Considerations on the Council of Trent being the fifth discourse, concerning the guide in controversies / by R.H.

CHAP. XI.

IV. Head. Of the Councils many Definitions, and Ana∣themas.

• 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 Chri∣stian Faith 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 determi∣ning of many Controversies, moved there, §. 184.
• 5. That the Lutheran's 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 Dissen∣ters. §. 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 some 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 its Do∣ctrines, was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned, or provoked, by the Trent- Decrees, or Pius his Creed, §. 202.

[§. 173] THus much (from, §. 147.) touching the third Head; the le∣gal proceedings of this Council. Now we come to the

Fourth: Touching the many Decrees and Canons, Definitions, and Anathema's, of this Council, much exceeding those of former; and some of them said to be in very slight matters; by which this Council is charged to have multiplied, and imposed on all Christi∣ans, so many new Articles of Faith; and Pius his Bull, that fol∣lowed it, to have added twelve new ones, to the Creed. Thus when as the Reformation [as Mr. Thorndike complains, in Conclusion to his Epilog.] might have been only Provisional, till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tolerable agreement, this Council cut•••••••• off all hopes of Peace, except by yielding to all their Decrees. In this matter therefore, for the Councils Defence, I shall propose to you these ten Considerations following.

The 1^st. That all Anathemas in Councils are not passed, for holding something against matter of Faith, but for other misde∣meanours, and Trespasses against Obedience, and good manners; Amongst which this may be reckoned one; If any one raiseth Factions, and Sects, and disturbeth the Churches peace, in contra∣dicting her common Doctrines, of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be; or spreadeth abroad propositions schismati∣cal, and scandalous, and apt to corrupt good manners, or, be made ill use of by the simple, though the matter of them be not proper∣ly Heretical, or opposing an Article, that is De fide.

Again, Anathemas, that are inflicted by the Church for holding something contrary to the Faith, are not alwaies, or most usually denounced, for those more fundamental and necessary points of Faith, an error in which ruines Salvation; but also, and more commonly (because these are more) for some lesser matters of faith; viz, any, whereby some damage, smaller, or greater, comes, as to the Author from holding them, so to others, from his main∣taining, and divulging them abroad: The Church being very vigi∣lant (contrary to Sects) to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith; which are observed by the Apostle to be of the na∣ture of a Cancer, still eating further into the bowels of Truth; she not knowing, how far they may enlarge themselves, and by little and little invade higher Points, and lay the Foundation for more pernicious errors. Nor doth the punishment of Anathe∣ma, in these, eye so much the greatness, and malignity of the er∣ror, as the pertinacy, and obstinacy of its Abettor, refusing submit∣tance to the Churches authority; the violating of which Authority may be a great fault, and of very ill consequence, though in a small matter. If he will not hear the Church (saith our Lord) let him be to thee, as an Heathen † [an excommunicated, ••rn anathematized, person] where the censure lies upon his not hearing the Church; be the matter in which, small, or great.

[§. 174] And the great guilt of the obstinacy against the Definitions of Superiors, though in the maintaining only of some small errors in the Faith, some Protestants seem to acknowledge: and confess it well to merit so high a Censure. Of which thus Dr. Fearn,†— We acknowledge, that he who shall pertinaciously, and turbulent∣ly speak, and teach, against the Doctrines of the Church in points of less moment, may deserve to be Anathematized, or put out of the Church, for such a one, though he deny not the Faith, yet makes a breach of Charity: whereby he goes out of the Church, against which he so sets himself. Thus this Doctor. [Only he would have the Church to distinguish between pertinacious and modest, gain-saying, (which is to know Hearts:) and this latter he would have to pass free from this censure; and such he would have that of the Reformers to be. Was that of Luther, then, so modest? Or doth not the weight and venerableness of the Churches Authority render all known contradiction whatever truly guilty of Pertinacy, and Pride?]

Again: Thus Bishop Brambal.†—When inferior questions, not fundamental, are once defined by a lawful General Council, all Christians, though they cannot assent in their judgments, are obliged to passive obedience, to possess their souls in patience. And they who shall oppose the Authority, and disturb the peace of the Church [for such a point non-fundamental] deserve to be punish't as Hereticks [i. e. Anathematized.] And Cardinal Bellarmin saith† of Pro∣vincial Councils: That—Judicium non-infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum. And—Debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio, donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes, vel Concilium Universale, [these two, it seems, only do set at liberty our tongues from the obligations of Inferiour Councills] si secus egerint, merito excommunicantur. Notwithstanding, though an Anathema, in such cases in well deserved from the wilful adhe∣rence of such persons to their own fancies, against their Superi∣ors, yet it is never inflicted meerly for this; but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent, if spread abroad to others; the re∣medy of which danger of infecting others, seems chiefly to be in∣tended in the Churches using ordinarily in such Canons: Si quis dixerit, rather than, senserit.

[§ 175] 2. Concerning the Extent of matter of Faith, You must know: That all Divine Revelations whatever, and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith, could they proceed in infini∣tum, are also, when known, the matter or objects, or Articles, of our faith, as well as the more chief, necessary, points thereof; (un∣less we may dis-believe something, that we grant to be God's Word:)

And are all Traditional from the Apostles times, either in their own express terms, or in their necessary Principles, since new Divine Revelations none pretend: And, consequently, the contrary error to any of these Deductions, when ever it seems very hurtful, may be Anathematized.

[§. 176] And, amongst these Divine Revelations, and matter of our Faith, are to be reckoned these two Propositions of no little con∣sequence; viz. the Doctrine of Christian liberty; namely; That all things are lawful unto us, which God's Word hath not prohibited. And, again, this; That the Church hath authority committed to Her by our Lord, in such lawful things, to make Constitutions, and Decrees obliging all her subjects to obedience. So that one, that affirms something to be prohibited in God's Word, or unlawful, that is not so prohibited; or one, that denies obedience to the Precepts of the Church, made in things not contrary to God's Word, offends against the Faith; and, on this account, is liable to an Anathema. And, in these things, our Belief, according to the several objects thereof, is required of us in a several man∣ner.

1. In pure speculatives; If it be a thing made known to us to be revealed by God, the Faith, that is required of us upon such Revelation, is to believe it a certain Truth. 2. In practicals, if it be a thing, by God commanded, or prohibited, the faith required of us, upon such Divine Revelation, is to believe, that it is our necessary Duty to do, or to abstain from, it. 3. But, if it be a thing of which we have no Divine Precept; a thing neither in∣joyned, nor prohibited by God; in all which sort of things Di∣vine Revelation hath declared our liberty, the faith required of us, according to such Revelation, is, to believe it lawful (I mean as to God's law) to be done, or to be omitted, as we please. 4. Last∣ly, Among these lawful things also; if it be a thing concerning which we have a Precept of the Church to do it; or, where the lawfulness is doubted of, a Declaration of the Church, that it is lawful to be done (which Church God in his Word hath command∣ed, in such her judgment, to be submitted to; and, in such her Pre∣cepts, to be obeyed) the Faith, required of us from such Divine Revelation, is: That it is both lawful to be observed; and, the observation thereof our Duty. And consequently, he who denies the lawfulness thereof, or obedience thereto, opposeth a Divine Revelation: Though the thing, we do, is not commanded by any Divine Revelation; nor the particular lawfulness of it declared in Gods Word. Such a point of Faith is the lawfulness of com∣municating only in one kind: Of which thus the Council of

Trent, Sess. 21. c. 1.—Si quis dixerit, ex Dei praecepto, vel neces∣sitate salutis, omnes, singulos & Christo fideles utram{que} speciem sanctissi∣mi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere, Anathema sit. Such the Du∣ty of communicating once a year, Sess. 13. c. ••9.—Si quis nega∣verit, omnes, & singulos Christi Fideles utriusque sexus, cum ad an∣nos discretionis pervenerint, teneri, singulis annis, saltem Paschate, ad communicandum, juxta praeceptum Sancta matris Ecclesiae; Anathe∣ma sit. And, so the seventh and tenth Canon.—Si quis dixerit, non licere, &c.. And such that, Sess. 24. c. 4. De matrimon. —Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiam non posse constituere, &c. Anathema sit: and so, Can. 9. And such is the Duty in general of observing the Churches Traditions. Of which thus the seventh General Coun∣cil (Act. 7.)—Si quis Traditiones Ecclesiae, sive scriptas, sive consue∣tudine valentes, non curaverit; Anathema sit.

