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

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 Proceedings. §. 5.
• 4 That, Several of its Decisions are without; or contrary to, Scri∣pture, to Primitive Tradition; and Tyrannically Imposed, §. 6.
• 5. That the Decrees of the Council touching Reformation were meer∣ly Delusory. §. 6.

THE most General Councils that can be procu∣red joyned also with S. Peter's Chair, [§. 1] being asserted in the former Discourses† 1.1 as the Su∣preme, and Final, Judge, and Decider, of Ecclesiastical Controversies; And (of these Councils) That of Trent being, as the last, so, particularly applied to the Examining and De∣termination of all those Points of Difference, which have late∣liest afflicted these Western Churches; so that, if the Protestant Party could be induced to accept, and acquiesce in, its Judgment, all modern Controversies of moment were ended; it seems neces∣sary, for perfecting the Design of the former Discourses, in the

last place so far to vindicate the Supream, Legal, and Obliging Authority of this Council, from the many Objections, which Protestants bring against it; as that the more moderate among them may clearly see, that, if they are willing to submit either their Judgment, or their Silence, to any such Council, as the present times of the Church can afford, they have no just reason to deny it to this of Trent.

To manifest which, I will first set you down the chief Par∣ticulars, that are ordinarily urged by the later Reformed Wri∣ters against It: And then, shew you, what, in the same Par∣ticulars, may be said for it: leaving both to your sober Arbitre∣ment; as in a matter which is of no less concernment to you, than the setling of your Faith in so many weighty Points of Re∣ligion, as this Learned and Wise Assembly hath determined: A∣bout which Points others still remain questioning, and disputing; Divided, as from the Church, so among themselves; and unca∣pable of a Remedy.

I wish you, in the Reading of this, accompanied with Soave's History, on the one hand, and that of Pallavicino, on the other; to whom, for avoiding tediousness; I shall often refer you. To the first, as an Author of much Reputation with Pro∣testants; and one, who, it seems, would let no Falficy pass, prejudicial to their Interest. To the second, as One, who, though of an opposite side, yet, contrary to Soave's practice, is careful, in matters of Weight, to signifie the Writings, from which he extracts his Intelligence; Nor do I, herein, exact from a Protestant Reader more credit to him, that his Margin, or other known History secures. Yet, if that be true, that Cesar Aquilino, a Roman Catholick, and quoted for this by a late Pro∣testant Writer‖ 1.2 saith of him. — That he hath done more dis∣service to the Church of Rome by his Answer, than ever Fa∣ther Paul [the unmasked Pietro Soave] did with his History, I have reason from this also to hope, that what I shall have occa∣sion to cite out of him, will pass with the more credit, and bet∣ter acceptation to a Protestant Reader, since both the first, and second, of these Histories are still pretended to advance their Cause. And, yet further, since the things, wherein Aquilino saith‖ 1.3 this disservice consists, are these —

Quod in illâ Historiâ offendatur Romanorum Pontificum fama: — Haereticorum dictae enu∣merantur, & amplificantur: —Rixae, Contentiones & Scandala inter Catholicos, quae in Concilio acciderunt, sigillatìm referuntur

[out of the Vatican Archives he perused] — Quae bona & recta [he means, advantageous to the Catholick Cause] à Petro Soave enarrata, vel minuuntur, vol praetermittuntur, vel in con∣tradictionem vocantur;

in all which Pallavicino seems only cen∣sured, for not writing more cautiously, and partially, on the Ro∣man side; 2 and for not drawing the Council, and the Actions of it much fairer, and smoother, than the Truth, in those secret Pa∣pers, and Records he consulted, did discover them; 3 lastly, for imprudently publishing, what the greatest Patrons of this Coun∣cill are said† 1.4 to have hitherto, with the greatest Art, conceal∣ed, I shall, I say, the more confidently for this make use of his Te∣stimony, without any further Vindication of his Veracity; de∣siring Protestants to make their advantages of an Author re∣ported so much assisting their Pretensions; and partaking so lit∣tle of the Arts of a Politician; and, that valued more the fide∣lity of an Historian, than the promoting of the Roman, or his own, Interest; which Himself also sometimes as freely profes∣seth, as they say, truly; observing—That History is like a Picture, then better, and more commendable, when it represents, not what is fairest; but, what likest to the Original.

[§. 2] This Council, then, being assembled since Luther's Reforma∣tion, and purposely disallowing, and condemning it, very solici∣tous, and diligent have the Reformed likewise been in multiply∣ing Arguments against it. Especially, they being assisted with the History thereof delivered by Petro Soave Polano, i. e. as is sup∣posed by Protestants, Father Paul, a Venetian Friar. Yet, in∣deed, against whose sincerity in composing this work, there seem not wanting many real Exceptions; if you please to consider with me,

[ 1] ¹ First, That he lived in the time of the great dissention between the State of Venice, and the Pope; and then also, was engaged in Writings against the Pope's Proceedings; whence he may be suspected, in this work also, to have been too much biassed by a contrary Interest.

[ 2] ² Again, That, whenas he was but eleven years old at the concluding of this Council, and so could write nothing out of his own knowledge, but out of the Relations, and Notes of others, Printed, or Manuscript; yet very seldom, in things of so great moment, doth he inform the Reader, whence he ex∣tracts his matter; and is contradicted, in many of his Relations, by Pallavicino, referring, herein, to the Records of this Coun∣cill, extant in several places, and to many other Writings suffi∣ciently

common, of such Persons, as were Members of the Coun∣cil, or publickly employed in its Affairs, (the Names of which he sets down in his l. 18. c. 10. n. 14. and out of which, he saith, he compiled a good part of his own work): yet, none of which Writings, (as he collects from several passages of his History) had come to Soave's view.

[ 3] ³ Next, That, for those things, wherein this Author lies under no suspicion of Errour, as to the matter related; yet seems he frequently very culpable as to the Colours, he lays upon it. For, whereas no action can be for its substance so good, but that it may be vitiated, and change its nature from several Circum∣stances, so often as it is done out of an ill intention, or for some impious end, of Policy, Ambition, Covetousness, or the like; Nor, again, scarce any Truth can be, in its own light, so clear, and evident, but that some Veri similities may be ranged on the other side, to obscure, and cloud it; this Author, for the first of these, through the course of his History, may be observ'd (con∣trary to the Modesty which is particularly proper to H••storians) to asperse, and blemish the most specious, and candid actions of those (though the most sacred Persons) whose interests he dis∣favours, with some or other uncharitable Gloss upon them; and to represent the fairest fruit they bear, still worm-eaten with some corrupt Design, or malignant Intention; for which a bare possibility thereof seems his sufficient warrant to affirm it. And again, for the second; constantly after each Session of this Coun∣cil, He, under the Mask of the vulgar talk, and common Fame, takes liberty to sum together all that, which he apprehends may any way disparage the precedent Decrees; and that which per∣haps never entred into any ones, save his own, fancy.

[ 4] ⁴ Lastly, That he was a Person, with whom the Arch-Bi∣shop of Spalato had an intimate Acquaintance; and of whom also he gives this Character (in the Preface to the first Edition of this History, London, 1619. which Preface is omitted in the latter, as some think, because it too manifestly discovers the Hi∣storians Dis-affection to those, whose actions he relates):

That he lived so in the Roman Captivity, as to guide himself by a right Conscience rather, than the common Customs: That he had a great Zeal to the purity of Religion, against such unexcusa∣ble [i. e. Roman] depravations thereof; That he abhorred those, who defended the Church of Rome's abuses, as holy In∣stitutions; and professed, Truth, wherever found, was to be embraced; That this his work was only known to him, and some others, his great Confidents.

From which, as also

from some Extracts out of his Letters holding correspondence with some French Hugonots (mentioned in Casoni's Preface to the Second Volume of Pallavicino) may easily be gathered, that his Religion was much-what of the same temper and complexion, with that of Spalatensis: Unless perhaps we may think, that, after his writing this Book, he return'd to a better mind; and that, from this change, came that reluctance of his, Spalatensis mentions‖ 1.5, for communicating this work; Nay, (as the same Bishop relates it ‖) a Purpose, to have quite suppressed, and made it away; Destinato ad essere sommerso dal suo Genitore. Which thing as he imputes to his fear of some danger from it; so Charity will rather judge, that it proceeded from remorse of Conscience; when, in a pious reflection upon his former Con∣ceptions, he discern'd, that, in stead of an History, he had brought forth a Satyre, against Gods Truth, and his Church, and the most Supreme, and Sacred of those Governors, whom our Lord himself had appointed over It, and Him. However, This his History hath not so far corrupted the truth of Affairs, as not to contain in it many Evidences, very advantageous to the Catholick Cause; and so much remains sound in it, as may serve very well to confute that which is vitiated; and in the main things, that are charged against the Pope, and Council, (espe∣cially concerning the Councils Liberty), this History is found as it were, to destroy it self, by its own Contradictions. A thing, which, observed by Phil. Quorlius an Italian Doctor, pro∣duced his Book entituled;, Historia Petri Soavis ex Authorismet assertionibus consutata. This account, in my entrance, I thought fit to give you of this Author, that you may see what just credit, on such a Subject he deserves, out of whose Quiver the Reform∣ed have taken most of those arrows, with which they seek to wound this Council. The chief of which I shall first summarily relate to you, and so proceed to its intended Defence.

[§ 3] First then, it is Objected by the Protestant Divines, That this of Trent can no way truly be called a General Council, as it is stiled by the Romanists.* 1.6* 1.7 α

Because it is necessary to the Generalness of a Council, that some be there, and those Authorized, from all particular Churches.

[See Archbishop Lawd, § 27. n. 3. where he quotes Bellarmine‖ 1.8 for it,* 1.9]

But none from the Eastern Churches were present in this of Trent, or so much as summoned; or, afterwards, ap∣proved, or consented unto, its Acts: And 〈☐〉〈☐〉 the number of the Bishops,* 1.10 who were present from other Churches, was

frequently so small, that in many Sessions it had scarce 10. Arch-Bishops, or 40, or 50 Bishops, present [Bishop Lawd, §. 27. n. 2.] And, That it had not so many Biships pre∣sent at the Determination of the weightiest Controversies con∣cerning the Rule of Faith, as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a Months warning (B. Brambal, Vindic. c. 9. p. 247.

And see what Soave saith to the same purpose, l. 2. p. 163.) Add to this,* 1.11 γ.

That it was not lawfully called, so as General Councils ought, and used to be; namely, by the Emperor, and other Christian Princes; but only by the Pope [this was one of Henry the 8th's Pleas in his Manifesto's against it.]

Last∣ly,* 1.12δ.

That the Popes themselves, as many as lived in the time thereof, would never consent, that this Council should be affirmed to represent the Ʋniversal Church; prudently fore∣seeing, that if this were granted (as in the Council of Con∣stance it was) the Council, as being the whole, would put off its subjection, and depend no longer on the Pope, that was but a part of it; nor would need his confirmation to render it what it was before; viz. the Representative of the whole Church

[thus Dr. Hammond. Her. 11. §. n 8, 9.] This against its being a General Coucil.

[§ 4] 2. That neither was it a plenary Patriarchal Council,* 1.13 for the West.* 1.14 ε Because from some Churches in the West, as from the Britannick, and some other Reformed Churches, there were no Bishops present there; who also had just cause for their not coming thither (B. Lawd, ib. n. 2.): neither can it justly be plead∣ed, that they were Heretical, or Schismatical Churches, being never condemned by any former Council (B. Brambal, Answer to Chalced. p. 351.) ζ.* 1.15 And, of other Western Churches, (save only Italy) present very few; in all the Sessions under Paul the 3d. but two Frenchmen; and sometimes, none; as, in the sixth Session under Julius the 3d. (B. Lawd, ib. n. 2.* 1.16) And

Twice so many Bishops out of Italy present, as there were out of all other Christian Nations put together, (B. Bramb. Vind. p. 247.) as appears at the end of the Coucil; where the Italians are set down 187. and all the rest make but 83. (B. Lawd, §. 29. n. 2.) 〈☐〉〈☐〉.* 1.17 Neither was this Council, after its rising, fully acknowledged, or received, by the Western Churches; nor, by the Britannick, and other Reformed Chur∣ches; Nor, by the Gallican Church of the Roman Communi∣on: And, Let no man say (saith B. Bramb. Vind. p. 248.)

that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline, not of Doctrine; for the same Canonical Obedi∣ence is equally due to an acknowledged General, [I add, or o∣ther Superior] Council in point of Discipline, as in point of Doctrine.

[§. 5] 3. 'That it was not a Free, and Lawful Council.* 1.18

1. λ.

Where the accusers, or the accused (take,* 1.19 whether you please) namely, the Pope, and the Bishops, persons of the same perswasion, and communion with him, sate as Judges in their own cause; namely, in a Question, of the Popes Supremacy, and of the corruptions of that Church (see B. L. §. 27, n. 1. and Henry 8. Manifesto's) μ.* 1.20 Especially Pope Leo in his Bull having declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks, before they were condemned by the Council.

2. ν.

Where was no security in the place of Meeting,* 1.21 for the Reformed party to come thither; nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted, since the cruel Decrees, and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss, though armed with a safe Conduct. ξ. Whither also,* 1.22 notwith∣standing this, some of the Protestant party being come, yet they were not suffered to propose, and dispute their cause: And again, π. Where, after dispute,* 1.23 (had it been granted them) yet they, if no Bishops, could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest; but must, after the Disputation, have been judged, and censured by their Adversa∣ries. 3. ς. Where all the Members of the Council,* 1.24 that had a vote, had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy; and none had suffrage, but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome, and were professed enemies to all that called for Refor∣mation, or a free Council; (B. Lawd, §. 27. n. 1.) 4. σ.* 1.25 * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council, but only what the Popes Legates proposed; the Popes Commission running, Proponentibus Legatis; & σ 2 * where nothing was determined,* 1.26 till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome, (him∣self not vouchsafing to be present therein); and therefore, it was commonly said, that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male. 5. τ.* 1.27 Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope; and many Bishops were introduced, who were only titular; and‖ 1.28 divers new Bishop∣ricks also erected by the Pope, during the Council; all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes: and hence, such an unproportionable number, there, of Italian Bishops.

[§. 6] 4.v. Suppose the Council, in all these Objections, cleared;* 1.29 suppose it never so Oecumenical, and Legal; yet have the Reformed this Reserve, after all, wherefore they cannot justly entertain it; *

Because some of the Decrees, and Defini∣tions, are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures; or, at least, not warranted by them,* 1.30 φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures, as the Nicene, and o∣ther primitive Councils did; but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in mat∣ter of Faith.

[Concerning which, thus Arch-Bishop Lawd, §. 28. — The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter, or in necessary sense, or the Council is not Lawful. For the con∣sent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority, to make the Council Authentical, and the Decisions of it, de fide, than any confirmation of the Pope can be. —Now the Council of Trent, we are able to prove, had not the first, [but have departed from the Letter, and sense of Scripture] and so we have no reason to respect the second. See likewise, §. 27. n. 1.] Where he asks—How that Council is Le∣gal, which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie, and make it to be de fide, though it hath not the written word of God for warrant, either in express Letter, or necessary sence, and deduction; but is quite extra, without, the Scripture? —See also Mr Stillingfl. p. 477, & 478.] — χ,* 1.31 Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to, or at least not warranted by, Primitive and Apostolical Tradition‖ 1.32. 〈☐〉〈☐〉 And, in the last place,* 1.33

Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's, in these, and in many other slight matters (if truths,) upon all those, who shall dissent from, or at least, who shall contradict, their Judgment in them; (this one Council having made near hand as many Canons, as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together:)‖ 1.34 and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds; * drawn up bp Pius the 4th. ac∣cording to the order of the Council‖ 1.35 and * imposed to be believed by all, who would enter into the communion of the Church; contrary to the 7th. Can. of the Third General Coun∣cil at Ephesus. All these Articles Imposed too, as Fundamen∣tal; and to be assented to, as absolutely, and explicitly, for at∣taining salvation, as the Articles of the Creed; and so, that, in disbelieving any of them, it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire; which Articles are concluded, there, as the Athanasian Creed, with an — Haec

vera Catholica Fides, extra quam nemo Salvus‖ 1.36

So that (saith Mr. Thorndyke† 1.37) it was the Acts of this Council, that fra∣med the Schisme; because when as the Reformation might have been provisional, till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement, this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace, but by yielding to all their De∣crees.

5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine. And next,* 1.38 For those of Reformation, which also are very numerous; and,* 1.39 one would think, the more, the better: yet, these also are not free from their complaints.* 1.40 ω.

That these Decrees are meer Illusions; many of them of small weight; taking Motes out of the eye, and leaving Beams. That the Council, in fra∣ming them, imitated the Physitian, who, in an Hectical Body, laboured to kill the Itch: That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved, and some Symptomes only, cured. That; in some of more consequence, the Exceptions are larger, than the Rule: And αα.* 1.41 That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them, as he pleaseth.

(Thus Soave fre∣quently.)

That nothing of Reformation followed up∣on them, and the most important things to that end could ne∣ver pass the Council; and, it ended, ββ.* 1.42 great rejoycing in Rome, that they had cheated the world so, that that, which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome, had confirm∣ed and advanced the Interest of it‖ 1.43

Most of these Objections you may find, after Soave, urged; by Archbishop Lawd, §. 27, &c. and reinforced, in his Defence, by Mr. Stillingfl. p. 2. c. 8.—By B. Bramh. Vind. c. 9. —By Dr. Hammond, of Her. §. 11. and many others; whether with more force, and advantage, than is here set down, I must desire you to consult the Authors.

[§. 7] These are the principal Exceptions, occurring in later Protestant-Writers against the Council of Trent. Now I desire your patience to hear on the other side, what may be said for it. Which Council, being, by reason of the subjection of the Clergy to so many supreme and independent Princes, with so much difficulty conven'd; not finally concluded till 18 years after its

first sitting; interrupted by sickness; interrupted by wars; ma∣naged under several Popes of several inclinations; and under of∣ten-changed interests of most warlike, and rival Princes, accord∣ing to their several advantages or disgusts, who now sent, now withdrew their Bishops, and desired to model its Decrees to the content of their Subjects, and secular Peace in their Dominions; It must needs encounter great diversity of Accidents, and not al∣ways retain the same face, security, frequency, splendor, and re∣putation, nor the same purity, and dis-engagement from secular affairs, and national obligations.

Again, * Sitting in the time, and for the composing, of the greatest, and the most powerful (considering the engage∣ment of the common people, as well as of Princes) separation and division, that ever was in the Christian Church, which de∣parted also, from the former unity, in so many points of Do∣ctrine and Discipline, as never did any before; and * driving two main designs at once, the reformation of manners in the Church, and its Governors; and the confutation of errors in the Sectaries, It must needs be liable to many Intestine, as well as External, affronts and hinderances from all sides; and, in so many decisions, seem to some, to commit not a few over∣sights. But yet, notwithstanding all these Intrigues, and all, that is produced against it, I see not, but that both its Authority, and Integrity may be rationally and justly vindicated.

[§. 8] The Considerations upon it, for the more orderly pro∣ceeding in them, I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Con∣cerning the Generality,* 1.44 Liberty, and just Authority, of this Coun∣cil, or of the persons constituting it, to oblige the Churches Subjects;* 1.45 or especially, those of the West. 2. Concerning the Invalidity; and also, probably, the uneffectiveness of such a General Council, as the Protestants, in stead thereof; demand∣ed;, and, as should be limited with all the conditions they pro∣posed. 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent,* 1.46 especially as to those matters, which re∣spect the Protestants.* 1.47 4. The many Definitions and Ana∣thema's of this Council, and its pretended-new Articles of Faith.* 1.48 5. Concerning the many Constitutions, and Acts of great consequence, passed in this Council, and confirmed by the Pope, for the Reformation of several corrupt practices, and disor∣ders, observed in the Churches Government, or Discipline.

CHAP. II.

Of Councils inferior to General.

The due Subordinations, and other Regulations, of them, §. 9.

• 1. The several Councils, at least so high as the Patriarchal, to be called, and moderated, by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors, or Presidents; and nothing to be passed by them, without his; or by Him, without their, consent. §. 10.
• 2. No Introduction, or Ordination, of Inferior Clergy to be made without Approbation, or Confirmation of the Superior. §. 11.
• 3. Differences between Inferiors, upon Appeal, to be decided by Su∣periors; and those of higher persons, and in greater Causes, by the Bishop of the first See. §. 12. (where, concerning his contest, about this, with the Africans, §. 13. n. 2.)
  • Yet; that no persons, or Synods, co-ordinate might usurp authority one over another: Nor, all Causes ascend to the Highest Courts; and, many, without troubling the Synod, in its Interval to be decided by its President, §. 14.
• 4. Obedience, in any dissent happening amongst Superiors, to be yielded to the Superior of them.
  • The Concessions of Learned Protestants, touching the Precidents, §. 16.
• 5. No Addresses, or Appeals, permitted, from the Superior Eccle∣siastical, to any secular, Judge, or Court. §. 20.
  • Where, That the Church, from the beginning, was constituted a di∣stinct Body from the Civil State, §. 21.
  • And, what seem to be Her Rights and Priviledges, (as so distinct.) §. 22.

[§. 9] COncerning the first Head; to discern, more clearly, the true State of this Council, assembled at Trent, It seems necessary, that I, first, give you a brief account of some things more generally appertaining to these Ecclesiastical Courts.

Of Councils then assembled, as need required, for deciding Controversies, enacting Laws, and preserving the Peace of the Church Catholick, (which is but one, throughout the world);

there have been always used in the Church these several Kinds, or Compositions, subordinate in Dignity, and Authority, one to another, 1 Episcopal, or Diocesan; 2 Provincial, 3 National, 4 Patriarchal, and 5 Oecumenical, or General. Of which Councils the first Pattern, under the Gospel, was that held at Jerusalem, Act. 15. A. D. 51.

Amongst these, the lowest Synod, or Ecclesiastical Coun∣cil, for governing the Church, was Episcopal, or Diocesan. (ta∣king the word in its modern sence): consisting of the Bishop of any particular Diocess, and his Presbyters; the Bishop calling them together, and moderating the Assembly, the Actions and Decrees, of which Synod were appealable from, and liable to the Judgment, and Censure, of an higher Council.

The next Council was Provincial; consisting of all the Bishops of a Province (in which were many Diocesses): called, and moderated, and its Decrees executed, by the Metropoli∣tan.

The next Synod (to whom also the Actions, and Decrees, of this Provincial were subject) was National; consisting of the Metropolitans of several Provinces with their Bishops; called, and moderated, by the chief Primate in such a Nation; such were several of the Affrican Councils, and particularly, that held under S. Cyprian, de Baptizandis Haereticis; there being of these Provinces or greater Circuits, six in Affrick; and so many Pri∣mates, or primae Sedis Episcopi, of whom the Chief was the Bi∣shop of Carthage.

The next, a Council Patriarchal; consisting of the Metro∣politans, &c. of divers Kingdoms, and Countries, which were contained under the same Patriarchy; this called, and moderated by the Patriarch.

The last, and supremest, is a Council Oecumenical, or Ge∣neral; to which I should proceed next; to shew you, of what persons it is to consist: who is to call, who is to preside in, to regulate, and ratifie it, &c. But this I shall defer till §. 34. And, because the Regulation, and Government that is, for the necessary preserving of the Churches firmer Peace and Unity, established, and observed in these lower Councils, is, by their being more frequently held, much better known, and also freely acknow∣ledged by Learned Protestants, I will first give you some fur∣ther Account of this; that, so, you may make a better Judg∣ment of the Nature; and Condition of General Councils, and of that, which is requisite in them, (at last to be applied to that of Trent): which General Councils, by reason of the

Difficulty, Charge, and many other Inconveniences, of so uni∣versal an Assembly, have been much more rarely convened in the Church.

[ 1] In these assemblies then fore-named; for the unity and peace of the Church, 1st. It was ordered; That the Inferiors, (though joyned in a Council) could establish nothing (in things that were of moment, and concern'd the whole Body; [§. 10] as in matters of Faith, and Manners, Ordination of Clergy, &c.) without the Superiors, or Presidents, consent; nor He, with∣out theirs, i. e. of the major part of them: For example; The Presbyters nothing, without their Bishop; nor the Bishops, with∣out their Metropolitan; nor Metropolitans, without the Primate, or Patriarch; & è contra. Of which thus the 35. Can. Apostol. —

Episcopos Gentium singularum scire convenit; quis inter eos primus [this ascends so high as Primats] habeatur; quem; ve∣lut Caput existiment; & nihil ampliùs, praeter ejus confcientiam, gerant, quàm illa sola singuli, quae paraeciae propriae & villis, quae sub eâ sunt, competunt. Sed nec Ille, praeter omnium conscienti∣am, faciat aliquid in eorum paraeciis. Sic enim Unanimitas erit, & glorificabitur Deus, per Christum, in Spiritu Sancto.

And see the same repeated in Conc. Antioch. Can. 9. And, this Apostol. Can. there referred to; In which by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, praeter sententiam illus qui primus est, must be un∣derstood, (not the Councils doing nothing without this Primate first consulted; and then, if He, and they, or a major part of them, do differ in opinion, He obliged to follow this major part, as some Protestants would have it‖ 1.49 quoting Conc. Antiochen. c. 19. as favouring such a sence: but) the Council's doing nothing without this Primates consent; the Council, or major part of it, and he the President, having both of them, a negative voice in respect of one another; and, so, such matters, as both do not concur in, being to remain undecided, till their agreement; or, till such Cause is by some party devolved to a Superior Court, (if such difference doth not happen in the Supreme). Otherwise, if, by (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) be meant, only Knowledge, or Advice, the one parties consulting, or acquainting the other with such a matter; then, since that Canon runs also, that the Primate shall do nothing praeter Episcoporum [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] sententiam, yet this will not hinder, but that he, alone, may make such Decrees also, without the consent of the Council, or of the major part of them; and on neither side must the word signifie any more, than their Counsel, and Advice.

As for that passage of the 19th. Antiochtan Canon ur∣ged —'Obtineat Sententia plurimorum (the like to which see Conc. Nice, Can. 6) it means only, That the unanimous suffrage of all the Provincial Bishops, joined with the Metropolitan, will not be necessary for the Ordination of a new Bishop; when∣as perhaps some, propter suum contentionis studium, may contra∣dict; and not; That such major part may pass such Acts without, or against, the Metropolitan: The consent of which Metropo∣litan, for the Ordination, or Confirmation of such a B••shop, is expresly required by the 4th. and 6th. Canon of the first Gene∣ral Council of Nice.

[ II] 2^ly. For preserving the same Peace, and Unity, it was so ordered; [§. 11] That no Bishop, in any Diocess, could be Ordain∣ed, or exercise any Jurisdiction belonging to such place, with∣out the consent, or confirmation of the Metropolitan; nor Metropolitan, in any Province, without the Confirmation of the Patriarch. See Can. Apost. 35.—Conc, Nic. Can. 4, 6.— Con c. Antioch. c. 9.19.—Conc. Laodic. c. 12.—2. Conc. Carthag. c. 12. — Conc. Constantinop. c. 2.—Conc. Ephes. c. 8, [Where note; That, not the Confirmation of the Cyprian Metropolitan, but the Election and Ordination of him (of which the Cyprian Bishops complained, that they were deprived), is denied in this Canon to the Antiochian Patriarch, as Res nova, and contrary to former Customs; this thing properly belonging to the Provin∣cial Synod] — Conc. Chalced. 28. —And here note, that these later Canons maintain the Mos antiquus obtineat, of the 6th. Nicene Canon, and so preserve unviolated the ancient preeminen∣cies of the Chief Patriarches, as well as those of inferior Pri∣mates, or Metropolitans. After all which, the 8th. General Council, Can. 17, Reciting the foresaid 6th. Canon of Nice, thus explains it—Quâ pro causâ, & haec magna & sancta Synodus, tam in seniori, & novâ Româ [Constantinopoli] quam in Sede Antiochiaes & Hierosolymorum, priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari; ita, ut earum Praesules, universorum Metropoli∣tanorum, qui ab ipsis promoventur, & sive per manus impositionem, sive per Pallii dationem, Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiunt, habeant potestatem; viz. ad convocandam eos, urgente necessit ate, ad Synodalem Conventum; vel etiam ad coercendum illos, & corri∣gendum, cum fama eos super quibusdam d••lictis forsitan accusaverit. Of which Canon, thus Dr. Field, p 5.8. — Patriarchs were, by the Order of the 8th. General Council† 1.50 to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them, either by Imposition of Hands, or giving the Pall.

—And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551.—Without the Patriarchs consent, none of the Metropolitans, subject unto them, might be Ordained.—And —What they bring (saith he) proves nothing that we ever doubted of; For we know, the Bishop of Rome had the Right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship, as likewise every other Patriarch had. And thus B. Bramhal, (Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. &c.) — What power the Metropolitan had o∣ver the Bishops of his own Province; the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces, within his own Pa∣triarchate. And afterward—Wherein, then, consisted Patri∣archal Authority? In Ordaining their Metropolitans, or Confirm∣ing them, &c.

3ly. Again so ordered: That, any difference arising between any inferior, persons, or Councils, either of an equal degree; [ III] as between two Presbyters, or two Bishops, or their Synods; [§. 12] or an unequal; as between a Presbyter, and his Bishop; between a Bishop, and his Metropolitan; or their Synods; a repair, for the decision thereof, should be made to the next Person, or Council, Superior to both. Nor might obedience, by an Infe∣rior, be denied to, or a discession made from, any Superior, up∣on something thought criminous in him, before such judgment of an higher Court were first passed, discharging such Inferiors of their duty. See Conc. Nic. Can, 4; 5, 6.—Conc. Sard. Can. 7. — Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. — 8. General Council, c. 10. & 26. compared with the 17. expounding the 6th. Can. of the Nicene Council.

Thus then, all inferior Conciliar differences of much con∣sequence were terminated if not sooner, ultimately in a General Council, when it could be had; & personal appeals, in the Interval of Councils, (which, whether Episcopal, Provincial, or Patriarchal, cannot be, upon every cause, without great trouble, & charge, con∣vened), were, as for greater causes, and persons, (as those of the other Patriarchs, or eminent Bishops) ended by the Prime Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome; who made use of such Bishops for his Assessors, and Council, as could with convenience, upon such appeals, be brought together. See the Council of Sardica. can. 4, 5. Concerning the just Authority of which Council, I refer the Protestant-Reader to Mr. Thorndikes Defence thereof, Epil. l. 3. c. 21. p. 181. and just weights, p. 40.

But see this practice of Appeals to the First See much more ancient; not only, as to the West;* 1.51 in the Provinces sub∣ject

to this Patriarch: where we meet with the appeal of Basili∣des, and Martialis, two Spanish Bishops, desiring by him to be restored to their Bishopricks, of which they pretended they were unjustly deprived‖ 1.52; (in which matter S. Cyprian† 1.53 indeed blames the Pope, for receiving them rashly into his Communi∣on, when he bad not well examined their Cause, nor the justice of the former Sentence passed in Spain on them; but not at all, for his admitting, as Patriarch, their appeal): and find * the Request of the said S. Cyprian‖ 1.54, made to the Pope for his Let∣ter to the Bishops of France, to depose Marcianus a French Bi∣shop, for siding with the Novatians; again *, the appeal of Caeci, lianus, Primate of Carthage, who was wronged by a Council held in Affrick, to the Pope, and his Council; related, and ju∣stified against the Donatists, by S. Austin, Ep. 162. But, as to the East also; where we find the appeal of Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, wronged by the Arrian, Eastern, Synods: And, long before these, the appeal of Dionysius Alexandrinus, accused to the Pope by some of Pentapolis† 1.55 and so making his Defence to Him, and cleared by him and his Council.

All these, before the Decree of Sardica; as for the times after it, I suppose it needless to mention the appeals of S Chryso∣stom‖ 1.56, Theodoret† 1.57, Flavianus, and other Eastern Bishops.

As for the famous Contest, that was had about these Appeals,* 1.58 between Sozimus, and Bonifacius, Popes, and the Affrican Bishops, after A. D. 400, and after so many eminent former allowed Examples of such Appeals, 1^st. The Constitution of those Affrican Prelates in a Council, held about the same time (whether it were the Milevitan, or rather ano∣ther at Carthage, as some think, it much matters not), prohi∣bits such Appeals beyond Sea only to the inferior Clergy, in these words‖ 1.59 — Placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis, quas habuerint, &c. non provocent, nifi ad Affri∣cana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum. But it en∣joyns nothing concerning Bishops 2ly. In their dispute with Boniface, they handled the matter so gently, that, as Baro∣nius observes† 1.60 they seem'd to debate rather de modo, than de Re; bespeaking him on this manner‖ 1.61 — Impendio deprecamur, ut ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis. — [Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus† 1.62 —Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facilè audiantur [i. e. à Rom. Pontifice], nisi viz. noto∣ria, & manisesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omni∣bus,

aut maximâ eorum parte. For he grants there—Ʋbi gravis & notoria est suspicio erga proprios & primarios Judices, Episcopos reos potuisse ad aliena, [or extera], judicia, praesertim verò ad se∣des Apostolicas, recurrere; and quotes, for it, S. Austin, Ep. 162. in Cacilian's case.] And —Concilium Nicenum voluit obser∣vari, ne in suâ Provinciâ Communione suspensi, à suâ sanctitate, vel festinatò, vel praeproperè, vel indebitè videantur communioni resti∣tui. For, the common practice of such Appeals in former times, by Athanasius, and others, shews; that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons of Nice to admit into his Communi∣on any such Bishop, as was excommunicated by his Province, if the Roman Bishop found him wrongfully suspended. And there∣fore 'tis true also, that the 6th. Nicene Canon — Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commisit (which the Affricans urged) but not this in every case unappealable to Superiors, as appears by their former Qualification,—Ne festinato, ne praeproperè, &c. And, particularly for this Province of Affrick,—S. Austin undertakes, against the Donatists, a Justification of the Appeal made formerly to a Transmarine Judgment (the Donatists much opposing it) by Cacilianus Bishop of Carthage, when injur'd by an Affrican Council of 70 Bishops: The Father giving there his reason also for the Equity of such Appeal; because such Ecclesia transmarina was à privatis inimicitiis, & ab utrâ{que} parte dissensi∣onis, aliena. Where also he justifies Melchiades Bishop of Rome his admission of this Appeal —An fortè non debuit (saith he) Romanae Ecclesiae, Melchiades, Episcopus cum Collegis, transmarinis Episcopis, illud sibi usurpare judicium, quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi Primus [Numidae], Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerat terminatum? Quid, quod nec usurparit? Rogatus Imperator Judices misit Episco∣pos, qui cum eo sederent, & de tot â ill â causâ, quid justum videre∣tur, statuerent. And, a little after the foresaid Contest, in an Appeal made to Rome by one Antonius, constituted formerly Bishop of Fussala by S. Austin, This Father, writing an Epistle to Pope Celestin about it, there no way declines his Sentence, but only supplicates his favour, in it—Collabora nobiscum, obse∣cro— & Jube, tibi, quae directa sunt, omnia recitari—Existat exem∣plo, ipsâ Apostolica sede judicante, vel aliorum judicia firmante, quosdam, &c. And the same Father relating to the forecited Af∣frican Canon‖ 1.63 argues thus, against the Donatists, the lawfulness of Cecilian's Transmarine Appeal† 1.64 —Ne{que} enim (saith he) de Presbyteris, aut Diaconis, aut inferioris Ordinis clericis, sed de col∣legis [Episcopis] agebatur; Qui possunt aliorum Collegarum, & praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, judicio causam suam inte∣gram

reservare. Upon which passage, joined with some other Reasons, some‖ 1.65 have contended, that the Acts, and Epistles of the 6th. Council of Carthage to the Pope, quarrelling about Appeals, are forged and counterfeit: These Acts arguing just contrary to S. Austin, thus; — If an Appeal not permitted to inferior Clergy, much less to Bishops.† 1.66— Etsi (say they) de in∣ferioribus Clericis, vel Laicis videtur ibi, [in the Nicene Canon], praecaveri, quantò magis de Episcopis voluit observari? &c. And Dr. Field, touching this matter, hath these words‖ 1.67 —The Af∣fricans, though within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the Ap∣peal of their Bishops to Rome, because they might have right a∣gainst their Metropolitans in a General Synod of Affrick, wherein the Primate sate, as President. For, otherwise, Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans, might, by the Canons, appeal to their own Patriarch. Thus he. For otherwise, here meaneth he not; when such Councils do not sit? (For, surely he would not have a Provincial Council purposely new called upon every personal contention): But this overthrows the arguments of the Affrican Bishops; who also are said to have denied such Ap∣peals, not when Affrican Councils sit only, but altogether. A∣gain, S. Austin clearly justifies Appeals from Affrican Councils al∣so. This of the Affrican Controversie about Appeals, of as little advantage to non-Appealants, as it is of great noise, if the matter be, on both sides, equally weighed.

Again,* 1.68 Touching another ancient Contest, that happened, (and is also urged by Protestants) between the Cyprian Bishops, and the Patriarch of Antioch, decided in the 3d. General Coun∣cil. Can. 8. you may observe: That, whatever priviledge, or exemption, any Church, or Province may have had, from any Patriarch or his Council, as to Elections, or Ordinations; yet no Church, or Person, hath been freed from a submittance thereto, in point of Appeals; or of Decision of Controverfies in matter of Faith. Neither here can the Cyprian Bishops by vertue of any such Canon of Ephesus plead their particular exemption from the 7th. Canon of Sardica, or 9th. of Chalcedon, (which Canon is also seconded by the Imperial Law, in Cod. Tit. 4. c. 29.) or from the 17th. or 26th. Canon of the 8th. General Council; which Canons command such submittance, and allow such Appeals; in which Appeals also the Inferior Pa∣triarchs were subject to the Superior (See before §. 12, 13, and below, the Concession of Dr. Field, §. 16 n, 5); And of the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarch over Cypras, as to

these matters still remaining after the Canon of Ephesus, see S. Je∣rom‖ 1.69 in his controversie with John, Bishop of Jerusalem—Ni fal∣lor, hoc ibi [i. e. in Concilio Niceno], ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit; & totius Orientis, Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesa∣riensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras, cui, spretâ communione tuâ, communicare nos noveras; aut, si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potiùs literae dirigendae. [Totius Orientis; and so, Cy∣pri.]

Mean while, in this necessary Subordination of the lower Clergy, or their Synods, to the higher, [§. 14]

1st. Care was taken; That Co-ordinate Churches,* 1.70 or Pro∣vinces, or their Synods, (i. e. such, whereof the one could claim no Jurisdiction over the other, neither by ancient Custom, nor Conciliar Constitution), should usurp no authority over one ano∣ther: For which, see Can Apostol. 36.—Conc Nicen. c. 6.—Conc. Ephes. c. 8.—Conc. Constantinop. c. 2, 3, 5. Compared with Conc. Chalced. Act 16. Which Canons, and particularly the second and third of the Second General Council at Constantinop. (do not prove, what some would infer; That all Provinces are, for all power, absolute, supreme, and independent, from whom might be no further appeal; nor any other Person or Council, as Superior, take account of their Acts; for the contrary known practice in antiquity shews this to be otherwise† 1.71: and thus, Provincial Coun∣cils would have no subjection to General; but) only signifie these two things; 1st. That neither Patriarch, nor Primate, [ 1] or Metropolitan, should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriar∣chy, or Province, co-ordinate, and over which he had no Juris∣diction in such affairs: (i.e.) over which, neither by ancient custom, nor constitutions of Councils, he could claim any such superiori∣ty. (See the limitation, Conc. Ephes. c. 8.—Quae non priùs, at{que} ab initio, &c. And Can. Apostol, 36.—Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt; a clause, that is still retained in these Canons to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal: As for example. Not the Bishops of Alexandria therefore to meddle with the affairs of Antioch —Soli∣us Aegypti curam gerant, servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae. Ser∣vatis, i. e. without encroaching upon them; Nor the Patriarch of Alexandria, or Antioch, to meddle with the Ordination of the Bishops in the several Provinces subjected to them: Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace; to whom Thrace owed no subjection. 2^ly. That, in every Province, the Provincial Synod be the Supreme, and last, Court, [ 2] above any other authority in that Pro∣vince; and exclusively to the judgment of the Bishops of any neigh∣bouring

Provinces, which are only co-ordinate with it. (See them below §. 28. called by Gregory, Episcopi alieni Concilii). For observe, that some of those Diocesses that are urged, in the former Canon‖ 1.72 to be independent, viz. the Diocess of Thrace, Pontus, and Asia, are, in the 16^th Act of the Council Chalced. where this very Canon was recited, mentioned to be subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople; subjected; i. e. as to confirma∣tion of their Metropolitans, and as to Appeals, see Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. & 16. Though still their priviledge stood firm—Ʋt Epis∣copi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae; namely, unusquis{que} Metropo∣lita praefatarum Diocesium ordinet sua Regionis Episcopos, sicut Divinia Canonibus [(i. e.) the Canons of Nice, and these of Constantino∣ple] est praeceptum. And, as these Diocesses were subject to the Pa∣triarch of Constantinople; so were others to those of Alexandria, and Antioch.

The second necessary provision made by the Church,* 1.73 was, That in the Intervals of Synods, the respective Presidents thereof should be authorized,* 1.74 as standing Church-Officers, always extant, and accessible, to end controversies, interpret, and execute their Canons; since these greater Bodies could not be, so frequently as occasions might require, without much trouble, assembled† 1.75.

As also lesser causes were ordered to be finally terminated in some inferior Court, without liberty of appeal, in all Causes, by whatever persons, (which was the chief matter stood upon by the Affricans against Pope Bonifacius, in the case of a Presbyter) from one superior Court to a further; or also, from the standing Ecclesiastical Officers, to a future Council; that so Contentions might not be unnecessarily prolonged; nor the supreme Courts overcharged with business; nor Justice deferred. See Conc. Mi∣levit. c. 22. And Card. Bellarmin. De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 24— Quastio de Appellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appella∣tionibus Presbyterorum, & minorum Clericorum, sed de appellatio∣nibus Episcoporum, &c. See, below, §. 16. n. 6, 8.

This in the third place (from §. 12.) of the Churches sub∣jecting both Ecclesiastical Persons, and Councils, One to Ano∣ther, the less to the greater, in point of Judicature and Authori∣ty, for preventing of Schismes.

