. called Epistolae formatae sufficiently shew how cauâ—â—ous and strict it was Which Letters from the Churches careful avoiding all mixture with Sectaries were procured so often as any had occasion to travel from one Church to another Without which Testimony they could not be admitted to their prayers c. The same also appears from the strict separation of Catholicks from the potent division of the Arrian Sect. Which Arrians though in many of their Councils they required subscription of no positive Heresie brâ—â—only an omission in their Creeds of some Truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet were the Catholicks even when much persecuted by the Secular Princes and by the banishment of their Pastors in some places destitute of the Sacraments strictly prohibited to come at the Arrian Assemblies though these had the same Sacraments with them and possession of the Cathedrals and other Churches and chose rather to relinquish their Temples to pray at home to live without the Sacraments nay to be without these in their sickness and at their death than to receive them from the Arrians See for these things S. Athanas Epist
Synodica ad Antiochenses And Epist. ad ubiq Orthodoxes S. Austin De verâ Religione c. 5. S. Hilary lib. contra Arrian S. Basil Epist 293. to some Egyptian Bishops And see in Theodoret ‖ Hist l. 2. c. 17. the jealous deportment of the Romans towards Felix who substituted by the Arrian Emperor in Liberius his place sent into banishment Tametsi saith Theodoret fidem in Concilio Nicaeno expositam ipse servavit integram tamen quia cum illis qui eandem labefactare studebant libere communicarit nemo ex Romae habitatoribus in Ecclesiam dum ille intus erat ingredi voluit And this resolution signified to Constantius happily procured the return of Liberius This of the Declaration of the Church against any such liberty of Christian Communion where soever our Secular interest or Education may be apt to fix us 3. But were there no such bars put in against it by the Scriptures or H. Church yet this were enough to disswade it § 288 that by remaining in any such separated Society either we are put to practice several things contrary to a right Faith and good manners and offensive to a a good Conscience or at least necessitated to forego the practice of many other things beneficial not to say necessary which are to be injoyed only in the Communion of this Catholick Church not so in others For a particular Catalogue of which not to be here too tedious I refer you to the Preface before the former Discourses touching the Guide in Controversies and to the conclusion of the third Discourse § 155 c. Lastly as for that internal Communion with the Church which it granted some who want the external may nevertheless injoy or the security of a votum where is an actual defect of the participation of its Sacraments that some may have they seem no way to such persons as those who are not by force hindred of her Communion but invited to it do voluntarily deprive themselves And partaking the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing to us where de facto we may have them and de facto do refuse them And then what other advantages can there be that can make us satisfaction for such a loss I will conclude this point with the Declaration sent to the followers of the Donatists some of whom for their stay in that Sect urged this very excuse we are now speaking to Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit by S. Austin and the rest of the Provincial Council at Cirta in Numidia presently after that famous Conference with them at Carthage A. D. 411. †S. August Epist 152 Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesia fuerit separatus amongst whom they reckoned the Sect of the Donatists quantumlibet laudabiliter se vivere existimet hoc solo scelere quod à Christi unitate disâ—unctus est non habebit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum And as for the Sacraments received in that separation Sacramenta Christi say they though celebrated in the same manner with them as in the Church in sacrilegio schismatis ad judicium habetis quae utilia salutaria vobis erunt cum in Catholicâ pace habueritis Caput Christum ubi charitas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Thus much I fear not needlesly I have taken occasion from § 283. to set down in opposition to that irrational Fancy Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit not knowing but that this Discourse may meet with some Readers not much averse from such a perswasion For by the foresaid Arts of the Will mens Judgments are too apt to digest opinions very gross where the Secular advantages by these are very great 2. Thus much considered by a Judgment set at liberty in order to the first Art of the Will to deceive it Viz. It s keeping the Judgment in much ignorance as to the Divine matters and to a cold indifferency as to parties and diverting it wholy to other matters Next as to the Second mentioned before § 275. namely applying it indeed to the learning of these Truths but this only from those Authors and Instructors that are of its own party a rectified Judgment will as freely conclude and resolve That all those who are not well settled upon this Basis of Church Authority