[§. 177] 3. That all Councils to the worlds end, and not only the four, or three, first, before the passing of the Ephesin Canon† (which Canon is said to restrain it) may define and determine not only the greater; but these smaller matters of Faith; and may make new Points to be, de fide, or creditu necessaria (in such a sence, as is explained below, §. 192) which were not formerly, when they see occasion thereof; and, when contrary errors do arise, which they apprehend dangerous to Divine Truth; or to god life; or to the Churches peace. And there seems no reason against it, but that a Council may be as ample in the protection and assert∣ing of Truth, not only in gross, and in some general, and prin∣cipal matters, but by retail, as it were, in every part, and parcel thereof; as Innovations are, in invading it, that every poison may have its Antidote; Especially, when little-seeming errors, not crushed at their first appearance, do insensibly ascend, from the overthrow of some conclusion, to that of the Premises; till they undermine, at last, some Truths more principal. Who blames a Parent for binding his Children to abstain from things hurtful, because such things are, in a less degree, and not exceedingly, hurt∣ful; or, for prohibiting them something, which is not down-right poison, and immediatly mortal; but yet, which by little and little may alter, and corrupt the healthful constitution of their Body: Of which noxious things the Parents, not the Children, are fittest Judges.

Neither are the Churches Subjects any way disobliged in her thus, from age to age, multiplying their Credends; but much in∣debted, for this her motherly care of them: who before, whilst they had more liberty of opinion, so also had less light, in their progress toward Heaven; and more by-paths open to stray in,

and more liableness to erre; or, by the Heretical, to be seduced in those things, in the truth of which they are now, by that Judge∣ment, which Gods wisdom hath deputed to direct them, and by the best which the world can afford, established. Unless here, with the Hereticks, we will blame, after the Foundation laid of the Apo∣stles Creed, the explications of the Nicen, or Athanasian: Or, after this, the many Articles passed in later Synods, concerning Grace, and Freewill, and the Anathemas annexed against the Pelagian er∣rors herein: Or also complain of the obligation we now have to a great Roll of Credends under the Gospel, from which those, in the darker times of the Law, stood free. Add to this, that the suppression of any new error must necessarily increase the Faith: and, in immediat contraries, who is to renounce the Negative, must be∣l••eve and hold the Affirmative: Neither is it possible, that the Church, in such points, can make any fence to keep out her ene∣mies, but she must also at the same time, within it, inclose her Friends.

[§. 178] It is much urged, indeed, by Dr. Hammond in answer to the C. Gentleman 8. cap. §. 2. and repeated in Heres. §. 7. p. 100.) and by Bishop Bramhal, and others, see before, §. 6. (α)—That the Ephesin, the third General, Council, made a Decree: That it should not be lawful, for any man to produce, write, or compose, any belief, besides that which not established by the Fathers at Nice, &c. (β) That the Greeks in the Council of Florence pressed this authority to the Latines; and said that no man would accuse that faith [or Creed] of imperfection, unless he were mad. (γ) That the Latines in their reply, acknowledged that this Decree did for∣bid all difference os of faith from this Creed, as well as contrariety: And. (δ) That Celestines Epistle (quoted in that Council) affirmeth; That the belief delivered by the Apostles [i. e. the Apostles Creed] requires that there be neither addition, nor diminution. These things are urged, to shew; that the Council of Trent had no just autho∣rity to make any new Articles of Faith. But I imagine; that, after you have but a little with me considered this Ephesin Canon with the due circumstances, you will discern a strange mis-applica∣tion.

1. It is meet, that I first set you down the words thereof, with what immediatly precedes them.—Sermocinatio ejusdem San∣cti Concili, postquam, & Canones editi a. 318. Sanctis, beatis{que} Patribus, qui Niceae convenerant, & impium Symbolum à Theodoro Mopsuestino Episcopo [a ring-leader of the Nestorian Heresie] confictum, & eidem Ephesino Concilio traditum à Clarisio Presbytero Philadelphiensi, recitata fuissent.—His igitur recitatis constituit sanctum

Concilium, ut nemini liceat aliam fidem vel proferre, vel conscribere, vel componere, quam eam, quae praestituta, ac praescripta est à Sanctis Patribus, qui in Nicenorum urbe [in which Creed the additions also of the Constantinopolitan Council are here supposed to be includ∣ed] cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt. Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre, volentibus converti ad agnitionem veri∣tatis sive ex Gentilitate, sive Judaismo, &c. [to be professed by them at their admission into the Church,] ut hi, si quidem Episcopi sint, ab Episcopatu removeantur; sin autem Laici sint, ut extromâ detestatio∣ne, & execratione percellantur. This being the Canon.

To (α) I say. 1^st. That, this Canon being pressed by the Greeks against the Latines in the Florentine Synod to prove the unlawfulness of the Latines addition to the Creed of [Filio{que}] either the Reformed must approve the sense the Latines gave of that Decree [namely, that the Ephesin Council prohibited only, that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing, or con∣trary in any thing to, the doctrine of the Nicene Creed (as Theo∣dorus his wicked Creed was, which occasioned this Decree)] or must confess, that the Latines unjustly retain, and mention [Filio{que}] in their Creeds; which was added to the Creeds, after the Ephesin, and the four first Councils;† being first mention∣ed, and found in the Creed, in the fourth Toletan Council, a∣bout, A D. 680. as the Roman Writers themselves confess.