[ IV] 4^ly. When the two Ecclesiastical Courts, or Officers, that are subordinate,* 1.76 do dissent, the obedience of the Subjects of both, in such case being once apparent, was to be rendred to the Supe∣rior. So, if a Diocesan, or Provincial, Council ought to yield

to a National, the Subjects of such Province, or Diocess, when these two Councils clash, ought to conform, in their Obedience, to the National, not to a Diocesan, or Provincial, Council, a∣gainst it.

Now,* 1.77 for such a subordination of the several Church-Offi∣cers, and Synods forenamed; and for Obedience, when these dissent, due to the Superior; (the two points last mentioned). I will, to save the labour of further proof, give you the Concessi∣ons of Learned Protestants. (though this be done with some limi∣tations, accomodated to the better legitimating of their Refor∣mation; of which limitations, see below, §. 16. n. 4.— & n. 7. and again, §. 28.); desiring you also to peruse those set down already to the same purpose, in the second Discourse. §. 24. n. 1. &c.

Of this matter, then, thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case be∣tween the Church of England, and Rome, p. 48.—The Church of Christ is a society, or company, under a Regiment, Discipline, Go∣vernment; and the Members, constituting that Society, are either Persons taught, guided, governed, or Persons teaching, guiding, go∣verning; and this, in order to preserve all in unity, and to advance every Member of this visible Society, to an effectual, and real parti∣cipation of Grace, and Ʋnion with Christ the Head; and therefore, and upon no less account, is obedience due unto them, Eph. 4.11, 12, 13, 16. and, Heb. 13.17. And he, that will not hear the Church, is to be as a Heathen, and a Publican, Mat. 16. And, applying this to the Presbyterians, and other Sects, dividing from the English Bishops; and Synods‖ 1.78—They have incurred (saith he) by leaving us (and I wish they would sadly consider it) no less, than the guilt of Schisme; which lies heavily on as many, as have (of what perswasi∣on, or Sect, soever) wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England; whether they do this by a bare separati∣on; or by adding violence, and Sacriledge unto it.

And thus Dr. Hammond,* 1.79 somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism, c. 8. p. 157. —The way (saith he) provided by Christ, and his Apostles, for preserving the Ʋnity of the Faith, &c. in the Church, is fully acknowledged by us— made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence; 1st. Their re∣solving, &c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City; of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans; of the Metropolitans in every Region or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Patriarchs, or Pri∣mates;

allowing also, among these, such a primacy of Order, or Dignity, as might be proportionable to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Scrip∣ture and greeable to what is, by the ancient Canons, allowed to the Bishop of Rome, and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordi∣nary uses. And when there should be need of extraordinary reme∣dies, there was, then, a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial, Patriarchal, General. Again, Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these; beginning at the lowest, and so ascending to the highest—Those Brethren, or People (saith he‖ 1.80) which reject the Ministry of the Deacons, or Presbyters, in any thing wherein they are ordained, or appointed by the Bishop, (and as long as they continue in obedience to him); and of their own accord break off, and separate from them, refuse to live regularly under them, they are, by the ancient Church of Christ, ad∣judged, and looked on as Schismaticks—† 1.81 In like manner; if we as∣cend to the next higher Link; that of the Bishop, to whom both Pres∣byters, and Deacons, as well as the Brethren, or People, are obli∣ged to live in obedience, the withdrawing, or denying this obedience, in any of these, will certainly fall under this guilt.

Next, For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates,§. 1.82 §. 20. he goes on thus. It is manifest, That as the several Bishops had pre∣fecture over their several Churches, and over the Presbyters, Deacons, and People, under them, such as could not be cast off by any, without the guilt, and brand of Schisme; so the Bishops themselves of the ordi∣nary inferior Cities (for the preserving of unity, and many other good uses), were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropoli∣tans [he having shewed, in §. 11.12, the first Institution thereof Apostolical, in Titus, and Timothy] nay, we must yet ascend (saith he) one degree higher: from this of Archbishops, or Metropoli∣tans, to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs, [Concerning whose authority, having produced several Canons of Councils, §. 25. he concludes thus] —All these Canons, or Councils, deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops, from the Apostles, and first Planters of the Churches; wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this; that there may be a disobedience, and irregularity, and so, a Schism, even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans, and of the authority, which these have by Canon, and Primitive Cu∣stom, over them. And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors, he affirms also due, on the same ac∣count, to their several Synods† 1.83 — It is evident (saith he), That the power, which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council, where these Bishops are assembled; and the despising of that

[Council] is an offence under the first sort of Schism— and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors, whereof it is compound∣ed. Thus Dr. Hammond: ascending in these subordinations as high, as Primates.

But Dr. Field, Bishop Bramhal, and others,* 1.84 rise one step higher, to the Proto-primates, or Patriarchs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so called, and their Councils. And strange it is (if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest) that Dr. Hammond could pass by these, in his speaking of the remedies of Schism, with so much silence, (not mentioning Pa∣triarchs, but only as taken for Primates; or their Councils. See * Answ. to Cathol. Gent. c. 3. n. 9, 10, 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial, National, Oecumenical, Councils, but passeth by Patriarchal; and, * Schism; p. 158, where he names Provincial, Patriarchal, General, but useth Patriarchal there for National, or the Council presided-in by the Primate, to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch) Strange, I say, considering not only the clear evi∣dence of ancient Constitutions, and practice, relating to these Patriarchs, and their Synods; but the great necessity thereof, as to the Ʋnity of the Churches Faith, and Conservation of her Peace; and that much more, since the division of the Empire into so ma∣ny Kingdoms; by reason of which secular contrary Interests, the several parts, and members of the Catholick Church, dispersed a∣mongst them, are more subject to be disjointed, and separated, from one another. Which unity and peace, (if we reflect on * the great rarity of General Councils (not above 5, or 6, in the Protestant account, in 1600. years) and * the multiplicity of Primates that are in Christendom, all left by Dr. Hammond Su∣preme, and independent, of one another; or of any other per∣son, or Council, when a General one not in being; and * the experience of their frequent Lapses into gross Errors: (For al∣most what great Heresie, or Schism, hath there been in the Church, whereof some Primate was not a chief Abettor); and * The Rents in the Church, made by these, apt to be much great∣er, as the person is higher, and more powerful), is not sufficient¦ly provided for, though much pretended, in Dr. Hammonds Scheme.

Come we then to Dr. Fields Model yet more enlarged — The actions (saith he‖ 1.85) of the Bishop of each particular Church of a City,* 1.86 and places adjoining, were subject to the censure, and judgment of the

rest of the Bishops of the same Province; amongst whom, for order sake, there was one Chief; to whom it pertained to call them together; to sit as Moderator in the midst of them, being assembled; and to ex∣ecute what by joint consent they resolved on. The actions of the Bishops of a Province, and of a Provincial Synod consising of those Bishops, were subject to a Synod consisting of the Metropolitans, and other Bishops of divers Provinces. This Synod was of two sorts. For either it consist∣ed of the Metropolitans, and Bishops of one Kingdom, and Nation on∣ly, as did the Councils of Affrica; or of the Metropolitans, and Bi∣shops of many Kingdoms. If of the Metropolitans, and Bishops of one Kingdom, and State only, the chief Primate was Moderator: If of many, one of the Patriarchs, and chief Bishop of the whole world [was Moderator]: every Church being subordinate to some one of of the Patriarchal Churches, and incorporate into the Ʋnity of it. Here you see that roundly confest, which Dr. Hammond concea'ld, Again, Ib. p. 668.— It is evident, That there is a power in Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates, and Patriarchs, to call Episcopal, Provin∣cial, National and Patriarchal Synods; [Synods Patriarchal an∣swering to Patriarchs: National to Primates] and that neither so depending of, nor subject to, the power of Princes; but that, when they are enemies to the Faith, they may exercise the same without their consent, and privity, and subject them, that refuse to obey their Summons, to such punishments, as the Canons of the Church do pre∣scribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence.—And, Ib. p. 557.— That the Decrees of Popes, made with the consent, and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops, did bind the Western Provinces, that were subject to him, as Patriarch of the West. Bind them so, as that these had no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch, and this Council: for which see Ib. c. 39. p. 563. where he quotes the Emperors Law, (Novel. 123. c. 22. —Patriarcha Dioceseos illius huic causae praebeat finem, nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente), confirming the 9th. Canon of Conc. Chalced. Again, p. 567. 568. he saith— That it is a Rule in Church-government; that the lesser, and inferior, may not judge the greater, and superior.— That, if any Bishop have ought against his Me∣tropolitan, he must go (as I shewed before) to the Patriarch, and his Synod, to complain; as to fit, and competent Judges.— That the great Patriarchs of the Christian Church are to be judged by some o∣ther of their own rank in order before them, assisted by inferior Bi∣shops; that the Bishop of Rome, as first in order among the Patri∣archs, assisted with his own Bishops, and the Bishops of him, that is thought faulty, [though these later are not found always necessary, or present at such judgments; nor, more of his own Bishops,

than those whom he can at such time conveniently assemble, and consult with, as appears in the Appeals of those persons named before, §. 13. n. 1.] may judge any of the other Patriarchs; That such as have complaints against them, may fly to him, and the Synod of Bishops subject to him, and that the Patriarchs themselves, in their distresses, may fly to him, and such Synods, for relief, and help. (See the same,* 1.87 p 668) Nor doth he acknowledge such an authority of Judicature in these Church Prelates, only as joined w th their Sy∣nods, but also in them single, and without them. For, since it is manifest; that the constant meeting of the Provincial Synods twice, as it was ordered at the first, or once, in the year, as after∣ward, did very early cease, either by the Clergies neglect, or the great trouble, and charge of such Assemblies, and so later Councils accordingly appointed such Synods to be held in stead of twice yearly, once in 3. years (nor yet are in this well obeyed), Hence either all such Causes, and Appeals to their Superious (still multiplied, as Christianity is increased,) must be for so long a time suspended, and depending, which would be intolerable; and a quick dispatch, though less equitable, rather to be wished; or, the hearing of them must be devolved to these single standing Judges, as directed by former Church-Canons. Concerning this therefore thus the same Doctor goes on,‖ 1.88 quoting the Ca∣nons of the 6^th. and 7^th. Council. —At the first (saith he there was a Synod of Bishops in every Province, twice in the year: But for the misery, and poverty of such, as should travel to Synods, the Fathers of the 6th. Council† 1.89 decreed it should be once in the year; and then things amiss to be redressed, which Canon was renewed by the 7^th. Ge∣neral Council‖ 1.90: But afterwards, many things falling out to hinder their happy Meetings, we shall find; that they met not so often [and very early may this be found] and therefore the Council of Basil ap∣pointed Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year, and Provincial at the least once in three years: And so, in time, Causes growing ma∣ny, and the difficulties intolerable, in coming together, and in staying, to hear these Causes thus multiplied, and increased, it was thought fit∣ter to refer the hearing of complaints, and appeals, to Metropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited, and directed by Canons, and Imperial Laws, than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors, and Guides. Thus He. And, if this rarer meeting of Provincial Synods trans∣ferred many Causes on the Metropolitans sole Judicature, much more did that rarer assembling of a Patriarchal, or General, Coun∣cil, leave appeals in greater Causes to the single Arbitrement of

the Patriarch, assisted with his ordinary Council, or Consistory.

Here,§. 1.91 then, you see, in Dr. Field, the ground of a tho∣row Union in Christs Church: whereas that of Dr. Ferne, and Dr Hamond, though it served their turn for the remedy of a Pres∣byterian defection, or the extravagancies of some particular Bi∣shop, yet afforded no standing cure (as it did concern them, it should not,) for those of a Primate, or for any National Division. Only one Reservation Dr. Field hath in this place, perhaps with an eye to protect the Reformation thereby, which Dr. Hamond, I conceive thought it not safe to trust to — That the Bishops of a Pro∣vince, subject to a Metropolitan, or the Metropolitan, and his Bishops, subject to a Patriarch, may declare in what cases he incurreth the sen∣tence of Suspension, Excommunication, Deposition, or Degradation, pronounced by the very Law, and Canon it self; and so may withdraw themselves from his Obedience. Thus he. Where, suppose this, ••e would have, should be granted him, concerning a General Council, all of ••t united, and declaring such a thing (if such a thing may be) of the Supreme Prelate of the Church, and President of this Council, because there is no Superior Person, or Court of Judicature, whereby this President may be tried: And also grant∣ed, concerning such proceeding against any Subordinate Superior, (as against the Metropolitan, or Primate) whenever he freely con∣fesseth that transgression of the Canons, which they charge him with; for, in such a case, their obedience is due not to him any longer, but to the Canons, and to his Superiors, that maintain them. But, most presumptuous; and unreasonable it seems, for Subjects to make any such Declaration, and withdraw Obedience, whenever such matter is in contest between them and him; and a superior person, or Court, provided to decide it; and yet more un∣reasonable; if a part only of the Subjects, suppose, of a Primate, or Patriarch, should declare so, when another part withstands them, and declares the contrary. And see Can. 10. of the 8. Ge∣neral Council punctual against any such Delaration, or Discession, before a Judgment— Nullus Clericus, ante Synodicam Sententiam, à communione proprti Patriarchae se separet, &c. Idem de Episcopis statuimus, erga proprios Metropolitanos; similiter & de Metropolitis, circa Patriarchum suum. This of Dr. Field. See the places quoted out of B. Bramhal to the same purpose, Disc. 2. §. 24. n. 1. — And Disc. 1. §. 27.

The like is acknowledged at large,§. 1.92 by the Archbishop of Spalato; and amongst these Patriarchs, the supereminent Privi∣ledges

of the first, or Roman, Patriarch, (the evidences of Anti∣quity producing such a consent in these Learned men) are display∣ed by him, in his Repub. Eccles. l. 3, c. 2, & 10. There, c. 2, n. 1. having named the other lower subordinations of Church-Govern∣ors, ad vitanda Schismata; he goes on— Ac demum & Primati∣bus, & Metropolitanis, & Episcopis unus Patriarcha in totâ integrâ aliquâ Provinciâ, in certis similiter causis, praeside ret— Et quia non semper adeo facile est Episcopos comprovinciales [or compatriarchales much more] in vnum convenire, expedien, fuit, ut Metropolitant, & Primates [& Patriarchae] multa, soli, absolverent, qua Synedi ab∣solvere debuissent; essent{que} quasi totius Synodi Vicarii & Commissarii Further of these Patriarchs he saith‖ 1.93 — Si••ut Metropolitanus Episco∣pus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere, & corrigere debeat; & emen dare; ita, si Metropolitanus erret, sive in moribus, sive in judiciis, & actis suis, ne etiam in hoc Synodus etiam semper, cum incommedo, con∣veniat, à Patriar••his voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo, & lex, M••tropo∣litanos emendari; nisi tam gravis sit causa, & publica, praesertim fi∣det, ut totius regionis Synodus, sive & Oecumenica, debeat convenire: Quoting the words of the 8. General Council, Can. 17. say••ng the same— Senioris & novae Romae Praesules, &c. Metropolitanorum habe∣ant potestatem, ad convocandum eos [not this in t mes of Heathenism, but when Christian Religion flourished under secular Princes, al∣ready subjected to it], urgente necessitate, ad Syn••dalem conventum, vel etiam ad coercendum illos, & corrigendum, cum fama cos, super quibusdam delictis, forsan accusaverit. Further, ascending to the Roman Patriarch, he thus goes on to declare his priv••ledges‖ 1.94 — Habebat etiam Romrnus Pontisex Patriarchalia privilegia. palliu••••, sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus, concedere, &c; eosd••m à lege divina, velsacris Canonibus▪ deviantes corripere, & in officio con∣tinere; controversias inter cosdem exortas componere, causas{que} eorundem interdum [(i. e.) in causis gravioribus] audire, & decidere; toti∣us Patriarchatus Concilia convocare — n. 14.— Ex lo••o sui primi Patri∣arehatu, sSacrorum Canonum primus habebatur, & praecipuus, observa∣tor, custos, ac vindex; quos si alicubi violari cognosceret, ac••r moni∣tor insurgebat. n. 15.— Ad ipsum quicun{que} Episcopi cujuscun{que} pro∣vinciae, & regionis, [not only of his Patriarchy] qui se ab Episcopis propriae provinciae gravari sentinent, & in judicits Ecclesiasticis tan∣quam ad sacram anchoram, consugerent, apud ipsum innocentiam su∣am probaturi — Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant, & ab objectis criminibus, tanquam si essent supremi judices, absolve∣bant [and this so anciently as Cyprians time, and before the first General Council of Nice] n. 16.— Ille, propter summam ipsius existi∣mationem, commune quasi vinculum, & nodus erat praecipuus Catholi∣cae

Communionis in tota Ecclesiâ—Catholicae Communionis dux, & ar∣biter, ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret, vel adimeret, caeterae quae{que} Ecclesiae omnes ordinariè darent pariter, vel adimerent. So Spalatensis.§. 1.95

Mr. Thorndike, first in general, saith† 1.96 — That the Soul of the Visible Unity of the Church, consisteth in the resort of in∣ferior Churches to superior [of which he discourseth more largely, in Right of the Church, c. 2] and in the correspondence of Parallel-Churches. —That the Church, so stated is a standing Synod, able, by consent of the chief Churches containing the consent of their resorts, [i. e. of the inferior Churches resorting to them] to conclude the whole. — That Rome, Alexandria, Antiochia, were from the be∣ginning of Christianity, visible Heads of these great Resorts in Church Government; which the Council of N••ce made subject to them, by Ca∣non-Law, for the future‖ 1.97, our British Church not excepted† 1.98. And, more particularly, in justifying the Authority of the Roman Pa∣triarch, and the Canons of Sardica, concerning Appeals to him. —Shall I not ask (saith he) what pretence there could be to settle from other parts Appeals to Rome, rather than from Rome to other parts, had not a preeminence of power, and not only a precedence of Rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome? And, before, speaking of the Eastern Arrians desiring to be heard at Rome, by Julius: — Shall I believe (saith he) as some Learned men [i. e. Pro∣testant] conjecture; That Pope Julius is meerly an Arbitrator, named by one party, whom the other could not resuse; and that any Bishop, or at least any Primate, might have been named, and must have been admitted, as well as he? Truly I cannot. Thus Mr. Thorndike. I fear I have tired you with the same things so often repeated by several Authors, but this may serve the more to confirm the verity of that, wherein they agree. As for the Obedience acknowledged by them due to the Church, according to these Subordinations, I shall have occasion to give you a further account of it here∣after.

[§. 17] Now this Subordination, not only of the lower Ranks of Clergy, Presbyters, and Bishops, of the same, but of these high∣er, Primates, and Patriarchs, of several, Nations, ending its ascent in a Primacy, not of order (ineffective), but also of Pow∣er, placed in the Prime Patriarch, especially conduceth to the neces∣sary coherence of the always one-only-Communion of the Church Ca-National, and to the suppression of Heresies, and Schismes, oftner tholick, than Diocesan only, or Provincial.

[§. 18] A thing, which the moderate spirit of Grotius well observ∣ed,

and spared not often to speak of — Quae ver•• est causa, (saith he in his first Reply to Rivet‖ 1.99)cur, qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholices, maneant in eodem corpore, non ruptâ Communione; con∣trà, qui inter Protestantes dissident, idem sacere nequeant, utcun{que} multa de dilectione fraternâ loquuntur? Hoc qui rectè expenderit, in∣veniet, quanta sit vis Primatus. [which brings to mind that of S. Je∣rom† 1.100 concerning S. Peters Primacy— Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut, capite constitute, Schismatum tollatur occasio. Capite constituto; but Pr••macy of Order, without power, helps no schisms.] And again, the same Grotius in the close of the last Reply to Rivet‖ 1.101 written not long before his death— Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idem{que} Corpus, semper optatam à Grotio, sciunt, qui eum no∣runt. Existimavit autem aliquando, incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione. Postea vidit, id planà fieri nequire; quia, praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia sermè omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissi∣ma, Protestantes nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine socian∣tur; quae causae sunt, cur sactae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant; immo & cur partes aliae at{que} aliae sint exsurrecturae. Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestantes inter se jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum iis, qui Sedi Ro∣manae cohaerent; sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen: Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio, quae evenit, & causae divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secun∣dum Canonas, fatente Melancthone; qui eum Primatum etiam neces∣sarium putat ad retimendam unitatem. Thus Grotius. Which pas∣sageis taken notice of by Dr. Hammond, in Schism, p. 158, and seemingly allowed: the D••ctor, there seeming to admit the Popes authority so far, as it is justifiable by the ancient Canons; which authority, you have seen how far it is, by other Protestants, out of the same Canons, advanced. And indeed, to exclude this supreme Patriarchal authority, and constitute such an Aristo∣cratical, or rather, so many several Monarchical, absolute, equal, independent, Covernments (in regard of any spiritual Superior) as there are Primates, (several Monarchical Governments, I say; for the Aristocratical Government consists in one Council or Court, having its constant, and set Meetings, such as are not those Meet∣ings of the Highest Ecclesiastical Synods, and therefore they can∣not bear this Stile) seems most destructive of the Churches Ʋnity, and Peace; And then, to make amends for this, the subjecting all these distinct Monarchical Governments to a General Council, proves no sufficient Remedy; when we reflect, how many and frequent are Clergy-differences; how few such Councils have hi∣therto

been; how difficult such a Council, since the Division of the Empire, to be convened; or rather, how impossible, accord∣ing to the Protestants Composition of it; who, as they frequent∣ly appeal to it; so load it with such conditions, as they may be sure, such Court can never meet to hear their Cause. Thus much is contributed by Learned Protestants toward the confirmation of the two last, the 3^d. and 4^th. Constitutions.

[§. 20] 5^ly. After such a Regular, and well-compacted Government. thus setled in the Church. Next, it was strictly ordered, by the Church-Laws, and by her greatest Censures imposed on Delin∣quents; That no Clergy, in any ma••ters of meerly Spiritual Con∣cernment, should decline the Authority, or Judgment, of these their Ecclesiastical Superiors, or their subjection to the Church-Canons; by repairing, or appealing, to any secular Tribunal; (from which Tribunals some in those days sought relief); either that of other inferior Lay Magistrates, or, of the Emperor him∣self; Nor should seek new Ecclesiastical D••gnities erected by the Emperors Pragmatick, contrary to the Canons. Decreed also it was; that, in such case, any Church-authority, or priviledges, attempted to be so alienated, should still continue to the former Possessors. For which, see Conc. Antioch. c. 11, 12. — Conc. Sardic. c. 8. — Conc. Chalced. c. 9, & 12. — Conc. Milevit. c. 19. — Conc. T••let. 3, c. 13. — 8 Gen. Conc. c. 17, & 21.

[§. 21] Which Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that they may appear no way unjust; or infringing the Rights of Temporal Soveragn∣ty; It is to be noted, (and therefore give me leave to spend a few lines in the hand); That the Church, from the beginning, was con∣stituted by our Lord, a distinct Body from the Civil State: and is, in all such States, but one visible Society, (Credo unam Catho∣licam Ecclesiam); all the parts of it having one, and the same inte∣rest, through those several Dominions▪ and regulated, within these Territories, by its own Laws (without which Laws no Commu∣nion can consist) independently, as to matters purely spiritual, on the State▪ and the exercise of these not lawfully to be inhibited, or altered by it; whilst all the Civil Rights of such States, mean while, doremain unviolated, by these Church-Laws; and the se∣cular Sword is left, where it was before, in the hand of the Secu∣lar Governors; so that, the Church, in any difference, cannot be the invading, but only the Suffering, party.

[§. 22] Now, if you would know more particularly, what those

Rights are, which the Church hath, from the begining, practised. and vindicated, as belonging to her independently, and notwith∣standing any opposition, of the Secular Powers, These are some, if not the chief of them: * Namely, The entrance of these Mini∣sters of Christ, without Arms, into whatever Princes Dominions; and their preaching there the Gospel of Christ, and administring the Sacraments to his Subjects, though against his Prohibition. * Determining Controversies arising in matters of Faith, and Reli∣gion; and publishing such their Determinations to all the Churches Subjects within any Princes Realms. * Making Ecclesiastical Laws for Government, and Discipline, as need requires. * Re∣ceiving Accusations, examining Witnesses, correcting Offenders, a∣gainst the Laws of Christ, or of the Church: [I do not name here, the Churches judging of Civil Causes between Christians, (though this a thing most usual, when the Princes, and their Courts were Heathen); because this is a Right of the Prince to judge all such Causes, when brought before him: and, on that account, the practice thereof did return to the Prince, when Christian; when it had been disused before, only because Christi∣ans, in any contest, chose rather, or also were enjoined, (it being a thing not only lawful, but in those times, very expedient, for them) to stand to the Arbitration of their Ecclesiastical Govern∣ors, than to go to the trial of the Civil Law, and Secular Magi∣strate.] * Declaring Heresie; Suspending criminous sinners from the Sacrament: Imposing Penances; Reconciling Penitents; and Excommunicating, and casting out of the Church the incorri∣gible, and obstinate: * Ordaining Church-Officers in a due Subordination, with a strict dependance of the lower, upon the higher, Clergy; so that an Ecclesiastical Function is unlawfully exercised by the one, if he enter upon it without the consent, or confirmation, of the other; (and that, not only of Presbyters without the Bishops; and of Bishops, without the Metropolitans, or Primates; but of Primates themselves also, without the Patriarchs: (as hath been shewed). * Holding Religious Assemblies, both for the Publick Service of God, and for the forementioned Church-Affairs. * And, for this again, the re∣spective Superiors Calling, and appointing these Meetings in cer∣tain places, and times; which also must be within the Territories of some secular Prince: only all these things done by Lawful, and Canonical, Ecclesiastical Superiors, without Arms (unless it be those of the Prince for their protection) and in order to ends purely spiritual: In which proceedings therefore they re∣main questionable, and to be restrained by the same Temporal

Authority, when, in any exceeding of such limits, found to trans∣gress.

[§. 23] All these things were practised by the Church in the Apo∣stles times, (See for several of them, 1 Tim. 5.19, 20, 21. — Tit. 1.10, 11, 13. — 1 Cor. 5.4, 5, 12, 13. — 4.19, 21. — 3 John 9.10. — Mat. 18.17, 18, 20. and their holding a Council at Jerusalem, Act. 15) and in the primitive times, before Con∣stantine, though the secular Powers (as yet Heathen), opposed, prohibited, executed, the chief Actors of them; and therefore much more, they may be continued, and acted by the same Autho∣rity, when Princes, for the gaining of eternal Crowns, have sub∣jected their mortal ones to Christian••ty, and are become Sons of the Church; who, surely, by bringing in their persons under her obedience, do not gain any such new Soveraignty over her, as by this to take away those former Rights, which Heathen Poten∣tates could not justly deny, or withhold from her. For note here, That whatever Prerogative, or Priviledge, is challen∣ged by a Christian Prince, as naturally belonging to the Civil Power, cannot be denied also to an Infidel, or Heathen, Prince, when possessed of the same power; [For example, If a Chri∣stian Prince may lawfully restrain the Bishops, his Subjects, from meeting in Synods, from executing the Church-Canons, or pub∣lishing their definitions in matter of Doctrine, (I mean such as no way concern the State) within his Realm, without his leave, upon this account, because he is the Politick Supreme; so may a Hea∣then, as having the very same Title to do it.] And therefore, none such must be hastily challenged by the one, which, if exercised by the other, would both have ruined the Government of the Pri∣mitive Church, and rendered its ordinary practice guilty of a most high Rebellion. If these Christian Princes, therefore, now assist the Church to call her Councils, if they adopt her Canons amongst their Laws, and use their secular sword (much more ef∣fective, and dreaded by many, for the present, than her Spiritual one) to force their Subjects, and hers, to a more ready obedi∣ence to her Laws; we may not therefore argue her former power is now lost, for calling Councils; or, for executing her Canons, unless these first be made also their Laws, because a secularly-stronger Power is joined with hers, for the more advancing the same effect; and hence perhaps, to some, may seem to eclipse Hers. But, though, in such a Conjunction, the Princes Autho∣rity seems to have the stronger influence on Church-affairs; yet, so often as any such Prince, in Profession, Christian, but addict∣ed to some Faction apart, withdraws such assistance from his true

Mother, and leaves Her again, as the Heathen Princes did, de∣stitute of his aid, or also restrained with his Interdicts; so often she is forced to renew the Churche's former behaviour in the Hea∣then times; and goes on acting the same things singly by her self, armed only with that sword of Justice, which Christ hath put in∣to her hands, of shutting the Rebellious out of the Kingdom of Heaven. Else, if we suppose any one Branch of the former Church-Authority, in such a case as this, to be lost by the Princes being Christian; any Heretical Prince will now have the same pow∣er to ruine the Orthodox, and Catholick Religion within his Territories, as a Heathen Prince would then have had, to de∣stroy the Christian,

[§. 24] As you may easily discern, if you will suppose such a Prince as Constantius, one that professeth Arrianisme, to claim, as being a Christian Prince, the exercising of some of those Powers fore∣mentioned, which were managed by the Church her self before the times of Constantine. Namely; a Power. To change the Subor∣dinations of the Ecclesiastical Authority, established by the Church; to translate Patriarchs, or erect new ones, and to free the Pri∣mates (such as are Arrian) from obedience to Them, and their Synods; to introduce new Clergy, or depose the former, as to the Function of their Office in any place of his Dominions; when yet these no way obnoxious to secular Justice for transgres∣sing his Civil Laws (in which case, should the Prince deprive any such Clergy of life, or liberty, as Salomon did Abiathar, yet the Clergy, not the Prince, is to supply another): and all this, without their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors consent, and allowance. — * To hinder the Calling of Ecclesiastical Synods, without his Consent, as a thing rightly appertaining to him, and other Christian Princes, not them, the Church men. — * Or, these called, at least to hinder his Clergy from assisting there; and to deny their Decrees obligatory, at least, within the Circuit of his Government. — * When Synods are assembled in his own Territo∣ries, 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 re∣pugnant to Gods Word, (a thing he is to learn of them), and without his consent first obtained; whereby he assumes to him∣self, in the Churches Consults, a negative voice. — * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territo∣ries, 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 ei∣ther 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 en∣trance 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 pretend∣ed cause, declare themselves freed from obedience to their Eccle∣siastical 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 Ca∣tholicks in the defence of them, of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse. Mean while see that of D^r. Field, quo∣ted below, § 49. and, at your leisure, M^r. 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 Con∣stitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors; or for possessing them∣selves 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 confirmati∣on of the Superior. [§. 27] ² The several Councils, were to be cal∣led, when need required, and to be moderated, by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors, and matters of more general concern∣ment, 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 Patri∣archal Council. And, in the Intervals of Councils, the respe∣ctive 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 con∣vene a Synod, amongst which, the differences with, or between, Primates, were to be decided by the Patriarch; those with, or be∣tween, 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 com∣manded 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 controul∣ment of, or appeal to, any secular Judges, or Courts, under pe∣nalty of excommunication to the Clergy, so appealing.

Now in such a well, and close-woven Series of depend∣ence, what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers, [§. 30] without incur∣ring Schisme? Whether of I know not what, Independents, Fa∣naticks, and Quakers, against Presbyters; or, of Presbyters a∣gainst 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 Controver∣sie 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 qui∣etly 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 su∣perior 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 Considera∣bles are; 1 The Composition; of what, or what number of per∣sons 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 ma∣ny 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 neces∣sary 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 con∣sist of all the Bishops of the Catholick Universe, met together, there never hath been any; but, in those which are generally, by Protestants, as well as Catholicks, reputed, and admitted for such, sometimes we find a greater, sometimes a smaller number, accord∣ing to the propinquity of the place, the peace of the times, the numerosity of Sects, &c. So the four first General Coun∣cils,

all held in the East, by reason of the Heresies, they opposed, chiefly reigning in that Coast, consisted mostly of Oriental Bi∣shops. The first General Council, of Nice, had present in it only. 2. Presbyters (the Bishop of Rome's Legates), and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches. The 2^d General Council, of Con∣stantinople, had in it no Occidental Bishop at all; but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and his Occidental Council as∣sembled in Rome, not long after it. The 3^d. General Council of Ephesus, had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome, and his Occidental Synod. The 4^th. of Chalcedon, had only 4. Legates, sent thither from the Bishop of Rome; after that the We∣stern Bishops, assembled in several Provincial Synods, had com∣municated their judgment to them, in the Controversie then agi∣tated; and besides these, 2. Affrican Bishops, and one Sicilian. Where note; That the 3^d. also, of these Councils transacted most of their business, and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople, without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch, and his Bishops, who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius, (though afterwards he, and his, consented also to his Condemna∣tion): And that the 4^th. Council acted all things, without Dioscorus, the Alexandrian Patriarch; whom also they deposed, for his favouring the Heretical Party; and for his Contumacy a∣gainst the See of Rome. See Conc. Chalced. Act 4.

Yet all these Councils, whether the Bishops personally present, were fewer, or more, were accounted equally valid; [§. 34] from the After-acceptation. and admittance of their Decrees by the Pre∣lates absent; i. e. the acceptation of such persons, as, if present, had had a Vote in them. All which Prelates, were they personal∣ly present in the Council, or the much major part of them, there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Ca∣tholick, or, of any other Members thereof, to confirm its acts; nor are they any way capable thereof; because the remainder of the Church diffusive (I mean of those, who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs) must be concluded, in their Judgment, and Sentence, by this supposed much-major part thereof, that are personally present in the Council. But this wanting, the other compleatsits defect. And upon such Acceptation it is, that the 2^d. and the 5^th. of the Councils called General; held at Constan∣tinople, without the Pope, or his Legat's presence therein, yet bear the name of General, because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus, and his Occidental Council, con∣vened not long after it; and the latter, after some time, accepted by Vigilius, and his Successors, with the Western Bishops; as,

on the contrary, for want of such Acceptation, the 2^d. Eph••sin Council, though for its meeting as entire and full, as most of the other called Oecumenical, yet was never esteemed such, because its Decrees, though passed by a major part of the present Bishops, were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council; and by Him, and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates, out of it.

[§. 35] And, upon this General Acceptation also, inferior Councils may become, in their Obligation, equivalent to Gene∣rall: since, however the Churches Testimony is received; whe∣ther conjunctly,* 1.102 or by parts; yet — Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis. So Bellarmine observes, ancient Councils, less than General, very frequently to have determined matters of Faith. — Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum pau∣corum Episcoporum (Euseb l. 7. c. 24.) nec alii, multò plures in toto mundo, conquesti sunt; sed ratum habuerunt: — Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum; in quo nullus fuit Lati∣norum; Latini probaverunt. Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia; Milevitanum, & Carthaginense. — Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum, antequàm adessent Latini; Latini vo∣luerunt cognoscere rem gestam, & cognitam approbaverunt. All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them. Neither did, or ought, such inferior Councils, when necessitated by contenti∣ons, and disputes, define any such thing, hastily, or rashly; but as they well knew, before any such Resolution, the common Sen∣timents of the Church Catholick herein. Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts.

[§. 36] Next: Concerning the just quality, measure, and propor∣tion, of this after-Acceptation, several things are to be well ob∣served.* 1.103 1^st. That it is not to be extended, (in a Latitude of Christianity much greater), beyond the bounds of the Church Ca∣tholick. Which Catholick Church is many times of a nar∣rower compass, than the Christian Profession; all Heretical, and Schismatical Churches▪ I mean, such as have made a former discessi∣on, in Doctrine▪ or external Communion, from their lawful Ec∣clesiastical Superiors, and, being but a part, have separated from the former whole, standing contradistinct to it. So, after the Nicene Council, in Constantines time, the Arrians, and in S. Au∣stins time, the Donatists, were esteemed, though Christians, yet no Catholicks; and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity, opposite to them. Of which thus S. Austin† 1.104

— Tenerme, justissimè, in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen, quod [nomen], non sine causâ, inter tam multas haereses, sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit. Therefore, upon the growth of many He∣resies, after the Heathen persecutions ceased, instead of these words of the Apostles Creed, [I believe the Holy Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints, (i.e.) in it] we read in this Creed, as explained by Councils, [I believe One, Holy, Catholick, and A∣postolick Church:] 1. One, to distinguish it from many, varying, Sects, pretending also to be true Churches of Christ. 2. Holy; i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith, Man∣ners, Sacraments, Government, Discipline, delivered by our Lord, and his Apostles; and, in particular, Holy, as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness; but not Holy; so as that some external Members thereof may not be, by their own default, inter∣nally, unholy and unsanctified, and no true Members of Christ. 3. Apostolick; i. e, Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinati∣ons; and preserving their Traditions, for Doctrine, Govern∣ment, and Discipline, And therefore here the other Clause, [the Communion of Saints] is omitted, as sufficiently included in the former Explication; which is observed also by Dr. Hammond, (of Fundamentals, p. 69, & 83.) So, in the yet more enlar∣ged, Athanasian Creed, we find the Catholick Faith used in a re∣strained sence, opposed to all those Heresies, that are rejected by that Creed. And to this notion of Church Catholick, See, in Disc. 1. §. 37. & 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting.

[§. 37] 2^ly. This Acceptation, in respect of the Catholick Church, (i e. of those Prelates, that be not formerly, by any Herefie, or Schisme, shut out of it,) cannot rationally be required, absolutely universal of all, but only of the considerably Major part of them; for in a Government not simply Monarchical, whether Ecclesiasti∣cal, or Civil, no Laws can be promulgated, nor Unity preserved, if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part: and it hath been shewed at large, Disc. 2. §. 25. (which I desire the Reader to review, and consider well, because much weight is laid upon it) that the Decrees of the first. 4▪ General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation: the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule, and Warrant to posterity: Nor, otherwise, can any new Heresie, patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick, (as the most pernicious He∣resies have ever been), he ever legally suppressed, so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest. See what hath been said of this in Disc. 1. §. 28, 38, 39. — & Disc. 3. §. 11, & 37.

That strict condition therefore, which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize, and ratifie the Definitions, and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation, seems not reasonable; Name∣ly, That after their promulgation [at least, if not before] they should be accepted by each Provincial Council, and acknowledged to a∣gree with that Faith, which they had originally received (of Her. §. 6. n. 8, 12.). — Or, That such Conciliar Declarations should be uni∣versally received by all Churches, (Her. §. 14. n. 4.): because such are (saith he) Christians, and Bishops, as well as the Bishop of Rome; and consequently their Negatives, as evident prejudices to, and as ut∣terly unreconcileable with, an universal affirmative, as the Popes can be, &c. Like to which (§. 12. n. 6.) he argues thus, con∣cerning the absence, or dissent, of any Bishops from a Council — That the promise, of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, can no way belong to a Council, unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council; [I add, or, when met, do consent] for if there be any left out, why may not the promise be good in them, though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council. And, §. 5. n. 3. — That, if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places, it is not qualified for our be∣lief, as Catholick, in respect of place; because the Faith being one, and the same, and by all, and every of the Apostles, deposited in all their Plantations, what was ever really thus taught, by any of them, in any Church, will also be found to have been taught. and received, in all other Apostolical Churches. And, §. 10 n. 2, 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th. General Council not obliging; — because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council, that of Eliberis, [which is not true], yields (saith he) an irrefragable proof, that the Doctrine of the 2^d. Nicene Council, was not testified, by all the Churches, of all ages, to be of Tradition Apostolical. I say, such an universal acceptation as this, of every Church, or Pro∣vince, seems upon any such pretence, unreasonably exacted.

1^st. Because all Conciliary Definitions are not (as he saith there they are) only Declarations, and Testifications of such Aposto∣lical Traditions, as were left by them evident, and conspicuous, in all Christian Churches planted by them; but are, many times, Determinations of points deduced from, and necessarily consequen∣tial to, such clear Traditionals, whether written, or unwritten.

2^ly. Because, if the Acts of General Councils were only such De∣clarations of Apostolical Tradition, yet, it is possible, that some particular Church may, in time, depart from such a Tradition, entrusted unto them: (else how can any Church become Here∣tical, against any such Tradition?) and so, when their acceptance

is asked, may refuse to acknowledge, what all the rest justisie. And all this clearly appears in those Bishops, or Churches, that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Coun∣cils; and in the opposition of S. Cyprian, and his Bishops, con∣cerning Rebaptization.

[§. 41] 3^ly. For the manner of this Approbation of such major part; It is thought sufficient, if it be a tacit, and interpretative, Ap∣probation only (and not positive, or express;* 1.105 for who can shew this, to most allowed Councils?) Namely, when, such Decrees be∣ing promulgated, they signifie no opposition thereto. Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ (System. fidei, c. 23. p. 262) — Ne{que} tamen dubitandum est, quin statim obligare incipiant actus Concilia∣res, si non appareat Ecclesiarum (non dico hujus, vel illius, vel ali∣quorum protervorum hominum) reclamatio; nam praesumendum est, omnes consensisse, si non constet oppositum: ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula, ubi post alia dicit — Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit, necessariò credendum est. And thus D^r. Hammond, of Heres. §. 6. n. 15.16.— When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on, it is then promulgated to all; and the universal, though but tacit, ap∣probation, and reception thereof, the no considerable contradiction gi∣ven to it in the Church, is a competent evidence, that this is the judg∣ment, and concordant Tradition of the whole Church, though no resolu∣tion of Provincial Synods [which was used before some General Councils] hath preceded.—But if their Acts are contradicted, and pro∣tested against, this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council. And Archbishop Lawd, §. 26. p. 195. saith, — It is a sufficient con∣firmation to a General Council — if, after it is ended, the whole Church admit it, though never so tacitly. The whole Church admit it, saith he. And, the whole, say we, or, such a major part of the whole, as ought to conclude the rest. Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity, to such Decrees, in mens profession, and practice▪ For it is all reason, that where we cannot have, Quod creditum est ubi{que}; ab omnibus; semper; by rea∣son of some divisions in the Church, we hold to what is nearest it, quod creditum est in pluribus locis; & à pluribus; & diutius or antiquiùs; For the plures, pluribus locis, joined in one Communion with the Ec∣clesiastical Head of the Church here on earth, are the securest Ex∣positors to us, of quod antiquius; or, quod creditum semper. See Disc. 3. §. 11.

4^ly. For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council, or only to some, [§. 42] whilst some other Decrees are dis∣claimed (as sometimes happens): Here also,* 1.106 so far as a due Ac∣ceptation is extended, so far is our Obligation; nor can any

reasonably argue, that, if some Acts of a Council are, by some after-opposition, rendred invalid, therefore no other things p••ssed in that Council, and generally approved, have force.