and so by a resign'd obedience have prevented all disputes ought rather in making such a quest after Divine Truth in so many Controversies agitated between parties and in chusing their Religion to apply themselves for learning it to the reading of those Books and Authors and discoursing with those persons who oppose the tenents in which they have been educated and to which all Secular or carnal advantages do incline them that thus they may bring things to some equipoise and having first heard the plea of both sides be able to make a truer Judgment And if in the issue neither side do seem to preponderate should chuse rather that to which their interest seems more averse for they may well imagine that men are ordinarily so far partial to their own sides that they would not think both equal unless that against 〈◊〉 were over weight and that a crooked staff to be made streight must be bent the contrary way And upon this such Judgment also will consider That since our first perswasions in Religion and the particular sect thereof wherein we live are not taken up upon our own choice but anothers who having some command over us anticipate our judgment and educate us in what opinions they please hence it is that our constancy and perseverance even sometimes to the loss of Estate and Life to whatever we thus casually first light on called by the name of Fidelity and love of Truth and the contrary perfidiousness and Apostacy is indeed before we have examined things better only a rash and inconsiderat Obstinacy and that on the contrary in prudence every one ought to put himself in a great indifferency to change those first principles he is thus seasoned and possessed with as he shall by new experience find cause and to esteem that only Constancy in his Religion i. e. in his true serving of God to alter every day and that through a thousand Secular obstacles to any thing wherein he conceives he may serve him better As in our manners when any way deficient we do this without reproach Yet further will consider since as hath been shewed there is but one Communion of all those various Sects in which promiscuously the Education of Christian Youth happens to be moulded namely that which adheres to the Supreme Church-Authority that is Catholick and truly disingaged of Schism That all those who find themselves to live under such Superiors as are broken off and stand divided from their Superiors and condemned by them ought to entertain a great jealousie of their present state and not acquiesce in any such Government at adventure but presently to reduce their subjection to
fortunes less necessitated to serve private interests are by all these the less liable to error of the two And that the confining of the belief of such persons to the directions of supposed fallible Superiors is of the two evils the much more tolerable than the leaving them in such high an spiritual matters to the roving of their own fancies For thus in stead of some few errors of the Church in matters obscure will be multiplied thousands of such persons in matters most evident and clear § 293 S. Austin speaks much on this subject in his Book de utilitate Credendi of the benefit of believing the Church written to his friend Honoratus led away by many extravagant Manichean dotages advising him submission of judgment to Church-Authority Nihil est facilius saith he †De utilitate Credendi c. 1. quam non solum so dicere sed etiam opinari verum invenisse sed reipsâ difficillimum est And †c. 12. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis under which name he saith he comprehends all except those quibus inest quanta in esse homini potest ipsius hominis Deique firmissime percepta cognitio utilius atque salubrius esse praeceptis obemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere Hoc si in rebus minoribus ut in mercando vel colendo agro c. expedire nemo ambigit multo magis in religione Nam res humanae promptiores ad dignoscendum sunt quam divinae in quibusque praestantioribus sanctioribus quo majus ets obsequium cultumque debemus eo sceleratius periculosiusque peccatur And c. 17. he argues Si unaquae disciplina quanquam vilis facilis ut percipi possit Doctorem aut magistrum requirit quid temerariae superbiae plenius quam divinorum sacramentorum libros ab interpretibus suis nollecognoscere And c. 7. Nullâ imbutus poeticâ disciplinâ Terentionum Magistrum sine Magistro attingere non auderes Tu in eos libros qui quoquomodo se habeant sanctitamen divinarumq rerum pleni prope totius generis humani confessione diffamantur sine duce irruis de his sine praeceptore audes ferre sententiam c. And c. 16. Cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibiratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana Thus he to induce Honoratus in such divine matters to yield the guidance of himself to Church-Authority And then the Church-Authority he would have him submit to he describes thus c. 17. Quae Ecclesia usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circum latrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum Majestate damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Cui nolle primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae Nam si nulla certa ad sapientiam salutemque animis via est nisi cum