2^ly. That. supposing the Council prohibits not only the composing, or addition of any thing contrary to the Nicene Creed (as Theodorus his Nestorian Creed, the occasion thereof, may per∣swade, it did) but the addition thereto, or alteration in expressi∣on, of any thing whatsoever, though never so conformable to the Nicen Creed; yet this prohibition extends not to Councils, but only to private persons, and Church-Governours; according to that. [Hi, si quidem Episcopi sunt, ab Episcopatu removeantur:] for who shall execute this sentence upon a General Council? Or, how can one General Council justly limit, or prescribe to another of equal authority? 3^ly. Supposing that they extend this Act to Councils also; either they prohibit to them not the ma∣king new definitions in matters of Faith, but only the adding of such definitions made to the body of the Nicene Creeed; but then, this act concerns none, who afterward make new Definitions, so they add them not to the Creed. Now no additions at all have been made to that Creed, since the fourth General Council, save [Filio{que}] which the Protestants also allow of, and use. Or, 4^ly. If the Ephesin Fathers prohibit to the Councils any such Defi∣nitions also, as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice, they con∣demn

themselves in the first place; who though they added not to the Creed, yet defined [Maria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] And if the Ephesin Canon be taken in either of these sences, thus it will be found not to be observed by the very next General Council, that of Chalce∣don; who made another new definition, or Creed, against Euty∣ches; in which also they altered some expressions of the Nicene Creed (as is noted by the Latines Concil. Florent. §. 6.) altered [natum ex Patre (1.) ex Substantiâ Patris] into [Consubstantialem Patri secundum Divinitatem, nobis autem secundum humanitatem:] and added many other things, as appears in their Confession of faith (Sess. 5.) which Confession they conclude, and seal up, just after the same manner, as the Ephesin Council before them did: —Decrevit sancta at{que} universalis haec Synodus aliam fidem nemini li∣cere proferre, sive conscribere, aut exponere, vel sentire. Sed eos, qui audent vel componere, vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se con∣vertere, &c. si Episcopi sunt, alienos esse ab Episcopatu, &c. si Laici, Anathematizari. 5^ly. That both Leo Bishop of Rome, and Flavianus, and Eusebius, being charged by the Eutychian faction, as offending against this Decree of Ephesus, in their asserting as a part of their Faith: Christum ex duabus, & in duabus simul naturis esse, an Article not contained in the Nicene Creed, were cleared by the Council of Chalcedon, as not guilty thereof, who (some of them probably the same, who sate in the Ephesin Coun∣cil; that being only twenty years before this) understood it in the sence of the Latines, and urged the necessity of additions; as ap∣pears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Empe∣ror.† 6^ly. Taken in such a sence, as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed, but also the de∣fining, any new thing in matter of faith, it is (as was said before) not only null, by an equal authority reversing it in this sense, but most irrational; since the like occasions of making such new defi∣nitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council, as it did before, and also in, it.

[§. 180] To β. If the Grecians meant [imperfection] in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith, then both the au∣thority of the Latine Church, and all the reasons given above, may be produced against them; but if they mean [imperfection] in respect of containing all Credends in respect of salvation neces∣sary to be explicitly known, its granted; that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect; yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice.

†

[§. 181] To γ. The Latines joyn [contrary] also to it, when they name [different,] and mean only such difference, as is also con∣trary: as is clear every where by their words, in that Synod Sess. 11. Julianus Cardinalis thus.—Quae quidein verba [(i. e) Concilii Ephesini] nos credimus hoc solum significare, ut fas sit nulle, Nicaenorum Patrum fidei contrarium proferre Is the addition [filio{que}] which Protestants justifie, nothing diverse? then nei∣ther shall any other new definitions of Councils be so?

[§. 182] To δ. Celestines words, which are spoken of the Apostles Creed, either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions; or do condemn Nice for it. But see this testimony ex∣plained by the Latines (Sess. 10.) that he meant only, denying any thing, delivered in the Apostles Creed, or asserting or adding any thing, contrary to it.

To conclude this matter: see the defence, which the Fa∣thers of the fourth General Council, following the Ephesin, made to Marcianus the Emperor, in the Conclusion of that Synod,† con∣cerning the necessity of making, from time to time, new Definitions, and Additions, to explicate, and corroborate the former Faith, as new errors arise to debilitate, or pervert it; returned in answer to the Eutychians, a••d others, who, to obtain liberty to their own opinions, accused Leo's Epistle, and also the Council, of Innova∣tions in matters of Faith, after the Churches Doctrine sufficiently established in the Nicen Creed. There—Credentibus quident (saith the Council, apologizing for it self) sufficit, ad utilitatem, Fidei [i. e Nicenae] in discussa [i. e. without further consequences multiplied from it] prospectio—His autem, qui doctrinam rectam pervertere moliuntur, ad singula, quae malè pariunt, oportet occurrere; & eorum objectis propria quae{que} providere. Nam si omnes contenti, essent fidei [Nicenae] constituto [which, indeed, may also be said of the Apostles Creed] & pietatis semitam nullâ innovatione turbarent, deceret Ecclesiae Filios [in Councils] nihil amplius excogitare: Sed quia multi a rectâ lineâ per anfractus erroris exorbitant,—necesse no∣bis est, veritatis eos inventione convertere, commenta{que} eorum devia salutaribus adjectionibus refutare; non, ut novum ad pietatem (quasi fides desit) semper aliquid exquirentes: sed ut, contra ea, quae ab illis innovata sunt, excogitantes, quae salubria judicantur. Thus that Council apologizeth for its new Definitions. Where Excogitare, and veritatis inventione, and the adversaries object ng to them Inno∣vation, &c, shew, that Councils may define not only express Tradi∣tionals in matters of faith, but any new conclusions, extracted from such Traditionals.

Neither seems it to be much material.§, 1. Whether the Definitions of latter Councils, when inserted into former Creeds, be called explanations and Declarations of, or Additions to, the for∣mer faith (which was a great contest between the Greek and the Latine Church in the Council of Florence:) provided, they be only such things, as are granted to be necessarily educed out of former Principles of faith. 2. Nor, 2^ly, much matters it, as to the assent, that ought to be yielded to them, when known to be the Churches Definitions; whether they be not inserted into former Creeds; but delivered apart. For an obligation we have to the one sort, as well as to the other. For example: There is no less an obedience due to [Maria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or, Dei Genetrix: inti∣mating the unity of Christs person, though compounded of two distinct Natures] defined by the third General Council, though not interposed in the Creed; than to [one Baptisme,] or, [Filio{que}] which were, so, interposed. Only, it seems, that an Insertion into the Creed is purposely made of those points of faith, which among the rest, are conceiv'd more necessary (not only, to be assented to, when known, but) to be explicitly known, by every Christian; or in infected times, fit to be distinctly confessed by every Catholick. Though yet so indifferent was this matter, as to principal points; That Maria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, the Greeks urged in the Council of Florence,† that it was forborn to be added to the Nicen Creed by the Ephesin Fathers, yet is found, in terms equivalent, to be put in the Athanasian Creed [Not two, but one Christ by unity of Person:] and this allowed of by the Reformed: and, again, found, in ex∣press terms, to be put, in the Definition of their Faith (according to some Copies) made shortly after, by the Council of Chalcedon (See Sess, 5.) where also, before the passing of this Definition, the Fathers cryed out against the Nestorians—Ista fides Orthodox∣orum. Sancta Maria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 scribatur—In Symbolo sic addatur.† As likewise afterward, found to be put, in express terms, in the Creed of the fourth Toletan Council. The like may be said of [One Baptism for Remission of sins] defined indeed against the Novatians by the Nicen Council, but by the second General Council of Constantinople, first mentioned in the enlarged Creed. The like of that clause [they that have done evil into everlasting fire] omitted in the Constantinopolitan, but put in the Athanasian, Creed, perhaps against the Origenists, who held the fire tempora∣ry; and, malos, post purgationem malorum, regna Dei, luci{que} restitu∣endos‖ Nay; In the now-receiv'd Apostles Creed it self there seems something to be additional, inserted by latter times (propter nonnullos Haereticos, saith Ruffinus, in Expositione Symboli) not found

in the prime Copies thereof; at least, not in those anciently used in the Roman Church, [as Descendit ad inferos] and [vitam aeter∣nam.] See the Authorities quoted by Archbishop Ʋsher, De Sym∣bolo Apostolico vetere Rom. Ecclesiae. This, in Explication of the much mis-understood Ephesin Canon, urged as prohibiting, any future additions to the Nicen Creed; or, the following ages enlar∣ging the Articles of the former Catholick Faith. Now to pro∣ceed.