[§. 43] 5^ly. What is said here of the non-approbation of some Pre∣lates, or Churches (as frequently happens) its not invalidating a Council,* 1.107 or its Decrees, must be said also of the absence of some Prelates from the Council, or of their non-concurrence, when sitting in it; their absence, 1. Either voluntary; as, of those, who, heterodox in opinion, and fewer in number, foresee, that probably they shall be over voted by the rest: (as the Arrian Pre∣lates did absent themselves from the Council of Sardica; and so, might also have absented themselves from that of Nice; or again, the Eutychian Prelats, from Chalce••on) notwithstanding whose ab∣sence, or non-concurrence, the Council will not cease to bear the just title of General (provided, that it consist of a major part of the Christian Churches, and have the concurrence of the Prime Patriarch; without whom nihil finiendum): Otherwise an Here∣tical, or Schismatical, Church can secure themselves, as they please, from being condemned by any General Council; which, as long as they are absent, will be called not General, and so its force cannot extend to them. Nay; otherwise, after any defecti∣on from the Orthodox Faith, or after any considerable Schism in the Church, now, there can never be any more Oecumenical Councils; because, forsooth, that party fallen away will give no meeting to the other, too prevalent; and thus General Councils cease to have any being, when there first begins to be any need of them. Of this thus a Learned Protestant‖ 1.108 with intention to make the 5^th. Council a General one without the presence of the Pope, and his Occidental Bishops. — The Presidence, and Presence (saith he) of the Bishop of Rome is not so necessary in General Councils; but that, in case of his wilsul refusal, a Council may proceed, and be holden for lawful, without his consenting to it. And,— As a Council may be holden in such a case [i.e. they refusing to come], without the presence, and concurrence of the Roman Bishop, and those that are subject to him; so, being present, if be refuse to concur in judgment with the rest, they may proceed without him, and their sentence may be of force, though he consent not to it. What, then, they presume to affirm, thus, of the Roman, they must not deny, of their own Bishops. This, that the voluntary absence of some Prelates doth not invalidate a Council, or its Acts. ². Neither yet doth the absence forced of some others; if such as being for∣merly justly e••communicated, or anathematized, have now no right to any voting in such Councils, though perhaps, if admitted,

these might equal the Orthodox in number, Thus Gelasius Bi∣shop of Rome† 1.109 concerning the Eutychians (when very numerous in the East) and also of the Favourers of them, not to be admit∣ted to a Council — Ecclesiastici moris non est, cuni his, qui pollutam habent communionem, permixtam{que} cum perfidis, miscere Concilium. — And, Meritò ab Apostolicâ sede, caeteris{que} Catholicis, non jam consulendi erant, sed potiùs notandi, &c.

6^ly. What hath been here said of the necessary Constituti∣on, or Composition of a General Council, [§. 44] and Ratification of its Acts, must be said exactly, on the same ground,* 1.110 concerning a Patriarchal or other inferior Council: that it is not necessary, that all the Bishops of such Patriarchy, be assembled; or, absent, do accept, and ratifie it, to make it Legal, or Obligatory.

[§. 45] 2. This said concerning the necessary Composition of a Ge∣neral Council; come we next to the Presidency, and Moderatorship therein.

1. Where, 1^st. As it hath been already shewed, in all the o∣ther Synods,‖ 1.111 Protestants consenting† 1.112, that the Presidentship in them, without any new election made by the Council, or yet by the secular power, belong•• to him, who hath the prime place, and dignity; the presiding in the Provincial Council, to the Metropo∣litan: in the National Council, where be may Metropolitans, to the Primate of them, &c. which President, also, had in these Councils a negative voice† 1.113: so it seems all reason, that, i•• a General Council also, that Prelate should preside, who is the Bi∣shop of the chief See; and, to whom, in all ages, all other Churches, and Prelates, have allowed the Primacy; i. e. the Bi∣shop of Rome (See 2. Gen. Counc. c. 5.) All reason, I say, That the Primate of the Patriarchs Preside in a General Council, as the Primate of the Metropolitans, in a National. And, that, what other Priviledges these other Presidents enjoyed in those Councils, the same at least (though we set aside here his universal Pastorship) He should enjoy in This▪ agreeable to that ancient Canon, and Custom, in the universal Church, (mentioned by Socrates, l. 2. c. 13. — And Sozamen, l. 2. c. 13.—And, vindicated, by Pope Innocent, apud August. Epist. 91. — And, yet more anciently, by Pope Julius, against some Oriental Bishops, apud Athanas. Apol. 2.) — Sin•• Romans P••••tifice nihil finiendum.

[.§ 46] 2^ly. If, in this Matter, Prescription may be of any force; de facto, the Prime Patriarch, the Bishop of ••ome, in the ancient Council•• General hath always bean allowed this Presidentship. As will appear to any reviewing the Church-History for the first 8.

General Councils: In 4. of which Councils, namely, the 4th. 6th. 7th▪ and 8th, the Protestant grant it without dispute. Next; For his Presidency in the 3d. General Council; it seems evident enough,‖ 1.114 from the testimony of Evagrius ‖, that Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was deputed by him to execute this Office; who saith, That the Bishops meeting in that Council— Cyrillo locum Celestini, Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis, obtinente, accersunt Nestori∣um, &c. whose Deputy also Cyril was made before, for the ex∣communication of Nestorius by the Authority of the Apostolical See; as appears in the Pope's Letter to Cyril† 1.115 — Nostrâ vice, & loco, cum potestate, usus, ejusmodi sententiam exequêris, &c.

For the 2^d. and 5^th. General Council, both held at Constan∣tinople; as it is true, that the Pope presided not in them, because indeed neither He, nor his Legates were present in them; so it is true, that these Councils were not General, till they were, after their Session, accepted by him, and the other Western Churches. But yet both these Councils, apparently enough, yield the Presi∣dency to him in general Councils: the 5^th. (which much courted his presence) in express terms, in Eutychi•••• the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople his Letter to him ‖ — Petinius,‖ 1.116 presidente nobis vestrâ Be∣atitudine, communi tractatu, eadem capitula in medio proponenda qua∣ri, &c. And the 2^d. in that which infers his presidency, whilst the Bishop of Constantinople, who in the absence of him, and his Legates, presided in it, challengeth Primatus honorem only post Ro∣manum Episcopum.† 1.117 —And that Council, in their Epistle to Dama∣sus the Roman Bishop, acknowledge their meeting in that Council by order of his Letters.—Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad ve∣strae Reverentiae literas. Now for the first Council, That of Nice, which only remains: Here also the Popes Legates are found to subscribe the first, before all the other Patriarchs: only Hosius bear∣ing no title, save Bishop of Corduba, gives his Vote, and attests the Nicene Creed, before these Legates; which hath caused much dispute.* 1.118 Gelazius Cyzicenus ‖ and some other Ancients, say; Ho∣sius presided in it, as Sylvestri Episcopi Maximae Romae locum obtinens (And indeed, the Popes Primacy before the other Patriarchs, and so, much more, before a Bishop of his own Patriarchy, being granted; and no mention being made of any such Presidentship conferred on Hosius, either by election of the Council, or of the Emperor, what can be said, but that he held such Presidency only in this capacity, viz. the Popes, Deputation (as Cyr••l also did in the 3d. General Council)? unless ••ny will say; that his voting in the first place, was a pure Indulgence of honour to him, as being, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Confessor in Divelesian's days, and narrowly missing Martyr∣dom;

* the Emperor's especial Favourite, sent by him formerly ••o compose the differences in Egypt ‖; * a person, as Athanasius ••aith of him,† 1.119 Ob••tantos labores omni Reverentiâ dignus ‖: and now,* 1.120 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Compiler of the new Form of the Nicene Creed. To which Creed therefore himself gives the first testimony in this form — Hosius Episcopus Civitatis Cordubensis, Provinciae Hispaniae dixit; ••ta credo, sicut superius scriptum est, after which consent of his, fol∣lows in the first place, the Pope's Legates Subscripsimus; and then that of the other Patriarchs, and Bishop, Where it may also be confidered, what D^r. Field hath observed | That the Subscriptions,‖ 1.121 in the first Councils. were more irregular; and no such certain, and uni∣form course kept in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops, as was af∣terward; For, in this Council, the third Patriarch of Antioch sub∣scribes not only after the Bishops of Egypt, but of Palestine, and several others subject to his own Patriarchate. And thu•• far the same D^r. Field proceeds in deferring this Presidentship to the Bi∣shop of Rome; All Antiquity (saith he† 1.122) yielded to the Bishop of Rome a Presidentship of honour to have preeminence in place, to propose things to be, debated, to direct the Actions, and to give definitive Sen∣tence according to the Voices and Judgment of the Council. [He might have added: And in matters concerning Faith. to render the Act of it invalid, and unconclusive to the Church, without his consent, according to the ancient Canon; Sine Romano Pontifice nibil finiendum, &c. as appears in his nulling the Act of the second Ephesine Council voting Eutychianisme]: but not a Presidentship of power, to have the power not only of directing, but of ruling their do∣ings also that are assembled in Council, and to conclude of matters af∣ter his own judgment, though the greater part of the Council like it not, yea though no part like it. [But such a Presidentship of power in the Pope, as to conclude matters after his own judgment, ei∣ther against the whole, or major part of a General Council, is denied as well by modern Catholicks, as by Protestants, or Anti∣quity.]

[§. 47] 3^ly. What of Presiding in, the same is to be said of the Calling of, General Councils. 1. Where,* 1.123 1st. It seems all rea∣son; that, such Meetings being Consultations for the better managing of affairs purely Ecclesiastical, and for the better feeling and preserving of the Churches.Unity, and Peace, (of the neces∣sity of which meetings the Clergy can best judge), All reason, I say, it seems, that the Calling of them should belong to the Cler∣gy; especially, when the secular powers are not Christian. And this also we find in the Churche's practice; that both that first Council, Act. 15. and all those following, till Constantine's days,

were assembled by the Churche's sole Authority, without the Prince's concurrence, or leave; and, if amongst these Councils, none save the first, were absolutely General, yet this was not from a defect of power in the Church to convene such a Council, but that she thought, in such a secular opposition, her affairs might be, by many divided Councils Provincial more privately, and se∣curely dispatched, as the Controversie about Easter was in the se∣cond Century.

This Right therefore, formerly possessed by the Church, Princes, by their submitting unto it, and becoming Christian, cannot justly take away: nor may be thought to do so, by their accumulative power in assisting the Church from time to time for procuring the more effectual concurrence. (which much depends on their temporal penalties), of such great Assemblies. But whatever priviledge of calling General Councils should be al∣lowed to Princes so long as Catholick, yet at least that Right, which in this matter is conceded to belong to the Church, in case the Emperor, or Prince, be Infidel, must also be resumed in case the Prince Christian be an enemy to the Orthodox Faith: (i. e.) be either Heretical, or Schismatical (of which likewise it belongs to the Supreme Governors of the Church to judge▪) For▪ What mischief may the Church suffer from unbelieving, that she may not also suffer from Heretical, Princes? And again must also be re∣sumed, in case the secular Princes, through whose Dominions the Catholick Church is dispersed, be many; of many several tempo∣ral Interests; and, in respect of these, not facil to concur in the calling such Council, where the Church apprehends need.

[§ 48] 2. Next; This hath been shewed already, § 9. — & 16. n. 4.* 1.124 in all the inferior Synods, Protestants consenting, 1. That the Right of calling them, though the Prince be Christian, be∣longs to such an Ecclesiastical person, as hath either a superiority of Power over the Members of such Synod, (as, in a Provincial Synod, the Metropolitan hath); or at least, the superiority of Or∣der, and Place, (es in a National Synod, the Primate hath, in respect of the other Metropolitans, whereof it consists): 2. And Belongs to such Ecclesiastical persons, without their first con∣sulting any other preparatory Synod, about calling such Synods: 3. And again, belongs to some of them (as the calling of Patri∣archal Synods, to the Patriarch) when the Bishops, so called together by him, do live under many several secular Govern∣ments; Yet—which Patriarchs (saith D^r. Field‖ 1.125) are neither so depending of, nor subject to, the power of Princes, but that when they are enemies to the Faith [I add Faith, either Christian, or

Catholick] they may exercise the same without their consent, and pri∣vity, and subject them, that refuse to obey their Summons, to such pu∣nishments, as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence. And the 8^th. General Council, (Can. 17.) upon occasion of some Metropolitans, qui, ne secundum voca∣tionem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant, à mundi Principibus se detineri, sine ratione, causantur, declares also thus against such Princes— Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat, impium esse, ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant, vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant: And all these things are justified, and allowed by Protestants: Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason, That the calling of a Gene∣ral Council, i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs, and their Patriarchies, should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs, or Bishop of the chief See; though we suppose, that he claim no more, than a preeminency of order, as Primates do over Metro∣politans.

[§. 49] Of this matter therefore some Learned Prote••••rnts seem to speak more moderately. 1^st. Thus Mr. Thorndike concerning the Right of Calling Councils its belonging to the Church. Epil. p. 33.—I must (saith he) here not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils; and to maintain, the Right, and Power of holding them, and the obligation, which the Decrees of them, regularly made, is a∣ble to create, to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles: He ac∣counting that Assembly (Act. 1.) at the election of Matthias, a General Council; and again, that, Act. 15.

And then, thus B. Bramhal, concerning the Prime Patri∣arch's calling such Council, Schism-guarded, p. 356.— If the Pope, (saith he) hath any right, either to convocate General Councils him∣self, or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convoca∣tion of them, either in respect of his beginning of Ʋnity, or of his Protopatriarchate, we do not envy it him, since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire, so good caution be observed. Bellarmine‖ 1.126 confesseth that power which we acknowledge; that is, that, though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch, but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs, yet the Right to convocate General Coun∣cils should pertain unto him. So B. Bramhal.

D^r. Field speaks yet more distinctly, and copiously† 1.127—The State of the Christian Church (saith he) being spiritual, is such, that it may stand, though not only forsaken, but grievously oppressed, by the great men of the world: and therefore it is by all resolved on; that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword: and that there is, in the Church, a power of convocating these

her spiritual Pastors, to consult of things concerning her we••fare, though none of the Princes of the world do favour her.—And there is no question, but that this power [of convocating these Pastors] is in them that are first, and before other, in each company of spiritual Pa∣stors, and Ministers — Hereupon we shall find, that the calling of Dio∣cesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop; of Provincial, to the Metropoli∣tan; of National, to the Primate; and of Patriarchal, to the Patri∣arch. And of these he saith—That they neither are so depending, &c. quoted before. §. 48. Lastly, Concerning the Calling of General Councils—In times of persecution (saith he) and when there are no Christian Princes [i. e. to assist the Church, as he saith afterward] —If there be any matter of Faith, or any thing con∣cerning the whole State of the Christian Church, wherein a common de∣liberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary, he that is in or∣der the first among the Patriarchs, with the Synods of Bishops subject to him, may call the rest together, as being the principal part of the Church, whence all actions of this nature do take beginning. Instan∣cing in Julius, and Damasus, Bishops of Rome, with their Coun∣cils, practising this. So D^r. Field.

[§. 50] Only, here you see two limitations, or bars, put in by him, for the Reformation to make some advantage of. The one, In times of persecution, or, when the Church hath not Princes to assist her, then, the power of Calling General Councils to belong to the Clergy. The other, (That then it belongs, in the Clergy, to the prime Patriarch; yet not singly; but, joined with his Council; for (saith he‖ 1.128) the first Patriarch hath not power, singly, to call together the other Patriarchs, and their Bishops, because none of them is supe∣rior to another in degree, as Bishops are to Presbyters, nor so, in Or∣der, Honour, and Place, as Metropolitans are to Bishops; or Patri∣archs, to Metropolitans. Now to the first of these, his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution, see what hath been said already ‖; and his own instances prove against it; for Julius, [§. 47] and Dama••us, summoned the Oriental Bishops to such a Council. the one of them in the Reign of Constans, the other, of Theodosius, both of these being Christian, Orthodox, Catho∣lick. Emperors. Though, if this be allowed, that in any non-assistance of the secular powers (Heathen, or Christian, it mat∣ters not) the Church hath power, when she judgeth it requisite, to assemble such Councils, more needs not be desired. Con∣cerning his second Limitation; In the reason he gives for it, he omits one Superiority among the rest, which would have fitted the purpose; namely, the Superiority, that Primates have to the other Meropolitans, in their calling a National Synod, and that

without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops, first consult∣ed: I ask therefore, why not the Primate of the Patriarchs, do the like? 2^ly. If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs, neither hath he, joined with his Synod; his Synod having no more power over other Pa∣triarchs, then himself. As for the Instances: Julius sent to the Orientals, singly, concerning a Council, to be joined of both the East and West. Damasus indeed sent, when a Western Coun∣cil was sitting; but this called for other matters, and not for this, to give him a Commission for such a Summons, or to join with him in it; as if the first Patriarch cannot, when need requires, call a General Council without first Summoning, and convening a Pa∣triarchal Council, to give their consent to the calling of this Ge∣neral: A thing, to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary; and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council, a mat∣ter of so great trouble, and delay, as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council, either for this, or for much other Church-business (as hearing Appeals of less account. &c.) which come to the Patriarchs hands. And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much; where he saith‖ 1.129, —That in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intollerable, in coming together, and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied, and increased [which he confesseth before, to be just considerations] it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints, and Appeals, to Me∣tropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited, and directed by Canons, and Imperial Laws, than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors, and Guides. Thus Dr. Field.—And the Protestant-Primates (saith Bi∣shop Bramhal† 1.130) use the same customs of judging Church-Causes, with∣out calling Synods. Now what is, in this kind, conceded to Metro∣politans, much more ought to be to Patriarchs; whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial; nor ever was a set time appointed for these, as for the other. This said, concern∣ing the Calling of General Councils, its belonging, of right, to the Church; and, in it; to the Supremest Prelate.

[§. 49] 3^ly. It is not denied, but that the Emperor had, and, since the dissolution of the Empire, other Princes joined,* 1.131 still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Pre∣lates, as being their Subjects; of calling these, both in assistance to the Church in her necessities; and also in order to their own Civil affairs, when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church; Provided, this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent; consent, ei∣ther before, or, at least after, the Indiction of them. Of which

thus Bellarmine‖ 1.132 — Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt; fic tainen, ut possit etiam alius, Pontifice consentiente, Concili••m indicere; quinetiam satis sit, si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat, & confirmet, at si, nec ipse indicat Concilium, nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu, nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem, illud non Concilium, sed Conciliabulum fore.

[§. 52] And this thing is made good by the ancient practice; where, As the Emperors, being, by their secular power, much more effe∣ctual promoters thereof, were prevailed with to call the first Gene∣ral Councils, so this was not done, but either from the first Moti∣on, or with the consent, of the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Head of the Church; as appears concerning all the first 6. Ge∣neral Councils, in the acclamatory speech of the 6^th. Council, at the conclusion thereof, to the Emperor — Arius Divisor, &c. They naming 1 Sylvester, 2 Damasus, 3 Caelestinus, 4 Leo, 5 Vigilius, 6 A∣gatho, Bishops of Rome, joined with the Emperor, in the promo∣ting all these Councils. And, to come to some particulars, Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople; thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus, and to the Coun∣cil assembled with him at Rome—Concurreramus Constantinopolim, ad vestrae Reverentiae [i. e. of Damasus singly, this Council not then sitting, when the Orientals met first in Council, though it did, when they writ,] literas, missas Theodosio, summâ pietate Imperatori. Concerning the 3^d. Council thus Prosper (in Chronico) —Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ, & Coelestini authoritate. Concerning the 4^th. Thus the Emperor to Leo, (in the Epistles pertaining to that Council)—Superest, ut si pla∣cuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire, &c. Synodum celebrare, hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur, nostris uti{que} desideriis vestra San∣ctitas satisfaciet, & Sacrae Religioni, quae utilia sunt decernet. Si ve∣r•• hoc onerosum est, ut tu ad has partes advenias, hoc ipsum nobis pr••∣priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem, & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam definitum locum, ubi nobis placuerit, omues sanctissi∣mi Episcopi debeant convenire; & quae Christianorum Religioni, at{que} Catholicae Fidei, prosint, sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit, suâ dispositione declarent. To which add, * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister, to the same Pope.—Propterea tua Reverentia, quocun{que} modo prospexerit, significare dignetur, ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi, Thraciae at{que} Illyrici (sicut eti∣an nostro Domin pi••ssimo Imperatori placuit) in unani Civitatem ve∣lociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire; & illic facto Con∣cilio,

de Catholicâ confessione, &c. te authore, decernant. And, * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, in the first Act of that Council—Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authori∣tate Sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam factum est, nec fieri licuit; The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius. 2. to the Ori∣ental Bishops, against John Bishop of Constantinople: And that of Gelasius, who lived about some 40. years after, in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae.—Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum [i. e. the second Ephesin] non consentiendo, sola summovit; & authorita∣te, ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret, sola decrevit. Lastly, If the ancient Canon, that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice ni∣hil finiendum, stand good, the calling such Councils by Emperors, without the Mandate, or confent also of this Bishop, will be to no purpose; because nothing can be established therein, without his concurrence. Thus much of the power of Calling Ge∣neral Councils.

CHAP. IV.

I. Head. Of the Generality, and just Authority of the Council of Trent.

1. That the Western Churches, and particularly, that of England, are not freed from subjection to this Council, though it were not Ge∣neral; if, Patriarchal. §. 53.

2. Or, if only so General, as those times were capable of. §. 65.

3. That it is not hindred from being General, by reason of the absence of the Greek Churches. §. 66.

4. Nor by reason of the absence of the Protestant Clergy. §. 67.

[§. 53] THese things touching Church-Government (from §. ••9.) being premised in general. (a closer application of which shall be made to this famous Council of Trent, as occasion re∣quires,) I proceed to a more particular consideration of the

first Head proposed before‖ 1.133, concerning the Generality, and just Authority, of this Council, to oblige all the Churches Subjects; especially, those of the West.

[ 1] 1. Where, in the first place, it is to be noted: That, suppo∣sing this Council of Trent, no legal, and free, General, yet if it be a free, and legal, Patriarchal, Council, thus it will stand obli∣gatory (at least for the obedience of non-contrad ction) to the Reformed; and particularly, to the English Church.

For 1^st. It hath been formerly cleared, both by the Church-Canons‖ 1.134, and the Concessions of Protestants† 1.135; That, as a Dio∣cesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses, or to a Provincial, where the Metropolitan presides; and again a Provincial, or Metropolitan Synod, to a National, or that com∣posed of many Provinces, wherein the Primate of the Metropo∣litans presides; so again is this National Synod. (the Catholick Church, in many Nations, being but One) subject to that com∣posed of several Nations, and their Primates, called, and presi∣ded-in, by one of the principal Patriarchs. Neither, whatever Superiority such Patriarch, really, hath, needeth he, for the subjection of such Primates, and their respective Churches, to this Patriarchal Council, any other power over these Primates, save what these Primates are granted to have over the Metropolitans; whose Proyincial Synods, we see, are subjected to a National, or the Primate's Synod. Neither, if it could be proved, that the chief Patriarchs have over National Primates, no superiority of power; or at least, that some particular Provinces, as to Ordina∣tions, or some other Jurisdictions, are utterly exempt from Patri∣archal authority, may therefore such Provinces pretend freedom from any obedience to the Decrees of a Council Patriarchal, where∣in some one of these Patriarchs presides; no more, than they can justly pretend freedom from a Council Oecumenical on the same account; in which Council Oecumenical, or General, though the same Primates should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical Person their Superior, yet could they not deny the Council to be so. Subject, then, are National Synods, and Churches, to Patriarchal; and to this end every Church, (as D^r. Field observes, p. 513. cited be∣fore, §. 16. n. 5.) is subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Chur∣ches, and incorporated into the Ʋnity of it. Of the necessity of which Union of Churches in Patriarchal Synods, in the so much more difficult, and chargeable, assembling of such, as are absolutely Ʋ∣niversal, see before, §. 16. n. 4.

[§. 54] 2. Next; The Church of England; one of those the most anciently professing Christianity,* 1.136 which it is clear it did, before

Tertullian's time‖ 1.137, never pretended subjection to any other Patri∣arch, or his Council, than this of the West; to whom also it as∣cribes its Conversion, without dispute, as for the Saxons, or En∣glish; if not also, as for the Britains. And accordingly, both in ancient, and latter times, (if the mos antiquus obtineat, in the 6^th. Canon of Nice. be of any force) it hath always ranged it self, and appeared, in the Western Councils, as a Member of this Patriar∣chy, and of the Latine Church; and, from time to time, concur∣red in the passing of those Canons, which have established the Authority of the Roman Patriarch, and of these Patriarchal Councils.

[§. 55] After several Christians suffering Martyrdom here, in Dio∣clesian's time; In the Council at Arles in France, 10. years before that of Nice, assembled by Constantine, (who, being born in England, and his Mother an English woman, and a Christian, and, being after his Father's death, here also first declared Emperor by his Army, may be presumed to have had some particular respects for the Brittish Clergy,) we find the presence, and subscription of several Brittish Bishops acknowledged by Dr. Hammond‖ 1.138, and B. Bramhal† 1.139, and of which thus Sir Henry Spelm. A. D▪ 314.— Aderant è Britanniâ celebriores (ut videtur) tres Episcopi [Surely, in dignity much preceding, and much ancienter than the Bishop of Caerleon], nempe Eboracensis, Londinensis, & de Civitate Coloniae Lodunensium (quae aliàs dicitur Camelodunum) una cum Sacerdote, Presbytero, & Diacono, qui & Canones assensu suo approbabant, &, in Britanniam redeuntes, secum deferebant observandos. The first Canon whereof setleth the matter of Easter to be kept, through all the Churches, on the same day; and the divulgation of this through all Churches, was committed to the Bishop of Rome, the Western, and Prime Patriarch, secundum consuetudinem, saith the Canon. Again, at the Council held at Ariminum, and be∣fore this, in that of Sardica, assembled, A. D. 347. some 20. years after that of Nice, is found the presence of the Britain, a∣mongst other Western, Bishops, witnessed by Athanasius, who was present there himself, in his second Apology: And, there∣fore, may the Canons of that Council be presumed, among the rest, to be ratified by them; or, at least, being passed by the ma∣jor part of that Occidental Council, to oblige them. Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop, how they allow and ratifie his supreme Decision of Appeals, &c. Protestants are not ignorant; and therefore; to evade it, make such exceptions as these‖ 1.140 —1. That it doth not appear, That the British Bishops did assent to that Canon. But this matters not, the major part, in Coun∣cils,

concluding the rest; and neither doth it appear on the other side, but that they did approve it; which also is to be presumed, where appears no contradiction; 2 Again urged; That it was no General Council. But it sufficeth for the Britains, if it were, at least, a compleat Occidental Council. 3. Pleaded; That these Ca∣nons of Sardica were never incorperated into the English Laws, and therefore did not bind English Subjects. But Church-Canons, and De∣crees, in matters Ecclesiastical, do oblige all the Members of the Church, though Princes oppose; Oblige Princes also, if Christian, and so the Churches Subjects. And the Author that requireth this incorporation of Church Canons into the Princes Laws, ex∣plains himself elsewhere‖ 1.141, to mean only, that Church-Decrees oblige not, as to the using any coactive power in his Realms for the execution of them, without the Princes leave, because (saith he) such external coactive Jurisdiction is originally Political; a thing granted him; so that, before such leave, or enrolment, the Chur∣ches Decrees oblige both Prince, and People, if Christian, in foro Conscientiae, the disobedient justly incurring the Churches cen∣sures; the thing we, here, contend for. Lastly, The 9^th. Ca∣non of Chalced. [a subsequent General Council] is pretended to contradict these of Sardica, in giving the Supremacy in Appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople. But I need not tell him, that this Constantinople Supremacy is not for the West, but East, which is, for the Controversies of those Provinces there, subject to that Patriarch.

[§. 56] [And from the presence of the Britain Bishops in these ancient Councils (if I may make here a little digression) appears the ignorance of the Abbot of Bangor (if the Relation be true) in being such a stranger to the Popes Person, Authority, or Ti∣tles, after A. D. 600. after all that power exercised by him, for so many Ages, in the Western Provinces, conceded by Prote∣stants (see Dr. Field, of the Church, l. 5. from c. 32. to c. 40.); after so many missions, of several holy Bishops from the Pope of Rome, either to plant, and propagate, Christianity in these Islands of Britain, and Ireland; or, to reform it.—* Of Fugatius, and Damianus, very early sent by Pope Eleutherius, in King Lucius his days; which King, in the greater nearness of several Christian Bishops in France, yet addressed himself to the Pope, as the com∣mon Father of the Western Church— Afterward, * Of S Germa∣nus, about A. D. 430. sent by Pope Celestine (saith Prosper† 1.142 one who lived also in these times) accompanied with Lupus another French Bishop, who also consecrated Dubritius, that was the first Archbishop of Caer-Leon— * of Palladius, and Nenius, and Patri∣cius,

all made Bishops at Rome, and sent thence to the Picts, Scots, and Irish: (Concerning which, see the Church-History, in Bede, Baronius, Spelman) — And, besides this, * when the Irish Bishops yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time that the British are said to deny it; as appears, both for that they are said by Bede‖ 1.143 (the South-Irish at least) to have returned very ear∣ly to a right observation of Easter, * ad admonitionem Apostolicae Se∣dis Antistitis: and also, for that, about this time, they sent Let∣ters to S. Gregory, then Bishop of Rome, to know, after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were con∣verted from Nestorianisme, to whom he sends his Orders concerning it, directed — Quirino Episcopo, & caeteris Episcopis in Hiberniâ Ca∣tholicis, (l. 9. Epist. 61.)

[§. 57] Hence also is discovered the unreasonableness of the said Abbot's denial of his obedience to the Pope; or, pleading subjection only to the Archbishop of Caerleon, exclusive to any other superior whatever. For, waving here the Question; whether the Pope, by his single authority, could subject the Archbishop of Caerleon, and his Province, to S. Austin Archbishop of Canterbury, (done afterward in Henry the first his time, with the approbation of Protestants; and therefore, which might have been done in S. Austin's): yet subjected was this Britain-Clergy to the Canons of Arles, and Sar∣dica, of which Councils their Representatives were Members, and so subjected to the Western Patriarch also, for any authority which these Canons peclare to be invested in him; and from the same obligation of obedience, was their Conformity, in the ce∣lebration of Easter, with the rest of the Western Churches, which was required by the first Canon of the Council of Arles, in this Abbot's time, most unjustly refused.

[§. 58] Mean while, whatever independence can be shewed to have been challenged, or Unconformity practised, by the Abbot of Ban∣gor, and others, within the Province of the Archbishop of Caer∣le••n; yet there is no reason, that the same should be extended, or applied to the N••tional Church of the Britans in General, For the first Archbishop of Caerleon is Dubritius; who, being a Disci∣ple of S. German, sent from Rome; and being consecrated Arch∣bishop of this City by him, and Lupus, it is probable, was, for his time▪ conformable to the Customs of the Roman See; and con∣trary to those owned in Austin's t me by these Britains: But how∣ever; This of Caerleon was but an Archbishoprick of a late ere∣ction: the 3^d. or 4^th. from which Du••ritius▪ probably must possess that Chair, when Austin came: But the Britains had, long before Dubritius his time, other Bishops much preeminent to Caerleon:

* The Archbishop of York (the chief Bishop of the whole Nation (as that City then was the principal City, the Roman Praetorium being there; see Spelm. Appar. p. 22.) ••a Bishop of London, and Bishops of some other places, appearing formerly in several Councils. Of which Bishops, Todiacus Archbishop of York, and Theonus Bishop of London, being persecuted by the Saxons, fled into Wales with their Clergy, A. D. 586. within eleven years after whose flight thither, Augustine came into England; and, upon it, their persecu∣tion in part ceased. Now there being no mention of any opposi∣tion made, by any of these Bishops, or their Clergy (which, in eleven years space, could not all be deceased) to Austin; but only by the Welsh under Caerleon, what can be imagined here more reasonable, than, * That they conformed to the rest of the West in such submission to its Patriarch, as was due to him by the Ca∣nons of those Councils, which their Predecessors had allowed; and as was rendered to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland, (see Greg. l. 9. Epist. 61.) as likewise. * That they celebrated Ea∣ster according to those Conciliary Canons, and the Roman manner; and lastly, * That returning into some of those parts of Britain from whence they fled, they assisted Augustin in the conversion of the Saxons.

[§. 59] From the presence, then, of the Britain Bishop in these ancient Councils also appears the insufficiency of that Argument, which would prove the ancient Britains former non-subjection to, or conversion by, the Western Patriarch, or his Missives, from their having at Austin's arrival a different observation of Easter from the rest of the West.

For 1^st. It is manifest,* 1.144 that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein: manifest, both, from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles, which Coun∣cil determined this matter; of whom Sir Henry Spelman saith‖ 1.145, — Qui & Canones assensu suo approbabant; & in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos. And also, from Constantine's Letter† 1.146 to perswade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world in the observation of it; He naming there, among other Churches, particularly this of Britain; unless any will say; that, whilst the most eminent Provinces of Britain kept it after the Ro¦man manner, yet the Welsh, and Scots, then kept it otherwise. But since S. German, and Lupus, who came hither two several times, and from whom Dubritius, their first Archbishop of Caerleon, re∣ceived his education, solemnly kept their Easter here with the Bri∣tain Clergy (See Bede, l. 1. c. 20.) it follows, either that their observation of Easter was then altogether Catholick; or, that if

it was otherwise, yet, by reason that the difference happeneth not in every year, it was that year by these Bishops not taken notice of.

[§. 60] 2^ly. It is clear also, That as these Britains varied from the Roman Custom in this, so did they from the Easter Quartodecimans in Asia; and therefore, may not, for this,* 1.147 be thought to have derived their Christianity from thence; The Britains keeping their Pasch constantly on the Lord's Day; only, when the Lord's Day happened on the 14^th. day of the Moon, they kept it with the Jews, and Quartodecimans, contrary to the Roman Custom, that observed it, in such year, on the Sunday following: for which, see Bede, l. 3. c. 4. & 25. 3. Lastly, Bede‖ 1.148 speaks of this Er∣rour, in the Scotch Nation (and the same may be presumed, in the British) Nuperrimè, temporibus illis, hanc apud eos haeresin exortam;* 1.149 & non totam corum gentem, sed quosdam ex iis, hâc fuisse implicitos. Which Honorius, and other Roman Bisheps with their Letters (Se Bede Ib.) endeavoured (as soon as might be) to suppress. And judge you, by these things, how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy, or Councils of that time, (mentioned by Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. p. 104.) were, in opposition to Austin the Monk: who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church; and objected against them.—Quòd in multis, Ro∣manae consuetudini, immo Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae, contraria gererent; & quòd suas Traditiones universis, quae per orbem sibi invicem concor∣dant, Ecclesiis praeferrent. All which was true; and the Propo∣nent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle, resto∣ring sight to a blind man. See Sir Hen. Spelman, A. D. 601.

Pardon this Digression, made to abate a little the Confi∣dence of those, who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch, from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor; and the different observation of Easter. Of which matter Mr. Thorndike, in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior; (the visible Heads of which Resort, he saith, were Rome, Alexandria, and Antio∣chia) speaks thus, more moderately † —.They that would except Britain out of this Rule,* 1.150 [of subjection] upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head, should consider that S. Gregory, setting him over the Saxon Church, which he had founded, according to Rule, transgressed the Rule, in setting him over the Welsh Church.—Setting this case aside, the rest of that little re∣membrance, that remains concerning the British Church, testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome: as appears, from the Chur∣ches of Gaul, Spain, and Affrick, of which there is no cause to doubt, that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome.]

[§. 61] To proceed; and from the Council of Arles, and Sardica, and Ariminum spoken of before‖ 1.151, to come to later times; we find the English Bishops either concurring, and presenting them∣selves as members, with the rest, in those Occidental Councils of a later Date, the several Lateran Councils, that of Constance, Ba∣sil, and Florence; or, in absence, acquiessing in, and conforming to, the Votes, and Acts thereof; which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church, (excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils), or, at least, over the Western part thereof, which the present Reformation denies him. For which see the Council of Constance, (much urged by Protestants, as no Flatterer of the Pope, and wherein, the Council voting by Nations, the English were one of the 4.) Sess. 8. & 15. condemning, against Wickleff, and Hus, such Propositions as these, — Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Chri∣sti, & Apostolorum—Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares — Petrus non fuit, ne{que} est, Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae.— Papae Praefectio, & Institutio, à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit.— Papa non est manifestus, & verus Succes∣sor, Apostolorum — Principis, Petri, si vivit moribus contrariis Pe∣tro.— Non est scintilla apparentiae, quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam, quod [Caput] semper cum ipsâ mi∣litanti Ecclesiâ conservetur, & conservatur. Now the contrary Propo∣sitions to these, authorized by a Council supposed not General, but Patriarchal only, are obligatory at least to the members there∣of; and consequently to their Posterity, until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them: As in Civil Governments, the same Laws which bind the Parents, bind the Children, without the Le∣gislative power, de novo, asking their consent.

Not many years after the Council of Chalcedon, in the Patri∣archy of Alexandria, there succeeded to Proterius, a Catholick Bishop, Timotheus an Eutychian (since which time also the Chur∣ches of Egypt, and Ethiopia, remain still Eutychian, or at least, Di∣oscorists): And, in the Patriarchy of Antioch, to Martyrius▪ a Ca∣tholick Bishop, succeeded Petrus Fullo, an Eutychian: And in the Empire, to Leo, an Orrhodox Emperor, succeeded Zeno, an Eutychian: And all these declared their non-acceptance of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon: Yet this did no way unfix, with posterity, the stability of its Authority, or Decrees. Neither can the modern Eutychians justifie their non-submission to that Council hence, be∣cause they can produce some persons, and those Patriarchs too, that have, in succeeding times, but after a former more general Acceptation, opposed it.

[§. 62] 3^ly. After the English, and before them, the British, Bi∣shops, thus shewed §. 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council; upon what pretence,* 1.152 or new priviledge fince the Refor∣mation, these Bishops should plead any exemption from submit∣ting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy (an acceptation sufficient‖ 1.153) I see not.

For 1^st. The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Coun∣cil irregular; for it is granted by Protestants,* 1.154 that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council (though not of a General) of right belong∣eth to Him; neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons; or secular Prince hinder their journey† 1.155

2^ly. Neither can the absence of the Eastern Bishops, here, be stood upon: because their presence, not necessary in such a Council.

3^ly. Nor can the secular power, under which such Prote∣stant Bishops live (especially whenas no Heathen,* 1.156 but himself also a Subject of the Church), opposing, or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees, free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof; (I mean, if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical, and spiritual, and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights, of which enough hath been said formerly.)

[§. 63] Bishop Bramhal's Plea, That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects, till by him incorporated into his Laws, as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws, unless first made the King's, hath been spoken to before‖ 1.157: Dr. Hammond's grand Plea, on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Refor∣mation (See his Treatise of Schism, c. 6, 7 p. 115, 132, 137, 138, 142.) viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriar∣chies; to remove that of Rome to Canterbury; helps not, at least in this matter; (nor perhaps did he ever mean it should ex∣tend so far, as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council). For 1st. He grants; That the Prince can do no such thing, so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church: See Answ. to Schism Disarmed, p. 164. — A Power (saith he) Princes have to erect Metropoles, [and hence he collects, new Patriarchs]; but, if it be exercised so, as to thwart known Canons, and Customs of the Church, this certainly is an abuse. Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular, because he is in some doubt (as appears in his Answer to S.W† 1.158.) whether Princes do not hold such power of translating, or erecting Patriarchs from the Churche's Grant. Now surely this will be confessed contrary to the Churche's Canons for a Prince to make such a removal of the Patriarchs former Jurisdiction, as thereby to null,

as to his Subjects, the authority of a Patriarchal Council. And, if, indeed, the erecting, and removing Patriarchs did originally belong to Princes, yet, since the Civil Governments that are contained within the Precincts of one Patriarchy, are now in the hands of many several Soveraigns, the repeal of any Patriarch's former authority, as it relates to the convening of such Councils, must be an act at least of the Major part of these Princes; as be∣ing a thing, which equally concerns them all; Nor can the Do∣ctor produce an instance of a former fact in this kind. And, if the Prince can thus free his National Clergy from a Patriarch, and his Synod; why not also from a General Council; that neither it shall oblige his Subjects without his consent? Again; Do∣ctor Heylin's Plea‖ 1.159 touching the English Clergy, in their Refor∣mation, their conferring all their power on the Prince, which they formerly enjoyed in their own Capacity; A power (saith he) not only of confirming their Synodical acts, not to be put in execution without his consent; but in effect, to devolve on him all that power, which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity [comparing it there to the Roman Senat's transferring all their power on Caesar], I say, this Plea, as it contains very strange Doctrine; so it reacheth not our present matter; for, if a National Clergy can, at pleasure, transfer their own spiritual authority over others, and that autho∣rity too for reforming Errors in matters of Religion, to a Lay per∣son, or also to his Delegates; which authority was intrusted to them, by our Lord, in a Personal Ordination; yet can they not hence transfer to the same Lay-person, their Superiors whether persons or Councils, spiritual authority over them, so that this superior's authority, for the future, shall not oblige, but when such Lay-person first admits it.