cos rationi praecolit prepares them fides quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quam tanto labore praeditae praedictae rather authoritati velle resistere Again c. 16. Quae authoritas sepositâ ratione quam sinceram intelligere ut saepe diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis very frequent in his times See De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. partim sequentium multitudine And c. 14. Quae celebritate consensu vetustate roboratur And c. 11. Si jam satis tibi jactatus videris finemque hujusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros maenatura est I have given you St. Austins advice somewhat more largely as hoping his words will have more weight § 294 And because if this obligation of submission of judgment to Authority for the unlearned not able to examin Controversies or the learned after examination in some degree unsatisfied be received for a truth thus the greatest part of Christians are hereby for ever settled in their religion and belief as to all points determined by the Church I will here also set down for the benefit of such Readers as most value their judgment the testimony of several learned Protestants in confirmation of it several of which have been mentioned in the former Discourses The Reader who thinks the allegation of witnesses needless in a matter so evident and would only know when Ecclesiastical Authorities divide and dissent to which of them his submission is due may omitting them pass on to § 296. In confirmation hereof then first consider that noted passage of Dr. Field in the Preface of his Book §. 295. n. 1. recommending to Christians chiefly the discovery of the True Church and when this found submission to it Seeing saith he the Controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment In the same manner Dr. Hammond writes §. 295. n 2. in his Answer to the Catholick Gentleman chap. 2. p. 17. When the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit a bare yielding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve may rationally be yielded to a Church or the Governours of it without deeming them inerrable And in his Treatise of Heresie § 13. n. 2 3. he speaks thus of the Christians security from the Divine Providence in his adherence in matters of Faith to Church-Authority If we consider Gods great and wise and constant Providence and care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit scandals and false teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly servants If I say we consider these and some other such like general promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to
concerning the ignorance or negligence of the Fathers in the main points of our salvation Mans servitude under sin Reconciliation to God Justification the effects of Christs Death and Intercessions thus he in his answer to Cassander's offic pii viri ‖ Apud Cassand p. 802. Si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi ceres si absque Traditionis i. e. Patrum subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit Quid jam fiet praecipuis fides nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causâ preferam 1 Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati tyrannide 2 Gratuita Justificatio 3 Christi sacerdotium apud vetusissimos scriptores it a obscure attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Satan callide spinosis quaestionibus pios Doctores intricabat ut negligentiores essent in hac parte Quomam vero errores quibus profligandis tunc circumagebantur magna ex parte sunt obsoleti mediocrem duntaxat fructum percipimus ex eorum libris Interea si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omnis fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur à spiritu Sancto formemur in obsequium Justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continuae pro nobis intercessio c. The knowledge of such things surely the chief principles of our salvation not to be learnt out of the Fathers And that you may not think that herein Calvins censure stands single before this man Melancthon speaking of Luthers new discovery to the world of the Apostolical Doctrine in the very same points in his Preface to the second Tome of Luthers works thus pleaseth himself in the rare invention thereof Eruditis saith he gratum erat quasi ex tenebris â—duci Christum Prophetas Apostolos conspici discrimen Legis Evangelii promissionum legis promissionis Evangelicae Quod certe non extabat in Thoma Scoto similibus This throws off the Schoolmen the Disciples of the Fathers But he stayes not here till he hath hunted up the same error and mistake in these matters in the Fathers too as high as Origens time Origenica aetas saith he effudit hanc persuasionem mediocrem rationis disciplinam mereri remissionem peccatorum c. And Haec aetas paene amisit totum discrimen Legis Evangelii sermonem Apostolicum dedidicit Now who here could have the boldness to imbrace a way of Justification or Salvation though pretended never so rational or scriptural yet which is withal confessed if not also boasted of after so many ages of the Church that it is a new Discovery Descend we to others of the same more free and open times Peter Martyr in his common Places writing De Patrum Authoritate ‖ Class 4 c. 4. alledgeth Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus capisse errores Quum ergo volumus saith he instaurare Ecclesiam nihil consultibus est quam omnia revocare ad prima ecclesiae principia religionis primordia Quamdiu enim eonsistimus in Conciliis Patribus versabimur semper in iisdem erroribus ' Again Quid fecerunt Antiquissimi illi scriptores cum nulli adhuc essent Patres Si tum ecclesia judicabat ex verbo spiritu cur nunc quoque ita non potest judicare which Question is soon answered that the Fathers Fathers were the Apostles and that they judged ex verbo spiritu Traditione Apostolorum for the sence of the same Scriptures where dubious Again Provocare à Scripturis he must mean for what is the true sence of Scripture ad Patres est provocare à certis ad incerta à claris ad obscura à firmis ad infirma Et aliud quod dixi potissimum spectandum est Patres non semper congruere inter se interdum ne unum quidem ipsum convenire secum Would any thus prejudice the witnesses he intends to bring into the Court for his own cause Again Objiciunt nobis Paulum in Ep. ad Tim. appellare ecclesiam Columnam veritatis Fateor Est quidem Columna veritatis Sed non semper Verum quando nititur verbo Dei But thus is the most ignorant person that can be named Columna veritatis So Peter Martyr Bishop Juel our Countryman as the English Divines who have departed less from Antiquity than other forrain Protestant Churches seem also more desirous of being reputed to keep a fair correspondence with it in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's daies in his challenge at Pauls Cross proposed no less than 27. Articles of Religion wherein he offered to be tried by the Fathers of the first six hundred years But then it is very observable that this learned man hath chosen them so warily that of the twentyseven twenty two are concerning the Eucharist and again most of these only about circumstantiels therein and in these concerning the Eucharist he omits the Oblation of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice to God the Father only contends Art 17. no offering up therein of Christ unto his Father omits also the reservation of the Euhcarist after Communion ended Omits also the most if not all the other principal points that are in Controversie As Invocation of Saints Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead Veneration of sacred Relicks Evangelical Councils Monastick Vows Celibacy of the Clergy The Roman Doctrine concerning Justification Freewill and Merits concerning Penances and Satisfactions Concerning Auricular Confession Distinction of venial and mortal sin c. His silence in which arguing the Fathers not for but against Him seems to have done much more prejudice to his cause than his confident challenge for the other hath done it credit This thing Dr. Cole then a Prisoner observed and in a Letter expostulated with him Quod minutiora attigerit graviora praetermiserit †See Dr. Humphrey vita Juelli p. 132. who return'd this answer Quaestiones se primum leviores movisse ut post ad alia dogmata veniretur Alia i. e. the points he omitted esse ejusmodi ad quae probanda Conciliorum Patrum authoritates quaedam obtendi possint Haec quae ab ipso sunt posita nullum colorem probabilitatis habere c. And Dr. Humphrey Vita Juelli p. 212. seems not very well pleased with this challenge of Juels where he saith Tamen utmiam largitus est vobis plus aequo concessit sibi nimium fuit injurius quod rejecto medio i. e. the Scriptures quo causam suam facilius firmius sustentare potuisset seipsum ecclesiam quodammodo spoliavit Satis enim erat Christrano sic dixisse Sic dicit Dominus Satis erat opposuisse Vestra dogmata Scripturis edversantur Siquidem Daemoniacorum quaestio est Quid nobis tibi Jesu fili David At sanctorum
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
they might easily discern and the phenomena or Characters of the Apocalyptical false Prophet which are by them through insuperable difficulties misapplied to the Pope the Head of the Church to have been most visibly and eminently fulfilled in Him * Who is the head and Founder of that false Religion which hath so boldly invaded Christianity after so many hundred years growth and supplanted it in the greatest and most dignified part of the converted world Whose signs and wonders how lying or ridiculous soever for God forbid any such should be expected from this false Prophet as our Lord or his Apostles did have had the very same effect as the two Apostles †Apocal. 13.13 14. 