[§. 184] 4. That many Controversies, and Questions, started in this Council of Trent, yet, because they had not sufficient evidence in Scripture, or Tradition, to decide them, were left unstated by it. For which see what hath been said formerly, §. 149. And great prudence, and care was used, that nothing should pass there, from which any considerable number dissented. And Pallavicino observes,‖ out of several Registers of the Councils Acts, whereof he had the perusal, that Soave, perhaps the more to trouble, and muddy the clearness of the Catholick Doctrine, as it opposed that of the Innovators; or to shew his own Reading, in points, where there happens to be any difference among the Schoolmen, doth many times bring-in the skirmishing of the Theologs, one with another, con∣cerning them, when as, in Reality, there was no such contest amongst them in the Council. Though, on the other side, this is not denied several times to have happened: and perhaps some of the Disputants desirous, that their own tenents might pass for the common Doctrine of the Church; but, as I said, the Legats, and others, not ingaged in such a quarrel, by their great judgment composed such strifes, without giving in the Session, and the Decree, the victory to either side; a moderation much complained of by the Protestants, the Spectators, who from thence might have hoped some schisme, and the rise of a civil war in the Catholick Communion.

[§. 185] 5. That the Lutherans broaching so many erroneous positi∣ons, and joyning together the tenents of so many several Sects that had been before them, innovating something in every part of Di∣vinity, caused the Council of Trent to multiply so many Anathemas against them, and joyn together also the results of many former Councils; This being the course observed in the Council; first, for some selected persons to read the Lutheran writings on the subject in hand; and to collect out of them the erroneous and noxious propo∣sitions; and then, for the whole Council, when such propositions upon examination, were unanimously disallowed, to anathematize (though some among these of much less malignity than others) especially, all those errors, which were destitute of the patronage

of some reverend Father, or other writer, of the Church; for where the Council found any such Patronage, they used them more gently, and prosecuted them not with the like vehemency. And, seeing that, in the proceeding against Sects, some former Councils were wont only to condemn the Sect in general, and make menti∣on only of the chief heads of their doctrine; other Councils again, more punctual, descended to the condemning of all the particulars; this latter way was rather taken by the Council of Trent, not without mature consideration had in the beginning of the Council, concerning it; which is related by Soave, p. 192. where he saith,—That one part desired, that four, or six fundamental Articles of the new doctrine might be chosen and condemned,—following the ex∣ample of the ancient Councils, which having declared the principal Ar∣ticle, condemned the heresie, never descending to particular propositions, but condemning [in general] the books of the Hereticks; That, in that universal, they comprehended all the pernicious doctrine; and that the honour of the Council so required. But the other part (saith he) aim∣ed to put under censure all the propositions, which might receive a bad construction, that those [amongst them] might be condemned, which in reason did deserve it; saying, that it was the office of a Pastor to dis∣cern intirely the wholsome grass from the hurtful; and not to suffer the flock to tast of this. And if the example of ancient Councils ought to be imitated they should imitate * that of Ephesus, which made so ma∣ny, and so famous, anathematisms against the doctrine of Nestorius, that these did contain whatsoever the heretick had said; * and the Coun∣cils of Affrica, which descended to the condemnation of all the proposi∣tions of the Sects [see Conc. Milevitan. against the Pelagian doctrines: Conc. Gangrense: Syrmiense: 2. Nicaen Act. 7 and lastly the Council of Constance, condemning forty five propositions of Wick∣leff, and thirty of Jo. Huss.] the first opinion, did undoubtedly propose a more easie way, and would have left a chink open for an agreement, which future times might produce: yet the second was embraced, &c. Thus Soave. As for the former way leaving a chink open for agree∣ment, It may be more easily credited, when we shall see an agree∣ment advanced in those points, handled in the 25th Session; where the Councils determinations are so brief, and general, as the Council escaped not, for this generality also, the censure of Soaves Chorus:† as elsewhere it incurs their displeasure for mincing mat∣ters too much, and making every thing, moved, an Article of Faith.

[§. 186] 6. That all the Canons in the Council of Trent, that have Anathema affixed (all which, except a very few,† run only in the form:—Si quis dixeril 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••njoyn assent, under Anathema, to

the contradictory proposition, nor make it an Article of Faith necessary to be believed, under the penalty of being reputed an Heretick, unless (saith Canus†) the decree, to which such Canon relates, bind to assent, with a—Firma fide credendum:—Hoc est dogma fidei catholicae.—Contrarium asserentes [or tenentes] judicentur pro hareticis: Or some other equivalent expression; or unless the Canon run, Si quis hoc senserit. And Cardinal Bellarmin saith much what the same† Quando autem Decretum proponatur tanquam de Fide, facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilii, Semper enim dicere so∣lent, 1 se explicare fidem Catholicam:—2 vel, (quod est communissi∣mum) dicunt Anathema, & ab Ecclesiâ excludunt eos, qui contrarium sentiunt. [But then, what, if it be only Anathema iis, qui contrari∣um dicunt, or docent?] Quando autem nihil horum dicunt, non est certum, rem esse de Fide Thus Bellarmin. For this Council doth sometimes expresly anathematize, or excommunicate, for teaching, or publickly defending, of some error; or, for accusing the Church of error in her teaching the contrary; when it doth not anathe∣matize the holding of such an error; An example of which * see, Sess. 24. c. 7.—Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare, cum docuit, & do∣cet, juxta Evangelicam, & Apostolicam doctrinam propter adulterium alterius conjugum Matrimonti vinculum non posse dissolvi, &c. Anathe∣ma sit. Where the Council anathematizeth those, who con∣demn the Church of erring in teaching such a doctrine (as Luther did condemn the Church;) but doth not anathematize those, who hold the contrary doctrine; as the Greek Church doth, to whom the Council in this decree was favourable, in passing the Anathema not on the holding such an error, but only on any ones censuring the Church of error, for holding otherwise. Now one, who holds an opinion for truth, may be highly culpable in accusing those, who hold the contrary, of error; either, because himself may be mistaken in what he holds; or because he may be uncharitable, or also disobedient, in divulging all that he knows. (I add this in re∣spect of what Soave objects, about this matter, p. 755. and 799.) See the like, can. 8. and 4.—and Sess. 21. c. 2. * See likewise, Sess. 13. c. 11. where in respect that some approved Writers,† both ancient, and modern, (amongst whom Cajetan) had held, concerning Sacerdotal Confession to precede Communion, the con∣trary tenent to that which the Council approved, it doth not ana∣thematize, or excommunicate those, who held the contrary do∣ctrine, as Hereticks; but excommunicates those, qui contrarium docere, prudicare, vel pertinaciter assetere, seu etiam publice disputan∣do defendere, praesumpserint [i. e. for the future] is perturbers of the Churches peace, as Canus, one present in the Council, observes.†