[§. 64] This (from §. 53.) of Obedience due, from the Reform∣ed, and particularly from the Church of England, to the Council of Trent, if this were only a free, and Legal, Patriarchal Council. The true Rights of which also it may not be thought to forfeit by its further pretensions to be a Council Oecumenical; As we may not withdraw our due obedience from our Prince, when he exacts some other not due; or withhold a just debt, where more is un∣justly demanded: But not to stay here;

[§. 65] 2^ly. Our Obedience may, yet further, be rightly challen∣ged to this Council,* 1.160 as General: if it shall be proved, though not so General, as several formerly have been; yet, so General, as now, in such an alteration of States, can be had; and it being

such, the same divine assistance, as to ampler formerly, may be presumed to be afforded to it, for such Controversies as are ne∣cessary to be decided. And a submission to a Council only so comprehensive several Protestant Divines think reasonable. Thus B. Bramhal, in Preface to Reply to Chalced.— I submit my self to the Representative Church, a free General Council, or so General, as can be procured. And Schism-guarded, p. 136.—There is nothing (saith he) that we long after more, than a General Council rightly called, rightly proceeding; or, in defect of that, a free Occidental Council, as General as may be. And p. 351.— I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the determination of a Council so General, as is possible to be had. See more, in Disc. 1. §. 35. Dr. Field freely confesseth‖ 1.161—That the Decrees of Popes, made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops, do bind the Western Pro∣vinces that are subject to him, as Patriarch of the West. [Bind them so, as that these have no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch, and his Council, as appears, Ib. d. 39. p. 563. Where he quotes the Emperor's Law, (Novel. 223. c. 22.) confirming the 9^th. Canon of Council Chalced. — Nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente: Consequently, these Councils bind so the Church of England. Dr. Hammond saith† 1.162 — That General Councils are now morally impossible to be had, the Christian world be¦ing under so many Empires, and divided into so many Communions, that it is not visible to the eye of man, how they should be regularly as∣sembled. But mean while he saith‖ 1.163 — We acknowledge the due au∣thority of our Ecclesiastical Superiors, profess Canonical obedience to them, submit to their Censures, and Decrees; and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things, secundum Deum. And, (Answ, to Cathol. Gentleman, p. 17.) — A Congregation (saith he) that is fallible may yet have authority to make decisions, and to require Infe∣riors so far to acquiesce to their Determinations, as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions. [All which seems to amount to his acknowledging an external obedience of non-con∣tradiction at least, and such, as Protestants contend for to their National Synods, to be due to a Patriarchal, or the highest, As∣sembly of Church-Governors which the present, or future times, in the moral impossibility of having General Councils, are capa∣ble of.

[§. 66] 3^ly. The absence in it of the Representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, and Churches,* 1.164 (the thing principally urged) seems no just hinderance why this council of Trent may not be sti∣led

General. For evidencing which, I desire you to consider with me these Reasons, in part cleared before.

1^st. That a Council may be stiled General without the presence in it of some considerable Churches‖ 1.165; either, 1. When these, called by a lawful Authority, by reason of poverty, and distance of place,* 1.166 or persecution, &c. cannot come; and after∣ward, acquainted with the Councils proceedings, express no dis∣sent to the Acts thereof. See before, § 36. the four first Coun∣cils, as convened for the suppressing of Heresies that chiefly affli∣cted the Eastern parts, so mostly confisting of Oriental Bishops, scarce any of the West being present in some of them. Or 2. When in∣vited, and no way justly letted, they refuse to come; Or 3. When, by some former General Council condemned of Heresie, and Schism, they are not invited at all to come; or, coming, are re∣pelled. For the Church Catholick may be much narrower than Christianity† 1.167: and Councils are General, and obligatory as such, if they consist of the Church Catholick, though it should be redu∣ced only to one Patriarchate.* 1.168 2^ly. Concerning the Calling of the Eastern Churches (not entring here into that Controversie, whether these Churches do not maintain an Heresie in the Proces∣sion of the H. Ghost, and become by this disenabled, and depri∣ved, of a Vote in Councils,‖ 1.169 or, are not guilty of a Schism, at least since the accord made in the Council of Florence) it appears; that both in the first assembling of this Council at Trent, by Paul the Third, and again, at the renewing of it by Pius the Fourth, in general, all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, &c. who by Law, or priviledge, have voice in General Councils, were invi∣ted and called to it; for so ran the Bulls of the Indiction of it: (See Soave's History of the Council of Trent, l. 1. p. 101. & l. 5. p. 435.) 3^ly. There was an actual war, for a great part of the time of this Council,* 1.170 between the Christians, and the Turks; wherein Charles the Fifth twice invaded Affrick; once victorious, and once beaten; during which War, we may guess how hard, and dangerous a thing it would have been for these Eastern Bi∣shops, or Patriarchs, in the Turkish Territory, to have resorted to any Assembly, either in his, or in his Enemies, Dominions; It is not credible (saith B. Bramhal† 1.171) that the Turk will send his Subjects, that is, four of the Proto-Patriarchs, with their Clergy, to a General Council; or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Chri∣stendom in a General Council; it being so much against his own Inte∣rest. But had there been peace; yet, in so great distance, and so great poverty of those Churches, their assistance, in any great num∣ber, could not have been expected; neither is it probable, in the

differences they have with the Roman Church (though the chief points concluded in Trent against Protestants are none of these) that they would have trusted the negotiation of their affairs to a few. And, upon such considerations as these, I suppose it was, That the Reformed, in the Articles they proposed to the Emperor,‖ 1.172 concerning a free Council to which they would submit, require not this presence of the Eastern Churches, or Patriarchs in it, as a condition of their submission to it; for indeed, in such a conjun∣ction of affairs, as was then, this would have discovered in them a plain tergiversation. But 4^ly. Since the Division, that cau∣sed the convening of this Assembly, arose only in the West,* 1.173 and did not disturb at all the peace of the Eastern Churches, who were, for the most of the points controverted in this Council, against the new Separatists, united in opinion, amongst themselves, and with the Western Churches; there is also, from this, a fairer apo∣logy to be made for their absence, and little reason to put them to so great a trouble, and charge. 5^ly. Though these absent, their judgment concerning the matters decided in this Council a∣gainst the Reformed, excepting a very few,* 1.174 though not delivered in any Provincial Synods, then called for that purpose, which Sy∣nods in such a desolation of that Church could then hardly be con∣vened, yet is sufficiently manifested, both in their publick Litur∣gies, and other modern Writings, and also, for several points, in former Western Councils, wherein the Representatives of these Western Churches have appeared to have agreed with it. Of which, see what is said in Disc. 1. §. 34. — & Disc. 3. §. 158, &c. Especially see the Answer of Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople, returned about some ten years after this Council of Trent was end∣ed (I think, I may say, by God's special Providence) to the Wirem∣berg Divines (where the Reformation first began): who sent to him the Augustan Confession; and invited him to an union of their two Churches; and, to induce him the easilier to it; professed their acceptation, together with the Greek Church, of the seven first General Councils. [their words are‖ 1.175 — Illam, quae à Sanctis Apostolis, & Prophetis, & Spiritum Sanctum habentibus Patribus, ac Patriarchis, & super divinas Literas aedificatis septem Synodis, traditae est, fidem amplectentes. To whom He† 1.176 — Respondebimus ergo, nihil nostrum afferentes; sed ex Sanctis septem Oecumenicis Synodis (quas & vobis probari rectè scribitis), & ex sententiâ Sanctorum, &c.] Unto every Article of which Augustane Confession, the Patriarch return∣ed his Judgment, as consonant to other modern Greek Writers, so scarce in any thing differing from the Tridentine Decrees.

After this first assault made upon the Greek Church by the

new Reformation, thus repulsed by the Patriarch Jeremy; In la∣ter times, by the diligent Negotiations of some Protestant Agents there, the Reformed Tenents made a second fair appearance in the East, and sollicited an Acceptation of them in the Greek Churches, and had prospered so far, as that in A. D. 1629, Cyril Lucar, first, Patriarch of Alexandria, and then, of Constantinople, published a Confession of Faith, in several points, though some∣what obscurely, favouring Calvinism, and opposite to the Decrees of Trent; which Confession he set forth, as owned, not only by Himself, but the whole Greek Church. But, upon this second Alarm, as it were, given unto the Greeks, no sooner was this Cy∣ril, by a violent death, removed out of the Chair, but his im∣mediate Successor, Cyril ab Iberia, in the same year 1639, assem∣bled such a Synod, as, in such a posture of things, could well be procured, at Constantinople; wherein were also present the Patri∣arch of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, and 23. Bishops: and a∣gain, his Successor Parthenius, A. D. 1642. convened another, wherein were 25. Bishops; and amongst these, the Metropolitan of Moscovy, both which Synods pronounced Anathema to Cyril Lu∣car; declared his Confession Calvinistical, and excommunicated all those, who by word, or writing, should own, or defend it: In which Synods also, against the Articles of this Confession are justi∣fied several of those Tenents, which were before decreed, against the Reformed, by this Council of Trent: and namely these;

Transubstantiation, or a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Bloud with the Symboles; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of Sacred Images; Prayer, and Alms, for the Faithful Deceased with Repentance, as betterable in their present Condition, by them; Free-will;

the Seven Sacraments; Church-Infallibility, &c.‖ 1.177. Again, by occasion of a late Controversie happening in France be∣tween Anton. Arnauld a Sorbon Doctor, and Mr. Claude, a French Minister on this Subject, many more Testimonies, bearing a very late Date, of several Prelates, and other Clergy have been, (upon sollicitation,) receiv'd out of the East, all conspiring with the De∣crees of this Council, as to the Points, they had occasion to speak of, such as be those forenamed; to which may be added, Adorati∣on of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, Evangelical Coun∣cils, Monastick Vows, the Churches Hierarchy, &c. See a dili∣gent Collection of them in D. Arnauld's Answer to Claude, l. 4.— and in the Appendix to his Book, l. 12. And indeed such an Eye to, and Reverence of, the Orientals had the Council of Trent, that, in several passages, it seems to take great care, * of Anathemati∣zing any such Doctrines, as were in those parts commonly received,

(Of which, see something besow, §. 186.,) or, of giving them a∣ny occasion to protest against it. This said of the absence of the Greeks;*

[§. 67] 4^ly. Neither doth the absence of the Protestant-Clergy hin∣der this of Trent from being a Lawful and obliging, Patriarchal,* 1.178 or also General, Council, 1. First; Not the absence of so many of them, as were no Bishops; because they had no right to sit,* 1.179 or vote there; if we may be suffered to model that of Trent accord∣ing to former General, and approved, Councils.* 1.180 2. Nor the voluntary, and un-necessitated absence of such of them as were Bishops; though those of a whole Province, or Nation, be so ab∣sent; if invited; if secured (as the Protestants were: See below, §. 92, &c.) and yet not coming. For (as hath been shewed) in Councils, as the Vote, so the Presence, of some Bishops from a major part of Christian Provinces, and a like Acceptation of its Acts after the Council concluded, is sufficient to nominate the Council General, and render its Acts obliging; or else farewel General Councils, and their power. For, these being ordinarily assembled for the rectifying of some part peccant, when will not such Bishops as are heterodox, fearing some censure, or ill success, from the rest out-numbring them, purposely absent themselves? or, such Princes, as are any way obnoxious (as Hen. 8. was, having assumed a new Church-Supremacy) not prohibit them? Of this, thus Archbishop Lawd, §. 27. n. 4.—Such a promulgation, as is morally sufficient to give notice, that such a Council is called, is suffici∣ent in case of Contumacy; and, where they, who are called and refuse to come, have no just cause for their not coming, And D. Field‖ 1.181 forbears not to pronounce the 5^th. Council held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 553, General: when as yet the Prime Patriarch, and his Western Bishops, were neither pre∣sent in it, at least any considerable number of them; nor, in ab∣sence, had approved it; General; i. e. in case (saith he) of their wilful refusal. See his words set down before, §. 43. Some other cause therefore must be urged, and not this barely of their absence, why the Council is not without them Legally General, or obliging. 3. Nor doth the involuntary absence of some Bi∣shops, if hindered by some secular power, or also, if not admitted,* 1.182 or excluded, by the Council, hinder it from being Legitimate; if the excluded be proved such, as profess, and own, those Opinions, that have been condemned, and the defenders thereof anathematized, by former lawful Councils. Now whether the Protestant par∣ty might justly have been excluded upon this Title, see below, §. 198. Nay further; For those Bishops, who are not yet condemn∣ed

by any former Church-Decree; yet, if they be accused, or su∣spected of some new dangerous Errour, it hath not been unusual, in former allowed Councils (the major part thereof so agreeing) to deny them the liberty of sitting, or giving their vote, therein, till first, by the judgment of the Council, they be cleared of it. For which see the Proceedings against Dioscoruus Bishop of Alex∣andria, and his chief Adherents in the 4^th. General Council, Act. 1.

Yet,* 1.183 notwithstanding such just pretensions of excluding the Protestant Divines from the Council of Trent, de facto they were not so. But had granted to them,—Plenissimam securitatem (as their Safe-Conduct, Sess. 18, expresseth it) Veniendi, proponen∣di, loquendi, — Articulos quoslibet tam scripto, quam verbo liberè offe∣rendi, cos{que} Scripturis Sacris, & Beatorum Patrum Sententiis, & ra∣tionibus, astruendi—ad objecta Concilii Generalis respondendi, &c. (See also that Safe Conduct, before this, Sess. 13.) And some Protestant Divines appeared in this Council upon such security,‖ 1.184. But behold, within three Weeks after their arrival there, the Pro∣testant Princes, that had sent these to treat, here, an Ʋnion of Re∣ligion, and the Peace of Christendom, appear in Arms; on a sud∣den, invade the Emperor, secure, and wholly unprovided; and narrowly saving himself from their Hands, by flight from Ispruck, at midnight. And their victorious Armes, now not far distant from Trent, and a rumor spread, that they would suddenly pos∣sess themselves of the Alpes, to hinder the entrance of forreign Forces, struck the Council with such a terror, that they were ne∣cessitated to suspend it, for some time, and seek their safety by a dispersion of their Members: Nor did the Council, by reason of the tumults in Germany, and wars in Italy, and France† 1.185, meet again, till ten years after this, in the beginning of Pius the fourth; after that the Reformed Religion had received an incredible growth in those troublesom, and distracted, times; wherein, by the Em∣peror's being constrain'd to grant a Toleration, the Evil One had much more advantage to sow his Tares (as also, at its first birth, Protestantism was cherished with a like Toleration, by reason of the Invasions of the Turk, and the Aids, against Him, necessary from the Protestant party). No sooner had Pius renewed the Council, but there was another Safe-Conduct, for Protestants pub∣lished, like that under Julius, but not made use of.

But let us, now, suppose the Council undisturbed in the manner before related,* 1.186 and these Protestant Divines that came to the Council, still continuing there, and indulged not only 1 the freedom of Disputing, but 2 their Decisire Vote, [Touching which

thing see the Caution premised by the Council‖ 1.187; That, if, for that time, the Protestants were permitted to give a Placet, it should be no prejudice to the Rights, or Honour of the present, or future, Councils; which shews the Council not resolved to de∣ny this to them, if much stood upon]; Yet what least advantage (to repeat here again something said already in the first Disc. §. 36. n. 3.) could Protestants have extracted from these? For the first; their Freedom of Disputing and perswading: What could they now have said, after a thirty years Crowth of their Doctrine, that they had not formerly written, and the Council perused? And with what face could they have declined the exposition of Scri∣ptures, by former Ecclesiastical Tradition, Councils, and Fathers, by which they were cast? For the latter; their power of Voting: What signified their number to that of Catholick Bishops? Or, if the Votes were changed from Personal, to National, still less relief to them from hence; especially, if such Nations be consi∣dered, in a due proportion, according to the multitude of their Clergy. Which the Protestants well discerned, when waving any such trial, i. e. of Ecclesiastical matters by Ecclesiastical Judges, they proposed rather a Decision by Laicks indifferently chosen in an equal number, on both sides,† 1.188 By which bargain, they were sure not to lose their Cause, if only those nominated by them, did not vote against them. Was it not then a much wiser course to forbear coming to this Council at all, and to plead it non General by their absence, when as the proceedings thereof could no way have been defeated, or changed, by their presence? This, for the Absence of the Protestant Clergy.

CHAP. V.

5. That this Council is not hindred from being General, by the absence of the Roman-Catholick Bishops of some Province, or Nations, §. 69.

Where

• 1. Of the reason of the Paucity of Bishops in some Sessions, §. 70.
• 2. Of the Ratification of the Acts of those Sessions by the fuller Coun∣cil under Pius, §. 75.
• 3. Of the Acceptation of the whole Council by the absent Prelacy, §. 77. And particularly: Concerning the Acceptation thereof by the French Church, Ib.

[§. 69] 5ly. Neither doth the Absence of many of the Roman Catho∣lick Bishops, or of the Bishops of some one Roman-Cathol. Prince (provided, there be a personal presence of some Bishops, authorized from a major part of Cathol. Princes), hin∣der this Council from being lawfully Patriarchal, or General, for some of the Reasons given but now, (§. 67.) To which may be added these further Considerations to remove any prejudice rais∣ed to this Council from the paucity of the number of Bishops in it (especially in some Sessions) in comparison of some former Ge∣neral Councils.

[§. 70] 1. The first Consideration is, That, this Council, beyond any former,* 1.189 having so many Points of Doctrine and Discipline to examine, wherein the Reformed contradicted the immediate-for∣mer common tradition, and practice; and being drawn out for so long a time; beginning in 1545, and ending in in 1563; actu∣ally fitting for some four years, it cannot rationally be expected; that such a frequency of Bishops should continually attend it, as if it had been convened for deciding some single Controversie, and suddenly concluded. But, in so long a Service, much complaint there was (especially amongst the poorer sort) of their great ex∣pences;

more, of the neglect of their several Churches; and af∣ter a while, great longing after their own Country, Relations, Houses; and therefore, frequently, some stealing away from the Council, without the leave, and consent, of the rest.

[§. 71] 2. That, whereas the Council several times complained, (especially in the fourth, fifth,* 1.190 and sixth Sessions) and intended to proceed to Censures, against the Bishops that were absent, (in which Council the greatest scarcity was of the Bishops of France, and Germany,) at several times both the French King's, and Em∣peror's, Embassadors excused their absence to the Council, for some time at least, from the necessity there was to retain them at home, for the defence of the Catholick Religion, against the en∣deavours and tumults, of the Calvinists in France, and of the Lu∣therans in Germany. See Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5.—l. 6. c. 16. Soave, p. 509. 552.

[§. 72] 1. For the French Bishops; 'tis true, that three of them only attended the beginning of the Council, the Archbishop of Renes, the Archbishop of Aix, and another. One of which (Renes) returned upon the King's Summons, before the first Sessi∣on of the Council; but more Bishops from time to time were pro∣mised to be sent from thence, (see Soave, p. 143); and, after some time, were sent, when the Council, for fear of the Plague, was removed from Trent to Bologna‖ 1.191, And in the time of the Coun∣cil's fitting afterward at Trent, under Pius the Fourth, the King of France sent thither the Card. of Lorraine, and 14. Bishops, who sate in Council, and 18. select Divines, most of them Sorbon-Doctors, maintained there at the King's charge† 1.192.

2 As for the German Bishops; because in the beginning of the Council it was thought necessary, that they should be detain∣ed at home, at least many of them, to defend the Roman-Catho∣lick Cause, in the frequent Diets there; and because, in Pius his time, they were partly terrified with the threats of Hostility upon their Estates from the Protestants, then very powerful, if they should offer to go to Trent (as the Emperor's Embassadors in the Council pleaded for them), therefore there was not so great an appearance at any time of them in the Council, though nearer than many others; and they were dispensed with to appear by Proxies; though indeed it was, for some Reasons, denied to all Proxies, (non-Bishops), to have in the Council any definitive Vote‖ 1.193. But mean while, these German Prelates, in their seve∣ral Treaties with the Protestants in these Diets, without yielding any thing to them, that was contrary to the Conciliar Acts (for which see the Relation made by Soave of these Diets) do shew a

concurrence, in all▪ points, of their judgments with the others, who sate in Council.

[§. 73] 3. That open discords and wars breaking out, several times, between several Princes, during the sitting of this Council, espe∣cially between the Pope,* 1.194 and the Emperor, and King of France; as likewise Civil Wars between the Lutherans, and Catholicks, in the same Prince's Dominions, hindred, sometimes the Bishops of one Nation, sometimes of another, from attending the Council. The Princes also upon another account sent not, or recalled their Bishops, as they had some Differences with the Pope; or feared, that their secular interest might any way suffer in the Coun∣cil.

See the Emperor restraining his Prelates from the Council when translated from Trent to Bologna, upon pretence of the place too remote, for setling the affairs of Germany, and for the con∣venience of the German Bishops, (who had so great Charges,) their repairing thither. (Soave, p. 274.) But see the true cause (Soave p. 261,) if we may believe him; where he saith,—The Emperor [Charles. 5.] was much displeased at this Translation of the Council, because he saw a weapon [i. e. the Council] taken out of his hand [i. e. from Trent, which City was in his power]; by ma∣naging whereof, according to opportunity he thought to s•• Religion at peace in Germany, and so to put it under his obedience.

So, see the King of France, Hen. 2. in Julius his time, with whom he had a contest about Parma, protesting against the Council in Trent, and refusing to send his Bishops thither, upon pretence, that they could not pass safely, neither through the Pope's Territories, with whom he had war; nor through the Em∣peror's, a Confederate with the Pope (Soave, p. 319, 320.) But see the true Cause (Soave, p. 315.) —The King hoping, that such Protestation against the Council would remove the Pope [from his re∣solutions concerning Parma]: and the fear of such disturbance to the proceedings of the Council make him yield the controversie about Par∣ma. Which Controversie lasting for some time longer, and the Council at Trent being dissolved within a year, by reason of the Profestants in Germany taking Arms, hence no French Bishops were present in the Council for its Sessions under Julius. But this prote∣station of the King, and absence of the French Bishops, the Imperialists (saith Soave, p. 320.) esteemed a vanity: because the Act of the ma∣jor part of the Ʋniversality is ever esteemed lawful, when the lesser, be∣ing called either cannot, or will not be present. Yet, he saith, that the Parliament of Paris was of a contrary judgment, viz. that in Ecclesi∣astical Assemblies, where the whole belongeth to all, and every one hath

his part, the assent of every one is necessary; Et, prohibentis conditio potior, and the absent, not giving their voices, are not bound to re∣ceive such a Council. In answer to whom, Pallavicino‖ 1.195 as easily denies, that Parliament to have said, or held any such thing, as applied to Ecclesiastical affairs: (else in a possession, wherein there are many partners, or sharers, this rule is very true): But what∣ever that Lay-Parliament held; it is so exploded a conceit, this, [that the assent of every one is necessary, or else the major part of the Council doth not oblige him; by which no Arrian Bishop is obliged to obey the Council of Nice] that I count it lost time to confute it.

See again, the French King; in Pius the Fourth's time, upon the Council's beginning to agitate the Reformation of Secular Prin∣ces, as to their infringing the priviledges of the Church, giving order, that his Bishops should absent themselves from the Council; but the King, being better informed by the Card. of Lorraine's Let∣ters to him, and those Articles of Reformation of Princes; because so offensive, being no further proceeded in, the French Bishops with∣drew not themselves; save some few, upon their private occasions; but continued in it, till the end of the Council† 1.196.

4. That in those Sessions, wherein there were but few Bi∣shops, [§. 74] as in the fourth, fifth, sixth Sessions under Paul the Third, yet there was besides them a choice Collection of other Divines; some of the most famous for Learning, and Writings, which that age afforded; which Divines, though they had no decisive Votes in the Session; yet were they constantly consulted with, in the prepa∣ratory Congregations, and nothing ordinarily passed without their preceding Conferences, and long, and diligent disquisitions, such I believe, as cannot be matched in the Records of any former Council. See * the manner of their proceeding in Soave, p 198. and * the testimony he gives them, p. 150.— That, though, at the first, they seemed in the Council only to make Sermons, &c. yet, when that controverted. Doctrines were to be decided, and the abuse of Learn∣ed men, rather than of others, to be reformed, their worth began to ap∣pear. Likewise, beside these Bishops, and other Divines in Trent, there was also, in the time of the forenamed Sessions, a great num∣ber of Cardinals, Bishops, and choice Divines, and Canonists, at Rome, assisting the Pope▪ and consulted by him, upon all new oc∣casions of informing his Legates in Trent. So that, even in the meanest attendance of the Bishops in this place, it was not so con∣temptible a Conventicle, as many would make believe. Nor are the persons, their Res••••e••t, and acting in the Council, so much vili∣fied by one side, but that they are as much exalted by another.

Thus Soave falls upon that part of the Council, which seems most weakly guarded, the Fourth Session, in his p. 163.— That some thought it strange; that five Cardinals, and forty eight Bi∣shops, should so easily define the most principal and important Points of Religion, never decided before.—Neither was there amongst those Pre∣lates any one remarkable for Learning, some of them Lawyers, perhaps Learned in their Profession, but of little understanding in Religion; few Divines, but of less than ordinary, sufficiency; the greater num∣ber Gentlemen, or Courtiers; and, for their Dignities, some only titu∣lar; and the major part, Bishops of small Cities: particularly of Germany not so much as one Bishop, or Divine. So Soave.

And Pallavicino gives him this repulse, l. 6. c. 17. n. 12, &c.—That what the Bishops then said in the Congregations, which is to be seen in many other Libraries besides the Vatican, sufficiently shew∣eth their great Learning. That there were only 48. Bishops indeed, but these not of small Churches, as Soave supposeth. Besides that every one of the Cardinals (besides Poole) had noble Bishopricks; and most of them, more than one, as was usual in those days. But, which is more, that these Prelates were choice persons out of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, France, and Spain, sent thither by the Supreme Authority. Besides whom there were some from Dalmatia, Greece, Sweden, Scot∣land. That the three Legates were all excelle▪ persons, and two of them greatly skilled in the Learned Languages [to the ignorance of which Tongues Soave imputes the passing of the Determination made in that Session, in behalf of the vulgar Translation] Cervini especially; who then, from time to time, communicated his doubts with Sirletus, then Keeper of the Vatican Library, afterwards Cardinal; besides the Legates, Madruccius, and Pacecus, were of the greatest, and most renowned persons, that were in Germany, or Spain. To these Bishops were adjoyned three Abbots to represent the Benedictine Order, and the five Generals of the Mendicant Orders, all men of great Learning, as Soave frequently, though against his will, confesseth, in his recitations of their Discourses; and (if we make any account of the persons represented by them), it was no small matter, that, in this Coun∣cil, besides others, were, then, the Heads of almost all the encloystered Families, who are so considerable a part of the Church, and, in fine, the chief Conservatory, and Receptacle of Theology.—There assisted this Synod at that time, for Counsellors, at least forty Divines‖ 1.197 of the ablest that were then in Christendom, and many of whom have illustrated that Age with their Writings, and much exalted it, for Theological Learning, above many preceding. [Such were Sot••, Ole∣astro, Caterino, Castro, vega, &c.] It is true; that there were no Germans there: But what marvel, if these Prelates came not to the

Council, who were then in a fight; at that very time a Diet being held; and, a little before it, the Colloquy at Ratisbone. For whose sakes therefore it was, that Madruccius, and Toledo, Cesar's Embassadors, opposed the Accusation, in the Council, of the contu∣macy of the Absents. Yet were the matters of the Council conferred with these German Prelates by Letters; and their Answers read, and the aids of their Pen, though not of their Tongue, afforded to the Council. Thus the one exalts, as the other depresseth. The Discourses, which are set down in these two Historians, as like∣wise the Writings of several of them now extant, may best inform you of their Abilities. As for the matters decided in this 4th. Session, though Soave represents here the people of Germany as much aggravating them; yet, as if he had forgotten himself, in the next page‖ 1.198 he brings in the Pope as much sleighting them, and admonishing his Legates—That they should not spend time in matters not controverted, as they had done in those handled the last Session, [i. e. the Fourth] wherein all agree, that they are undoubted Principles. The Decision, therefore, only of points amongst Catholicks uni∣versally received, as it had not, so needed not, the confluence of so great a Body.

5. But, 5^ly. Let the paucity of the Bishops there, or the absence of the Representatives of some whole Nation Catholick, [§. 75] be never so prejudicial to the Acts of some former Sessions of this Council under Paul, or Julius; yet an amends is made for it in the times of Pius; when a much fuller body of Fathers (in all, of those who subscribed in the end of the Council, 255. the Seven Ge∣nerals of the Religious Orders and the Seven Abbots, being in∣cluded) and amongst them, a Mission of Bishops from those Ca∣tholick Princes, who were formerly deficient (and these Bishops assisted with a very great number of the most Learned Divines, selected out of all Christian Countries, and Religious Orders, the Catalogue of whom is printed at the end of the Council.) did review and ratifie all, that those fewer had formerly enacted; and by their reading first, and then subscribing-to, the Acts of the whole Council from the beginning thereof, 1545, added that strength to those Acts, which they may be thought, from such a paucity, formerly to have wanted. Of which Ratification, even by the French among the rest, thus Soave, p. 804.—Afterward a Proposition was made for the Reading, in Session, [the last Session] of all the Decrees made under Paul, and Julius, to be approved; which Modena opposed, saying; it would be a derogation to the autho∣rity of the Council of those times, if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers; and would shew,

that this and that was not all one, because none can confirm his own things. Others said, it was necessary to do it, for that cause, that au∣thority might not be taken from them, by saying they were not of the same Council. And the same Frenchmen, who before did so earnestly desire, that it might be declared, that the Council was new, and not continuated with that under Paul and Julius, did now labour more than others, that there might be taken away all cause of any doubting, that all the Acts from the year 1545. until the end, were not of the same Synod. Thus i•• happeneth, as in humane Affairs, so in Religion also; that one's credulity is changed with his interest. Therefore now all aiming at one mark, it was determined, simply to read them and say no more; for so the unity of the Council was most plainly declared; and all difficulties removed, which the word [Confirmation] might bring, leaving every one to think what he listed, whether the reading of them did consequently import a Confirmation, or Declaration of their validity; or an inference, that it was one Synod, which made, with that, which read, them; [and therefore, being owned as Acts of the same Body, they needed no more confirmation in the 25^th. Session thereof, than the Acts of the 23d. or 24th. Session did.] Here then we see, either confirmed, or owned, those Acts were by all, none opposing any of them as erroneous, or faulty; and then; the controversie, whether they were thus approved and acknowledged, as the acts of one, and the same Council; or, as the Acts of several; (as the Emperor signified to his Embassadors, apud Pallav. l. 24, c 8. n. 7.) is not much material. [And indeed, the former indeavours of the French, not Prelates, but Ministers of State, as also, of the Emperor's, at the first opening of the Council under Pius, That this Council then might not be declared a Continuation of the former Council, was not at all from any Dislike of the former Decrees: But partly; that by this the Protestants (whose reduction these Princes much intended) might not be discouraged from appearing in this Council under Pius‖ 1.199; and the French also partly, for maintaining the honour of the Pro∣testation of the French King, Henry 2. against the sitting of this Council under Julius: though this also out of no quarrel to any thing done in the Council, then, but the pretence of no security in sending his Bishops to it, by reason of the Pope's warring upon Parma, which he endeavoured by all means to divert.† 1.200] After this [saith Soave. p. 813] the Secretary going into the midst did in∣terrogate, whether in the name of the Council a Confirmation should be demanded of Pius of all things decreed under Paul, Julius, and His Holiness. And they answered, not one by one, but all together, Pla∣cet. So saith Soave. But Pallav. (l. 24. c. 8. n 8.) proves by se∣veral

veral testimonies, that the Votes were here given, as usually; one by one: One only, the Archbishop of Granata, a Spaniard, dis∣senting, as holding the Acts of the Council valid without any fur∣ther confirmation. And the great unanimity of the Council, when drawing toward an end, is elsewhere suffic••ently intimated by Soave, p. 782. a little before the 24^th. Session, where he saith — Here I must make a great mutation of stile. For whereas in the former Narration I have used that which is proper to describe variety of minds and opinions, one crossing the designe of another, &c. hereafter I must make relation of one aim only and uniform operations, which seem ra∣ther to fly, than run▪ to one only end, &c.

[§. 76] Here then we see this numerous Body of Bishops (exceed∣ing that, which hath been convened in several former Councils, confessedly General) 1 Rehearsing, 2 Subscribing-to, 3 Request∣ing from the Chief Pastor of the Church Catholick a Confirmation of the Decrees of the Council; not only those last, under Pius; but the former, under Paul, and Julius, from the beginning; they not particularly re-voting indeed those former Decrees, lest so those should seem the Acts of another Body (the reason given for it); but acknowledging them rather, as their own Acts; and themselves, the same continued Body with those, that made them: and in this, the French Bishops as forward, as any: and all this testified by Soave; no friend to the Council. And, after all this, is it not strange, that any one should attempt to perswade his Reader‖ 1.201, that these Bishops indeed, using some Artifice, caused the former Decrees to be read, but did not ratifie, or accept, them? But something was necessary here to be said for those inconsider∣ing persons, with whom speaking last serves for an Answer; since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions; clears it, I say, by that common Rule owned also by Prote∣stants themselves† 1.202 That in case, some Bishops be not present from some Churches, whether Eastern, or Western [at the making of the Decrees]; yet if, upon the publishing those Decrees, they be univer∣sally accepted, that doth, ex••post-facto, make the Council [I add, or any Session thereof] truly Oecumenical. Yet, in the last place I need not tell you, that, the Articles made under Pius alone, from Session 17-to its Conclusion, the ratification of which is here not questioned, are so many, and so principal, as that these utterly ru∣ine the Reformation, though the rest of the Council, for the paucity of the Representatives, were cassated. Amongst these Decrees are, The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind; Coe∣libacy of Priests; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of Images; Ce∣lebration

of the Divine Service in a more generally-unknown Tongue; the Assertion of, Purgatory; the Sacrifice of the Mass; and several others.

[§. 77] 6. Or 6^ly. If this Council under Pius also seem not suffici∣ently numerous;* 1.203 because more than half of them were Italian Bishops; yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward, by the Bishops of those Nations, who had sometimes none, and other times but few, Representatives in it, sufficiently repairs this de∣fect also. See before, §. 36, 37. Now amongst all those Catho∣lick Churches, the Acceptation of the French, is only that which can be doubted of. And, concerning this, you may observe.

1st. That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France,* 1.204 as well those absent, as those present in the Council. See for this the many Petitions, made at several times, by the whole Clergy assembled, to the King, that he would receive it, like the rest of Catholick Princes; set down in Review of Council Trent, l. 1. c. 2. There, 1576. the Archbishop of Ly∣ons, in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois, doth, in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France, speak thus unto the King; — They most humbly desire you, that, according to their more particular Requests▪ exhibited in their Remonstrances, you would authorize, and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent, which by the advice of so many Learned men, hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor. Wherein (Sir) they hope and expect from you, as a most Christian Ring — the assistance of your authority, to put this Reforma∣tion in execution. [where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation, as well as Doctrine.]: Again, 1579, in a like Assem∣bly of the Clergy at Melun, the Bishop of Bazas in their name, speaks thus to the King. — The Clergy entreateth your Majesty, that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline, & reform themselves in good earnest. Amongst all the Rules of Reforma∣tion & Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and written by the Holy Council of Trent, in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous, nor more proper for the present malady, and indisposition of all the members of the Body Eccle∣siastical: but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church, upon pain of being reputed Schismatical a∣gainst the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome, and of incurring the Curse of God, and eternal damnation. Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech, &c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges, Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause, spake at Fountain∣••leau, in this fort. The Council of Trent is received, kept, and

observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates, this King∣dom only excepted: which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it, to the the great scandal of the French Nation, and of the title of Most Christian, wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured. So that under colour of some Ar∣ticles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church (which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope) the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries. And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire, &c. A. D. 1585 the same request was re∣newed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German, in Paris. Not the Gallican only, but the whole Church Catholick doth summon, intreat and pray you to receive it [the Council of Trent] No good Christian can or ought ever to make any que∣stion, but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company, &c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See, the consent of all Christian Princes, who sent their Ambassadours thither, who staid there till the very upshot, without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published: There being such a number of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and learned men from all parts; yea, not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom, sent thither by the late King your Brother, who having delivered, consulted and spoken their opini∣on freely, did consent and agree to what was there determined. And (since the writing of the Review) A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris, Cardinal Perron, and Cardinal Richlieu, then Bishop of Lusson, prosecuted again the same re∣quest: And though this without success; yet, of the solemn Ac∣ceptation of this Council the next year after, at least by the Re∣presentatives of the Clergy, thus Spondanus‖ 1.205 — In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito, quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus, neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis [1614) quanivis & nobilitas vota sua junxisset, viz. Ʋt sacrum Concilium Tridentinum Regia authoritate promulgaretur in R••gn••, praestitum, a Cardinalibus, Archiepiscopis, Abbatibus, ac caeteris, qui aderant ex cunctis Regni provinciis Delegatis viris Eccle∣siasticis, extitit, quantum in ipsis suit; dum scilicet unanimi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••mnium consensu illud recipientes, suis se functionibus observaturos promise∣runt, ac jurarun••. After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country‖ 1.206 — Non solum non in Decretis Fi∣dei, ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae, ullum unquam fuisse ob∣jectum dubium: Sed & ipsa Dicreta Reformationis, tam ab ecclesi∣asticis susceptafuisse, quam etiam, paucis quibusdam exceptis [chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with

ecclesiastical commendams] Singillatim Regiis Constitutionibus recepta, & per Ministros Regios executioni mandata. These I have transcribed, to shew you the French Clergies, conformity to this Council, high esteem of it, and reiterated intercessions for it to the King, and to the State; who in Ecclesiastical matters, I think, ought to take them for their Guides, and for their Judges.

[§. 78] 2. Next; That this Council was opposed by the King, or Civil State of France, not for any Decrees concerning the mat∣ters of faith,* 1.207 or doctrine, but of Reformation, as containing in them something contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church, or rather of the King in, or over, the Gallican Church; Whilst (I say) there was no exception taken at any point of do∣ctrine; [For that point of the Popes superiority to a Council, op∣posed by the French, was not decreed at all in Trent; whatever Ferieres (in Soave p. 8••8) saith to the contrary; nor do the words there urged by Ferieres imply so much; nor those, most add••cted to the Pope, pretend so much. Nay, Pallav. 24 l. 14. c. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. saith, that Pope Pius, having nine parts of ten in the Council ready to vote this superiority, yet suffered this contro∣v••rsie to rest undetermined, because of the dissent of the Cardi∣nal of Lorraine, and the French Bishops] Here, then, the re∣formed cannot plead any disobligation to the Council for these things, wherein the Council is generally accepted by so great a part of the Church,‖ 1.208 because that in some other things, it is, by some particular State, refused.

[§. 79] 3. Again, That those 13. Articles, drawn up concerning reformation of secular Princes,* 1.209 set down by Soave, p. 769. which, upon his Embassadors complaint, occasioned the French Kings Protestation,* 1.210 but gave offence likewise to the Emperour, and the Kingdom of Spain, &c. ‖ were, upon this resentment of Princes, laid aside; and all that was enacted by the Council, in stead of these, concerning Princes, is contained in the 20 cap. of Reforma∣tion, in the last Session. —Cupiens Sancta Synodus, &c. Where you may see, with what great modesty and respect the Council treateh these Secular Suprems — Admonendos esse censuit, confidens, eos, &c. — Propterea{que} admonet Imperatorem, &c. — But so it is, that had they prosecuted the former 13. Articles that were drawn up, such thing seems not deprived of a plausible excuse; for that there was nothing proposed in them, but what was formerly contained in the Imperial Laws, as Cardinal Morone, the Popes Legat in the Council, assured the Emperour (See Pall. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6.) and as is ex••ressed in the Preface to those Articles (See Soave, p. 769) and, for that they only admonished suprem Princes to cause their

inferiour Magistrates (against whom was their chief complaint, for their infringing the Churches Immunities† 1.211) to observe the former grants of the Secular Powers, made to the Church; which Grants some conceive, after a free donation of them, cannot be at pleasure resumed; especially when confirmed to the Church, many of them, by a decurrent practise from the times of the first Christian Emperours. What passages, in the Council, especi∣ally in the two last Sessions, as infringing the rights of Princes, were excepted against by the Kingdom, or Parliaments of France, you may see (for it would be too tedious to recount them here) in Soave p. 819. &c. and you may see the defences, in behalf of the Council, returned to them by Palavacin in l. 24. c. 10. and, con∣cerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in temporal matters, l. 12 c. 3. As for that particular, urged by Soave and others,‖ 1.212 of the Coun∣cils depriving those Princes of their States, who shall allow Duels; That clause in it [Quod ab Ecclesia obtinent.]— Jurisdicti∣one, & Dominio civitatis, castri, aut loci, in quo, vel apud quem, duellum fieri permiserint quod ab ecclesia obtinent, priva∣ti intelligantur, shews this privation limited to those places, where the Church hath the Temporal Dominion. But, mean while, where ever is supposed either a publick concurrence, and consent of the secular powers to such an Act of the Church, or a former grant made by them of such Priviledges, and Rights to the Church, here such Act of the Church cannot be justly cen∣sured, and (to use Spalatensis‖ 1.213 his words concerning the third Capitulation in the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. which is al∣so much agitated) — Legitimum erit, si supremorum Principum concessione tacita, vel expressa, editum fuerit. Lastly, since many of those regal rights, mentioned in Soave, and pretended to be violated by the Council, were not peculiar to France, but common to i•• with all other Princes, it is most probable; that, had the Council bin faulty therein, other Princes would have resented such wrongs, and remonstrated against them, as well as France; For they did so against those 13. Articles, which were afterward laid aside; but yet, nor they, nor their Embassadors (vigilant, and exceptions, enough in other matters) who then attended the Council, and unanimously assented to these Acts, discerned in them any such violation; and we may much rather conclude them just, because the Emperour, King of Spain, and many other Princes, accepted them; than unjust, because one King or State, refused them; And from finding the causes of the French State, rejecting the Council so slight, perhaps it was, that Hen. 4. at his reconcile∣ment, promised with an oath to Pope Clement 8. to use all his en∣deavour,

that this Council might be in his Kingdom entirely re∣ceived‖ 1.214 and Cardinal D'. Ossat, his great Councellor, and ma∣nager of his affairs at Rome, often writ in behalf of the Coun∣cil, both to Secretary Villeroi, and to the King himself. —That he found nothing in the Council opposit to the Kings Authority. —Many things beneficial, none contrary to the Gallican Church; unless some one perhaps may think Simonies, and other abuses, and faults, to be priviledges of the Church Gallican.—That it displeased the great ones in France, because thereby they were not permitted to enjoy Bene∣fices, incompatible, and with such other abuses, as were prohibited by the Council. See his Letters to Villeroi, Feb. 15. 1597. — And — Mar. 31. 1599. —And—May 16. 1600. quoted in Paull l. 24. c. 10. To which I may add what Caterina de Medicis, Q. Re∣gent of France had urged before this, to the Pope's Nuncio‖ 1.215 —That the Council could not be admitted; because by the Councils decrees, the King could not thereafter gratifie such Ministers of State, as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses, or other. Benefices of the Church, holden in Commendam.