2 Thess 2.9 10. have foretold those of the false Prophet should have viz. the seduction and delusion of the Nations and if there be no wonder in the wonders the greater wonder there is in the seduction that followed upon them * Who hath introduced a new Gospel and that pretended to have been written in heaven he assuming therein the person and voice of God new Sacraments new daies and places of solemn worship who hath moulded a new fine easie religion void as he saith of all Controversies and subtilties and consisting only of one Article of Faith One only God and Mahomet his Prophet Devised new pleasing laws which that they might be point-blanck opposit to our Lords are full of lust and uncleanness on one fide and of cruelty rapin tyranny violence the sword slavery and the law martial on another and hath invented new future sensual Beatitudes suitable to the observance of his laws * Who hath changed Dies Dominica for solemn worship into Dies Veneris and the visiting of our Lords Sepulchre and Temple at Jerusalem to his at Mecha Subjecting Sarah to Hagar and Isaac to Ismael * Who hath taken away the Christian Altars and the daily Evangelical Sacrifice the Sacraments the Priests and thrown out of the Churches of Bodies of the Saints interred there as contaminating them § 313 * Who after the attempts of Cerinthus Carpocrates and others in S. Johns daies and the progress of Arius and his Disciples in following ages almost all the ancient Hereticks being treacherous to our Lords Divinity hath at last compleated that which is spoken of 1 Joh. 4.2 * the Dissolution of Jesus as the vulgar and those Greek Copies it follows have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †See Socrat. Hist l. 7 c. 32. Irenaeus l 3. c. 18. or * the denial of Jesus his coming in the flesh as other Copies i. e. his descending from Heaven into the flesh whilst he hath rob'd our Lord not only of his Divinity but also by this of the High Prerogatives of his Humanity too rob'd him also of his Cross and Death which he saith he never suffered and so rob'd Him and the world of his Satisfactions and Merits and all the vertue of the Sacraments relating thereto and hath challenged the Honour of being the last Prophet sent from God unto himself * In whom the Dragon seems to have shewed his greatest Apoc. 13.2 and last Art after the world was somewhat well acquainted with his former snares For whereas heretofore he thrust all the world into Idolatry now out of the envy which Satan bears to the Honour given by the Church to the glorified Saints his Disciple and Champion this false Prophet becomes a professed enemy to all former Idolatry and much displeased he is with Christianity upon this account And again out of the envy Satan bears to the Divinity of our Lord a great zealot this his false Prophet is for the worship of one only God that saith he hath neither wife nor child Yet who in opposing and denying the Divinity of our Lord Jesus the Son hath lost and depriv'd himself of God the Father too in St. Johns consequence For 1 Jo. 2.23 He who denieth the Son i. e. that Jesus is the Son or ver 22. that Jesus is the Christ or 1 Jo. 4.3 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh i. e. come from heaven or from God into the flesh all which this false Prophet expresly opposeth He that thus denies the Son the same also hath not the Father saith the Apostle And so this man of sin retaines no title either to God the Son or God the Father either to the God of Christians or to the Heathen God's whom also he hath cast off § 314 * Who hath planted himself in all the primitively famous Churches to whom our Lord or his Apostles directed their Epistles except one where the woman cloth'd with the Sun hath hitherto had a place provided for her and Apoc. 12.6 14.2 Thess 2.4 Apoc. 13.3.12 13. Apoc. 13.3 4. amongst others in God's Temple at Jerusalem from the possession of which no Christian Heroical attempts have been able hitherto finally to expell him * Who possessing all the middle of the earth and having thrust up the Church as it were into a corner and the outerskirts thereof the Islands of the West hath erected a new dreadful Empire and reviv'd the Image of the former Heathen State that persecuted the Church in the beginning and which long since seemed to have received its mortal wound which he hath wonderfully cured And seated this his Empire in the very same place and turned the St. Sophia heretofore the glory of Christian Churches into a Mosche * Whose miraculous conquests have made the world to wonder after him and to Adore him saying who is like to him who able to make war with him Apoc. 13.3 4. * With whose persecution no former can be compar'd either for duration of time or by his facile and sensual Religion slaughter of souls * Who also hath afflicted Christianity now for above a 1000 of the Protestants 12 hundred and sixty Daies ‖ Apoc. 12 6.14 13.5 11.3 Dan. 7.25 12.7 taken for years near upon the same time that they may see the â—numbers also fit Him as they say the Pope hath oppressed it Only the Antiquity of the Churches pretended Idolatry said to be about or before A. D. 400. †Mede Apostacy of latter times c. 14. Dr. More Synops Prophet c. 7. n 7. Apoleg p. 552. forceth them to begin their account of the Popes Apostacy and oppression of the Faith so early as justly computed it happens to be already expired Yet expired without any alteration of affairs observed at this time correspondent to the Prophecy for that change at the Reformation a great one indeed on the other side comes too early whereas the account applied to the Mahometan Apostacy being of 200. years later date suffers as yet no contradiction from the event § 325 * Who by all these things by abrogating the Laws and Worship not only of all the former Heathen Gods but also of the Christians and the true God and instead thereof setting up his own 2 Thess 2.4 hath opposed and exalted himself above all that is
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 *