[§. 187] So, in the Canon about the canonical books of Scripture, Sess. 4. [Si quis pro sacris, & canonicis non susceperit] being only expressed in this Canon, and [parireverentiâ venerandis] omitted (which had some opposers) Pall. l. 6. c. 14. n. 3. (whilst of the three draughts that were proposed,† every one had some maintainers) no person seems, under Anathema, to be any further obliged, than only to hold these books sacred, and canonical: A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike, de Ratione finiend. Controversias, c. 28. p. 565. Nei∣ther yet is there any Injunction in this Council concerning the books called Apocryphal, pari reverentiâ venerandos esse; but only this said: Synodus part reverentiâ veneratur: which hath not the Form of a Decree. Where also parireverentiâ may be un∣derstood so, as that, whilst in some respect, it equals these Apo∣cryphal books, with some of the others, (as the Protestants call them) generally held Canonical; as perhaps, with Esther, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah. Proverbs, Ecclesiasties, &c. yet doth it not there∣fore, in every respect, equal them with all; as namely Tobit, or, the book of Wisdom, with the five Books of Moses; or the four Gos∣pels. Some parts of the Canon being much more, necessary, and dignified, than some others

And then; as for this expression, equalling at least those Books, called Apocryphal with some Canonical fore-named, and its accepting them all, as equally penn'd by the direction of the H. Spirit, I ask; What new Discerner of Spirits will assume to himself so much skill, as clearly to discover the language, and character, of the Spirit in the one sort of these Books, that is not in the other. For Example in Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, that is not in Ecclesiastions: Especially; 1. When as, the Churches anci∣ent reading them all promiscuously in her publick service for the In∣struction of her children, shews; that she held the doctrine of them all sound. 2. And, again, when as, in those Books, which all sides allow canonical, yet the II. Spirit pens them in so many various and unlike stiles; and some of these much more rude and unpolished, than others; and speaks sometimes in a much higher, sometimes in a much lower, key; as if it condescended to receive a mixture with, or tincture from, the natural parts, and Elocution of its Scribe: and, only the Truth being entirely preserved, admit∣ted also sometimes his Infirmities as to Language, Method, Perspicuity, &c. In which Canon also, some of the Historical books (though preserved from error) seem not penned from immedint Divine Revelation, so, as the Prophetical; but, by using such humane industry, and diligence, as other Histories are compiled with. For which, see St. Lukes Preface to his Gospel. 3. And lastly, when,

as there are some seeming Antilogies, and incongruities produced in the one sort of these books, called Apocryphal; so are there others, as many, as great, urged, in those receiv'd by all for cano∣nical; especially, in the Historical.

[§. 188] [Therefore it seems a great inadvertency (if nothing more) in Bishop Cosin (writing so large a Treatise on this subject,) Where he saith†—That this Council commanded all the Books re∣cited in their Canon to be equally accepted, and taken with the self same veneration, as having all a like absolute, and divine authority an∣nexed to them, without preferring one before another: and damned all the Churches of the world besides, that will not, thus, receive that Canon [of Scripture] upon their own terms. Quoting in the same place, for justifying this charge, these words, as the words of the Council.—Concil. Trid. Sess. 4.—Omnes libros pari pietatis affectu, reverentiâ, & veneratione, pro Canonicis, receperit.—Ibid. Si quis autem non susceperit, &c. Anathema sit; whereas there are no such words, in the Council, so put together.—Si quis non susceperit, or, receperit, omnes [hos] libros pari pietatis affectu reverentiâ, & veneratione, pro canonicis, Anathema sit [which words will only serve the design of his Book;] But only these words there used with relation to Anathema,—Si quis hos libros integros, &c. pro sacris & canonicis non susceperit, Anathema sit. And I hope in this Decree, (as to any words or expressions used therein) stiling them only Sacri & Canonici, the Council proceeds no further in affirm∣ing any thing concerning them, than, the Bishop will concede, the Affrican Council,† Innocentius, Austin, and other Fathers, to have done: and than himself also in a large sence will acknow∣ledge them to be. For, he, in giving answer to the Fathers, §. 82. writes thus of them.—In a large and common sence, as they be books appointed to be read in the Church for the more ample directi∣on, and instruction of the people, &c.—(in which sence that Council [viz. of Carthage] took them) or, as they are to be preferr'd before all other Ecclesiastical Books (in which sence St. Austin took them) and as they are opposed to suppositions, Apocryphal and rejected Books (in which sence both St. Austin. and this Council, besides divers others of the Fathers, took them) all these waies they may be called Canoni∣cal. Thus he. And then, for the sence of these words; since he also advanceth thus far toward the Councils, pari pietatis affectu, ac reverentiâ suscipit, as to acknowledge —these books to have been [as read in the Church, like as other parts of Scripture, so] cited, and termed by sundry of the Fathers, Sacred, and Divine, and Holy Scriptures, and Prophetical writings,† (Epithites common to these with other Scriptures) Why may not these infer also, in a

large and common sence, a parity; If the Bishop will be pleased to mollifie the Councils expressions so, as he doth those Fathers? By which Tradition and testimony of the Fathers [Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta†] the Council, as it saith, was guided in making this Decree.

A 2d. inadvertency of the same Reverend Bishop seems to be, [§. 189] that which he urgeth much,† of the small, and inconsiderable number [which that Council had] to give a suffrage to this their Sy∣nodical Decree: and that forty Bishops of Italy, assisted, peradventure, with half a score others should make up a General Council for all Christendom, &c. Whilst he takes no notice, * that by how few soever this Decree was passed at the first, yet it was afterward, by the great Body of this Council under Pius, confirmed, and ratifi∣ed; and this Ratification again by the most of Christian Churches accepted: of which see before, §. 72, 75, 77. And again, * That not one Book more was voted sacred and canonical by these Fathers in Trent, than had been voted before, as high as St. Au∣stins times, by the third Council of Carthage: to which St. Austin, amongst others, subscribed; and, than were, in those times also, generally received for such, in the Western Church; and lastly, * that, as several of these books are declared Canonical by this Council after some doubt, formerly, had concerning them, so are others not only declared Canonical by Protestants, but as fully be∣lieved as the rest, and in every respect equalled with them, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the second of St. Pe∣ter, the second and third of S. John, the Apocalypse, which were for∣merly, viz. till fourth age, subject to the like disputes:‖ and, as St. Jerom‖ saith of one of them,—Paulatim, procedente tem∣pore authoritatem obtinuerunt. Paulatim, viz. as the conformity of these books with the rest of the Canon, and the slightness of the objections made against them, and the former Tradition, was clear∣lier discovered, after the vanishing of those Sects, that chiefly op∣posed them. As therefore several pieces of the new Testament, once disputed, have since been declared, and generally received into, the Canon, so may those pieces of the old Testament be, by the following Christian Church, admitted for such, though former∣ly rejected by the Jewish. For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition, yet, not on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••dition, enemies to any writings that favour Christianity (as these Books, we speak of here, do; and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical, strictly so taken, where, and when they please; but, on that Tradition and testimony, which the primitive times received from the Apostles (who had the gift of