CHAP. VI.

6. That the Generality of this Council is not prejudiced, by its being called by the Pope, §. 80.

7. Nor by Reason of,

• 1. The pretended Non generality of the Summons, §. 82.
• 2. Or, Non-freedom of the Place, §. 83.
• 3. Or, the want of Safe conduct. §. 92.
  • Where, concerning the Doctrine imputed to the Roman Church, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, §. 93. And of the practice of the Council of Constance. §. 101.

6^ly. THis said (from, §.66.) That there is no prejudice done this Council,* 1.216 for its bearing the Title of Gene∣ral, and its obliging as such, [§. 80] from the absence of Bishops, Orien∣tal, or Occidental, Protestant or Catholick; or also from the very small numbers of the Bishops present in some Sessions; consider∣ing so plenary a post-acceptation of it, as hath been shew∣ed.

Next; Neither seems this any just exception against it, that it was called by an Ecclesiastical Person, the Prime Patriarch,

the Bishop of Rome. leftblank; In defence of which perhaps that may suffice, that is said before at large. §. 47. &c. But here it is to be added: That this Council was called by him, after, First, ha∣ving had the consent (both as to the place, and time) of the Empe∣rour, and all the other Christian Princes, except those, that were Protestants, and Henry the Eighth; who, being a much minor part of these Princes, were either to be concluded by the con∣trary vote of the rest; or I see not, since that Christianity is divi∣ded amongst so many Soveraign, and Independent, States; and no Heresie, or Schisme, can be so molestful to the Church, as to need the Remedy of a General Council, save such, as first finds pa∣tronage from some Christian Prince, I say, I see not, how any such Counc l can ever be lawfully convened; because, if every such Prince be allowed a negative voice herein against the rest, there will never be wanting some Prince, or other, extravagant in mat∣ters of Religion, (as Henry 8th was, then, obnoxious for his new assumed Title of Supreme in Spirituals; and the Protestant Prin∣ces, for many other Innovations) and so such Prince also averse from the meeting of such a Council, wherein he foresees, that his party will be much the weaker, and over-voted.

[§. 81,] Called then, this Council was by the Pope, but not without the consent of the Emperour, and the most of Christian Princes; (nay, if we may believe Soave) not without their great solicitation, and importunity, necessitating him to call it, against his own in∣clinations; as if he much dreaded some ••ff••ct thereof prejud cial to his present greatness. Especially, for the later p••rt of it, h••ld under Pius, and confirm••ng all the rest that had pass••d before, Soave saith ‖ —••hat the actions of this Coun••il were th••n in a greater expectation than in the fo••mer ti••es, in en••gard all Princes had agreed in demanding it, and sent Em••••ss••dours to it; and also, that the m••mber of Prelates then ass••mbled were f••i••r times as many as before. Called also by him it was; but a••ter the Protestant Princes had declared a great necessity thereof; and af••er that both Luther himself, and his followers, had of en, from the j••stice of the present Church-Governours, appealed to it.† 1.217 All which con∣sidered, and supposing that all other things stand right; That neither the necessity of such a Convention at this time can be de∣nied; nor the place, we weighing a general convenience, justly excepted against: Nor, that any persons are called to this Coun∣cil, save such, and also all such called to it, as have been the usual constitutive Members of all other former allowed General Coun∣cils: nor any new rule, or way, proposed to be observed in this Council, but that which hath been formerly from the very begin∣ning

of the first General Councils (which proposal made to the Protestants by the Pope, then calling it, See in Palavic. l. 3. c. 13. — And in Soave p. 65: Nor the Pope, or the Bishops con∣stituting it, become any other way a party in this, than they have been formerly, in them; nor the law••ul, and Canonical freedom of its Members appear any way abridged by any precede••t Oath, or Ingagements made to the Pope, or others; nor the want of a safe conduct, and freedom of access, and recess, can be justly complain∣ed of; I say, all these offences voided, and their circumstances ab∣stracted from, I suppose, the simple allegation of th••s Council its being called by the Pope will not be thought by Protestants the just subject of any quarrel; and therefore leaving this spoken of before† 1.218 I proceed to the considering of the other particulars, so many of them as shall need any Disc••ssion.

7. Next then, as this Council is not hence to be esteemed as any way defective,* 1.219 from its being called by the Pope; especi∣ally, when this done with the concurring consent of the much-major part of Christian Princes;* 1.220 So neither are any of these, The non-generality of the Summons; or the non-freedom of the Place; or the want of safe-conduct; justly pretended, for the con∣demning of this Council as illegal, and non-obliging.

For first,* 1.221 1. For the summons and invitation, see in Soave p. 101. how universal it was in Paul the thirds time, who began the Council; and again, how punctual it was in Pius the Fourths time, who renewed the Council; * In his sending several Nun∣cio's (inviting them to it) to all Protestant Princes, and States, and, amongst the rest, to Elizabeth, the Queen of England, which made B. Bramh. (Reply. to Chalc. p. 352.) say— As we have in horrour the treacherous, and tyrannical, proceedings of Paul the Third — So we acknowledge, with gratitude, the civilities of Pius the Fourth; * In his sending also an invitation to the Greek Church under the Christian Emperour of Moscovy; and Baptist Romanus a Jesuite to the Patriarch of Alexandria, to invite him to the Council† 1.222 (which Jesuit brought from thence the Arabian copy of the Nicene Canons, in number 80.) and Soave acknowlegeth,† 1.223 that some deliberation there was of sending, and granting a safe-conduct, unto the Greek Churches under the Turk. — But it was presently seen (saith he) that these poor men, afflicted in servitude, could not, without danger, and assistance of mony, think of Councils.

See the part cular persons sent to these Princes, and the success of their Embassies; in Soave, l. 5. p. 435, 439.440.

Where also he saith, that — Although the Pope was put in mind, that to send Nuncii into England, and to Princes elswhere, who do profess open separation from the See of Rome, would be a disreputation to him; yet he answered, that he would humble himself to Heresie, in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ did become that See. For the same reason also [saith he] he sent Canobius into Polonia, with design to make him to go into Moscovy, to invite that Prince and Nation to the Council, though they have never acknow∣ledged the Pope of Rome. Now here note one thing, which I shall have reason to apply to many other particulars, and shall of∣ten remember you of, That, if the Acts of Pius the Fourth, if the proceedings of that Council in his time, be justifiable, though those of, and under, Paul, and Julius, should be proved some way faulty, the number of Prelates insufficient, their decisions factiously carried, &c. yet this Tridentine Council will stand uni∣versally in force, as to all the decrees thereof; because this Council under Pius reviewed, and ratified, and made their act, all the Decrees made before (with what supposed defect or culpable∣ness of their proceedings you please, for that may be right, that is not done rightly) under Paul and Julius. So that who so justi∣fieth this Council, save only for Pius his times, doth somewhat more than what is necessary

2^ly. For the place, I desire these things may be consi∣dered.

[§. 83] 1^st. That no place can be chosen any where so absolute∣ly free, but that he, under whose temporal Dominion it is,* 1.224 may infer some violence to the Council, or to some party therein, with whom he is offended; and so, whereas the Church and the Pope, as well as Temporal Princes, have their rights and priviledges which may be violated, the place of the Council, in any Secular State, may seem not free enough for the Pope, and the Church; and again, since the Secular Princes have often differences, and several interests (as it happened frequently in the time of the Council of Trent) the place of the Council in ones Dominions will not seem free enough to another. Unless it may be thought a sufficient re∣medy for such (unavoidable) inconvenience, that, when such vio∣lence appears, the Council may cease acting, or be suspended, or d••ssolved; or injured States withdrraw from it their Bishops.

[§. 84] 2^ly. That the place of former Councils, appointed at Rome. or in some other City in Italy (as it was in the Roman, Lateran, Florentine, Pisan, Councils) was not accounted therefore to render

them not free, because of the nearer influence from Pope, though in all those Councils, there was something to be decided, where∣in the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio, but was inclined more to one side, than another; and wherein one side might pre∣tend him a Party; as in the controversies of the Waldenses, of Be∣••engarius, of the Grecians, &c.

[§. 85] 3^ly. That the Imperour took sufficient care, that th••s Council should not be co••v••••ed in any place of Italy,* 1.225 which was under the Temporal Domin••on of the Pope or, where himself had not the c••••ef command. He consented indeed, that the Council should be kept in Mantua; but see what he declared first to the Protestants concerning this place (in Soave l. 1. p 80.) — That the Duke thereof was vass••l to the Empire, so that the Pope had no power there; and that, if they desired any further caution, himself was ready to give it them. To which they answered; how rationally, I leave it to you. — That no safe-conduct could there free them from danger, for the Pope having adherents throughout all Italy, who bitterly hated them, there was great danger of treachery, and s••cret plots.† 1.226 And, as little reason, as these, had Henry the Eight, to protest against the Council at Mantua for fear of the Pope.

[§. 86] 4^ly. That the Pope had indeed no reason to allow the Council to be kept in any City of Germany,* 1.227 that was near the Protestants; not, to avoid their pleas, but, * for fear of their Arms (of which fear whether he had any just cause, we shall see more by and by, (as likewise * for the too great distance from Rome, whereby he could not so easily, from time to t••me, give directions to his Legats in those many controversies, which were likely to be agitated in that Council; and, in all which, it was impossible for him to give them a precedent information, with a sufficient fore∣sight.

[§ 87] 5^ly. That this Council was celebrated in a place, to which the Emperour and the major part of Christian Princes, namely all the Catholick,* 1.228 gave their consent, and sent (some sooner, some later) their Bishops and Embassadours too, which was enough to legitimate it, though perhaps they would rather have chosen ano∣ther; and not all, the same.

[See Soave p. 101 — and p. 702. Where, the King of France desiring a transl••tion of the Council form Trent to Con∣stance, Wormers, &c. for the more convenience of the Dutch, Eng∣lish, and part of the French, Prelats, Soave reports the King of Spain returning this answer. —That the Council was assembled in Trent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all the solemnities, with consent of all Kings, Princes, and at 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••nce of Francis the French King; that the Emperour had

superiority in that City, as in the others, that were named, and might give full security to all, in case the former safe conduct were not suffi∣cient.]

[§.] Again celebrated in a place confining on Germany; and nearer to the Protestants there, than it was to the Catholicks of France or Spain; and of which the Emperour was the ch••ef Lord.

[§] [Therefore Soave (p. 309.) represents the Emperour d••scoursing th••s to the Protestants concerning this City. — That they should leave all to his care, who knew how to handle the business; that they should suffer other Nations to m••et, and that himself would go in person▪ if not thither, yet to some near place, and would take ord••r, n••t by words, but d••eds, that all should pass with go••d term••. And (below) that he, as Advocate to the holy Chu••ch, and D••fender of the Councils will do what ••elongeth to his charge, as he hath promi∣s d. And (p. 669) re••••t••s — How the Cardinal of Lorraine sent a Gentleman to the Empercur to desire him, that he would not remove further from the Council in regard of the fruit which th••y hoped forby means ••f his vicinity, which will k••ep every one in his duty, and hin∣der the attempts of thos••, who would translate it into another place &c. And (p. 30••.) relates the Popes fears — That he could not take all suspicion from the King of France, if the Council should be celebrated in Frent, a place subject to the Emperour, and near unto his Army.]

Again, a place it was, * not accessible by the Popes Forces, unless marching first through anothers Dominions, and trespassing on the Emperour, who was in Italy it self a Prince much more po∣werful than he; and, a place, which either the Emperours or Pro∣testant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march. And therefore was not the Pope free from fears, concern∣ing it (though he had more of Germany) as may be seen in Soave, l. 5. p. 436., where he saith. — That the Pope was troubled, be∣cause the Protestants of Germany, unto whom a great part of France was united, would demand exorbitant things which he could not grant them, —and doubted they might be able to disturb the Council with Arms, — that He confessed, that the dangers were great, and the remedies small, and was perplexed and troubled in mind. Thus Soave.

[§. 90] Nor were his fears groundless, as you may see, if you please to view (in Pallavic. Hist. l. 8. c. ••. and in Soave p. 203.) what fright the Council was put in, A. D. 1546. under Paul, 3. by the Protestant army, h••ving taken Chiusa, and ••rawing near to Tirol; and again yet more, A. D. 1552. under Julius The third. The more particular relation of which, though mentioned before, is worthy your knowledge.

† 1.229 At this time several Embassadors from Protestant Princes came to Trent, desiring a safe-conduct for their Divines; being very serious in this business, as the Council supposed, who suspe∣cted nothing of a War intended: of which safe-conducts, one, and a second drawn up (how full and punctual I desire you but to peruse it, as set down in Soave, p 370 or in Conc. Trid. Sess. 15.) yet pleased them not, because not containing also in it those con∣ditions which they required to be observed in treating their con∣troversies, one of which conditions was, that the holy Scriptures only should be judge. Yet upon this Conduct, about the middle of March, came some Protestant Divines to Trent: four from Wir∣tenberg, and two from Argentina, who exhibited a Confession of their Faith, and then earnestly desired a conference with the Di∣vines of the Council about those controversies; which conference was, for a little while, delayed, by reason of the sickness of the Popes Legat (of which sickness he died within a few weeks) and, for that the Council had not as yet determined the manner, and form, of their treating with them. Now this being the only ap∣pearance, that ever the Protestants made in the Council By this (saith Soave, p. 362) both the Emperour, and the Electors, were assu∣red, that Maurice the Duke of Saxony, though there were great levies made of Souldiers, did not attempt any thing of war. But, whilst this was acting at Trent, the Protestant Princes, having se∣cretly made a League with the French King, were preparing a suddain invasion upon the Emperour secure, and suspecting no∣thing; and when the time came to play their mine — The Saxon Embassadors (saith Soave, p. 374.) went secretly out of Trent, and returned home divers waies: but when their Divines departed, he mentions not.

The Protestants arms prosper, the surprized Emperour being able to make little, or no, resistance; they take Ausburg: and afterward Ispruck, some three dayes journey from Trent, the Emperour with his Court flying out of it at mid-night in great confusion; and thus, the danger drawing so nigh Trent, the Bi∣shops fly away, and the Council is dissolved the 28 of April, not daring to stay till the appointed time of the Session, the first of May; and the sick Legat carried thence to Verona, where, within three dayes, he died.

Now from the coming of the Protestant Divines, which was about the middle of March, till the Protestants appearing in arms, and besieging Ausburg which was on the first of April, and so putting the Council in a fright, was not above a fortnight; and yet see what a complaint Soare (p. 375.) makes.— How these

Protestant Divines were delayed from time to time, not admitted to dispute, not to be heard, glad to divulge printed copies of their Confes∣sion, because the Legate concealed it. By this you may see, how un∣free this place was to the Protestants, and how secure for the Ca∣tholicks, by vertue of the Popes great power there. See again in Soave, p. 779 the fears of the Council. A. D. 1563. upon the Emperours being sick; as from whom they had their Protection, and whose safe cond••ct expired with his life.

[§. 91] 6. Lastly: The Councils opposing the Pope so constant∣ly, in some (though not Protestant) points;* 1.230 and their great una∣nimity in their condemning most of the Protestant tenets, shew the place sufficiently free; for, where there is compulsion used there would appear some reluctance.

[§. 92] 3^ly. For the Safe conduct▪ It was granted, when de∣sired, to the Protestants, for the security of their persons, as full, as could be demanded.* 1.231 The clause put in the first Safe-Conduct (which you may see in the Council, Trid. Sess. 13.) [quantum ad ipsam sanctam Synodum spectat,] is excepted against, in Soave† 1.232 as if not involving the Pope; but, besides that the Protestants might have had the Popes Safe-conduct if they pleased, but they omitted, and probably disdained, to ask any such thing: besides this, I say, this Safe-conduct was subscribed by his Legat in his stead; and what could the Protestants fear, when the Pope had there no secular Power, and when the Council, for any other spiritual power of his, should side with them (according to the ob∣ligation of the Safe-conduct) against him? But yet to give con∣tent, this clause, in the two following Safe-conducts (which see in Council of Trent, Sess. 15. under Julius, and again, Sess. 18. under Pius) was omitted.

[§. 93] But after all this, 1^st. The doctrine, said to be com∣mon in the Church of Rome, that fides non est servanda Haereticis; and 2^ly the practise of the Council of Constance, according to it; in their putting to death Jo. Husse, are brought as arguments that there can be no security in Safe-conducts, how full soever, for men once accounted Hereticks. Of which Council of Con∣stance it is urged as a Constitution (in Soave, p. 368 and elsewhere) — That saith, or Safe-conduct, given by the Emperour, Kings or others, to Hereticks, or persons suspected, ought not to be observed, and if the Emperour's not to be observed, we may also infer, not the Council's.

[§. 94] But here first, The doctrine of those learned men in the Church of Rome, who have written of this subject, is much wronged, or mistaken. This question; Whether saith given, be to be kept, to Hereticks; as also, Whether to Infidels, and Heathens, to Enemies, to Subjects in Rebe••••ion, (Princes at such time parting with their Rights) &c. being alwaies stated by them affirmatively; and Faith, maintained to be kept as much to any of these, as to Catholicks themselves: And, if this be the publick Faith; of the i. c. Prince, or s••prem temporal Magistrate, this Faith is declared to be jure Gen∣tium, unviolable, as without which no peace, nor society, could be maintained in the world; and by no person whatever, not the Pope himself, to be dispensible, or relax••ble.

[Nullum scio Theologum, (saith Molanus sometime Divinity. Professor at ••ovain‖ 1.233) neque etiam clari n••minis Jurisconsultum qu••n conformiter d••ceant, fidem pullicam Haeretico servandam esse. Fa∣teor quidem, esse aliquo numero Jurisconsultos, qui doceant, Fidem privatam haeretico servandam non ••sse, quia hosits est publicus▪ [But this is upon supposing the law of a Superiour, prohibiting to pri∣vat men the ••ngagement of any such faith to such publick Ene∣mies, being a thing contra publicum bon••m, or, contra salutem ani∣marum, declared by such Super••ours. El••e, the publick faith (sup∣pose, of a General Council, cedentis de suo jure, and enga••ing ex∣emption, and impunity, to some Heretick in a matter belonging to its Jurisdiction) or also private Faith, where is not such prohibi∣tion, once given to a publick Enemy, are affirmed to remain, afterward inviolable] P Layman Theol. Moral l. 2. tract. 3. c. 12. — Faedera publica Gen••••um jure intr••ducta sunct — Idq, prop∣ter neces••itatem — Quia, nisi faedera pub••••ca, sen inter dive sos principes, aut re••publicas s••n inter Principem, & su••ditos ejus, v.g. rebellantes [to whom he adds Hereticks upon the same ground, §. Di••e 4••. — Nec hac it a magnum (••••th he) vid••ri d••bet, speranti∣bus in D••o & Christo summo Ecclesiae ••••fensore, qui aux••••tum f••rt in tempore opport••no] inita, omnim de servanda ess••nt, nulla pax▪ aut so••i••tas, inter humanum Genus cons••stere p••ssit. And more parti∣c••larly conc••rning Hereticks thus Becanus de side Haeret. servand. c. 12. — Quaestio est; an. quando Catholi••us Prin••eps, sive saecularis sit▪ sive Ecclesiast••••••••, c••n••edit Haeret••••is sal••um conductum li••e••e ve∣nien••i, & r••deundi ••sive id saciat jure communt, sive specia••i (i. e. this later way) debeat illis servare fidem, neene? Affirmant (saith ••e) uno consensu emnes Catholici [where he instanceth also in the practice of the Emperour, Charles the Fifth, to Luther; and goes on] Hic vald•• mirer adre••s••rios, qui, els•• hac audiant a nobis, tamen el••mant, no•• c••ntrarium do••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 vio∣lence, but also, of justice; whose words, in the close of it, are these.—Promittimus sine fraude, & quolibet dolo, quod nolumus, ne∣que debemus, quacunque occasione praetensa, uti authoritate, vel po∣tentia, jure, statuto, vel privilegio legum, vel Canonum, & quorum{que} Conciliorum specialiter Constantiensis, & Senensis, quacun{que} forma verborum expressa, in aliquod praejudicium salvo Conductui per nos con∣cesso. [What more clear than this for the lawfulness, and undis∣pensableness, 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 Pro∣testants, 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 ob∣served. If the matter be unlawful, I say; either by the divine law, if, and though, it be the publick faith given by a suprem Authori∣ty: 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 law∣ful) 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-As∣semblies, 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 suf∣ficient ground to pretend an action unlawful. Since the damage, both spiritual, and temporal, to the world would be far the grea∣ter, 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 constrain∣ing men thereto, and frequently do infer some spiritual, or tem∣poral damage; or do some otherwayes hinder some publick, or private good.

[§ 96] [To this purpose; Molanus saith‖ 1.234 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 transgressi∣one dispensaret, haec non foret legitima dispensatio, sed potius dissipa∣tio; quia deinceps nemo posset securus esse, habito a rege, aut alteri∣us 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‖ 1.235 — Pontificem non posse relaxare juramentum cum praejudicio ejus, cujus interest. And thus Layman on the same subject† 1.236 — Si a Christiano, v. g. Rege cum Infideli∣bus (and the same he repeateth afterward, cum Haereticis; and before, cum Subditis Rebellantibus] publicum soedus fiat, nulla un∣quam ratione, seu directe, seu indirecte, Summus Pontifex relaxare po∣test. Ratio est; Quia cederet in maximum detrimentum, ac con∣temptum ipsiusmet etiam Ecclesiae.—Quamobrem, si quando foedus, a Catholico Rege cum Infidelibus legitimâ potestate constitutum, cedere postea videatur in Ecclesia Catholicae detrimentum, a Concilio supremo ejus Rectore, & Desensore, auxilium sperandum—Neque vero (saith he) tergiversationis locus est; * quod pars altera, ad faedus ineundum, per vim injustam adacta sit, cum paciscentes superiorem Judicem non

habeaut, qui causa cognita, ipsis jus dicat. * Nor—Quod soedus, pub∣lica authoritate initum, Principi, aut Reipublicae paciscenti, pernicie∣sum esse appareat. Nor—* Quodcunque incommodum, sen detrimen∣tum Ecclesiae Catholicae, ex faederis observatione, inferendum; and his reason is; because if such prejudices to Church, or State, be once admitted as just causes for voiding the publick Faith — Nulla pax, aut Societas, inter humanum Genus consistere possit. This con∣cerning the publick Faith given to Infidels, Hereticks, Rebels, or others, in matters, where no common Superior is acknowledged to have Right of disposing them otherwise.]

[§. 97] But as to private Contracts, Faith, or Oaths, where there is a common Superior to both parties, who may restrain, or mode∣rate these upon all occasions according to the publick and private good, here several Laws and Constitutions, and common Customs, grounded on a moral equity, and necessity, do give him a power, in several cases which may happen [such as these: where such Con∣tract, or Oath, is extorted by some injury first done to the party; as, by force, fraud, fear; or, where such engagement made in some great perturbation, and transport of mind; or, where the con∣tract, though in a matter lawful, yet brings some great, unexpected, and unforeseen, damage, to the publick, or privat good, Spiritual, or Civil; or also, is a hinderance of some considerable greater good of the Church, or State, which the Contractors ought to prefer before their private: when these are judged, not by the party, but by the Superior, to be such] the laws, I say, do give Him power, in such cases, to relax such pacts, or Faith: and to oblige the party, to whom they are made, being subject to him, and such laws, to re∣mit them: And the parties, in making any such pact, may and ought to know this superintendent power; or also, all such Oaths and Contracts, when they are made, are supposed to include a ta∣cit Exception of such cases, to be stated by the Arbitrement of such Superiors. And indeed: what thing better can be contrived, within the limits of a settled Government, than, that such engage∣ments should be transacted with such a reserve of capability of re∣laxation by the Superior, where, otherwise, either by the difficul∣ty of the observance of them, the circumstances being changed, they will probably be broken: or some great damage by them, publick, or private, inferred. But, in the publick, or private, Faith, passed between persons that are joyned together in no such society, no such thing can be admitted; but the matter of such oath, or promise being jure Divino lawful, and diminishing no third Persons legal Rights, all damages whatever are to be sustained in a strict, and undispensable observance thereof, so far

as the party to whom such engagement is made, shall exact it: And so, in some sence, Faith is maintained, to be kept by Catholicks to Enemies, Heretick••▪ Infidels, &c. when not so, by one Catholick to another; because the constitutions, or customs, of the Government Ecclesiastiacal, or Civil, under which Catho∣licks live, do not extend to these other Covenants; and the excuse of damage, fear, force, &c. hath here no place, or consideration, where is to be had no common umpire, and Judge of such mat∣ters.

[§. 98] If it be said here; That Secular Princes are made by Roman Divines, inferiour and subordinate to the Ecclesiastical suprem (the Pope, or General Council) and so, that the Sanctions, and laws of the Church, by what is said before, § 97. will void at plea∣sure the Oath and engagement of Princes to what ever Confederat, in whatever matter, as this being contrary to the law of a Superior, whose Constitutions they are obliged to observe. It is answered, that the Roman Church owns no such Doctrine; nor do the Eccle∣siastical Governours claim any Supremacy, or Legislative power, save in Spiritual matters. Contrary to which, therefore, if any of the Churches Subjects, though a Prince, make any oath, or pro∣mise, such Faith given is not to be kept, by vertue of the former subjection of such person to the Churches Laws. But, as for any Oaths, or engagements of Princes in other matters Secular; or al∣so, any use of the Secular Sword, whether in matters Temporal or Spiritual, the Church claims no Superiority herein. The Se∣cular and Ecclesiastical Magistrate have their distinct and inde∣pendent Rights and Jurisdictions, freely confessed, by Cardinal Bellarmine, to be, both held from Christ, and nor from one ano∣ther —Ex Scripturis (saith he† 1.237 nihil habemus, nisi datas Pontifici claves regni caelorum: de clavibus Regni Terrarum nulla mentio fit, Traditio Apostolica nulla.—Quando Rex fit Christianus, non perdit Regnum Terrarum, quod jam obtinebat.—And, quoting a passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus.—Quicquid. (saith he) Impera∣tores habent, dicit Nicolaus, a Christo eos habere. Peto igitur; rel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus, & Imperatoribus hoc, tan∣quam summus ipse Rex, & Imperator; aut non potest; si potest, ergo est major Christo; Si non potest, ergo non habet vere potestatem Regiam. Neither is any such Power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church, in order to Spirituals, without the exercise of which po∣wer the Primitive Church, though most grievously oppressed by Secular States, yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals, per∣fect and entire, as to all things essentially necessary thereto. Their proper and distinct Rights, then, both these supremes have. And

their oaths and engagement (passed in matters of their proper right) to what persons soever are denied generally, by Catholick Divines, to be dissolvable by one another.

[§. 99] [Of this particular of keeping faith with Hereticks, in such matters, thus, P. Layman a learned Jesuite.† 1.238—Dico 4^to —Si Catholici cum Haereticis publicum foedus ineant, non potest per autho∣ritatem Pontificiam solvi, aut relaxari; where he quotes also Mola∣nus, saying,† 1.239—Neque ullum hactenus extitit, aut unquam extabit hujus rei exemplum. And thus Becanus. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de fid. Haeret. servand. c. 7.—Virtutes illae, ex quibus oritur obligatio servandae fidei in pro∣missis, aeque nos obligant, sive apud Catholicos, sive apud Haereticos, versemur: Nusquam enim licet mentiri; nusquam jus alterius viola∣re, nusquam injustitiam committere nunquam perjurum esse.—Quando fidel•••• paciscuntur cum Gentilibus, & Idolatris, debent issi servare fi∣dem in rebus licitis & honestis; ergo etiam, quando paciscuntur cum Haereticis. An oath of fidelity, therefore, taken by a Subject to an-Heretical Prince, to aid him against all invaders of, his Dominions; or other temporal Rights, to pay him such, and such taxes, for the preserving of Justice, and protecting of his Subjects from violence, and injuries, is, to be observed, and undispensable, without the Princes consent, because the matter of it lawful: But an oath ta∣ken to serve him in sight, or to perform any other act, for the ruine of the Christian, or the Catholick, Religion, is not to be kept, because the matter of such oath is contra jus Divinum.]

[§. 100] As for that arguing of a late Protestant writer† 1.240—That it follows from this proposition maintained by Catholicks; [viz. That faith given to Hereticks, contrae jus Divinum, is not to be kept]: that therefore faith given to Hereticks is in no case to be kept; because all Heresie is contra jus Divinum, his words are.—Si∣manca concludes, that faith given, against the Divine law, is not to be kept; and it is well known; that all Heresies are accounted so by you; and therefore in no case faith is to be kept with Hereticks] 1st. If he argue well; Protestants are to maintain his Conclusi∣on, as well as Catholicks; for Protestants also grant the two pre∣misses. 2^ly. The arguing is like this: that faith in no case is to be kept to a drunkard: because drunkenness is held, contra jus Divinum; and it is unsyllogistical, and very faulty: Because, though Heresie, or Drunkenness, be a thing contra jus Divinum, yet that thing, wherein faith is given to such Heretick, or Drunkard, may not be so. But if faith were given to an Heretick, concern∣ing his Heresie: As, to maintain it with him; to aid or assist, him in it; such faith indeed were not to be kept; for the reason given; because Heresie, and all defence of it, are, contra jus Di∣vinum.t

But further: suppose the faith given to a Heretick be for the toleration of his Heresie; neither do Catholicks hold this (due circumstances put) to be contra jus Divinum. For even a moral Evil may be lawfully tolerated, when there is just fear of far more evil, and that moral too, by not tolerating it. For supposing, the toleration of any false religion by a Catholick Prince, without inflicting due punishment upon the Professors thereof within his Dominions is not lawful, jure divino, yet is it so, only to those, in whose absolute, and free power it is, to prohibit such Religion; And then; whether this, rebus sic stantibus, be for such time, and place, in a Princes free power, must be left wholy to his arbitre∣ment, who doubtless is the suprem Judge of his own Secular strength. And whom soever he cannot master as to force, how∣ever legally his Subject, neither may he reckon him under his Go∣vernment, as to coaction to his duty; in such a case then tolerati∣on of Heresie is not contra jus Dirinum. And, there is the same ground of keeping faith with such, as there is, with a forraine Ene∣my; for the Common weales-sake. Becan. Ib. c. 10.—Si Princeps Catholicus paciscatur cum Haereticis de toleranda libertate religionis, quam sine majori detrimento impedire non potest, sine dubio fides ser∣vanda est.

[§. 101] This said in General of the Doctrine of the Roman-Divines in this point, which was the first thing objected before, §. 93. Now to consider the 2d, the decree, and fact, in the Council of Con∣stance.

For its Constitution. Sess. 19. It is only this.—Praesens Sancta Synodus declarat, nullum fidei Catholicae, vel jurisdictionis Ecclesiasticae, praejudicium generari, vel impedimentum praestari posse, vel debere, ex quovis salvo conductu per Imperatorem &c. Haereticis, vel de Haeresi diffamatis, concesso, quocun{que} vinculo se adstrinxerit, quo minus, dicto salvo conductu non obstante; liceat Judici competenti, & Ecclesiastico de hujusmodi personatum erroribus inquirere, & alias con∣tra eos debite procedere, eosdem▪ punire, quantum justitia sua∣debit, &c. [i. e. so far as their jurisdiction extends.] Nec sic promit∣tentem [i. e. Imperatorem, &c.] cum fecerit, quod in ipso est [i e. quod jure facere potest] ex hoc [salvo conductu] in aliquo remansisse obligatum [as to any further observance of his promises.] Which Constitution, in all the parts of it, must needs be justified, unless one mans promise, or oath, takes away another mans Right. But such a promise, as takes away another mans right, is unlawful, and therefore void; and he who thus engageth very faulty in making it, but obliged to break it.

Again, for matter of fact; that the Council contained it self within the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, leaving, after this executed, Jo. Husse, as to any further temporal punishment, to the justice of the imperial laws, appears sufficiently in the con∣clusion of its Sentence against him, Sess. 15. ending thus.—Haec Sancta Synodus Joannem Huss, attento, quod Ecclesia Dei non habeat ultra quid gerere valeat, judicio saeculari relinquere, & ipsum Curiae saeculari relinquendum fore, decernit. Thus much clear.

[§. 102] But next; It is not so easie to resolve punctually what was the form of the Emperours Safe-conduct, granted to Husse; whe∣ther it run after the common manner, for securing his coming and returning from any unjust violence, that might be offered; or yet further; for securing him also from any execution of Secular Justice upon him, if found criminal, [for this later also, as to those punishments belonging to the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate, is granted to be in his lawful power, and he obliged to keep his faith, made either of these ways] I say, this is not so easie to resolve; nor what jealousie the Emperour might have at first, before he was better satisfied concerning their distinct Jurisdictions, least the Councils proceedings upon the trial of Huss for Heresie might some way infringe his Safe-conduct. Now for any evidence in these things: 1^st. The Safe conduct it self is no where extant. 2^ly. Mo∣lanus, with many other Catholick Writers, with great probablli∣ty, contend; that this Safe-conduct was drawn only in the common form of such writs, and to be understood in their ordinary sense; namely, to secure such person from any violence, that shall be offered towards him, but not from justice, for which the afore∣named Author‖ 1.241 quotes Mynsinger, Obs. 82.— Quando datur ali∣cui securitas, vel salvus conductus [i. e. in the common form] tunc intelligitur solum de violentia, quae de facto contra jus infertur; and produceth an usual form of the Emperours.—Damus tibi fidem publicam, causam dicendi in Judicio contra vim, non tamen contra juris Executionem. And this is rendred much the more creditable, in that we find a Safe-conduct in this very sense granted by this Council of Constance. Sess. 6. to Hierom of Prague (for Huss de∣sired none from the Council) upon which he also thought fit to venture himself, and appear before it. The form thereof is this. —Citamus, &c. quatenus compareas, &c. recepturus in omnibus justi∣tiae complementum, ad quod a violentia (justitiâ semper salvâ) omnem salvum conductum nostrum, quantum in nobis est, & fides exigit or∣thodoxa, presentium tenore offerimus. Now, since Hierom, after Huss his having been some time at Constance, ventured to appear there upon such a Safe-conduct, why may we not reasonably ima∣gine

(notwithstanding the declarations of some Protestants of the extream folly of such an action) that Jo. Huss might have the same confidence, or commit the like over-sights, as the other; as, much mistaking at first both the strict justice of the Council, and the weakness of his cause. The same thing may be probably ga∣thered from his flight, after some time, out of Constance, hidden in a Cart laden with goods; which argues the little confidence he had in the Form of his Safe-conduct to protect him from justice; as this also doth; that neither at his trial, nor his Death, he is men∣tioned, in his followers relating his story, either to have claimed the the priviledge of such a Safe-conduct, or accused any of the breach thereof.

But now, suppose it a Safe-conduct, securing him not only from violence, but also from execution of justice; yet is it related to have been so conditioned, as that, if he should attempt any flight (which he did) he should forfeit all the benesit of it; and, thus free, Justice Ecclesiastical, and Civil, proceed against him. Now, that, by one of these waies, the Emperour was discharged from his faith given to him, may justly be presumed, in that, after his condemnation for Heresie, he made no scruple to put him to death; and that, before any Conciliar decree was passed by the Council in this matter, as it were to relax, or dissolve his former engagement; Huss his Execution being in July; and the afore∣mentioned decree passed in September following.

[§. 103] But be these things how they will, of which several flouri∣shes, and conjectures are made both wayes; And let us suppose, the Safe-conduct to free him totally from the Secular Justice; and some miscarriages also to have been in the proceedings of the Emperour or Council (which is not impossible:) yet, not the least er∣rour can be found in the Decree or Constitution or Doctrine of the Council, which is so much blamed, as which expresly declares; That the Prince, once his faith given, debet facere, quod in ipso est [i. e quod est in ipsius legitimâ potestate] and then: This also is granted (See Becan. c. 12. quoted before, §. 94.) That it is a thing in the Princes lawful power, to suspend the execution of his own laws; and upon such suppositions, if the Emperour through the importunities of some others did not this, I see not how he can be therein excused: But still the Councils Decree hath no hand in such guilt. But lastly, The Delegats from Bohemia, who where Hussites, their repairing, some sixteen years after, to the Council of Basil, upon the security of the Council, and the same Emperor Sigismund's Safe-conduct, shews sufficiently that the Safe-conducts of Huss, and Hierom of Prague, were too narrow to

shield them from justice, as well as from injury; and not such faith of the Emperour, or Council, as was promised to them, to have been afterward broken: For to the same Faith, only the form of of the Safe-conduct changed, these Commissioners from Bohemiae freely trusted themselves. Thus much of the Council of Con∣stance, in which, for that which is related here out of the Story, I must refer you to,—Molanus de Fide Haeret, servand. l. 3.—Sponda∣nus, and the Authors mentioned by him, in A. D. 14 ••5. n. 44, and 45. especially Cocleus, in his Histor. Hussit. l. 2. and 3. who takes his matter out of the Stories delivered by some of Huss his followers.

[§. 104] But yet (to give all content) the Council of Trent, in their Safe-conduct, did expresly, huic constitutioni Constantiensi, in hac parte, pro hac vice, derogare.

The Trent Conduct thus qualified for their satisfaction; yet another exception the Protestants had against it; That whereas they chiefly desired two things [viz. 1. That the Scripture alone might be the judge or rule to try the Controversies by; and, 2. That the Protestants joyned in an equal number with the Catholicks, might have decisive votes; or, the Controversies be decided by an equal number of Lay-Judges, chosen on both sides] The form of this Trent-safe conduct, for the Protestants, did not as to these exactly follow that of Basil, for the Bohemians; whereby (had it been granted) saith Soave †) the Protestants would have obtained one great point; that is,‖ 1.242 that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture; and afterward (Soave, p. 366.) It is pretended, That such a Safe-conduct would have given them a decisive voice. But in answer to these: For this last point, there appears no such thing in that conduct of Basil: For the former point; the words of the Safe-conduct in Concil. Basil. 4. Sess. are these.—In causa quatuor Articulorum per eos attentorum lex divina, praxis Chri∣sti Apostolica, & Ecclesiae primitiva, una cum Conciliis, Doctoribus, fundantibus se veraciter in eadem, pro verissimo, & indifferenti Judice, in hoc Basiliensi Concilio admittentur. Whereas the words of the Safe-conduct in the Council of Trent are these—S. Trident. Syno∣dus concedit, quod causae controversae, secundum sacram Scripturam, & Apostolorum traditiones, probata Concilia, Catholicae Ecclesiae con∣sensum, & Sanctorum Patrum authoritates, in praedicto Concilio Tri∣dentino, tractentur, where we see both the Conducts do agree in [praxis, or Traditio Apostolorum] in [Concilia, and Doctores, or Pa∣tres] only the later omits the clause [fundantes se veraciter in Scrip∣tura.] The reason of which omission, see in Pallav. l. 12. c. 15 n 9. And it is clear at first sight; because this clause was capable (though.

contrary to the intention of the Council of Basil) of such a false Glosse (namely, if it be thus understood; that when any Autho∣rity was produced out of Councils or Fathers, the Protestants might accept, or reject it, as they judged it to be founded, or not founded in the Scriptures) as would void the sense of the words, that went before it, and make them needlesly added to [lex divinae.] the Protestants, when any such authority out of Councils or Fa∣thers is urged, answering; Ostende, quod illa Conciliae, &c. se ve∣raciter fundarunt in Scriptura: which is the same with; Proba hoc quod Concilium dicit ex Scripturis. For, suppose those Councils quote some Scriptures for what they say, yet will not Protestants therefore yield, that what they shall say is founded there; because they may say, they quote them in a wrong sense: and now you may see the reason of what Soave said above, and the great point the Protestants had gained, if the Safe-conduct had run in the Form of Basil, though that Form names, with the Scriptures, Concilia, & Doctores, & praxin Apostolicam, & primitivae Ecclesiae, for the judge of Controversies. But why is the Tridentine Council so averse, you will say, that Scripture only should be the Judge, or the ground of their judgment in matters of Religion? For this reason; because, when there is controversie of the meaning of Scripture (as mostly it is) it is fit, the Councils and Fathers should terminate the dispute therein; or else what end can be of such Controversie, when those, against whom the Councils declare, shall so often say, the Councils declare against the Scriptures, i. e. their sense of them? But here it is sufficient; that though the Safe-conduct, as to the way, which the Protestants demanded, of the trial of their Doctrines, was excepted against (of which more by and by) yet, as to the security of their persons, it was unquestion∣ed. Thus much from §. 82. that no deficiency in the Summons, place, or Safe-conduct, hath rendred this Council illegal, or non∣obliging.

CHAP. VII.

8. That this Council is not rendred illegal, by the Oath of Bishops taken to the Pope, §. 105.

9. Nor yet, by the Bishops, or Popes, being a Party, and Judges in their own Cause, §. 113.

• 1. Not, by the Bishops their being Judges, Ib.
  • Where, Of several other waies of judging Ecclesiatical Controversies, justly rejected, §. 118.
• 2. Nor, by the Popes being Judge, §. 122.

[§. 105] 8^ly. NEither doth the Oath,* 1.243 that was taken by the Bishops to the Pope, hinder this Council, consisting of those Bi∣shops, from being a free, legal, and obliging Council. The sum of which Oath is,— Ego N. Episcopus fidelis ero Sancto Petro, Sanctae Apostolicae Romanae Ecclesiae, Domino meo Papae N. ejus{que} Successori∣bus Canonice intrantibus—Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae, & Regulas Sanctorum Patrum, adjutor ero ad defendendum, & retinendum contra omnem Hominem [Regulas Sanctorum Patrum; or Regalia Sancti Pe∣tri, as it is in later Pontificals; which Regalia, I suppose relates to the Popes temporal Dominions, and is more properly sitted to the Bishops living in, or near them; as also non ero in Consilio, ut vitam perdat, and several other Passages in the Oath, seem to be] — Jura, honores, privilegia, & authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae, Do∣mini nostri Papae, & successorum praedictorum, conservare, defendere, angere, & promovere. curabo. Nec ero in Consilio, in facto, seu tractatu, in quibus contra Dominum nostrum, vel Romanam Eccle∣siam, aliquae sinistra, sive praejudicialia personarum, juris, honoris, status, & potestatis eorum, machinentur.