discerning spirits) concerning their Books: nor need we, for any Scripture, ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical. In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike (de ration. finiend. Controvers. p. 545. 546.) grants, that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon, and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings; some of which he there quotes: and so were delivered by them, with the rest of the Canon, to posterity.—Eas Apostolis lectas, & ad eas allusum ab Apostolis, non est, cur dubium sit, p. 545. And—Non potest dubium videri, Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas, de quibus nunc disputamus, contineri solitas fuisse; Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis (quos eis usos fuisse, posita jam sunt, quae argumento esse debeant) certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae, Scripturarum nomine appellant. And, Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books.—Quod, probati Apostolis & Ecclesiae, ab initio legerentur, propter doctrinam, Prophetarum successione accep∣tam, non Pharisaeorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in novatam. Thus He. And, Ruffinus, in his second Invective‖ proving the canoni∣calness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha, the History of Susanna, and Hymn of the three children, from the Apostles de∣livering them to the Church, against St. Jerom as one, after almost four hundred years, denying this, and Judaizing in his opinion, St. Jerom, in his latter daies (impar invidiae, quam sibi conflare Ruf∣finum videbat; as Mr. Thorndike will have it†) return'd this an∣swer, Apolog. 2.—Quod autem refero, quid adversum Susannae histo∣riam, & Hymnum trium puerorum, & Belis Draconis fabulas, quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur, Hebraeias soleant dicere, qui me cri∣minatur stultum se sycophantam probat: Non enim, quid ipse sentirem, sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant, explicavi. And see some∣thing said by this Father to the same purpose (opposing the Chur∣ches judgment to that of the Jews) in his Preface to Tobit.—Li∣brum utiq: Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes, his, quae Hagiographa [or Apocrypha, if you will] memorant, man∣ciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro (in transtating it) non tamen meo studio. Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia, & imputant nobis con∣tra suum (he saith not, nostrum) Canonem, latinis auribus ista trans∣ferre. Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio, & Episcoporum jussionibus deservire, institi, ut potui, &c. And, again, in his preface to Judith.—Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa (or if you will Apocrypha) legitur, &c.—Sed quia, hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum, legitur, computasse, acqui∣evi postulationi vestrae, &c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies;‖ but I think such, as will appear to the Reader; that well weighs them, unsatisfactory, as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain, all these Books to be in the same manner

excluded from the Canon by the Church, as they were by the Jews.

[§. 190] A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be, That, from the Anathema joyned to their Decree, and from Pius his de∣claration, touching the new Creed he imposed;—Haec est Fides, extra quam non est salus, the Bishop argues often,†—That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christi∣an Faith, than that God is the Creator of Heaven, and Earth; or, that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin, &c. Contrary to which see what is said below, §. 192, and 194. &c.

[§. 191] A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin,† for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical, set down in his Sect. 81. viz.—In Canoni∣cis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium [but the Bi∣shop sets it down, quamplurimum] authoritatem sequatur. Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve, and commend, and yet, since this Rule is no more proper, or applicable, to the Churches Authority, or Guidance of its Subjects, in S. Austins age, than in any other, precedent, or subsequent; from hence it will follow, that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical, because they are by the most, and most dignified Churches of God, received as such; and he knows, that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon, because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubt∣ed of. Excuse this digression, by which perhaps you may per∣ceive, that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel, against so great a Council, out of this matter.]

[§. 192] 7. That the contrary to such Propositions, the maintainers whereof are Anathematized, as Hereticks, is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence, 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth, or a matter, or object, of our Faith; or the contrary Doctrine to it, made against Faith, or the matter of Heresie, now, which was not so formerly. 2 Or, as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed, and declared to be so formerly, ei∣ther in the same Expression, and conclusion, or in its necessary Principles. 3 Or, as if any such thing were now necessary expli∣citly to be known, or believ'd absolutely, Ratione Medii, for attain∣ing Salvation, which was not so formerly: 4 Or yet, as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point for∣merly, as that, from this, we had then an obligation to believe it:

5 Or yet, as if the ignorance of such point, before the Defini∣tion of a Council, might not be some loss in order to our salvation, and this our ignorance of it, then also, culpable. But, That such Point is made, by the Councils defining it, an Article; or

object of our Faith, now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity (wherein it was not before) by reason of a more Evi∣dent proposal thereof, when the Council (whose judgment we are bound to believe, and submit to) declares it a Divine Truth; or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Con∣clusion, which was before involv'd, and known only to the Christi∣an World, in its Principles. By which evident Definition of the Council (though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was be∣fore Heretical, or matter of Heresie, yet) the maintainer thereof now first by his pertinacy against the Churches Authority, begins to be an Heretick† And though the ignorance of such point of faith before might bring some damage as to our salvation, yet now doth it more, when a contrary error begins to corrupt our pra∣ctice. I say, such Point begins to be necessary, in a new Degree of necessity, to be believed or assented to; or, not to be dissented from, or denied; or, not the contrary of it to be believ'd, so soon, as we have had a sufficient proposal of the Councils defining it. And necessary it is then to be believ'd, not out of an obliga∣tion, or duty of belief we owe to such a Credend, as that, without believing it, we cannot attain salvation; but out of the duty of obedience we owe to the Church, when defining it, as that, without yielding this obedience to Her, we become guilty of such a sin, as, unrepented of, ruins salvation. Especially, when as this our Holy Mother doth not enjoyn to us the belief of such a Divine Truth, but upon some considerable Motive: for the repelling and suppres∣sing of some error, that is, (less, or more) dangerous; and for the preservation of some part of necessary truth, or good life. Con∣cerning which Proposals, the Churches pronouncing Anathema to the non-Submitters seems secur'd as by ancient practice, so by our Lord's order, Matt. 18, 17. He that will not hear the Church, let him be to us as an Heathen; though, otherwise, the pure nescience of such a Doctrine, abstracting from such Proposal, harms no man, as to exclusion from salvation, any more after the Churches Defi∣nition; than, before it. See what hath been said of this matter in the third Disc. §. 18.—and § 85. n. 6.

[§. 193] Thus (to express, if I can, yet more clearly, though with some repetitions, a thing, whereat so many of the Reformed, and those not of the meanest sort, seem to stumble, and take offence) an Article of Faith, as to a more universal Proposal of it, and general obligation to believe it so sufficiently proposed, may be said new: and then, in respect of this new Declaration, and Obli∣gation, a Divine Truth may be an Article, or object of my Faith, to day, which was not yesterday: So he, who, (by what means so ever) knows now, that something is said in Scripture, which he

knew not yesterday, may be said to have to day a new Article of his Faith; or a new point, no way to be opposed, or condemne but assented to, and believed, by him.

1 When, therefore, a thing is said to be no Dogma Fidei be∣fore, and at such a time to begin to be so, the meaning is,; either, that in such express terms it is so now, as it was not formerly (by some fuller explication, or new Deduction:) Or, that it is now rendred necessary to be believed by all persons, by whom it was not so formerly, for want, then, of so evident a proposal. 2 A∣gain, when a Point is said thus to be rendred by the Definition of a Council necessary to be believed, which was not so formerly: It is meant; necessary to be believed; not, for the matter thereof. Either, 1st, As if the actual knowledge, and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to salvation, at all; or now, more then for∣merly. For thus a few points only (some think, not all those of the Apostles Creed) are necessary; and nothing is, thus, ne∣cessary at any time, that is not so alwaies. Or, 2ly, As if the actual knowledge thereof is beneficial to our salvation now, and was not so at all formerly. For, as it is now perhaps beneficial in more respects; so, in some respects, was it alwaies; and there∣fore if we knew it not before, so much imperfection there was then in our faith, as to something revealed; though, not a defici∣ency thereof in absolutely necessaries. But, necessary to be believed now more, than formerly, ex accidenti; because, 1st, we have a sufficient Proposal thereof, by the Church-Definition, now, that it is a divine Truth: which Proposal perhaps we had not before in so express terms, and so universally discovered by the former Tradi∣tion: and, 2ly. Because we have also a sufficient proposal, or no∣tice, that such a Definition hath been made by the Church. And so, in not believing it, we are now defective in our obedience, and ac∣ceptance of some divine Truth, which is made known to us by the Church, as some way profitable to our salvation; some way advan∣gious to God's Glory; some way conducible to Christian Edification, to the peace of the Church, and suppression of Heresie, or, to some other good end. By whose Definitions from time to time the Rule of our faith is made still more compleat, and conspicuous, both as to the registring, and solemn inrolling of her former Tra∣ditions: and as to the express knowledge of several Consequences necessarily issuing from the former Principles of the Christian Be∣lief: more compleat, I say, to the end of the world, as to several points, in some respect, or other, beneficial to be known: Though, from the first, the Christian Faith was ever perfect, as to any know∣ledge simply necessary; or also, as to all that were fundamentally

useful. And therefore the chief Duty, that the Church now re∣quires to many of her Decisions made from time to time, as coun∣ter-works against Hereticks, and extracted alwaies out of the for∣mer Materials of Original Traditions, is not so much an actual knowing of them for every Christian (though this also-she desires, as esteeming the knowledge of them some way contributing to Christian perfection;) but, that they be not dissented from, or op∣posed, when made known to him; and that the Contradictory of them be not believed by Him.

[§. 194] As for the profession of the Roman faith required in the Bull of Pius, wherein are said to be 12. new Articles added to the Apo∣stolical: I wonder why they say not 12. score, or a 1200. rather, for if it adds any, it adds omnia à S. Tridentinâ Synodo. & ab Oecume∣nicis Conciliis, & à sacris Canonibus tradita, definita & declarata, as it runs in the same Bull, though it expresseth only some few of them.

[ 1] 1st, All the order that the Council of Trent gave concern∣ing this Profession of Faith, was;— Sess 24. de Refor. cap. 12. —Provisi etiam de beneficiis, teneantur Orthodoxae suae fidei, publi∣cam facere professionem; & in Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientià se per∣mansuros spondeant. So that, Haec est Catholica fides, extra quam nemo salvus, is a Declaration of the Pope, not of the Council; not can it have any more authority, than other Papal Decrees.

[ 2] 2. And again, what ever profession of faith is made in that Bull; or, if it oblige further, therein, than the Canons of the Councils do bind; yet it concerneth not any persons, save those who enter into religious Orders, or into some Ecclesiastical Bene∣fice, as appears in the Preface.

3. These persons are not therein obliged to believe the Ar∣ticles, or Canons of Trent, or, of other Councils in any other sense, than that, which we have but now mentioned.† For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession.—Haec vera Catho∣lica fides, extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest, cannot be understood distributively, in such a manner, as if every Canon of every law∣ful Council is necessary explicitly to be known, and assented to, that any one may attain Salvation; which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed; much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith. (See Bellar∣min de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14.—Multa sunt de fide, quae non sunt absolutè ne∣cessaria ad salutem; I add, nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error, ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur.) But either * it is to be understood collectively, In hac Professione con∣tinetur vera Catholica Fides, &c. that all the fides, extra quam ne∣mo salvus, is contained in that profession: (which expression re∣spects

chiefly the Apostles, or Nicen, Creed, set in the front of the profession; as appears by a like expression [Fundamentum firmum & unicum] applied to that Creed alone, in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess.) For, if only some part of that profession of faith, which is made in that Bull, be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation, this phrase is sufficiently justified, extra quam [i. e. totam, i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved] non est salus. As saying; [that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God, without believing which there is no Salvation,] argues not, that every thing deli∣vered in these Scriptures, is necessary to be believed for Salva∣tion, but that some things are. Or, * It is to be understood distributively, but this conditionally; in such a sence, as, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest. i. e. if such person opposeth, or denieth assent to, any point therein, when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted, and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths.† For in so doing, though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith, [§. 192] he becomes therein obsti∣nate, and Heretical, and disobedient to his spiritual Guide, decla∣red by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries: and so, in this, becomes guilty of a mortal sin: which unrepented of, exlcudes from Salvation. Where also, since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary; hence though all her Definitions are not in such, yet his obstinacy, in not yielding assent to all matters defined, runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary.

[And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull,§. when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed: [Haec est Fides Catholica, quam nisi quis{que} fideliter crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.] which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew: That some Points may become necessary, for salvation, to be be∣lieved, when once defined by the Church, that yet are not absolute∣ly so necessary, or fundamental, according to the Importance of the matter: All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental, or necessary, ratione Me∣dii, to Salvation, that none can possibly attain it without an ex∣plicit belief of them: Here a late Protestant Writer,† in answer to this, can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss, than that we have now given, viz. That, as to some of the Athana∣sian Articles, [Haec est fides Cathol. &c.] neither infers, that they are necessary to be believed from the matter; nor yet from Church-Definition: but necessary only, if there be first a clear con∣viction (i. e. not from Church-Authority, but from Scripture) that they are Divine Revelation. Where the authority of the Church,

in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed, as to any ob∣ligation of her Subjects to conform to it, seems quite laid aside: since upon a clear conviction, that those Articles are Divine Re∣velation, from whatever Proponent, one stands obliged to be∣lieve them; and, without such conviction, neither stands he so ob∣liged by the Church. Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition, from the— Quam nisi quisque fideliter, &c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scrip∣ture. Since Protestants, then, take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles, it is but reason, that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius.]

[§. 196] 4. Lastly. If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence, as Protestants fetter them with: Namely, — That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles, as absolutely necessary to salvation: As Bishop Bramhal.† Which, whether true or false, one is to swear to, as much as to his Creed: As Mr. Thorndike.† That, whereas the Church of England only excom∣municates such, as shall affirm, that her Articles are in any part er∣roneous, the saine Church never declaring, that every one of her Ar∣ticles are fundamental in the Faith, by the Church of Rome every one of them, if that Church hath once determined them, is made funda∣mental, and that in every part of it, to all mens belief: As Bishop Laud;‖ That supposing the Churches Definition [one passed] that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation [i. e. by this Pro∣posal, or Definition] as what is necessary from the matter; And —That an equal explicit faith is required to the Definitions of the Church, as to the Articles of the Creed: and that there is an equal necessity, in order to salvation, of believing both of them: As Mr. Stillingf.† If, I say, Pius his [Haec, est Bides Catholica] must be taken in such a sence: and then, it be considered also; that, by the Bull, this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it, but to all other Definitions also of all other for∣mer allowed Councils, the Consequent is; that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation, and that for want of necessary faith, the far greater part not only of Christians, but of Roman Catholicks; viz. all, that do not explicitly believe, and therefore, that do not actually know, every particular Definition of any prece∣dent Council; when as, who is there among the vulgar, that is not ignorant of the most of them? who amongst the learned, that knows them all? Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words; and, that they only declaim against their own Fancies. When as indeed; to render 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 se∣cond also, of a sufficient proposal, made to us, of the Churches having defined them. And then indeed, so many Articles are ne∣cessary 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 Ar∣ticles 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: [ 1] Such as are necessary so absolutely, as that an invincible ignorance of them is said to fail of Salvation; which are a ve∣ry few of the many Articles of our Christian Faith. [ 2] 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. deliver∣ed in the common Creeds, and Catechisms; such as are not absolute∣ly necessary, ratione Medii.