[§ 106] 1. Where note first. That it is the ordinary,* 1.244 and customa∣ry Oath taken by all Bishops at their Consecration, not an oath imposed on them with any particular Relation to this Coun∣cil; and that it is, for substance, the same oath, as hath been usually sworn in former ages, precedent to many other Councils, without being complained of, or conceived any way to abridge their Liber∣ties: Nor is it now a grievance, save to such, as deny to this Prime-Patriarch his ancient and Canonical rights.

[§. 107] 2^ly. That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours,* 1.245 is required by the Reformed themselves: and every Bishop in the Church of England, at his Consecration, takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop; and the Metropolitan Church, and their Successors. And, though, in a thing, so far as it is granted lawful, it matters not, how new is the practice; yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch, especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patri∣archy, hath been also anciently used [See the order in Conce Tol••t. 11. can. 10.—Omnes Pontifices, Rectores{que} Ecclesiarum, tem∣pore, quo ordinandi sunt, sub cautione promittant, ut fidem Catholi∣cam custodiant—at{que} obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi depen∣dant: [where why, omnes Pontifices, praeeminenti sibi, may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch, as of the Metropolitan, I see nothing to hinder.] And see apud Ba∣ron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man, and other Bishops of those times, at their Ordination—Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi, B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps, vicario{que} tuo B. Gregorio Papae, & successori ejus—me omnem fidem & puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibe∣re, & in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere. Again,—Fidem, & puri∣tatem meam at{que} concursum tibi, & utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae, [i e. Petri] (cui à Domino Deo potestas ligandi, solvendi{que} data est) & praedicto vicario tuo, at{que} Successoribus ejus per omnia exhibere, &c. And see much what the like form in Greg. Epist. l. 10. ep. 31. — Ego Civitatis illius Episcopus, sub anathematis Obligatione, promit∣to sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi, at{que} ejus vicario Beato Gregorio, vel successoribus ipsius—semper me in unitate sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae, & Communione Romani Pontificis, per omnia, permansurum. Ʋnde jurans dico per Deum Omnipotentem, & haec Sancta 4or. Evangelia, &c.] where, though the occasion of the Oath is a returning from Heresie as one confines it,‖ 1.246 yet the word, promitto sancti Pe∣tri Apostolorum Principis vicario, me in Communione Romani Pontificis, per omnia, permansurum (in this; as also, me fidem atque concursum tibi & utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturum••, in the prece∣dent Form) include a fidelity, and subjection to St. Peter's Chair; and that the Bishops, in those ancient dayes, sware no less, to con∣tinue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome, than in the unity of the Catholick Church; Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable; and therefore, in the same Form, it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae; and those, who desert it, are said to depart à radice unitatis. Now, this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case; why may it not be so, at another time? And if this Council of

Trent, by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope, may not be thought Free to proceed against any dis∣orders in this See; neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths, since that Toletan Council, since Gregories, or Winfrids, times, be thought so

[§. 108] 3^ly. Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience; only, to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome,* 1.247 as the Canons of former Councils do require,—Donec Pontifex est; & dum ju∣bet ea, quae secundum Deum; & sacros Canones jubere potest; sed non jurant, se non dicturos, quod sentiunt, in Concilio; vel, se non depositu∣ros eum, si haereticum esse couvincant, as Bellarmin † answered long since to this scruple: only they swear to defend, and promote, all,* 1.248 not to be in any action, or plot against, any of, his legal, and Ca∣nonical (for this is alwaies understood in oaths) Rights, Authority, Priviledges, &c Now what offence here, what restraint of any lawful liberty? For an Oath taken in general to all the Ca∣nonical rights of the Pope, and not specifying any in particular, leaves the Bishops, and the Council, in perfect liberty to dispute, examine, and determine what are his Canonical, and rightful pri∣viledges, what not; leaves them liberty, to question his Suprema∣cy, so far as he seems to them to claim any such in causes, or over persons, Ecclesiastical, not appearing by divine right, or Church-Constitution, due unto him: and generally, in liberty, to question, as Bellarmin observes, his commanding, or practising, things they think unlawful. And indeed the Bishops in Trent, sworn to main∣tain all his lawful, yet did dispute some of his pretended, Rights, and Priviledges; and after much debate, left them unstated. Nor did the Pope, or his Legats, though willing enough to have pre∣vented such agitations, yet plead any obligation in the Episcopal Oath, against them. This Oath therefore, obliging only to the observation of the former Divine, and Church-Laws, concerning the Papal Dignities, can be no more prejudicial to the liberty of Councils, than the former Laws and Canons are prejudicial there∣to.

[§. 109] 4^ly. Bishops, not sworn, yet still remain obliged to the obser∣vance of all such Canons; so that such Oath is not the addition of a new, but the confirmation of a former obligation, which,* 1.249 when our Superiors, for their greater security, call for, we cannot justly deny.

5^ly. Yet neither do such obligation, nor such Oath, laid on Bishops taken singly, restrain their liberty, [§. 110] when met in a Coun∣cil; but that they, with the present Popes consent,* 1.250 may then al∣tor, and change those Canons; and so, their obligation to them:

No more than a Princes, or his Subjects swearing to the obser¦vance of the civil laws of a Nation, hinders these, when met in Parliament, to abrogate any law, or enact the contrary; all oaths to laws have this tacit limitation: viz. till those, who have the authority, shall think fit to repeal them, And, in the consecrati∣on of the Reformed Bishops in England, the Oath, imposed upon them, of obedience to the Archbishop, is conceived to be un∣prejudicial to the liberty of their Synods.

[§. 111] 6^ly. If in this Oath any thing was sworn that was unlawful, the Bishops,* 1.251 so soon as this unlawfulness appeared to them, from that moment, without any dispensation, were discharged from the observance thereof; as Luther, and Bucer, so soon as it seemed to them unlawful, thought themselves quitted from the same, or the like, Oath, formerly taken, when they first entred into a religious Order; but if nothing was sworn in it but what was lawful, why complain the Reformed of this Oath?

[§. 112] 7^ly. Did this Oath of the Bishops lay some restraint upon their liberty, it would be only in one point of the Protestant Controversies,* 1.252 that concerning the Popes Supremacy, but would leave it free as to all, or most of the rest. Neither see I what influence their swearing to maintain the Popes just Priviledges could have upon their votes, in the points of Justification, Transubstantia∣tion, Invocation of Saints, and the like. For if this be named one of his privileges, that their decrees in these points are invalid, unless by him confirmed, yet there is no reason, that this should incline them at all to vote, in these, contrary to their own judgment. 1^st. Because (omitting here the obligation they have to pro∣mote Truth upon whatever resistance) they have no cause to pre∣sume his Judgment in such points (especially after their Consulta∣tions) would be different from theirs. Or, 2^ly. Because, if they knew it would differ, yet they understood also, that without the Concurrence of their Judgments, his likewise is rendred inva∣lid, and not able to establish any thing, wherein they dissent: As in some affairs of this Council it so happened. This, for the Oath; to pass on to others.

[§. 113] 9^ly. Whereas it is pretended; that the Bishop of Rome, who presided, and those Bishops, who sat in the Council, were a party and Judges in their own cause:* 1.253 As, for instance, the controver∣sies that were to be decided being between these two parties, Pro∣testants and Roman Catholicks, that those of the Council were all Roman Catholicks, and the Protestants not permitted to have with the rest any decisive vote: Again; the Protestants accusing the Roman, and other Western, Churches; of many corruptions both

in their doctrine, and in their discipline, yet that this Council was made up of the Bishops of those Churches which were thus accu∣sed: Again; one controversie being against the superiority of the Order of Bishops to the Presbytery, that therefore in this the Bi∣shops were clearly a party: Another controversie being against the Popes Supremacy, and particularly against his authority of cal∣ling and presiding in Councils, that therefore in this the Pope was a party: Besides, that his stiling the Protestants hereticks be∣fore the Council renders him in it no impartial, nor unprejudiced Judge in their cause: I say, neither do these pretences hinder this Council (supposing it composed of so many Bishops of the Catho∣lick Church, as are necessary to the constitution of a General Coun∣cil, or of so many Bishops of the Western Churches, as are necessa∣ry to the constitution of a Patriarchal) from being a lawful Judge in these controversies; and the acts therof, obligatory to all; nor hinder not the Pope from presiding there.

Where, 1^st. To consider the legality of the Synod, as it consists of such Bishops.

[§. 114] And; 1^st. Here we find; that all Heresies and Schismes have had the same plea against the former Councils,* 1.254 as the Re∣formed against this of Trent: namely, that the contrary party, the accuser, or the accused, was their Judge. All the Christian Clergy was once divided into Arrians and Anti-Arrians, or Ne∣storians, and Anti-Nestorians; as, in the times of the Council of Trent, it was into the Protestants and Roman-Catholicks: and the Arrians then accused the Catholick Bishops of their corruption of the doctrine of the Trinity, as the Protestants did now the Roman Catholicks of several corruptions in doctrine, and disci∣pline: Yet so it was, that the Arrians were condemned by the Anti-Arrian Bishops, as being the major part; neither were they allowed any other Judge, save these; and this, a Judgment approved by the Protestants. Nestorius, Bishop of Constanti∣nople, on the one side, and Celestine Bishop of Rome, and Cyril of Alexandria on the other side, counter-accuse one another of He∣r••sie; yet was Nestorius sentenced, and condemned, in the 3d. G. Council, by Celestine presiding there by Cyril, his Substitute.

Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria and the Eutychian party had great contest with the rest of Christian Bishops, Anti-Euty∣chians; 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 Pro∣testants. Arius, an Alexandrian Presbyter, and Alexander the Bi∣shop, there had much controversie between them, and accused one another, before the Council of Nice; yet Alexander, in that Coun∣cil, sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest, and gave his defini∣tive 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,* 1.255 that such judgments are lawful and obli∣gatory, notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party,* 1.256 formerly ac∣cusing and accused by, the other, of corruptions, errours, usur∣pations, &c. I beg these three things to be granted me, having elsewhere sufficiently secured them. 1 That the Church is dele∣gated; by Christ, as the supream Judge on earth for all ••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 ap∣pears by the subscriptions to them) established the Representative thereof, is to be taken for that of the Church; or else, the judge∣ment of all former Councils, even of the four first, may be que∣stioned. 3^ly. That the vote of the major part, where all con∣sent 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,* 1.257 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 Pro∣mise) deficient in necessaries, and incident into Heresie, Blasphe∣my, Idolatry: and then, if a few of these ecclesiastical Gover∣nours (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 reform∣ing of the Church, or some part thereof, against them; (things

which a late opposer of this Council† 1.258 is necessitated to main∣tain) 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 ex∣perience?) For, This second Judge, and Reformer, and this Se∣cular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies, Blasphemies, Idola∣tries: And then, how is there any remedy of these crimes and er∣rours, 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 Contro∣versies? 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 de∣finitive votes, in Councils, and if any such have a controversie with, or against, Bishops, must be content, after their best infor∣mations preferr'd to the Order, to be judged by the same Bishops; who, 'tis probable, upon some new evidence, may alter their for∣mer sentences. But yet, suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes, I see not, what the Protestants can advan∣tage 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 consi∣der, * 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.† 1.259 —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 diffe∣rence, being divided into two Parties, and Communions, neither must judge, as both being parties; and these perhaps very un∣equal, I ask what course is left to end such difference? 1. Shall ei∣ther Party chuse an equal number of Clergy with full authority to determine it? But these, having equal votes, will counterpoise one another, and so decide nothing. Or, suppose one or two should, as it were, betray their trust, and pass over to the other side (for truth, and error, are not capable of moderating the point, and compounding the middle doctrine between both, as many other litigious matters are) yet I think no party, especially the major, will ever yield to commit the future profession of their Religion to such a chance. 2. Or, shall the Clergy on both sides, first plead∣ing their cause before them, cast the judgment and decision there∣of upon the Laity? But are not the Laity, in matter of Religion (which concerns all) all parties, as well as the Churchmen, and ranged, with the several divisions of the Churchmen, in distinct communions? Will the Protestant be judged by the Emperour; or the Roman Catholick by the Duke of Saexony, because a Lay∣man? But if an equal number of Laicks, because there also are parties, shall be chosen on both sides, whether Princes or others, the same accidents recur, as in taking an equal number of Clergy. Blessed be God, who hath established a firmer course for the perpetual settlement of the peace of his Church.

[§. 119] Neither belongs this course, of judging in their own cause, only to Ecclesiasticks, but is found the same in the civil, supreme, power. I say, supreme: For, as for inferiour Judicatures, exclu∣sion of parties from being Judges is easie, by reason of many both collateral, and superior, Courts, which may be repaired to, For the supreme power then; when any difference happens be∣tween a Prince and his Subjects, part of his people adhering to him, part divided from him, when a part of his Kingdom rebel∣leth against him, opposeth some part of his Royal Prerogatives, or the equity and justice of some of his Laws. Here, 1. Ei∣ther such offence must not be judged; 2. Or, the supreme Ma∣gistrate, hearing the Plea of his Subjects, must judge in his own cause, either by Himself, or by his Substitute; which is all one, as if by himself: For he can give this Substitute no such power to judge this cause, unless he have such power himself: Again, it is to be presumed, that such Substitute shall be one of his own perswasions: and who will think themselves any whit relieved by having their adversary to nominate the person that shall judge the cause between him, and them? But if such Substitute, by re∣ceiving new informations, may change his former judgment, so may the Prince, (hearing the cause himself, and being better in∣formed) so much the sooner he hoped to change his, as he hath no other above him, whom he is bound to observe 3. or, 3^ly. The matter must be referred to the arbitrement of an equal number of both parties, so many loyal Subjects, and so many Re∣bels; but what good issue can be hoped of this? 4. or, lastly, to the arbitrement of some neighbouring State: But neither may this State, being never without some Interest of its own, be thought an impartial Judge. Here then I conceive, that the con∣cession of the Statist will be, that the supreme Governour is to judge in his own cause, upon the penalty of the divine revenge, and publick infamy, if he judge amiss; and then how is the same thing unjust in the Superior Governours of the Church? especially, when as such judgment of their is not valid, unless it be of a ma∣jor part of them.

[§. 120] It follows then, from what is here said, that, in these Eccle∣siastical Judgments, it is not to be considered, of what interest, or side, or how affected, these persons are, that so, if opposit to us, we may decline their Tribunal, who are by Christ appointed to judge; but, to what side it is, to which the prevalent, and major part of them is inclined, and so this to be conformed to; and any parties appealing to a General Council, as hoping from it a justi∣fication of their cause, is nothing else, than the alledging, that

the major part of Christian Bishops are already, or will, when met and arguing the case, be of their perswasion. And, for the Appellants, when they see the other party, in such Council, far out∣numbers theirs, to request or caution, this General Council may be composed of an equal number of both sides, is, in effect, to ap∣peale from it, and to desire that the Council should not be Ge∣neral.

[§. 121,] This said (from §. 114.) That Bishops, the ordinary Judges in matters of Religion; though they should be parties in some sence, and, in the things to be brought before them, already declared in their present judgment on one side, yet are not there∣fore streight to quit the Chair, and cease to discharge their office: Especially where the points controverted are meerly speculative, and abstracted from all secular gain, and advantage, as many of those decided in Trent were.

2. Next,* 1.260 to the Protestants Articles, and Exceptions made more particularly, against the Pope, and his Court; in respect of which, they would have had him at least excluded from being a Judge in in this Council of Trent: I answer.

[§. 122] 1. That he cannot be said to have been the sole Judge in these matters; but only to have presided in that Court, which was so:* 1.261 which he hath done often in former allowed Councils, when also he was a Person accused by a Party.‖ 1.262 For every unweighty accusation is not enough to remove the Judge from the Bench, or alter the usual course of Justice.

[§. 123] 2. Whatever Declaration, Sentence, or Censure, of a Council, this supreme Bishop, and President thereof, in some extraordinary Delinquencies (if possible these should happen) may be liable to, as in case of Heresie, or some other incorrigible tyranny, or heinous Crimes, or also in his neglect, when, so obnoxious, to call a Council, &c. in which cases some Roman Divines, that seem no diminishers of the Popes priviledges, do freely allow as much, as can rationally be required [As, if you have the curiosity, you may see in these places of Bellarmin; both, in case of his neglect in calling a Council. — De Concil. l. 1. c. 14. §. Ad secundum: and; when the Council is called, in case of Heresie, or other incorri∣gible Crime — Ib. c. 9. §. Quarta causa; (where also the Cardinal urgeth the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council. — Debent Gene∣ralia Concilia cognoscere controversias circa Rom. Pontificem exortas.) — De Concil. l. 2. c. 19 §. Primum exemplum— De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 30. Tertia Opinio.] Or, whether it be stated rather; that, He having no Superior Judge, such Enormities are for a time

to be suffered in this Ecclesiastical Supreme (as the like misdemea∣nours in Socular matters, are tolerated in the Civil) till God, whose vigilant providence never deserts his Church, either converts Him, or removes Him; I say, however these things be sta∣ted; yet as to our present business of Trent, neither did the Pope, out of any such private guilt of Heresie, or other Crime, forbear to call this Council; nor, when it was assembled, and the Prote∣stants complaints against the Pope well known, did this supreme Court find any ground, or cause of such extraordinary proceed∣ings against him. For 1^st. For his Presidentship in the Coun∣cil, which was excepted against, how could the Council deprive him of this right, which was no new tyranny, or device, but that office, which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils, which the Church ever had: Of which, see what is said before, §. 46. &c. And, as for any false doctrines, crimes, or corruptions, charged on Him, this Council found none valid, as to his own person, either, for removal of Him from such Presidentship, or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical.

[§. 124] Many corruptions indeed, and great need of Reformation of several things, both in the Church, and in the Court of Rome, as the Protestants complain'd of, so the Council, and also the Pope him∣self, acknowledged. And, in the remedying of these, the Coun∣cil spent the longer part of their Acts; which have been not meerly delusory, as a late Writer would blast them† 1.263 (who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority:) but very effective, as to the having produced a vigorous, and during Reformation in the Roman Church; and that, of the chiefest disorders complain'd of; as is shewed more particularly below, §. 203. &c. And this real effect it was, which with an holy envy, the Clergy of France, discovered in other Catholick Countries, and which made them so importu∣nate with the King, and State of France, to give them there the like force; and, that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit.† 1.264 And so much were these severe Decrees resented, and dreaded in the Court of Rome, that Soave† 1.265 re∣ports — That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court, representing their losses, and prejudices, and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness, and of the Apostolick See, and diminution of his Revenues. Of which, see much more below, §. 204. This, in the second place, that the Council, who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church (if any so be) and of these matters, found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person, as might justly abridge any of his priviledges

therein: nor, that any Reformation, in the Church, or Court, was obstructed by his Authority.

[§. 125] 3. Lastly. Neither doth the Popes calling, or declaring the Lutherans,* 1.266 Hereticks, before the sitting of this Council, ren∣der him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it: For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council; and other Popes, as the fore-mentioned Cele∣stine and Leo, having formerly declared against the errors of Nesto∣rius and Dioseorus, yet afterward, approvedly, presided in Coun∣cils; and there again condemned them. But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans, Hereticks, without shew of wrong, if so be that their tenents, or some of them, had been determined against, and condemned, in former lawful Councils: as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were: For, if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie, those who own it, without a new process, may be pronounced Hereticks. Now tis clear, that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned, in the 2d. Ni∣cene, in the 8. G. Council, in the Lateran, under Innocent 3. in that of Florence, in that of Constance‖ 1.267 Add to this, * that Leo the 10th, who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther, and his followers, to be proceeded against as Hereticks, was deceased be∣fore this Council, and presided not in it; * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council, did not formerly pass any formal sen∣tence against the Lutherans, or Hereticks; but only, in his Bull con∣cerning Reformation of the Court of Rome, Obiter named them so, which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree; yet, in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent, forbears also to name them so: * That Pius the 4th, who renewed the Council, and concluded it, was absolutely free from giving them this offence, therefore the Acts, at least under him (enough to condemn them) are not, upon this pretence, to be invalidated. But here it must not be forgotten; that not only the Pope, but the Emperour, the King of France, and, sometime, the King of England, Henry the 8th, before the Council, pronounced them Hereticks; published Edicts, and denounced heavy punishments, against them; and yet, afterward they did not, for this, utterly decline these Princes judgments, as hoping that such proceedings might be, upon better informations and second considerations, reversible.

[§. 126] To the question, asked here,† 1.268— If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before, by General Councils, why was the Council of▪ Trent at all summoned? It is easily answered,

1^st. That though many of the Protestant tenents had been consi∣dered, and condemned in former Councils, yet not all, because some of them not then appearing. 2^ly. Had all been so: yet, that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical, and Civil Courts, to reiterate their sentence; and by new Declarations (and perhaps new reasons too) to enforce their former Laws, and Decrees, so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say, and disobey, them; whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world, that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors, and in their Resolution, for the maintainance there∣of. So Arianism, after the Nicen, was condemned again, by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality, by the Council of Sardica; and Berengarius, and his party being con∣demned by five several Councils, before the great Lateran, and that of Florence, yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condem∣nation, so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie.

CHAP. VIII.

II. Head. The Invalidity of such a Council, as Protestants demanded.

The Protestant-Demands, §. 127.

The unreasonableness of these Demands, §. 132.

Where, Of the fruitlesness of many Diets (framed according to the Prote∣stant-Proposals) to decide their Controversies.

[§. 127] THus much from §. 53. of the first General Head I pro∣posed (§. 8.) concerning the sufficient generality of this Council, to render it obligatory. Now I pass to the second; con∣cerning the novelty, canonical invalidity; and probably, in∣effectiveness (as to their carrying the cause) of such a General Council, as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent, and as should be regulated with all their 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 condem∣ned 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,† 1.269 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 after∣ward; seeing that in good earnest such a Council there would be (for a Bull was published for one to be held at Vicenza, in 1••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, 1••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 Apo∣stles, Act. c. 15. Some of his Invectives I have set down al∣ready, 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‖ 1.270 — Oves meae vocem meam audi∣unt.† 1.271 — Omnia probantes,‖ 1.272 &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 ne∣ver 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 else∣where,† 1.273 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] 4. That the Bishops should be free from their Oath given to the Pope, that so they may freely, and with∣out impediment, [ 5] deliver their opinions. 5. That the Protestant Divines, sent to the Council, might have a deciding voice with the rest. [ 6] 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 ex∣clade, amongst other things, Apostolorum traditiones, Concilia, &

authoritates S. Patrum: Which, together with the Holy Scrip∣tures (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 Di∣vines, 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 super∣fluous and unprofitable questions, and perverse contentions. Which rule to judge controversies by, was also mentioned in the Safe-conduct.—Quod causae controversae secundum Scripturam, & Apo∣stolorum 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 te∣nuit, & 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.—Ʋt fugeret [to give you it in Sozomen's words‖ 1.274] institutas cum sectariis disputationes, ut∣pote rixarum at{que} pugnarum fomites: Sed ex ipsis quaereret, reciperent ne eos, qui, ante ecclesiae distractionem, interpretes, ac Doctores fu∣issent Scripturae sacrae? Etenim, si borum Testimonia rejecerint, à suis ipsorum consortibus explodentur, sin autem sufficere eos ad contro∣versias 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.† 1.275 —That the Council might be free, and be celebrated in the manner used by the Church, even from the beginning of the first Gene∣ral 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.† 1.276 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 trial in this Council, as formerly, by Church-Tradition, Councils, and Fathers, interpreting Scriptures controverted. But, now the Learned amongst the Re∣formed, perhaps like the ancient Sectarists, but now mentioned, ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur, think fit to take ano∣ther way, and do profess their doctrines to be confirmed, as the Roman, overthrown, by those same ancient Councils and Fathers. Whereby we are now made believe, that these their Fore-Fa∣thers mainly declined that Authority, which clearly established their opinions; and, on the otherside, the Roman Catholicks, toge∣ther with the Pope, vehemently contended for that Authority, that manifestly ruined theirs.]

[§. 129] 7. Their seventh condition suitsbly was, That the decisions in Council should not be made by plurality of voices, but that the more sound opinions should be preferred;* 1.277 i. e. those opinions, which were regulated by the word of God.* 1.278 8. That if a concord in Religion cannot be concluded in the Council [i. e. if the Protestants do not consent to what the rest of the Council approve] the conditions of Passau may remain inviolable; and the peace of Religion made in Ausburg, A. D. 1555. continue in force. [Now the conditions agreed on in Passau and Ausburg between the Emperour and Pro∣testants, were, A toleration of all sects; that every one might fol∣low what religion pleaseth them best: as you may see in Soave, p. 378. and 393.]

[§. 130] The sum therefore of the fift, seventh, and eighth conditi∣on, is this. Of the Fifth, that Protestants shall vote in the Coun∣cil definitively together with the Catholicks; but this, the Prote∣stants must needs see, by the Catholicks over-numbring them, would signifie little: Therefore the seventh condition caution∣eth; that, if there be more votes against the Protestant-tenents, than for them; yet this plurality may not carry the business; but, that their opinion, if the more sound, though it have fewer Suf∣frages, shall be preferred. But again, this they saw was very un∣likely; either that the others, who voted against their opinion,

should judge it the more sound; or, themselves only judging it more sound, that the others upon this should prefer it. There∣fore the 8th. condition makes sure work: that, if the rest of the Council will not prefer the Protestant-opinions, yet they shall not condemn, but allow every one, that pleaseth, still to retain, them: and on these conditions they will submit to a Council

[§. 131] 9. And there was besides these yet another Protestant-Proposal made, which see in Soave, p. 369.—That the Protestant doctrines being repugnant to those of the Pope,* 1.279 and of the Bishops his adherents; and it being unjust, that either the Plaintiff, or the De∣fendent, should be the judge, therefore that, the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets, there might be Judges in∣differently chosen by both sides, to take knowledge of the controversies.

[§. 132] In satisfaction to these their demands. To the first, see what is said above, §. 47. and §. 80.

To the second, what is said §. 83. &c. To the Canon urged, See Bellarmins answer, de Concil. l. 1. c. 21. The Canon in∣tends criminal matters, where witnesses are necessary; not mat∣ters of faith. The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem; Arianism arising in Alexandria, judged at Nice in Bi∣thynia.

To the third, see what is said before, §. 114. and 122. And me thinks the Emperours answer returned to it (in Soave, p. 80.) is sufficient.—That in case the Protestants had any complaint against the Pope they might modestly prosecute it in the Council [to which it belongs, according to the 21. Canon of the 8th. General Council, recited before, cognoscere controversias circa Romanum Pontificem exortas] And, that for the manner and Form, it was not convenient, that they should prescribe it to all Nations, nor think their Devines only inspired by God, &c.

To the fourth, what is said, §. 105. &c. And; that, de facto, such Oath restrained not the Councils freedom, was seen in seve∣ral controversies, that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes, and a contrary, party, about Episcopal Jurisdicti∣on, &c.

To the fifth, what is said, §. 68. n. 2.— 115. &c. —and 118. where it is also shewed, by the suppositions there made, that had such decisive vote been granted to the Protestants, it would have nothing promoted their cause; unless perhaps they think, that the evident arguments, which the reformed would there have manifested for the truth of their tenents, would have converted so many of their adversaries, as, joyned with them, would have made a major part in the Council. But, besides these arguments

seen, and diligently examin'd by divers of the Council, in their books (who also gathered out of these books the dangerous doctrines fit to be condemned) without working any such effect upon them, what success their disputations would have had in the Council, may be gathered, * from that which they had in the German Diets; from which their Catholick Antagonists departed still as constant, and inflexible in their former perswasions, as themselves: and * from that effect which they have in Christendome, ever since that Council, to this day; the major part undeniably, remaining still Catholick; and the other of late much decreasing.

[§. 313] To the sixth, I have said much elsewhere; which you may remember. 1. Surely, nothing can be more reasonable and just, when the sense of the Holy Scriptures between two opposit parties is the thing questioned and doubted of, than that the liti∣gants, for what is either said in the Scriptures, or necessarily de∣duced from them, stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church: and he, that dis∣claims to be tried by these concerning the controverted sense of Scriptures, doth me thinks sufficiently acknowledge, that these Fathers, and Councils, are against him; and this again seems a sufficient autocatacrisie.—When you and I differ upon the interpre∣tation of Scripture (saith King Charles† 1.280 of blessed memory, to his weak Antagonist, Mr. Henderson) and I appeale to the practice of the primitive Church, and the universal consent of Fathers to be judge between us; me thinks you should either find a fitter, or submit to what I offer. Neither have you shewn how, waving those Judges I appeale unto, the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be pre∣vented —and again.† 1.281—When we differ about the meaning of the Scripture, certainly there ought to be for this, as well as other things, a rule, or a Judge between us to determine our differences. Thus, against Puritans, against Socinians, &c. the Church of England sees most clearly those things, wherein her eyes are shut, against Catho∣licks. But, set this humane Authority quite aside, the same words of Scripture being diversly interpreted by two sides, the Scripture can no more judge on the Protestant side, than on the other, be∣cause it saith only the same words to, or for, both; and thus, as by other humane authority allowed, the Catholicks will have the victory; so, Scripture being the sole Judge, the Protestant can have no conquest, but the contention will still be depending. (So the King, Ibid.)—We must find some Rule to judge betwixt us, when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the self-same Text, or it can never determine our question. As we see amongst the reformed also of those daies, that, the Scriptures being made sole judge or rule to

try their doctrines by, yet by it could they not, then, accord the diffe∣rences amongst themselves; how then might they hope by it solely to decide the differences between them, and the Roman Catho∣licks? 2. Again; * It is yet more unreasonable and unjust; so to bind over the Council, or the Church, to the test of Scrip∣ture, as that all their Constitutions, or Injunctions, shall be cassa∣ted, and rejected, if not shewed to be commanded also in Scrip∣ture. It is sufficient, that such Injunctions cannot be shewn, by the adverse party, to be against Scripture. For the Church hath power in things indifferent: And so much, as is not prohibited, is lawful.

[§ 134] To the Seventh, it is easily granted; that the more sound opinion be preferred, but, taking away plurality of votes in the Council, the supreme Judge in these matters,* 1.282 and what course shall be used to judge, or decide, which opinion is the more sound? See the unsufficiency of those waies proposed, §. 115. n. 2. and 118. &c.

To the Eighth, What is this, but saying,* 1.283 that they will be judged by a Council, upon condition, that the Council will judge either for, or not against them? And what a ridiculous thing would it seem even to a Protestant, if any opinion, which they dislike (suppose the Arrian, or Nestorian) should have thus capitulated before hand with Councils, and yielded to be examin∣ed by them, after it hath first tyed their hands, to decree nothing against it?

[§. 135] In satisfaction to the Ninth, concerning an equal number on both sides to determine their controversies,* 1.284 see what is said above, §. 118. And besides, that this seems not appealing to the judgment of a General Council, but rather, from it, to a private Committee; and that it is no more reasonable to propose this, than that an equal number of Arrians, and Anti-Arrians, should judge of Arrianisme; the experiment of this device in so many Diets of Germany, still fruitless, shews, it would have been so also in Trent.

And here, 'Tis worth your diversion to view a little with me the unsatisfying issue of those many Diets.

[§. 136] The Emperour, sometimes from the pressing of forreign war (from the Turk, who in those times frequently alarm'd Ger∣many, to the great growth of Protestancy) sometimes for fear of civil; or, from some discords arising with neighbouring Princes, exceedingly desirous to settle a peace in Germany, had many Con∣ferences and Diets, in several places, for composing the differences in Religion.

A. D. 1530. Was held a Diet at Ausburg;* 1.285 where the Pro∣testants exhibited the Confession of their faith, called the Au∣gustan Confession, and here seven Catholicks, and seven Protestants (on either side, two Princes, two Lawyers, and three Divines) were chosen to confer together, and find out a means of composi∣tion: and, these not being able to agree, afterward the number was restrained to three a piece. But (saith Soave, l. 1. p. 56.) though some few small points of doctrine, and other petty things be∣longing to some rites, were agreed on; yet, in conclusion, it was per∣ceived, that the Conference could produce no concord at all; because neither party was willing to grant to the other any thing of importance. Or, if any thing of importance was there yielded, it was by the Protestant party, for which see, Pall: l. 3. c. 4.

[§.] A. D. 1541. Was held a Conference at Ratisbon, where, the Emperour himself being present, and two Presidents, of the Colloquy appointed,* 1.286 three Catholick, and three Protestant Divines were chosen to determine and compose the differences; and Cal∣vin was present at it, though not yet much noted: 22. Articles were drawn up by some Catholicks, and proposed by the Empe∣rour, as an argument and subject of what they ought to treat: and in these Articles, and in those afterward, of the Interim, was the nearest approach made to any agreement, since the Reformati∣on: and the accord here made concerning Justification, is worth your reading, the Catholick party purposely omitting the word [Merit] that they might not give an offence in the expression; where both agreed in the sense. See Pall. l. 4. c. 14. n. 8. Yet of these 22. those Articles, which contained the things most con∣troverted, could not be agreed on: [Amongst which, these: De summè venerando sacramento veri corporis, & sanguinis Christi: & de hujus adoratione & reservatione. De transubstantiatione panis & vini. De missâ. De conjugio sacerdotum. De communione sacramenti sub utra{que} specie. De paenitentiâ, Confessione, & Satisfactione. De invocatione sanctorum. De ecclesiae Hierarchico ordine. De ecclesiae & Conciliorum authoritate, and several others.] And the other few that were agreed on; as, De libero Arbitrio. De Originali pecca∣to. De justificatione hominis. De paenitentia post lapsum, &c. were by both parties afterward diversly expounded, and equally com∣plained of, as perplexed and ambiguous, and not clearly expressing the Truth; and particularly, by the Catholick party; as chang∣ing the former Church-language; and also stating such evident matters, as were no way formerly controverted amongst the learn∣ed. (See Responsum Principum Protestantium, penn'd by P. Melanthon —and Responsum Principum, qui Rom. Pontificem agnoscunt.) And

so this meeting ended without effecting a peace. See Soave, l. 1. p 95.

[§. 138] These meetings were before the Council of Trent. Af∣terward, in the time of the Council,* 1.287 1546. was another Collo∣quy appointed at Ratisbone, four Divines on a side, and two Judges, But no good fruit grew thereof (saith Soave, l. 2. p. 148.) by reason of the suspicions, which one part conceived against the other; and be∣cause the Catholicks omitted no occasions to give greater jealousies to the other side, and to fain them of their own, which finally made the Colloquy to dissolve. Thus Soave, blaming the Catholicks; but see Spondanus† 1.288 and the Authors he cites, charging the fault on the Protestant side, deserting the Colloquy, recalled by the Princes that sent them.

After this,* 1.289 A. D. 1547. upon the Emperours great victo∣ry obtained over the Protestants,* 1.290 and no hopes of the Councils return from Bologna, (whither it was removed by reason of the Plague) to Trent, a Diet was held at Ausburg, where the Empe∣rour, resolving; before he disarmed, to set Germany at peace in matters of Religion, elected three, two of them Catholicks, the third, Joannes Agricola Islebius, a moderate Protestant; or one, that had been so, but who was now turned to the Catholick Pro∣fession,† 1.291 to compose or peruse a new moderated form of Religion, commonly called the Interim, which was afterwards also review∣ed, and changed by many others, some of the principal Ministers of the Protestants being also called, that they might approve it,† 1.292 amongst whom, Bucer. It contained 25. heads, besides other heads of Reformation; prescribing what men were to be∣lieve, until all should be established by a General Council. If you would know the temper of this famous draught; Pallavacin (in l. 10. c. 17. n. 1.) gives this account of it,—That in many of the Articles, and especially in those concerning the Sacraments, this writing contradicted the Lutheran errors; but, that, in the rest, it was a contexture of ambiguous forms, such as each party might inter∣pret to his own liking. Whence the three supervisers of it gave in this relation; that, rightly understood, it did in nothing oppose the Catho∣lick doctrines, excepting that Marriage of Priests, and the Communi∣on of the cup were therein permitted; yet so, as not there approved for lawful, but tolerated till a General Council should decree, what was most fit to be done therein.

In this Instrument chiefly was experimented,* 1.293 both what Union and Peace, a Confession of Faith, composed in general, and ambiguous terms for men of contrary per∣swasions, was able to produce: And what satisfaction a Tolera∣tion of the Cup, and of Priests marriage, might give to the Pro∣testants,

to induce them happily to a compliance with Catholicks in other Points. And it was found, that nothing was promoted hereby. Many Exceptions Catholicks took at several of these Ar∣ticles (which see collected by Soave, p. 289.) and Protestants, more: who also pleaded† 1.294—That it was a matter concerning their Con∣science, and that therein they might not be forced. Generally, all sides contended to have the Profession of their Faith more clear, distinct, and particular. And—In a short time (saith Soave† 1.295) there was, as it were, a whole Squadron of Writers against it: Catho∣licks and Protestants [amongst whom Calvin] And that did follow, which doth ordinarily happen to him, that will reconcile contrary Opi∣nions, that he maketh them both agree to oppugn his; and every one more obstinate in defending his own. And the Composers thereof (saith Spondanus† 1.296) Illud suis commixtionibus ac palpationibus assecuti sunt, ut ne{que} Protestantibus, Lutheranis, ne{que} ullis aliis Haereticis, neq, Ca∣tholicis probatum fuerit ipsorum opus. Only from this Interim the••e arose two Sects amongst the Protestants; one (being more under Ce∣sar's power) embracing, and so justifying the use of some old Ce∣remonies required by him, called therefore, Adiaphorists; which the others, that were free from Cesar's power disallowed. See, Soave, Ibid.

But so it was; That, after the yoke of this State-compositi∣on of Religion had been for three or four years,* 1.297 impatiently born by both parties; As, upon the Emperours victory over the Prote∣stants, A. D. 1547, it was set up and imposed: so by another victory of the Protestants over Him, in 1552. when also the Council was dispersed, † it was quite thrown off: And, the Empe∣rours former prosperous fortune, from this very time of his set∣ting up the Interim, more and more declining, some stick not to impute it to this his usurping, being a Laick, such a supreme Ar∣bitration in matters of Religion.

[§. 140] So, A. D. 1552, was an agreement made, after the Empe∣rour's ill success, of a mutual Toleration in the States of the Ger∣man Princes, each mean while following which pleased him best, of both Religions: viz. the Catholick, and that of the Augustan Confession, or the Lutheran: all other Protestant new Sects, as more distant from the Catholick, being excluded: With which Sects, Germany, and other parts were now much afflicted, these still removing further, and further, from the former Catholick Faith. Some of which new Sects, at least it was hoped, by this means also might the easilyer be suppressed. And this Concord was made, till a further settlement of Religion, and union of Opinions could be procured by one of these four means: 1. A

General Council (for the sitting of that of Trent was now broken up) Or, 2. A National: or, 3. a Colloquy: or, 4. an Ʋni∣versal Diet of the Empire.

[§. 141] There followed after this, A. D 1555. during the Suspen∣sion of the Council of Trent, a renewed Attempt,* 1.298 in another Diet at Ausburg, to put some of the forementioned waies for ac∣commodating matters of Religion in execution. But (saith Soave† 1.299) two proposals being made: One, to treat of the means of Re∣forming Religion: the other, to leave every one to his Liberty, not knowing, how to root out the evil humors, which did still move, all in∣clined to the second proposition [the continuation of a toleration] Of which Toleration, see the Articles set down in Pallavicin l. 13. c. 13. n. 4.

[§. 142] A. D. 1557. During the same Suspension of the Council, yet another attempt was made. And of the four waies,* 1.300 named before, the third was pitched upon, a Colloquy, to be held at Wormes. Wherein was appointed a Conference of twelve Catholick, and twelve Protestant Divines on a side, the Bishop of Naumburg being President. The Collocutors met, here first a Disputation was set on foot, De Norma Judicii:† 1.301 The Catholicks, besides the Scriptures, requiring, for Decision of Controversies, the Inter∣pretation of the Fathers, and Ancient Church; the Protestants admitting only the Scriptures. Next, it was proposed, That, since all other Protestant Sects were excluded from a Toleration, save only those of the Augustan Confession, the Collocutors should first declare themselves, as to the condemning and rejecting those other Sects, the Zuinglians, Osiandrians, &c. in many things, and particularly in the main doctrine touching the Eucharist, much more distant from the Roman Catholick Religion, than those of the Augustan Confession were. To this motion five of the Pro∣testant Divines willingly agreed, and gave up their Declaration herein to the President. But the other seven, amongst whom was Melancshton, opposed it. And the difference between them, and the other five, grew so high, that these later departed from the Colloquy, and so it was dissolv'd. And this was the last Colloquy, or Composition of Religion, that was assayed in Germany, I mean, between the Protestant and Catholick Party: The Protestant-diffe∣rences among themselves, which still grew more, and could never since be healed, hindring any further Treaties of their accord with Catholicks (who expected their fall, at least by their own hands.) And all these assayes of settling Religion by the State, and not by the Ecclesiastical Authority, that is the ordinary Judge thereof, thus proved vain and fruitless.

After this A. D. 1561. a little before the renewing of the Council of Trent, [§. 143] in Pius the Fourth's time, there was held a Colloquy at Poissy in France:* 1.302 the King and Queen of France being present thereat, and fourteen Protestant Divines selected for it with Safe-conduct: and here, after much disputing at large, five of a side were chosen, to see if they could compose differences. — These assayed (saith Soare, p. 454) to frame an Article concerning the Eu∣charist [the chief point of controversie] in general terms taken out of the Fathers, which might give satisfaction to both parties; which because they could not do, they concluded the Colloquy.

[§. 144] In this year also, the Princes of the Augustan Confession in Germany (which Confessionists also were at variance among them∣selves) assembled at Neumburg, where, — Being ashamed, (saith Soave, p. 439) that their Religion should be esteemed a confusion for the variety of doctrines amongst them, they did propose, that they might first agree in one; and then resolve, whether they ought to re∣fuse, or accept, the Synod [that under Pius 4. now ready to be open∣ed.] And here, after some things had been proposed for a covering at least of their differences, which could not be closed (for though here they had sole Scripture for their Rule, and themselves for their Judges, yet it seems they could not agree them.) —The Duke of Saxony (saith the same Author) answered; that they could not stop the eyes and ears of the world▪ that they should not see and hear their differences; and that, if they would make shew of union, where they were at variance, they should be convinced of vanity and lying: and so (saith Soave) after many contentions, they remained without agreement in this matter.

[§. 145] These Diets and Colloquies about settling Religion, I have been the more willing particularly to relate; * partly, to remove that conceit of many; that, if the Protestant-Divines had but had a fair hearing of their cause in the Council of Trent, a major part would have consented to them: whereas we see many a free, and fair, hearing of them here, was, in so many Conferences; and yet none of their Antagonists of the Catholick party removed thereby from their former principles. * And partly to shew you, what is most likely to have been the issue of such a General Council, as the Protestants called for; i e. where an equal num∣ber, chosen on both sides (suppose Lay-persons) should have sitten the Presidents, and Judges; and to make appear, that, if once we take away the authority of Councils, as constituted, and compo∣sed in the manner alwaies formerly used, there is no hope of set∣tling Divinity controversies by Arbitrators. For men will sub∣mit to nothing against their private, reasons, or judgment; i. e. a∣gainst

their Conscience, as many call it; unless it be, when such persons have detided such a point, whose authority they are obli∣ged, in conscience, to obey.

[§. 146] This is said to the Conditions of a General Council which the Protestants of those times demanded. But, if those conditi∣ons only were required, which Archbishop Lawd mentions, §. 30. (though, §. 27. he seems to exact much more,) who there saith — That any General Council shall satisfie him, that is lawfully called, continued, and ended, according to the same course, and under the same conditions, which General Councils observed in the primitive Church. Where he refers, in the margent, to Bellarmins four Conditions, —de Concil. l. 1. c. 17. [namely, — 1. Ʋt Evocatio sit generalis, ita ut innotescat omnibus majoribus Christianis provinciis. 2. Ʋt ex episcopis non excommunicatis nullus excludatur. 3. Ʋt adsint, per se, vel per alios, quatuor praecipui Patriarchae praeter summum Pontifi∣cem, quia istis subsunt omnes alii Episcopi (but to this Bellarmin adds some limitations) 4. Ʋt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Pro∣vinciarum aliqui adveniant.] then, I say, as these conditions are most reasonable, so, I think, they have been already shewed to agree to the Council of Trent; excepting the third; of the dis∣pensableness of which, in several cases, see both what Bellarmin there saith; and what is said above, §. 65.66.; Neither, if men would be content, with Bishop Bramhal (in prefac. to Repl. to Chalc.) to submit themselves to so General a Council, as can be pro∣cured, as things now are, can there be any debate about this Con∣dition.

CHAP. IX.

III. Head. Of the Legalness of the proceedings of this Council.

• 1. That a Council may be Legal, and Obligatory, in some of its Acts, when not in others, §. 147.
• 2. That no Decree concerning Faith was passed in this Council, where any considerable party contradicted, §. 148.
• 3. That there was no need of using any violence upon the Council for the condemning of the Protestant-Opinions; in condemning which, the Fathers of this Council unanimously agreed, §. 150.

• 4. That no violence was used upon the Council, for defining of Points debated between the Catholicks themselves, §. 152.
  • Where, Of the Councils proceedings, touching the chief points in debate.
    • Touching, 1. Episcopal Residency, Jure Divino, §. 153.
    • 2. Episcopal Jurisdiction, Jure Divino, §. 154.
    • 3. The Popes Superiority to Councils, §. 155.
  • That these three Points of Controversies, however stated, are of no great advantage to the Reformed, §. 156.
• 5. That no violence was used upon the Council, for hindring any just Reformations. §. 157.

[§. 147] THus much from (§. 127) of the second Head proposed; the Conditions of a General Council, which the Protestants re∣quired. Now let us consider the third, concerning the legal pro∣ceedings of the Council of Trent.

[ 1] Where first, you must remember: That a Council proved illegal, or not free, in some of its proceedings, cannot there∣fore justly be rejected in all other its acts whatsoever; but only in those, that are first proved to be illegal, and not free, and to be re∣puted as such, or at least not accepted as the contrary, by that Ecclesiastical Authority, which legally concludes the whole. For, the same Council may become obligatory in some of its Acts, when not in others, as those shall consent to some Act, dissent from others, without whose acceptance none are ratified. And so it was in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon; Whose Decrees, though for other matters, confirm'd; yet its 27th Ca∣non, in the preference of the Bishop of Constantinople, before the 2d. Patriatch of Alexandria, being disallowed by the Roman, and the other Western Bishops, doubtless, hence, was of no force, till afterward this was also by them consented to. Neither, if we can shew in some Council, that the Prime Patriarch, presiding in it, or the major part of Church-Governours (who were absent) have rejected some particular Canons thereof, can we, here, plead our selves free from obedience for all the rest (see such arguing in Dr Hammond, of Heresie, §. 9. n. 6. and §. 11. n. 3, 7.) which both he, and the major part of the Church, have allowed, and conform to. For thus, the Eutychian might plead his freedom from any obligation to those Canons of Chalcedon that were uni∣versally agreed on by East and West, because the 27th. Canon forementioned, touching another matter, was refused to be rati∣fied by the Pope, and Western Bishops. Or Dioscorus Patriarch of

Alexandria, there condemned, might justly plead: That, because, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, and all those of the West, the Constitutions of the second Ephesin Council were of no force, therefore neither those of Chalcedon were so, without his. Or, an ordinary Bishop, in a Provincial Council, might plead; that, because, the Metropolitan, by the Canon, exerciseth a negative power and voice, for matters voted therein, therefore he also, where he thinks fit, will use, and claim the like. Neither will the Illegalness, or non-freedom of any Conciliary Act, pre∣tended by a few, signifie any thing, when the contrary is declared, or such Act is accepted, by so great and dignified a part of the Church besides, as doth lawfully conclude the whole. For, sup∣pose whatever irregularity in the making of such a Decree, yet this Acceptation and acknowledgment clears it of such former blemish, and gives it a just force.

[§. 148] 2^ly. Observe, that Soave confesseth, p. 576.—That it was a general maxim in this Council; that, to establish a Decree of Reformation, a major part of voices was sufficient; but, that a Decree of Faith could not be made, if a considerable part did contradict. Where also he saith, — * That, because hardly more than half of the Fathers would consent, that the allowance of the Cup should be refer∣red to the Pope's pleasure [namely, those Fathers refusing this re∣ference, who thought it not fit to be allowed at all] therefore the Legats made it one of the Articles of Reformation, —and * that some said, that the point, that Christ offered himself in the supper, was not lawfully decided, because it had 23 contradictors: [But, Pallav. (l. 18, c. 9. n. 9.) shews, Soave to be mistaken in this instance, this point having had only two contradictors, as appears in the acts of the Council.] And observe again, what Soave very often incul∣cateth; That it was the Custom in in this Council, to mould and change the Articles, and matter of their Decrees, till there was no∣thing contained in them, that displeased any considerable party. So he saith, p. 215. That S. Croce the Legat, took incredible pains, in avoiding to insert any thing in the Decrees, controverted among the Schoolmen; and in so handling those, which could not be omit∣ted, as that every one might be contented; In every congregation ob∣served what was disliked by any, and took it away, or corrected it, as he was advised. Now what is this, but to say: that all, or almost all; were pleased with whatever was passed or voted, since he saith, that whatever displeased, was taken away; and that the Pro∣ponents did not force the Council to their propositions, but fitted their propositions to the mind of the Council: and then I ask,

what violence or indirect means needed here to be used, to over∣bear a party?

[§ 149] To this usual conduct of the Council, all the exception that that can be taken is; that thus, it hath left many controversies undecided. To which may be replied, 1. That, if the Prote∣stant may Judge, the Councils greatest fault was in making so many decisions; not, in making no more: and see Soave else∣where censuring the Council on this side, p. 227. and 228. where he makes some to say, — That in all the Councils held in the Church from the Apostles time till then, there were never so many Articles de∣cided, as in one Session only of Trent [viz. the sixth Session.] And p. 822. —that in this Council matters were minced; and an article of faith made of every question which could be moved in any matter, (yet (Ibid) are the same people angry; That in Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Indulgences, the Council was not more particular in her decisions. Defining, or not defining, how shall the Council please him, or his counterfeit German Chorus?) 2. That nothing more than this shewed the great wisdom of the Council; which forbare such decisions, either when it esteemed the controversie subtile, nice, inconsiderable, and needless to be determined; or, very difficult, and doubtful, and not having sufficient evidence from Scriptures, and former Tradition, to be determined: The Coun∣cil for the things it states depending more on Church History, than Logick. Nor hence may any, when the Council thought fit to express something only in general terms, justly charge the Council with ambiguity, or equivocation, because it answers not in its decree to every question proposed; but rather commend it for a judicious refusal to decide such matter more specifically, for the reason mentioned above, that it might stand confirm'd with a more gene∣ral Acceptation; whilst, mean while, the more generical decision is not made in vain, these more universal terms deciding such point against some other sects of religion more grosly erring, when they do not decide it also for all parties of the Schools. And this, I think, may satisfie Soave's sad complaints concerning the contra∣dictings of Soto and Vega, p. 216. — and of Soto and Catharinus, p. 229. both perhaps faultily endeavouring to make the determina∣tion of the Council more specifical, than it was, that so it might speak on his side.

[§. 150] 3^ly. Observe; that there can be no just exceptions taken against the free proceedings of the Council for those matters of controversie decided in it,* 1.303 wherein the Protestants opposed the Roman Church no violence or tyranny, used, either by the Pope

over the Council, or by a more powerful party in the Council over the rest, in these points. Which appears by the great unanimity and concord of the Tridentine Fathers, even according to Soaves relations, for that part of their Decrees, and Canons, wherein are condemned any of the Protestant tenents. To instance in some of the chief. See their unanimity, in what opposed the Protestants, Concerning Original sin. Soave, p. 175. — No man resi∣sted the condemnation of the [Protestant] Articles.—and, p. 184. In the Council there being no more difference amongst the Fathers, concerning the things discussed, &c. Concerning Justification (except∣ing the most difficult Arminian, and Jansenian, controversies) Soave, p. 223. —The two next congregations (saith he) were spent in reading again the decrees as well of of faith, as of reformation: the which (some small matters being corrected by the advice of those, who were not present at the first) pleased them all. Concerning the neces∣sity of confession to the Priest of mortal sins committed after Bap∣tism, See Soave, p. 348. where no opposition at all was made a∣mongst them, to the 6, 7, and 8, Canons of the 14th Session. Concerning Transubstantiation and Adoration of Christ in the Eu∣charist, See Soave, p. 324. and 326. where in the second and sixth Canons of the 13 Session none dissented, and many desired to have them more full and enlarged. Concerning the Mass, that it is a propitiatory sacrifice, There was no disagreement neither amongst the Divines, Soave, p. 544. nor amongst the Prelats, p. 554. and 738. Concerning the lawfulness, and sufficiency, of com∣municating only in one kind: and, that, under every kind, and every part of it separated, all Christ is contained, See Soave, p. 324, 325. —Ʋpon the 8th [Article] (saith he) all made use of long dis∣courses, though all to the same purpose, Their principal reasons to condemn it were, &c.—That as much is not contained under one species [by concomitancy] as under both, was thought to be heretical. and p. 519. — They all agreed, that there was no necessity, or precept, of the Cup. Though, this was not so unanimously agreed upon, and therefore left undecided, whether some greater measure of grace was not received by communicating in both, than in one, kind. See Pall. l. 12. c. 2. — and l. 17. c. 7. n. 10. Again, Concerning the permission of the use of the Cup, when as the Pope and his Legats, upon the earnest sollicitation of the Emperour, and many other Princes, were all inclined to a discreet indulging thereof, yet the major part of the Council went against them for the negative. See Soave, p. 459, 519, 567. And chiefly the Bishops of those Countries, where were no Protestants, because all the Council having agreed, that the cup was not necessary, all Christ be∣ing

in both the kinds, they imagined, that diversities of rites in several. Nations, especially in the most principal ceremonies, which end in schisme and hatred (Soave, p. 459.) And with much ado was it procured at last, that the judgment of this permission should be remitted to the Pope; but this, without any recommen∣dation to him at all (though by some desired) of such a permission; and this remitting it to the Pope not conceded by all, or most, but only by so many, as made the major part: and therefore saith Soave (p. 576.) this concession was put amongst the Articles of Refor∣mation. Concerning the being of a Purgatory, the lawfulness of the Invocation of Saints, and veneration of Images. Soave, p. 799. In matter of Saints, they easily agreed to condemn particularly all the opinions contrary to the uses of the Roman Church, and p. 803.— The Legats held a congregation the next morning, in which the decrees of Purgatory and of the Saints, were read, and afterward the Refor∣mation of Friars read, and all approved with very great brevity, and little contradiction. See the same in Pall. l. 24. c. 5. n. 5. Con∣cerning the Holy Scriptures, or the Divine service not to be used in the vulgar tongue, I find nothing decreed in the Council, save only concerning one part of the service, the Mass: and of it only this.—Visum est Patribus, non expedire, ut vulgari passim linguâ Missa, celebraretur. Quamobrem retento antiquo, & probato ritu, &c and Can. 9.—Si quis dixerit, linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere, &c. Anathema sit. [where you may observe that Soave (I am afraid) to make these decrees of the Council the more odious; or to have something more to say against them, in rela∣ting the one Canon, leaves out passim: and in the other leaves out tantum, p. 573, 574.] And to these all unanimously consent∣ed (Ibid.) The Fathers (saith he) assented to the decrees; except only to that particular, that Christ did offer himself. Concerning Priests non-marriage, and the universal capability of the gift of cha∣stity, and lawfulness of the vow of continency, the 9th Canon of the 24th Session, the words of which are these Si quis dixerit, Cle∣ricos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel Regulares, castitatem solemni∣ter professos, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractum{que} validum osse, nono bstante lege Ecclesiasticavel voto;— posse{que} omnes contrahere matri∣monium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiamsi eam voverint, habere donum, Anathema sit; cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.] This Canon, I say, was generally assented to by all the Council. See Soave, p. 783. The doctrine and the anathematismes of Matrimony were read, to which all consented, and p. 747—The Article of the promotion of of married persons to Holy Orders being proposed, the Fathers did

uniformly, and without difficulty, agree on the negative. See like∣wise, p. 678, 679. Concerning Episcopacy: Any thing therein opposit to Lutheranisme, as the Superiority of Bishops to Priests, &c Sess. 23. c. 7. was unanimously defined. See Soave, p. 599 and 738.

Thus, you see, I have run through the chief differences;* 1.304 to add more is easie, but needless; giving you in the close the ge∣neral observation of Soave, p. 230. That, which hath been related (saith he) in this particular [the Controversie concerning the cer∣tainty of Grace] and perhaps did happen in many matters [i. e. the members of the Council to differ in their judgment] occurred not in condemning the Luther an opinions; where all did agree with an exquisit unity. To which words may be added what Archbishop Lawd confesseth, §. 27. n. 1.—That none had suffrage in the Council, but such as were professed enemies to all, that called for re∣formation. Therefore no Bishops, that were present in that Coun∣cil (for all such had suffrages) but were enemies to all, that called for reformation. And, this being so, surely there needed to be used no tyranny over such persons for so much as concerned the Protestant controversies. What will be said here, I know not. shall we pretend, that this unanimity of the Council against the Lutheran tenents, rose out of ignorance of the grounds of their doctrine? But they read their works, and diligently collected out of these what doctrines were fit to be condemned; which they could not do, without seeing also in them the reasons and foundati∣ons of such doctrines. Or arose it out of fear, which some of the Council, well inclined, had of the rest? The Archbishop (§. 29. n. 4.) seems to say some such thing.—For ought A. C. knows, ma∣ny might agree with the Protestants in heart, that in such a Council durst not open themselves. But so, in the Council of Nice, for ought we know, many might agree with the Arrians. How can we have any judgment or sentence from Councils, if we appeale from their mouths to their hearts, inscrutable by us? But, if the Arch∣bishops many were an inconsiderable part of the Council, then still it is confest, that the main body of the Council were against the Protestants; which we were here to demonstrate: If his ma∣ny were a great and considerable part of the Council, so as the act of the rest without them would have been invalid, then why they should so fear, as not to open their mouth, I see not. Or lastly arose it out of that fear, which all the Council had of the Pope? But then why did they, in matters which more nearly concerned the Pope, so freely vote against what he, and what his Legats ap∣proved, even some of the Italians with the rest?‖ 1.305 For if the

were twice so many Italians as others, a major part of the Council could not vote against the Popes inclinations, without some of the Italian Bishops concurring.

But to dispel clearly these doubts,* 1.306 you may understand, that the Bishops voted nothing against the Protestants, in the chief points at least, but what was their own belief and practice before they came to the Council; and what had been the practise and belief of many former ages, even the reformed being Judges: And that the chief question to be decided in the Council, was; whether such, and such practices lawful, viz. whether Communion in one kind only: Adoration of Christs corporal Presence in the Eu∣charist; offering the sacrifice of the Mass; veneration of Images; Prayer to Saints; Prayer for the Dead, as better able, thereby, in their present condition before the day of Judgment; Indulgences; Monastick Vows; enjoyning Celibacy; enjoyning Sacerdotal Confession, in case of mortal sin, &c. be lawful. And, seeing the chief question, in opposition to the new Lutheran Doctrines, was; whether these things lawful, which were then, and in many former generations (Protestants not denying it) daily practised, what need, of force, of new Mandats from Rome, of hiring Suffrages, creating more, titular, Bishops, Oaths of strict obedience to the Pope, such a mul∣titude of Italians, to procure a prevalent vote, or, to invite the Prelats in the Council to establish those things, several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries. As: the Sacrifice of the Mass; Adoration of Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist, Invoca∣tion of Saints, Prayer for the Dead.] But yet, if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner, by compulsion, how came both the Catholick Bishops, in the German Diets, where free from such fears, or force, in the time of the Council, to vote the same things, and also after the Council the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches (and of France with the rest) so freely, and voluntarily, to accept them, and to continue till their death in the constant observance of them.

But if it be said, that, though such things were generally believ'd, and practised before, yet, by Art and violence, were now the Fathers brought to advance them into matters of Faith; I ask, concerning many of these Points, what Faith required, save of those Truths, which are necessary to render them lawful, benefi∣cial, &c. All practice lawful being grounded on some specula∣tive Proposition, that must be true. Or, if more be required: yet more than this, viz. the lawfulness of such practise, wherein these Fathers voluntarily concurr'd, was no way necessary for overthrowing the Protestants contrary Doctrine.

[§. 152] 4^ly. Obierve that no violence was used upon the Council for other points debated between the Catholicks themselves; no vio∣lence, so far, as that any thing favourable or advantageous to the Pope was at any time passed in the Council, when any small num∣ber thereof opposed it, Concerning which Pallavicino in the close of his History, l. 24. c. 14. n. 9 hath these words.—There was not in this Council established, one point of faith, nor one canon of discipline for the advantage of Popes; but, amongst the second [the canons of discipline] very many, to their detriment,—and of such a thing indeed, Soave himself brings not so much as one example; so much is there wanting to him any sign, or shadow thereof. But, not to rest in the testimony of a partisan. The chief points agitated in the Council, wherein the Popes pre-eminence and priviledges are said to be much concerned, were, besides the matters of Refor∣mation, these three—1. [ 1] Whether residency of Bishops at their Bi∣shopricks, was jure divino? which, if established, it was con∣ceived, that it would take away from the Pope the power of giving Dispensations, Administrations, and Commenda••••••s, Pluralities, &c. by which, amongst other things, the Popes Attendents, and the dignity of his Court, would be much lessened. See Soave, p. 647. 2. Whether the Jurisdiction of Bishops was jure divino? [ 2] which if established, it was conceived, that it would infer, that the keys were not given to Peter only; that all Bishops were equal to the Pope; and the Council above him, &c. see Soave, p. 609. 3. Whether the Pope was superior to Councils; [ 3] In never a one of which was any thing decreed on the Popes side.

[§. 153] 1. Concerning Residency of Bishops, it was not determined according to what was conceived to be the Popes inclination, viz. that Residency was not jure divino; but,* 1.307 that which was de∣termined (being, Sess. 23. de reform. cap. 1.) seeemed rather to favour jure divino; upon a jealousie of which (Pall. l. 21.6.12. saith) some few excepted against the decree. Pope Pius, though he desired the question were omitted, yet shewed much moderation in it.—(He did not condemn, saith Soave, p. 503. the opinion of those who said that Residency was de jure divino, yea he commended them for speaking according to their conscience; and sometimes he added; that perhaps, that opinion was the better.) and ordered, that the Council might have its free course in it. As you may see in Pall. l. 24. c. 14. n. 11. and l. 16. c. 7. n. 19. (where he quotes the French Embassadors testimony) and partly, in Soave, p. 504, 505. where he saith,—That the Pope having well discussed the reasons [conc••••••¦ing Residency] settled his opinion to approve it, and cause i•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉

executed, upon what law soever it were grounded, whether Canonical, or evangelical. And 2. of his Legats were thought to favour the determining of it, jure divino:‖ 1.308 and when it was put to the vote; whether this controversie should be stated by the Council, or no; a major part were for the affirmative (Soave, p. 496) which, being supposed contrary to the Popes desire, shews, that, amongst the rest, some Italians also (who made the greater part of the Council) took liberty to relinquish his interest. Though, in fine, this point [whether Jure divino] was left undecided, be∣cause taking in those, who referred to the Pope, almost an equal part (as Soave, but Pallavi.‖ 1.309 correcting him, saith, a major part) drew the contrary ••way; and to what else was stated about resi∣dence (Sess. 23. Refer. cap. 1.) In the Session all agreed, save only eleven. See Pall. l. 21. c 12. n. 9.—and Soave, p. 742. And, in the General Congregation held before the Session, all, save 28. saith Soave,† 1.310 i. e. some of the Spanish Bishops.

2. Concerning Episcopacy, jure Divino [of which the 6. Can. de Sacram. Ordinis; Sess. 23. speaks thus.—Si Quis dixerit, in Ec∣clesiâ Catholic â non esse Hierarchiant divinâ ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, [§. 154] Presbyteris, & Ministris, Anathema sit; where the Spanish Bishops would have had,* 1.311 Divinâ Ordinatione, changed into, per institutionem Christ.] The great dispute in the Council was not whether the Order or Bishops, as superior to Priests, and as including the power of ordination and confirmation, but whe∣ther the Jurisdiction of all Bishops, especially as to some points thereof, was jure divino, [viz. as to the just extent, and subject mat∣ter, of such Jurisdiction, and the exterior and forensick exercise thereof, wherein some Bishops enjoy a much larger power, and compass; which extent of power seems to depend on superiors (as doth also the exercise of Absolution in Priests) and is liable to be suspended, taken away, transferr'd, diminished: and this necessa∣ry, for avoiding confusion.† 1.312] And here, as nothing was de∣termined against the Pope, in this matter, so nothing for him. And, that no more in it should be decided, than was decided, all the Council consented in the Session; and in the Congregation, held before it, all save the Spanish Bishops, and therefore more con∣sented to this, than only the Italians, and the Popes party: see what Soave saith, p. 737, 738, 725, 735. where he relates, —That the Cardinal of Lorraine, and the other French Prelats did not hold the ••••••itution and Superiority of Bishops, de sure divino, to be necessary to 〈…〉〈…〉 mined in Council, but rather that it ought to be omitted. Now 〈…〉〈…〉 the Pope (if he had a major part of the Council on his 〈…〉〈…〉 hinder the rest for carrying any thing against him, by

their votes, yet could he not over-aw the rest, thus, to vote for him, who having much more dependence, for their Estates, on their▪ Temporal, than their Spiritual, Supream, and backed by their Princes, and their Embassadours, in the Council (these also gene∣rally much more favouring the Bishops than the Popes, rights) were secure enough against his power; even the Italian Prelats also, except that much smaller part of them, whose preferments lay in the Popes Dominions.

[§. 155] 3. Concerning the Popes Supremacy in the Church, or Su∣periority to Councils, though the Spaniards,* 1.313 and all the rest of the Council consented, in as full terms, as the Council of Florence had expressed it, to decree, and insert, it in this Council also; and though only the French Bishops, who were not above the tenth part of the Council, resisted, yet the Pope, for peace sake, because there was not a full accord, ceased to prosecute the determination thereof; and the Article, drawn, was laid aside. See these things more fully related in Pallavic. History, l. 19. and l. 24. c. 14. n. 12 and see there† 1.314 the contents of Carlo Borrhomeo's Letters to this purpose. But the same thing, of the Spanish consenting with the Italians, for declaring the Popes authority according to the form of the Council ef Florence, appears in Soave, p. 737, 738. (though he much more compendious than Pallavicin in this part of the Hi∣story perhaps for want of intelligence; of which he complains in the beginning of his seventh book, p. 583) And the same Au∣thor saith elsewhere, p. 732.—That an order came from the Em∣perour to his Embassadors, to use all means, that the authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council, because he saw the major part was inclin'd to enlarge it. Yet, we see, the Pope did not prose∣cute such advantage. Neither doth that phrase accidentally used in Sess. 25. Reform. 1. cap.—[Sed & ad S. Romanae Ecclesiae Cardi∣nales pertinere decernit, quorum consilio apud Sanctum Romanum Pontificem cum universalis Ecclesiae administratio nitatur, &c. which the French Embassador Ferrieres so highly aggravated, that it yielded to the Pope superiority over Councils† 1.315] truly prove any such thing; neither passed it from the Council as any Decree; neither, in the reading (in the Congregation) of this, 1 cap. of Reform wherein were some things corrected, did the French Bi∣shops except at this,† 1.316 which certainly they would have done, had they apprehended such danger in it. For also the French were not such opposites to the Popes pre-eminency of authority, but that their Leader, the Cardinal of Lorraine proposed in the Coun∣cil this Article for it (Pallav. l. 19. c. 6.) condemning any that should say;—That Peter, by the institution of Christ, was not the Prime

amongst the Apostles, and his supreme Vicar.—Or that it was not ne∣cessary, that there should be in the Church a chief Bishop. Peters Suc∣cessor, and equal to him, in the authority of Government,—and that his lawful Successors in the See of Rome have not the right of Primacy in the Church. And the French Bishops, though they disallowed this form, —[Datam esse à Concilio Pontifici Romano potestatem pascendi, & regendi universalem] because Ecclesia universalis here, if taken collectively, would prejudice the French Churches opinion of the Councils superiority to the Pope,† 1.317 yet they yielded to this form,—[potestatem regendi omnes fideles, & omnes Ecclesias,—or, pascendi omnes Christi oves,] if omnes be not taken conjunctionl. And for that Supremacy of the Pope over the Church, that is deni∣ed by Protestants, Soave, giving reasons, why Henry the 8th pru∣dently declined a Council, thus secures this Supremacy Papal from any censure of the Bishops, saying,† 1.318—That it was impossible, that a Council, composed of Ecclesiastical Persons, should not main∣tain this his power, which is the main pillar of their Order: Because this Order (saith he) by the Papacy, is above all Kings, and the Empe∣rour: but, without it, is subject to them, there being no Ecclesiastical Person that hath superiority, but the Pope. Thus he, usually ex∣stracting the Original of all mens actions not out of Conscience, but Policy. Yet in these points we see the Popes supposed ma∣jor party in the Council carried nothing for his advantage. But, how much the former bounds of the Episcopal Authority were enlarged by several Decrees of this Council that were confirmed, and ratified by the Pope, wherein at least they are substituted his perpetual and standing Delegats for transacting many things of great consequence, formerly dispatched by Himself, and his Of∣ficers, See below, 205, 211. &c.

Mean while, whether, or how much the Pope, or his party, when stronger there, might be faulty, in hindering any points to be determined. which the rest of the Fathers in the Council de∣sired should be so, I cannot say; because I cannot judge, whether such things are necessary to be determined, as some of the Coun∣cil said they were, a few: or better not, as others, the most. But, if the Pope be culpable, for having (abstracting here from Pro∣testant-Controversies, as hath been shewed †) hindred by his Ita∣lian adherents something, [§. 150] that otherwise would have passed, He seems to make an amends for it, in the not passing in Council several other matters, which would have served much for his ad∣advantage, when but a few seem'd discontented therewith.

[§. 156] But, in the next place, let us now suppose, that, the Coun∣cil 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 con∣tended 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;† 1.319 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, answer∣eth 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 Su∣premacy, 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 con∣troversies 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 st••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 Reforma∣tion,* 1.320 wherein he is so much accused to have made unjust ob∣structions. 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 re∣formation 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,† 1.321 which you may read at your leasure: and by the testimony of Lorraine, and others, in the Council. And indeed how could this be other∣wise? 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 histo∣ry of his life, written by Giussano, sheweth.

[§. 158] And, that actually, by this Council, a great and severe re∣formation was decreed, the Court of Rome much rectified, the Popes Revenue much diminished, the Jurisdiction of Bishops (whe∣ther

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 espe∣cially in the five last Sessions under Pius, make appear; and to what is said below in the five Head † concerning them;* 1.322 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 reci∣ted above, §. 124. and below, §. 204. touching the heavy com∣plaint of the Roman Court, concerning this reformation, and their endeavours with the Pope to hinder, for this cause, the confirma∣tion 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 re∣formation 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 Reformati∣on; 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 ••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 ob∣jected, * to infer any violence, or make any trespass, as they were used,* 1.323 upon the liberty of the Council, as to the defi∣ning any thing therein contrary to its general Approbation; or, [ 1] * to be, in themselves, unjustifyable. Namely these, 1. The Popes Legats proposing in publick the things to be handled in the Council. [ 2] 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 Coun∣cil of such a multitude of Italian Bishops; [ 3] and the voting there not according to the plurality of Nations, but of their Repre∣sentatives present in the Council. 4. The Popes giving monthly pensions to several Bishops. [ 4] 5. Admitting titular ones in the Council. [ 5] 6. The prohibition of Bishops proxies to give definitive votes. [ 6]

To the first:* 1.324 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 Coun∣cil, 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 congrega∣ted, to the common opinion of the assembly [as also it cannot be de∣nied the Legats did, themselves giving their vote last.† 1.325] 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 pre∣side 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 Let∣ters 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 ge∣neral congregation; and afterward in the first Session† 1.326 [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 an∣swer to Soave—l. 23. c. 12. n. 7. Lastly, if you desire more satis∣faction, see the unanimous explication of this clause, proponenti∣bus 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 prae∣dictis verbis solita ratio tractandi negocia in Generalibus Conciliis ullâ ex parte immutaretur; ne{que} novi quidquam, praeter id, quod sacris canonibus, vel generalium Synodorum formâ hactenus statutum est, cui∣quam adderetur, vel detraheretur. By which Declaration (saith Soave† 1.327) that difficulty, so much agitated, received an end, with sa∣tisfaction 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 consider∣ed 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 una∣nimously opposed† 1.328) 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 divi∣no. * Articles of Reformation to be joyned, in their consul∣tations, with those of Doctrine and Religion. * The abroga∣ting, or moderating, of the priviledges, and exemptions, of Regu∣lars, from the Episcopal power; * the abrogation, or moderating of Commendams, Dispensations, Union of Benefices,—Of pen∣sions, 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 ma∣ny more were agitated in the Council, the Legats (as Soave re∣presents 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 contra∣dict those maximes, which are elsewhere laid down by him, to in∣fer 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 hand∣ling 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. Con∣cerning 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 Ar∣ticle 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 se∣cond Chapters, a diligent Collector of them. So, p. 656. con∣cerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Em∣perour, and by the French,† 1.329 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 dis∣cussion, 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 Le∣gats (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 mo∣ved, 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 Le∣gats, 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 propo∣sed, 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† 1.330 And here, when some Embassadors proposed, that De∣puties

might be elected for each Nation, to take care in the Coun∣cil, 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 dis∣cretion that was needful; or, whether not with some Contradicti∣on 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 con∣trary, 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: Espe∣cially, 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 pro∣ponentibus 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 Coun∣cil 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 pro∣posal could be no disadvantage; in condemning which doctrines the whole Council hath been shewed † to be so unanimous. [§. 150]

[§. 164] To the 2d. The Consultation in every thing made with the Pope. 1^st. Whereas it is usually urged by Protestants, out of Soave,† 1.331 That as none could propose any thing in the Council save the Legats, so the Legats might propose nothing, till they had received a Commission from Rome.—That nothing was resolved by the Fathers, but all in Rome; and the Council guided by the Holy

Ghost, sent thither from time to time in a Cloak-bag from Rome,† 1.332 much more is charged, than is true. For a proposal of the mat∣ter••, from time to time to be discussed in Council, was made, and digested in Trent by a general agreement of the Fathers, unknown to the Pope, as appears throughout this History. After which resolved, 1^st. some Congregations of Divines disputed the point, and considered the matters proposed, at which any of the Fathers, that would, might be present. 2. After this arguing, follow∣ed the Congregations of the Prelats, for framing the heads of Doctrine, and Reformation, according to the most common opini∣on. 3. Then a General Congregation of the same Prelats, for giving their votes concerning them; and, 4 lastly the Session; when they were voted again, and so published (See Soave, p. 167.) Now all or most part of these, saving the last (the Session) were usually passed without the Popes knowledge, or concurrence; and the Legats themselves are sometimes found differing from one ano∣ther in their votes (as they were in that of residence,† 1.333) at which time also some other Bishops gave their vote, with reservation to consulting of the Pope: which shews the Popes mind (though in a matter so much concerning the Apostolick See) was not then known. But after these General Congregations was usually no∣tice of such Decree, as was passed therein, sent to Rome, before its being voted again, and published in the General Session: And of this a charge is also given to his Legats by Pope Paul the Third, in Soave, p. 164. though I find not, that Pius required it: Nay, if we may believe this Historian, he seemeth in some pla∣ces to decline it (as appears in the quotations here following:) The Decree, thus sent to Rome, was there also by the Popes Council examined; and his judgment returned to the Legats, con∣cerning it: which, when differing from that of the Council (which thing seldom happened, except in the questions between the Episcopal and Papal, Rights) the Legats endeavoured to pro∣cure by common consent either some alterations, or at least, an omission of such Decree, in the following Session; but this with all freedom of the Council still observed (a good part of whom was also still animated against the Popes interests by the Embassa∣dors of Secular Princes) nothing being done against the satisfacti∣on of any considerable part of the Council; the uttermost of the Legats attempts, then, extended to procure an omission of that, to which the Pope would not consent; not any determining of what he approved, when thereby was feared the alienating of some Nation from the Roman Faith; and if, thus, something was hindred, by their intermise, from being passed by the Council, which other∣wise

would have been so, yet nothing was advanced to be passed, which otherwise would not have been: and so the Conciliary Acts have suffered no prejudice by it. Nor any hurt done, save that thus men are left to their former Liberty still in some points, wherein the Council would have restrained it; a thing, I hope, the Reformed will not complain of; you may at your leisure par∣ticularly view in Soave the liberty the Council took to examine the Popes proposals in the Institution of Bishops,† 1.334 and Papal Suprema∣cy; and the alterations, which were made in them.

[§. 165] 2. In the next place, I will give you the Pope's plea for him∣self, against those,* 1.335 who accused him for thus abridging the free∣dom of the Council. To this matter, then, friendlily complained of by the Emperor in a letter to him, thus answered Pius the 4th in another (See Pall. l. 20. c. 8. n. 7.) —That he never gave any such command, as that nothing should be decreed in the Council, without consulting him first. That in things more difficult, the Delegats de∣manded his advice; nor could, or ought, he to deny it them. That it crossed not their liberty, was not undecent, or unusual, that the Council it self should desire the judgment of the Apostolick See. —Nor was it unfitting, that the Pope, being to give Counsel to his Legats, should first take it with the Cardinals, men of great judgment, and learning; especially be not intending, that his advices should impose any necessity on the Council to follow them. Thus Pius; me thinks, with much reason. And it is manifest, that the Council in many things did not follow them. And though little was decreed by the Council against that which came from Rome; yet both all, that came from Rome, was not decreed; and much decreed, that came not from Rome; the Pope often desiring them, especially for reformations, to proceed without consulting him: and (in Soave, p. 503.)—com∣plaining to his Cardinals, of those [in the Council] who referred themselves unto him; because (saith he) the Council was assembled, that every one may deliver his own opinion, and not lay the things of difficulty upon the back of another [i. e. the Pope] that themselves might avoid hatred, and envy. As also the same Author† 1.336 relates; That, his Legats sending to Rome the Articles, that were drawn up in the Council, of the Institution, and residence of Bishops, the Pope reprehended the Legats for sending them.—Because he knew, that the major part in the Council were good Catholicks, and devoted to the Church of Rome, and in confidence hereof he was con∣tent, that the proposition, and resolution should be determined in Trent without his knowledge. The same Author† 1.337 makes him fur∣ther, in defence of his Instruction, from time to time, sent to his Legats, and to the Council, answering the same letter of the

Emperour on this manner: plausibly enough, though, as Pallavi∣cino taxeth him, misrelating in several things the contents of the letter.† 1.338—That no Council was ever celebrated in absence of the Pope, but that he hath sent instructions; which the Fathers have also followed: That the Instructions do still remain, which Pope Cele∣stine sent to the Ephesin Council; Pope Leo, to that of Chalcedon; Pope Agatho, to that in Trullo, Pope Adrian the first, to the second of Nice; Pope Adrian the second, to the eighth General Council of Constantinople. And, thus also he makes him to plead his cause at Rome before the Cardinals.† 1.339 —That he could not chuse but be troubled with that which was spoken concerning the liberty of the Council; and that to consult of the matters at Rome, was to violate it; saying, that it was a strange thing, that he, who was head of the Church, and the Cardinals, who were principal members, and the other Prelats in Rome, who have voice in the Council, should be account∣ed strangers, and might not be informed of what is handled therein, and speak their opinion; when as those, who have no lawful part in it, hold it lawful to intermedle, and that in an ill sort. That it is plain, that the Prelats went to Trent with commission from their Princes, according to which they proceed; and that the Embassadors by letters, and perswasions, do compel them to follow the interest of their Ma∣sters; and yet for all this, no man saith (which should be said) that the Council is not free. Thus Pius in the Consistory. And indeed, had not only the Pope, but also all the absent Bishops in the world assembled a Council of their Clergy, and sent their judgment from time to time to Trent (so long as the Council was not obliged to follow it) this would have brought no subjection, or dishonour, but have added more reverence, to its Decrees, enacted after they had first been sifted by so many several Examinations. Nor do I see, how the Popes, Paul, or Pius, their Consultations with their Council of Bishops at Rome before every Session of Trent concer∣ning the points to be determined therein; and upon it, declaring their judgment to the Legats, or to the Council (provided they use no unlawful practises for the corrupting of any ones judgment) should be more thought to prescribe to, or to diminish, the free∣dom thereof, than the precedent consultations used anciently in Provincial Councils, concerning some point afterward to be defi∣ned in a General, was held prejudicial to it: or than Pope Cele∣stines, or Leo's, precedent Letters to the third and fourth General Council, declaring their judgment concerning what was to be dis∣cu••sed there, may be thought an unlawful prescription to them; though the Hereticks, condemned by these Councils, excepted against it. And, de facto, what Secular Prince was there, whose

Orators in the Council acquainted him not continually with the actions thereof, and accordingly received new instructions for their negotiations?

[§. 166] To what hath been said, I have one thing more to add: That as such a frequent reconsulting the Apostolick See was unusual in many former Councils, so there was not thereof, in them, the same necessity: because such Councils being assembled for the de∣termining some one, or a few, points of Controversie, the Popes Legats received full Instructions concerning the faith of the Ro∣man See therein, before their first coming: but in so many con∣troversies of all sorts, as here came to be agitated, it was impos∣sible for that Bishop, either fully to pre-inform his Missioners, or to foresee the questions: As Canus, who was one of this Council, long since observed, in Com. loci, l. 5. c. 5. And if it be said, that the Popes presence in the Council might have prevented all such trouble, and offence, his absence seems rather eligible for this, that so he might do all things with more mature advice, and less precipitancy, on whose judgment the affairs of the Council did chiefly depend; to which may be added, what himself urgeth to the Emperour:† 1.340 that his personal presence there then would have seemed to tend much more to the overawing and oppressing of the Councils liberty.

[§. 167] To the 3d. 1 The great number of Italian Bishops: and,* 1.341 2 the not voting by Nations. Of the first of these, the thing being confessed, these things may be said; * That such a thing, without the Popes particular design, would have happen∣ed; these Bishops being much nearer, than those of Spain and France, and not having the like impediments, of Lutheranisme, and National Colloquies, as the Germans; * that, suppose the Pope had sent them all, the charitable may clearly see another cause thereof, than only their driving there of the Popes interest: namely, the sometimes great scarcity of Bishops in the Council; especially, at the first opening of it. * That, if other Bishops were hindered to be present, the frequency of the Italians, how numerous soever, if of such as had lawful Suffrages, cannot be blamed, though the absence of others be excused. That as the Pope was diligent to send in these, so was he very solicitous, by writing to their Princes; to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations: as appears frequently in the History; and so al∣so was the Council it self (and the Italians therein) which Council also had proceeded to lay heavy mulcts upon the Absents, had not

the Embassadors interceded, and in part excused them. Of which see before, §. 71. * That, though the Italian Bishops in ge∣neral are confessed to be inclined more than others, to maintain the Popes honour, and greatness; yet so many of them, as were not beneficed in the Popes state, and subject to his temporal Dominion (which was very inconsiderable in respect of the rest of Italy) if we may believe Soave, were addicted much more to their own Princes, in things wherein their Embassadors craved their assistance, than to the Pope; as on which Princes they had a greater dependance in respect of their Estates, their Parentage, &c. than on the Pope. Therefore we find not only those of the Im∣perial, or Spanish States of Italy, but the Venetians, and Floren∣tines in several things to have divided from those of the Papacy. See Soave, p. 504. 559, 558. * That nothing could be passed in the Council, as to matters of doctrine, if a considerable part con∣tradicted, though a major part favoured it; and that the non-Ita∣lians were never but accounted (in respect of the Nations repre∣sented by them) a considerable part; so that, to hinder something from being voted, such a number of Italians was, or might be, made use of; but to vote any thing they alone were esteemed un∣effective; and the omissions of the Council may be sometimes charged upon them, but not the Acts. * That, whether the Pope had the Suffrages of the Italian Bishops at his beck, or no, he had no need of any such assistance for the Protestant-Controversies: in condemning of which, Soave confesseth the votes of the whole Council to concur; as hath been shewed before as to many parti∣culars, §. 150, and see Soave, p. 182, 183. saying. That as to those points, like a City beleagred, the factions among them ceased, and all joyned against the common enemy.