[ 3] 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, 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 Con∣stance. Canon of Scripture; Purgatory; seven Sacraments, the Popes Supremacy, in the Council of Florence. Auricular Con∣fession; 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 Coun∣cil.†) Veneration of the Cross,† and of Relicks,‖ 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†] Monnastick vows; Celibacy of Clergy, sufficiently au∣thorized 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, be∣fore 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†) 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 appear∣ance. 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, by those of their Commu∣nion, 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.†) are implicitly new affirmatives. Nei∣ther 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, [ 1] in the 3d Disc. c. 7.†) 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 Ro∣man 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 Con∣fession, composed many years before the sitting of this Council, and condemning most of the points; which this justifies) the Sacrifice of the Mass, Communion in one kind, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, Purgatory, Indulgences, and some others were condemned and declared to be against Gods Word by the Articles of the Church of England many years, before the same were either imposed to be sworn to by Pius, or defended, and justified by the Articles of Trent; the one done in 1549. [ 2] the other in 1562. 2^ly. Who leave as little liberty to their Subjects to hold the Roman tenents, as the Roman Church doth, to hold theirs. For as the Roman Church doth Anathematize those, who affirm the contrary to her Articles, to be true, so doth the Church of England, in the Synod held un∣der King James, 1603. can. 5. excommunicate those, that affirm any of her Articles to be erroneous: And for this Churches requi∣ring also not only an external non-contradiction, but internal assent, I desire you to weight the proofs produced in the 3d. Disc. c. 7. † wither,§. to avoid Repetitions, I remit you.

And, if we look into the Protestant Churches abroad, we find the National Synod of Dort, assembled, A. D. 1618. touching some differences among their Divines in those high, and dark points of Divine Predestination; Co-operation of Grace, and Freewill, &c. where were present also some Divines sent from all the other Pro∣testant-Churches following the Doctrine of Calvin (except the French) We find it, I say, in those five Points, * to have passed, partly in asserting Truths, partly in condemning errors, no less than 91. Articles, or Canons. (What might their Canons have a∣mounted to; had they discussed so many Points of Controversie, as that of Trent did?) And then, * to enjoyn all the Pastors their

Subjects the teaching to the people of these Truths [and there∣fore the believing of them;] and * to excommunicate all those holding the contrary, as corrupters of the Truth, till they shall give satisfaction to the Church, in professing the true Doctrines. The words of the Synod, Sess. 138. are these. — Synodus haec Dor∣drechtana, pro authoritate, quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus, & singu∣lis in Faederato Belgio Ecclesiarm Pastoribus, &c. ut banc sacram ve∣ritatis salutaris doctrinam [viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five Points in Controversie] sinceram & inviola∣tam, conservent; illam populo & juventuti fideliter proponant, & ex∣plicent, &c. [which publick teaching of them, required, includes assent to them.] Then against the Remonstrants pronounceth thus— Synodus, suae Authoritatis ex verbo Dei probe conscia, omnium legitimarum tum veterum, tum recentiorum, Synodorum vestigiis insi∣stens, declarat, at{que} judicat, Pastores illos, &c. [the Remonstrant Ministers] corruptae Religionis, & scissae Ecclesiae unitatis reos teneri. Quas ob causas, Synodus praedictis, omni ecclesiastico munere, inter∣dicit, eis{que} ab officiis suis abdicat, donec per seriam resipiscentiam, dictis, factis, studiis contrariis, comprobatam, ecclesiae satisfaciant, at{que} ad ejus communionem recipiantur. Then orders,—Ʋt Synodi Provinciales neminem ad sacrum Ministerium admittant, qui doctrinae, hisce Syno∣dicis constitutionibus declaratae, subscribere, eam{que} docere, recuset.

[§.] 201. Only this main difference there is between these two Chur∣ches: That the one requires assent to her Articles, telling her Subjects, that in necessaries she cannot erre: the other requires assent, declaring to her followers that she may erre, even in points Necessary: The one requires assent in obedience to her Authority, delegated to her by our Lord: the other seems to require assent only from the Evidence (in Scripture, or otherwise) of the matter proposed, Therefore so many of her Subjects, as see not such Evidence, in equity, me thinks, should be freed from her exacting their assent. And then, such obligation to assent would fail of its end, expressed before her Articles, viz. — the hindering diversity of Opi∣nions, and the establishing of consent touching true Religion.

[§. 202] 10. Lastly, to shut up all; Whatever offence, either this strict Profession of Faith summ'd up by Pius, or Anathemas multi∣plied by the Council of Trent, may have given to the Reformed; yet neither the one, nor the other, can justly be charged to have given occasion to their discession, and rent from the former Catholick Church. Which Division, and (as I have shewed†) their Censure also of the Roman Doctrines, preceded both the times of Pius, and the sitting of this Council: and, on the contrary, their Departure,

and such Censure, first occasioned the Churches standing upon her Defence, and the setting up these new-fences and Bars, for preservati∣on of her ancient Doctrine invaded by them, and for hindering her sheep from stragling out of her fold, and hearkning after the voice of Strangers.

Notes

• 1.
• 1 Tim. 2.17.
• Mat. 18, 17.
• †

  Considera∣tions on the Church of Engl. Pre∣face.
• †

  Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27.
• †

  De Concil. l. 2. c. 10.
• 2.
• 3.
• †

  Conc. E∣phes. c. 7.
• § 179. n. 2. R. To α.
• R. To α.
• †

  See Conc. Florent. 7. Sess.
• †

  See below §, 183. n. 1.
• To ••
• †

  See Conc. Florent. Sess. 1.
• To γ.
• To δ.
• §. 183. n. 1.
• †

  Allocut. ad Marcianum
• §,

  183. n. 2.
• †

  Sess. 5.
• †

  Sess. 5.
• ‖

  Austin de Hares.
• 4.
• ‖

  l. 12. c. 1. n. 4.
• †

  p. 822.
• †

  See Sess. 4. & Sess. 5. c. 1.
• †

  Com. leci. l. 5. c. 5.
• †

  De Concil. l. 2. c. 12.
• †

  See Pal∣lav. l. 12. c 2. n. 7. n. 12.
• †

  Com. loc. l. 5. c. 5.
• †

  See Soave, p. 155.—& Bishop Co∣sin. Hist. of Canon, c. 18. §. 192.
• †

  c. 7. §. 81.
• †

  Conc. Car∣thag. 3. c. 47.
• †

  Ibid. §. 77.
• †

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. De∣cret. de ca••e•• script.
• †

  See in him, §. 194.
• See Chemnie, Exam. conc. Trid. 4. Sess.
• ‖

  De viris il∣lustribus in Jacobo.
• ‖

  De viris il∣lustribus in Jacobo.
• ‖

  Apud Hie∣ron. ••om. 9.
• †

  Ibid. p. 561
• ‖

  See p. 81. &c.
• †

  See in him, §. 198.
• †

  De Doctr. Christ. l. 1 c. 8.
• 7.
• †

  See Disc. 3. §. 18.
• §. 195. n. 1••.
• 3.
• †

  §. 192.
• †

  See before
• §.

  195. n. 2
• †

  Stillingf. p. 70, 71.
• 4.
• †

  Rep. to Chalced. p. 322.
• †

  Epilog. Conclus. p. 410.
• ‖

  §. 15. p. 51.
• †

  Rat. Ac∣count, p. 48.
• 8.
• †

  See Capi∣tulare. l. 2. c. 5.—c. 27.
• †

  Ib. l. 4. c. 16.
• ‖

  Ib. l. 3. c. 24.
• †

  See Capi∣tulare pre∣fat. —Dr. Hamn••ond o Idol, § 57.— Thornd. Epi∣log. l. 3. p. 363.
• †

  p. 263.
• 9.
• †

  §. 85 n. 2.
• †

  §. 85. n. 3.
• §.

  83. n. 1.
• 10.
• †

  §. 200.