[§. 168] Lastly, as to those Controversies, wherein the Council was more divided, and the Popes single interests were more nearly concerned; * That, de facto, he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops; nor the major part of the Council at his command, to vote what he pleased. This also fre∣quently appears from Soave's own relations. In these he makes often mention of the Bishops of Naples, and Lombardy (the great∣est part of Italy) their conforming to the Emperor, their Sove∣raigns, inclinations, and their being steered by his Embassador; and speaks several times of the Imperial Italian Bishops their op∣posing the Papalins. (See Soave, p. 166, 172, 223, 259, 267, 375.) And what motive these Prelats had in the former time of the Council to follow the Emperors interests, the same had they, in the later end thereof, to follow the King of Spaines, to whom,

and not the Emperour (after the Kingdom of Spain, and the Em∣pire disunited) belonged these Dominions in Italy;‖ 1.342 and there∣fore in this time we find many of them siding with the Spanish Prelats: See Soave, p. 558, 609. * He mentions also (p. 558.) an aversion, and envy, which the other Italian Bishops had against those, favoured, and preferred by the Court of Rome: Besides this, * He represents elsewhere the Venetian, and Florentine Prelats also to comply with the Interests of those States, importuned hereunto by the Embassadors:‖ 1.343 and therefore (p. 504.) brings in the Pope applying himself to these Embassadors. —That their Princes would recommend the cause of the Papacy to their Embassa∣dors in Trent, and command them to cause the Prelats of their States not to be present in the Parlies against the Apostolick See: Again: * He relates their joyning (all, or a great part of them) with the other Bishops, against the indeavours of the Pope, and his Legats, in all those controversies moved concerning the Episcopal duties, and rights, Institution, Residence; Exemption of Regulars, &c. named formerly;† 1.344 as likewise concerning the non-remitting of Reformations to his Holiness.† 1.345 The Permission of the Cup, carried negatively a∣gainst the Legats,† 1.346 and several other matters;† 1.347 all which things the Council could not have done, contrary to the Popes mind (as Soave will have it) without a considerable number of Italian Pre∣lats opposing him, since these were the major part of the Coun∣cil. So (p. 660.) He brings in the French Embassadors complaining of the Secretary of the Council, as not faithfully set∣ting down the votes, which shews, that they apprehended a major part, opposit to that which prevail'd. Lastly, (which may confirm all this,) * He is every where discovering the Legats, and the Popes fears and jealousies, and various cunnings, and divertions, to compass their ends; often brings in his Holiness, making grievous complaints against the Council's proceedings, and against his own Legats too,; several times, thinking to dissolve the Coun∣cil, sometimes, to secure himself by Armes;‖ 1.348 often solliciting the secular Princes to move their Bishops in his behalf,† 1.349 some∣times relying on the help of some eminent persons in the Council; as on the Cardinal of Lorraine,† 1.350 and others, * So (p. 258.) He brings in Pope Paul the Third, resenting. — How little he was esteemed of the Council; in that It, having given hope to refer the Reformation to him, whereof he had framed a Bull, and recalled the whole matter to Rome, they had after treated thereof more sharply, without any respect to his Authority: That he saw, that all was in the Emperours power,—and was assured, that the Prelats, who did also then adhere to the Court of Rome, when ever the Emperour should

unmask himself, would profess to be on his side, either for fear of great∣er power, or for emulation at the Popes Greatness; which they would discover, when they should see a secure way laid open to moderate it. * And (p. 515, and, 516) upon occasion of Residency, he re∣presents, — The Court of Rome exclaiming, that a Schisme was plot∣ted in the Council, and an Apostacy from the Apostolick See; and Pius the 4th complaining both of the Prelats, and of his own Le∣gats; that all were united against him, &c. Yet this, after that the same Soave had related† 1.351 the Popes sending so many pensio∣ners of his to carry all things by a major number of votes on his side. And, p. 628, Again, he makes the same Pope to break out into this exclamation, occasioned by the points of Institution, and Residency of Bishops: —That all the Bishops, beneficed by him, were his opposites; and that he maintained an Army of Enemies in Trent; wishing that by any means the Council were dissol∣ved. * (p. 260.) He makes one Legat, consulting, how to mollify the combin'd Prelats, by his granting some of their petitions: Another saying; —That, to condescend to an Inferior (especially to a multitude) was to make them to demand a greater satisfaction; that, first, he would try his Friends, and, when he found himself fortified with the greater number, would not retire and Inch: but, if he found it otherwise, he would use Art. p. 171. He makes, * the same Legats negotiating with the Italian Bishops by those Prelats, who were their assured Friends, to wish them to consider, how much they were bound, for the Honour of their Nation, to uphold the Dignity of the Papacy: And, p. 754, * the Legats to be accused by the Spanish Embassador, for soliciting the Italians for their Suffrages. What means this great Politian thus, amongst their impregnable Italian Guards, and Votaries. in the Council, to torture the Pope, and his Legats on this manner, about procuring their aid; and to put them into so many suddain frights; and, so oft as the pleaseth, entring into their Cabinet-Councils, to bring them upon his Stage, full of new Projects. And yet, no sooner are their backs turn'd; and the Princes Ora∣tors, or the Spanish Prelats, entered upon it, and it come to their turn to speak, but the scene is quite changed; and we find these on the same rack: Now, the Council is kept in servitude by the Italians their plurality of voices, all of them sure to the Pope, for Coun∣try, or Pensions, or Promises, or Fears. Now the proponentibus legatis strikes all the Council speechless, as to the matters Funda∣mental, and of greatest concernment: And sometimes the Prelats of one Nation sometimes of another, are ready to protest. Writing contrary things, as they seem best to humor and adorn

his present subject; and, as they do, also, some way, or other, serve his sinister ends, many times contrary, one to another. For, the more of the Council he can make, in one place, to oppose the Pope, and his Ministers in some point, the more here, he makes to appear the Popes tyranny in hindering, with divers arts, such things to be defin'd. And, in another place, the more powerful, and numerous he can shew the Popes Dependents in the Council to be, the more he represents the Council enslav'd, and the Pope carrying all things therein, as he pleaseth. This is replied to the number of Italian Bishops.

[§. 169] As for the other thing, the voting by Nations (and not by the number of persons present) a way, proposed to remedy the predominancy in the Council of some one Nation, the inconveni∣ence but now complained of. 1^st. It is a new way, never used in any Council, save two late ones, Constance, and Basil: and in Constance upon an extraordinary occasion, the election of a lawful Pope, * when they were affraid, this Election would receive some disturbance from the multitude of Italians, brought to the Coun∣cil by Pope John 23th. and when several Nations also, adhering to several persons (for there were then no fewer than three Anti-Popes residing in several places) probably would not have united in any new choise, that would be made without their particular consent. Therefore also, in the Council of Constance, for the Election of a new Pope, Martin 5th. there were joyned, with the Cardinals, some other chosen Prelats out of each Nation. (See Sess. 41.) And this extraordinary way was then used, not as the best for condemning of Heresies, but as, pro tempore, the most ex∣pedient, for curing a Schism. Mean while, see in Spondanus,‖ 1.352 ta∣ken out of the Acts of this Council conserv'd in the Library of St. Victors at Paris, the complaint, and exceptions made by Pope John against this new course. —Ʋna natione (saith he) alteri aequiparata, abs; ullâ meriti, vel numeri, ratione, — cum de Angli∣canâ essent tres tantum Praelati, & coeteri Cleriri novem numero. And then, see the Council thus clearing it self. —Formam, à Synodo, majoris causâ ordinis & Compendii, statutam, comprehendere utrum{que} modum deliberandi; per Nationis, & per singula Suffragia: Cum Viz per Deputatos, sive Delectos Nationum, primo, separatim post ad invicem, communicato Consilio; Dehinc, per ipsas Nationes, ubi singuli liberi erant: tandem, collectis omnibus in unum Nationi∣bus, ac Cardinalibus, in Sessione publica quaerebatur palam de singulis praemeditatis, & examinatis, Articulis, utrum placerent; permissâ cuililet, ex priscâ Conciliorum forma, faclutate dicendi, quae vellet. We have the manner of it more clearly described in Spondanus

out of Patricius, in the beginning of the Council of Basil‖ 1.353 thus. Out of the four Nations was a certain number chosen, to sit by themselves, and prepare matters, the four Nations having four Convents or meetings: Again, out of every one of these Convents were chosen three; twelve in all, called Deputati, who sate toge∣ther, and better digested, what any of the other four meetings represented to them: afterward their Judgment was return'd to the several Convents; and then, when all, or any three of these Convents consented in any thing, it was sent to the President of the Council, and by Him proposed to all the members of it in a Gene∣ral Congregation; where all had their free, nnd personal vote; and what was in this Congregation generally agreed on, was at last reduced into the Form of a Decree, and afterward recited, and confirmed in a Publick Session. Where we see in the General Con∣gregation all things are passed by personal votes: (which proceed∣ing also, the former words of the Council intimate, and justifie,.) Only the other National Consultations are premised for the more expedition, and better examination of things: and nothing could be proposed to the General Congregation, but which the Depu∣ties of three of the four Nations had first stated, and agreed to. Now, setting aside such a distinction of, and prevoting by, Nations, the preparation and examination of matters before every publick Session by certain select Congregations, or meetings, seems not much different from that afterward used in this Council of Trent. 2. But this, whether previous, or final, Decision by the number of Nations, how few soever the Representatives of some of them be, as it is new, so, 2^ly. seems very dangerous for raising emulati∣ons, and factions between Nations (to the rending of the Chur∣ches peace) and leaveth not the Prelats of every Nation so much at their own liberty to joyn their vote with aliens; nor permits the same scope for men of more spirit, learning, or judgment, of whatsoever Nation to guide the rest. 3^ly. It would render the Councils deserted, and unfrequented, and consequently the affairs thereof not so well discussed: whilst one Representative, sent from one Nation will suffice; and equal in vote, and authority, an hundred sent from another; as here, only three Prelats sent from England did. 4, Again, either all Nations shall be allowed to have an equal vote in the Council, or unequal; if equal; then, since the Bishops of three or four lesser Kingdoms, or States, do not equal the Bishops of one greater; thus a much smaller part of the Church may overvote, and conclude the greater; if unequal, how shall a just proportion be prescribed? 5. Add to this, that the multitude in Council of the Prelats of some Nation more than of

another, is, without this new device, already remedied; for this being once agreed on, that the decrees of the Prelats present in a Council oblige not, unless accepted by the major part of Nations, and by their Prelats, that are absent, the greater number of one Nation in the Council than of another, cannot oblige the ab∣sents, if more, to the observance of their decrees. 6^ly. Such an Innovation could not be made in Trent without the consent of the Council; and those Nations, of which the Council mostly consisted, would never have consented to have the vote of one, or two Bishops from some other Countries, perhaps much inferior in their natural, or spiritual, parts, and their Co-Patriots uncon∣sulted, to counterpoise all theirs.

7. Lastly, as to the points of doctrine; the same thing in effect was observed in the Conncil, or something more; For no∣thing can be shewed to have been passed in the Council, as to matter of doctrine, from which the Bishops, how few soever they were, of any one Nation, esteemed Catholick, and so rightly challenging a vote, declared their dissent; and, though perhaps few, yet they were looked upon, as the representative of a Body considerable, against which (as hath been said) the Council con∣cluded no Article of faith; as in stating which Articles they guided themselves by former evident Tradition, or most clear Con∣sequences thereof.

[§. 170] To the 4.th The Popes giving Pensions. The thing is con∣fessed, but hath two handles,* 1.354 by which, as it is taken, it is ren∣dred commendable, or culpable. On the one side it might be a great charity, and argue a desire only, that the Council might be numerous, and full, and assisted with many able persons, some of which (not minding these so much) are not unoften low in their estates. On the other side, it might be a great policy, and argue a desire to have many in the Council his Dependents. Whether out of one, or both of these respects, such pensions were allowed, I cannot say: but by an act, that may be lawfully done, and justi∣fied, none can prove the Council illegal: And also in favour of the former pretence, we may consider: * That poorer Bishops in former Councils have had their charges born, at least, by the Emperor, one not without Designs: * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods; the charges of continuing there great; not a few Bishops, and other Divines, poor: great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council, especially in its first beginning; the more necessitous, without some mainte∣nance of their charges, threatening to depart: as Soavo himself

acknowledgeth, p. 124: and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them, before they had his leave; and (saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7.) these pensions were so small, being but 25 Crowns a month, that the Bishops so reliev'd, staid not without murmuring, that, thus, they were deprived of a just pretence to go away; and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated atten∣dance, than thanks for his allowance; and, often complaining of their want, some of them (saith he) in the consultations, gave more molestation, than some others, both to the Legats, and to the Pope. But, if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service, it had been easie for Christian Princes, by the like allow∣ances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions, to have countermined such policies.

[§. 171] To the 5th. The admitting Titular Bishops. 'Tis true, that some Titular Bishops were in the Council,* 1.355 but they are justifi∣ed, by their, allowed, ordination of Priests, to be true Bishops; and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council, and vote therein without asking any ones leave. I find not any said to be in the Council, who were not made Bishops before it. Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope, as some others do, either of erecting any new Bishopricks, or creating Titular Bishops, during the sitting of the Council; nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope, save two, and those at the first beginning of the Council, nor these meerly Titular, laus Magnus, and Robert Venants waucap; One Archbishop of Ʋpsali in Sweden, the other of Armagh in Ireland. both excluded from their Sees by Princes, enemies to the Catholick Faith. Of whom, as you may read what is said in Soave, p. 140. to their disparagement; so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus† 1.356 to their com∣mendation: The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts, so chiefly for their Country, one being a Swede, the other a Scot, that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them. Lastly, if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope, the same may be said of them, as hath been† 1.357 of the Italians in general: * That the Pope found but little assistance from them, where he most needed them; nor was any advantagi∣ous thing done for Him in the Council by their help: * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs, and passed several Acts against† 1.358 them (when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council, some of them would

have spoken, there, in their own defence) especially, that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bi∣shop without his licence. But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress, for the future, the creating any such Bishops, for the reasons given in Soave, p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops; or, of those, who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches; or of Prelats, imployed in greater affairs.

[§ 172] To the last. The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes:* 1.359 Proxies were admitted in all Consulations, and had, in them, a vote with the rest, but were not admitted to have a defi∣nitive vote in the Council for this reason: least so, whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence, these their Substi∣tutes, coming abundantly from all parts, might overbear the Bishops in the Council; these being men, of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption, as they might of the Bishops themselves: and this being a thing, which those Prelats, who afforded their own personal attendance, would be much offended with. Yet was it attempted, to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent, as to some of the German Bishops, but that this could not be easily done, exclusively to others† 1.360. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason (alledged by Protestants) viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted, I cannot judge: But those Bi∣shops, who sent Proxies, themselves afterward, accepting the Council, did what was equivalent to their own, or their Proxies, definitive voting in it. But, to conclude this matter, sup∣pose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly, and to the prejudice of the Council, in some things; yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above, §. 148, 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things, which were therein, actually, and unanimously, esta∣blished; which is enough to overthrow the Reformation.

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,* 1.361 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,* 1.362 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,* 1.363 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,† 1.364— 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.† 1.365—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† 1.366 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,* 1.367 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,* 1.368 before the passing of the Ephesin Canon† 1.369 (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,* 1.370 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,* 1.371 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;† 1.372 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.† 1.373 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.* 1.374 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.

† 1.375

[§. 181] To γ.* 1.376 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.* 1.377 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:* 1.378 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,† 1.379 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.§, 1.380 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,† 1.381 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.† 1.382 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‖ 1.383 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,* 1.384 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,‖ 1.385 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:† 1.386 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,† 1.387 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† 1.388) 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† 1.389 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,† 1.390 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.† 1.391

[§. 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,† 1.392 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† 1.393—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,† 1.394 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,† 1.395 (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† 1.396] 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,† 1.397 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,* 1.398 subject to the like disputes:‖ 1.399 and, as St. Jerom‖ 1.400 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‖ 1.401 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† 1.402) 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;‖ 1.403 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,† 1.404—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,† 1.405 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,* 1.406 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† 1.407 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,* 1.408 or Canons of Trent, or, of other Councils in any other sense,* 1.409 than that, which we have but now mentioned.† 1.410 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.† 1.411 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,§. 1.412 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,† 1.413 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,* 1.414 — That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles, as absolutely necessary to salvation: As Bishop Bramhal.† 1.415 Which, whether true or false, one is to swear to, as much as to his Creed: As Mr. Thorndike.† 1.416 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;‖ 1.417 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.† 1.418 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,* 1.419 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.† 1.420) Veneration of the Cross,† 1.421 and of Relicks,‖ 1.422 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† 1.423] 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† 1.424) 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,* 1.425 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.† 1.426) 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.† 1.427) 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,§. 1.428 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,* 1.429 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† 1.430) 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.

CHAP. XII.

V. Head. Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reforma∣tion.

1. In matters, concerning the Pope and Court of Rome. §. 207. 1. Appeales, §. 212. and Dispensations, §. 215. 2. Collati∣on 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. §. 209. 1. Ʋnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders, and Benefices, §. 225. 2. Pluralities, §. 232. 3. Non, Residence, §. 235. 4 Neglect of Preaching and Catechi∣sing, §. 236. And the Divine Service not in the vulgar tongue, §. 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 Mis∣sals and Breviaries, §. 243. n. 3.

[§. 203] THus much (from, §. 173.) of the 4th. Head: Concerning the multitude of the Canons, Definitions, and Anathemas, of this Council, in points of Doctrine. The fifth succeeds; touch∣ing the Acts for Reformation of several corruptions, and dis∣orders in the Churches Government, and Discipline; which was so much petitioned for by Christian Princes; and also, from its first sitting, undertaken by this Council; But, with such a contrary, and unexpected issue (saith Soave† 1.431) That this Council, being mana∣ged by Princes for Reformation of Ecclesiastical Discipline, hath caused

the greatest Deformation, that ever was since Christianity did begin; and, hoped for by the Bishops to regain the Episcopal Authority, usurped for the most part by the Pope, hath made them lose it altogether, bring∣ing them into greater servitude; on the contrary, feared and avoided by the See of Rome, as a potent means to moderat the exorbitant power, mounted from small beginnings, by divers degrees, unto an unlimited excess, it hath so established, and confirmed the same over that part, which remaineth subject unto it, that it was never so great, nor so sound∣ly rooted. Thus he. To which may be added the like passage in Mr. Stillingfleet,† 1.432 I suppose, from this Historians Detractions too confidently followed, who tells his Readers,—That the Pope was still in a bodily Fear, till the Council was ended to his mind; But then, what rejoycing, that they had cheated the world so, that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome, had con∣firmed, and advanced the Interest of it!

[§. 204] But I suppose, it will be sufficient, in answer to both, to give you the Confessions of the same Soave, in the latter end of his History, to make appear, how untruly these things are said, in the beginning. For, after the Council now ended, and a Confirma∣tion desired from the Pope of these its acts, the authority of Bi∣shops was found to be so much enlarged by the Council; and the former exercise of the Popes Authority (though all done with a Salva authoritate Apostolica sedis) so much pared; the priviledges of the Cardinals, and gains of the Court of Rome, by the restraints of Appeals, of Dispensations, of Pluralities, of Non-Residence, Exemptions; Pensions, Elections, &c. so much diminished, that the Pope, (though of himself much inclined to a General Confir∣mation,) with his Cardinals, and Court, is related by Soave, to have, long time, deliberated: whether the Articles of Faith only should be accepted, and confirmed; and those of Reformation rejected, or moderated.

To give you these things rather in his own words; which may serve as an Antidote to the former. L. 8. p. 814. He saith, —That the Court, understanding that the Pope was resolved for the Confirmation, changed their joy into grief; and all the Officers com∣plained of the loss they should receive in their Offices, if that reforma∣tion were executed.—That Supplications also, and Memorials, were given to the Pope by those, who, having bought their Offices, and fore∣seeing this loss, demanded Restitution.—That the Pope, having diligent∣ly considered hereof, deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confir∣mation; and to think upon some remedy for the complaints of the Court. —That these Cardinals were almost all of opinion, that it was fit they should be moderated before the Confirmation.—And that it was

certain, that they, who did procure the Council, had no aim but to pull down the Popes authority; and, while the Council did last, every one did speak, as if It had power to give laws unto him, [where you see what freedom the Council took] — At last, that, satisfied with two speeches, the one of Cardinal Amulius, the other of Hugo Buon Compagno, perswading him, and the Court; that, by dispensing with its acts, or giving, what interpretations to them he pleased, he might provide for his Ministers, and Servants, and accommodate things to that which might be for the benefit of the Church, without violating the Decrees of the Council, because in them the Apostolick authority is still reserved, the Pope proceeded to confirm them entirely.

[§. 205] To verifie some part of which Relation of Soave concern∣ing the relu••tance of the Popes Court (not without great cause, if an eye may be had only to gain,) I may add, what Pallavicino, writing but the other day, and well acquainted with the present state thereof, relates concerning it †—That, as to Favours, and Dispensations,* 1.433 formerly granted from the Apostolick See, this Council hath so far moderated the use of them, that, if the Pope will observe these laws, the fountain of his beneficence is dried up, for one half: And, that, although he hath still a power to dispense with these laws, yet the Popes, for their Conscience, and Honour sake, re∣quire for the most part such pressing Motives, and so rarely happening, of doing this, that their Concessions in such matters, as are prohibited by the Council, do not amount to the 20th part of those formerly ac∣customed. And, that the same thing also happens, * in the Causes, primae instantiae (as they phrase it) that are brought to the Court of Rome: And, * In those priviledges, or exemptions, by which ma∣ny particular persons withdrew themselves from the Jurisdiction of Bi∣shops; which was no less, than rendring many the immediate Sub∣jects of the Tribunals of the Pope; and finally, * in all those affairs, concerning which the Council grants power to the Bishops, that they shall proceed in them, as Delegats of the Apostolick See; which, as to the advancing of the Bishops power, amounts to the same, as if they dispatched them [in their own right] without any such formality. Thus he. And again. l. 23. c. 12. n. 5. To Soave, † object∣ing: That the leaving the cognition,* 1.434 and termination of several causes to the Bishops Tribunals without any more Appeales to Rome, ordered in the 20th Chapter of Reformation, Sess. 24. was quite destroyed, by the exception there added.—Ab his excipiantur causae—quas ex urgenti ration abili{que} causâ, judicaverit summus Roma∣nus Pontifex; per speciale Rescriptum Signaturae sanctitatis suae manu propria subscribendum, committere, aut avocare: he answers thus, — That, though the Pope may still call to himself, what causes he thinks

fit, so he passeth this first, under his own hand, and seal; yet, that the former faculty of his Officers to call such causes to him, though in his name, yet without his knowledge, or subscription, was now ceased by this new Order; —And That, if it be numbred (as that is easily counted which is seldom done) How many Commissions, of this kind, are signed by the Pope in a year for the whole Circuite of Christianity, if these rise to three or four yearly, it is acknow∣ledged very much 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Thus he, of the former Income to the Court of Rome much diminished: and, of the Acts of this Coun∣cil, after the decurrence of an hundred years, as to this matter, still retaining their primitive vigour; publishing these things in that place, where, in matters so obvious, and evident, his credit must suffer very much by any falsification. But, on the other side, the Episcopal authority, in this Council, was so much increa∣sed by the Popes, and the Councils committing many both persons, and affairs, before exempt, and reserved, to their inspection, and Government, (as which Bishops, being at a nearer distance, could better discern and attend them) that the King of Spain said of his —That they went to the Council as so many Parish Priests; but retur∣ned from it so many Popes.

[§. 206] Next the Decrees themselves concerning Reformation (which in a few hours you may read deliberately over; and where especi∣ally I would recommend to you the view of those made under Pius; and, amongst these, those chiefly of the 24th Session.) I say, the Decrees themselves do shew the great service, which this Council hath done to the Church, at that time much relaxed, and languishing in its Discipline, partly by reason of its non-execution of former necessary Church-Canons, partly by other abuses, not provided against by any former laws, and now growing intolerable. In all which matters a much better face of Ecclesiastical affairs appears at present, through the Influence, which this Council hath had upon the succeeding times. And much have those ungrateful Detractors to answer to God, by whom the Good of this great Bo∣dy of the most sacred of Magistrates hath been, not only so little acknowledged, but so evil spoken of.

[§. 207] It would be too tedious to recite to you all the particu∣lar Acts of this Council, wherein it hath repaired the former decayes: but perhaps not unnecessary, in such an ungrateful age, to relate, and clear some of the chiefest.

The manners, and customs of the Church, that chiefly in those times were imagined to give cause of just complaint, seem to be,

1^st. Concerning the Pope, and Court of Rome. 1. α. The Avocation of so many Causes, and admission of so many Ap∣peales (without ascent, as formerly, through inferior Courts; espe∣cially those of Diocesan, and Provincial, Synods). β. And the reservation of so many Licences, and Dispensations to the Apostolick See, and Court of Rome; These not to be prosecu∣ted, or procured, without great charge; Nor the Judge, at so great a distance, capable of so true, and exact informations, either touching the person, or cause. 2. γ. The Popes Collation of Bishopricks, and other spiritual Benefices in forraine States, where the Merits of such persons, as are most fit, and capable of them, are little known to him. 3. δ. The imposing of Pensions on such spiritual Benefices. ε. or giving them in Commenda; ζ. Or uniting many of them into one without any necessity; So to fur∣nish Favourites with a superfluous wealth; and hidden Pluralities. 4. η. The Exemptions of so many persons, and Societies, from Epis∣copal Jurisdictions, which Bishops, by their vicinity of Residence, are the fittest rectifiers of all disorders. 5. θ Several abuses committed by the Persons publishing Indulgences, and collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses.

[§. 208] [I name not here, amongst these Grievances, the Popes Annats (in lieu of the Tenths of Tithes) or other constant sup∣ports received from the inferior Clergy out of the several States of the Westerne Church, because it neither seemed just to the Council to deprive him of them; nor, to the Secular Princes, in their many Articles of Reformation proposed, to request it. (See those of the Emperor, Soave, p. 513. of the King of France, p. 652.) as they well seeing,, that it was necessary for this General Father of the Church, both to have, wherewith to maintain so many Officers in his service whether at home, or abroad, as the Church affairs, passing through his hands, required; and, where∣with also to reward their pains. And if the ancient Bishops of Rome managed these great affairs with a much smaller Revenue; yet it must be granted; 1. Both that much less was then necessary, by reason as well of the much narrower extent of Christendome; as also of the union of most of it, in those times, under one Secu∣lar Power, the Emperour; whereas now the preservation of the unity of Catholick Faith, and necessary correspondence between the Members of this Church so much more diffused, and resi∣ding in so many States of a contrary temper, gives much more trouble and charge to the supream Head thereof. And, 2ly, Must be granted also; That, by the want, then, of the present sub∣sistence, whilst the Pope was the Emperors temporal Subject, both

many inconveniences, and injuries were suffered, and many Bene∣factions hindered.] This of the Complaints concerning the Pope and his Court.

2. Concerning the Clergy. 1. 〈☐〉〈☐〉. unfit persons elected in∣to Bishopricks, and other Ecclesiastical Benefices, [§. 209] without a suffici∣ent pre-examination of their learning and manners. 2. λ. Plura∣lities of Benefices; where these, singly, afford a maintenance suffi∣cient, whilst other worthy persons are destitute; and the mis∣expence of such ample Church-Revenue on their Secular Relati∣ons. 3. μ. Non-Residence, where having the care, or charge, of souls. 4. ν In their Residence, Neglect of frequent Preaching, and Catechising. And, Their not celebrating, at least, part of the Divine Service, nor teaching the ignorant the Mysteries of Religion, in the vulgar tongue. 5. ξ. Their being restrained from marriage; and, in Celibacy, their frequent incontinency, and violation of Chastity. 6. π Their withholding the Com∣munion of the Cup both from the Laity, and themselves, when not officiating. 7. ρ. Their too common use of Excommunication; applying many times the severest of the Churches Censures to the smallest Delinquencies, 8. σ. To which may be added, the ma∣ny disorders, then observed, in Regulars and Monasticks. 9. τ. The correction necessary of several things in the Missals, and Breviaries; and bringing them to a greater uniformity.

[§. 210] Concerning these, and several other grievances, see the Ar∣ticles of Reformation proposed by the Emperors Agents, before the 21. and 24. Sessions, in Soave, p. 513, and 751, and by the French, before the 23. Session, in Soave, 632. These therefore the Council took into due consideration; and rectified what they judged amiss, * so far, as that Iron-age would permit: (of which the Council thus complains, Sess. 25. De Reform. Regul. c. 21. Adeo dura, difficilù{que} est praesentium temporum conditio, ut nec statim omnibus, nec commune, ubi{que} quod optaret, remedium posset adhiberi:) and, * so far, as the National parties in the Council, inured to several customes, and injoying different priviledges, without the making of a schisme, could agree upon: rectified, I say, so far, as their Ordinations, strengthened with severe penalties, could do it: But the constant execution of these depends on others, whose diligence, or supineness herein must needs produce, in the Church, contrary effects; and also the necessity of leaving their Canons, upon just occasions, (all which no law can fit,) dispensable, must also leave open a passage to such Governours, as are corrupt, or negligent, of doing this without a reasonable cause.

[§. 211] 1st. Then, for those matters that concern the Pope, and Court of Rome: See the many Decrees in this Council, wherein the Bishops are substituted, as perpetual and standing Delegates of the Apostolick See for the Execution of them and the former Reservations remitted; though this to the great diminution of the Revenue of the Pope, and his Officers, as hath been said. † Such Decrees are, [§. 205] Sess. 5. c. 1, 2. De Reform.—Sess. 6. c. 4.—Sess. 7. c. 6.—Sess. 13. c. 5.—Sess. 21. c. 5, 8.—Sess. 22. c. 5.8.—Sess. 24. c. 11. And very many others. In which matter, though the Bishops are impowred, as Delegates of the See Apostolick, be∣cause the point, whether Bishops hold their Jurisdictions, as to the exterior, and forensick, exercise thereof, in, and over, such parti∣cular things, and persons, immediatly from Christ, or from the Pope, was indeed much agitated in the Council, but on no side determined, Yet so it is, that a possession they have now of se∣veral branches of such Jurisdiction, since this Council, which they had not before. Nor varies it any thing in the good service actually done, thereby, to the Church, by what way soever this power des∣cends upon them.

[§. 212] To come closer them to the Particulars. For. α. Causes; and Appeales:* 1.435 See the restraint made therein, Sess. 13. c. 1. Sess. 22. c. 1.—Nec appellatio executionem hanc, quae ad morum correctionem pertinet, suspendat. And, Sess. 24. c. 10.—Nec in his, ubi de visitatione, aut morum correctione agitur, exemptio, aut ulla inhibitio, appellatio, seu querela, etiam ad sedem Apostolicam in∣terposita, executionem eorum, quae ab his mandata, decreta, aut judi∣cata fuerint, quoque modo impediat, aut suspendat. Again, Sess. 21. c. 8 —Sess. 25. c. 10. The Pope, and Council, delegate such persons, as shall be chosen in the Provincial, or Diocesan, Sy∣nod, together with the Ordinary (to be supplied, if any one of them dies before the next Synod, by the Bishop, and Chapter) to decide these Appeales in the Province, or Diocess, where such Controver∣sies arise; unless they be such, as for the weight of them are thought fit to be removed to Rome. Sess. 24.5. It is ordered, That the criminal causes of Bishops, except those more heinous ones of Heresie, or the like, where their ejectment is questioned, which are reserved to the Apostolick See, are to be terminated either by a Provincial Council; or, in the interval, by its Deputies. And, Ib. c. 20. Civil, Matrimonial, Criminal Causes are left to be end∣ed by inferior Tribunals (without the intermedling of the Popes legats, or Nuncio's, herein): except those; Quas, ex ur∣genti, rationabili{que} causa, judicaverit summus Romanus Pontifex, per speciale Rescriptum signaturae sanctitatis suae, manu propriâ subscri∣bendum,

committere, aut avocare. Where, ex urgenti, rationabili{que} causâ, rescriptum signaturae sanctitatis sua manu propriâ subscriben∣dum, a Rescript, after the matter is particularly made known to the Pope, and, upon this, his hand, and seal obtained, cannot be a thing so ordinarily happening, as to overthrow the whole bene∣fit of the Decree, as Soave would perswade† 1.436

[§. 13] Next: Concerning the forementioned Provincial, and Dioce∣san Synods, which were to elect the persons for deciding such Appeales [which Synods the Council judged very necessary, —Moderandis moribus, corrigendis excessibus, controversiis compo∣nendis, &c. and to which it committed a chief superintendence over the actions of Bishops, as to their due execution of its Decrees touching Reformation.] It is ordered, Sess. 24. c. 2. That the Provincial Synods be called by the Metropolitan; or, he justly hindered, by the Senior Bishop of the Province, at least once every three years, after the Octave of Easter, or other time, if more convenient; and a Diocesan, once every year; In the calling of, and meeting in, which, if any neglected their Duty, they incur the Ecclesiastical Censures, prescribed by former Canons. And those Bishops, who are Subject to no Archbishop, are obliged to chuse some Province, of whose Synods they shall for the future be mem∣bers, and be subjected to its decrees. Ordered also, that in these Synods (not having a constant being) certain Deputies be chosen, which may, in the Intervals, determine such Causes, and execute such Orders, as this Council hath committed to them. But mean while, as for other causes, not thought meet to be intrusted to Delegats, nor that conveniently can be so long suspended, as till another Provincial Synod sits (which for the great trouble, and charge of their meeting, later Councils, upon the experience of for∣mer Canons neglected, appointed to be held seldomer, nor yet is this obeyed) it seemed necessary, that without expecting these, such causes should, from the Pope, a higher standing Judge, re∣ceive a present dispatch (of which see what is said before, §. 16. n. 6. and n. 8.) And,—The restoring of Synodal Judicatures [i. e. as to all causes] (saith Soave† 1.437) was rejected by almost all the Fa∣thers of the Council; For which he gives a reason, after his usual manner, the most uncharitable one, he could invent,—That they did this, because such Synodal Judicatures did diminish the Episcopal, and were too popular. The Episcopal he means taken singly in their distinct Courts; else the Synodal is nothing else but a conjunct Judicature of Bishops. But perhaps some of those reasons given by Castellus, for this (apud Soave, p. 335.) may seem more perswa∣sive, viz. Beside their being no standing Court, and rarely con∣vened,

the difficulty that was found, to inform so many; and the im∣pediments in the examination, where many are to do it; the infinite length in the proceedings and dispatches; the parties and divisions therein, that are usually made by the factious; for which Castellus imagines, that Synods came to be, in later times, more intermit∣ted; and other Courts, and Officers brought in, to remedy such disorders.

[§. 214] Mean while; Of Appeales of higher consequence received, and judged, by most holy Popes, Antiquity affords many examples. See more mentioned before, §. 13. n. 1. And, indeed, such a superlative power, as to causes of greater moment, seems very neces∣sary. For, 1^st. This Prime Patriarch, and supreme Gover∣nour in the Church, being constituted by a more choise Election, is presumed ordinarily to be a more knowing person, and, according to the eminency of his place, assisted both with a wiser Council, and a greater portion of God's Spirit. But, 2^ly, though he were neither more prudent, nor better informed from others in difficult matters, nor more assisted from heaven, yet must he needs, be a less partial judge in such matters because not so interessed in the cause, or in the persons, as the Metropolitan often must be, or also those other Bishops, who live upon the place, and are subject to the Metropo∣litans power: Now, the more remote from all private interest, and high in place, the Judge is, the more even he is likely to hold the scales of Justice; and to administer it, less sweyed with affecti∣on, or mastered by fear. 3^ly. The chief Courts, to whom, be∣side the Roman Bishop, the termination of Appeales of moment is recommended, being Provincial, National, or General, Coun∣cils, were their Judgments never so satisfactory to all parties (though Provincial, or National Synods have not been alwaies thought so, witness those Affrican ones in the cause of Cecilianus) yet are these not alwaies to be had: The Provincial Synods much seldomer assembled; than the Canons appoint; Councils General yet more rare; none of them, by reason of the trouble of conve∣ning, fit, upon every such Appeale, to be called. 4^ly. Many cases of Appeales are not matters of Fact, where witnesses are ne∣cessary; but questions, de jare, where the fact is confessed; and, in such, no more plea can be made to have them tryed at home, than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded, not to have this matter decided at Jerusalem; or Arius of Alexandria, his, at Nice. As for the conveniency of hearing witnesses, where this necessary in such Appeales, it was ordered indeed anciently; that, whensoever it could safely be done, such causes should be ar∣bitrated in the same, or some adjoyning, Provinces, by some

Judges, either sent thither, or, there, delegated by the Patriarch (of which the Seventh Canon of Sardica seems to take special care;) or at least, that Commissioners might be sent to examin wit∣nesses at home; in the non observance of which Canons perhaps some Roman Bishops may have been culpable, and caused some affliction to the Churches Subjects: But yet other exigences may occur (every cause not being sit to be decided by Delegates) that require the trial to be before the Pope's own person, to which greater necessities the trouble caused to witnesses must give place, which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council of Sardica, c. 4. And we have no reason to think, but that this grave Assem∣bly at Sardica weighed the troubles of such Appeales, as well as the Affricans did afterward; or we now: but thought fit to ad∣mit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs, namely, in the Intervals of Councils, Schisms, and Divisions between Pro∣vincial, and between National, Churches, by the Church her ha∣ving thus so many supremes terminating all spiritual causes within themselves, as there were Provinces, or Countries; Christi∣an. 5^ly. If this Avocation to the supreme be now done with∣out the Method, sometimes used, of ascending by degrees through many subordinat Courts, this, when such Courts have not a co∣gent power for terminating the Cause, seems only a shortning both of the trouble, and charge.

[§. 215] To β Dispensations. See, Sess. 25. c. 18. where, in Gene∣ral, Provision is made by the Council, That,—Si urgens justa{que}* 1.438 ratio, & major quando{que} utilitas, postulaverint cum aliquibus dispen∣sandum esse; id, causâ cognita, ac summâ maturitate, at{que} gratis, à quibuscun{que} ad quos dispensatio pertinebit, erit praestandum; aliter{que} facta dispensatio surreptitia censeatur. This Dispensation, then, by whomsoever given, is to be made gratis; otherwise, to be held surreptitious; and the cognition of this surreption is referred to the Ordinary, Sess. 22. c. 5. Again ordered, Sess. 22. c. 5. That no Dispensations of Grace, obtained at Rome, shall take effect, except first examined by the Bishop of the place, whether obtained just∣ly, and upon a right information. Again, Sess. 24. c. 6. Bishops are impowred to dispense with their Subjects, in foro conscientiae, in all irregularities, and suspensions, for secret offences, except voluntary murther, &c. and to absolve in all cases occult, that are reserved to the See Apostolick. Of which, and other the like, relaxations in this Council, of their former restraints, what the issue hath been in the Court of Rome, see what is quoted before † out of Pallavic. Introduction. c. 10.

[§. 216] Mean while, as the same Council hath observed, Sess. 25. c. 18. it seems necessary; 1 That laws be not so enacted, as to leave in the hands of no person a power of Dispensations. 2 And again necessary; That this power of Dispensing be not, as to matters more important, left alwaies in the hands of Inferior Magistrates; especially those living upon the place; and there∣fore more liable to be sweyed by friendships; importunity; fear, and over-awing; this last, requisite, that the obligation of laws, by the facility of dispensing, be not quite dissolved; the first; that the law, too rigidly exacted, may not sometimes oppress; And what Civil Government is there, that by its retaining a Dis∣pensative power, as to their temporal laws, in the hand of the su∣preme Magistrate, doth not amply justifie the Ecclesiastick, herein?

[§. 217] Such a Dispensative power, therefore, from antient times, hath been thought fit to be deposited in the chief Bishop of the Christi∣an Universs, and from him such Dispensations, and relaxations to be received, as necessity requires. Such was that, conceded by S. Gregory, l. 12. Ep. 31. to the English, upon the hazzard of their deserting the new-founded Christianity, concerning Marriages, for a time in some degrees prohibited by the Canons of the Church, and that, to the Sicilian Bishops (who could not be brought to do more) concerning holding a Provincial Council once a year, when the Canons required twice: Before him, such that conceded by Gelasius, in Ep. to the Bishops in Italy (complaining to him that many of their Churches, by the Gothick wars, were rendred de∣stitute of a Clergy) in which he relaxed several things required by the former Canons to Ordinations, &c. after he had made this Presace,—Necessaria rerum dispensatione constringimur, sic Cano∣num paternorum decreta librare, & retro Praesulum, decessorum{que} no∣strorum praecepta metiri: ut quae praesentium necessitas temporum, re∣staurandis Ecclesiis, relaxanda deposcit, quantum potest fieri, tempere∣mus, —Igitur, tam instituendi quam promovendi clericalis obsequii sic spatia dispensanda concedimus, &c. Before him, by Simplician, Epistle 14. to the Emperor Zeno, in which he allowed the election of the Bishop of Antioch made, for preventing a sedition, at Con∣stantinople, contrary to the Fourth Nicen Canon. And, before him, by Celestine,† 1.439 allowing, by his Letters sent to the Bishop, of Alexandria and Antioch, the Election of Proclus, who was before the designed Bishop of Cyzicum, to be Bishop of Constantinople, procured by the Emperor Theodosius for preventing some Tumults; where the Pope either dispensed with,* 1.440 or more indulgently ex∣pounded, some former Church Canons that seemed, to have prohi∣bited all Translation of Bishops.

To γ. See the answer to κ.

[§. 218] To δ. Pensions, reserved by the Pope out of some richer Ec∣clesiastical Benefices,* 1.441 as rewards of persons much meriting in the Churches service; It seemed hard,* 1.442 suppose it could have been justly done, to deprive the Pope of them, whilst Secular Princes would still retain them; and were much displeased, when, in the Articles provided for Reformation of Princes,† 1.443 such things were demanded of themselves, as they would have redressed in others; yet the Council thus far moderated this matter; That those Bishopricks, or Benefices, of a smaller Revenue, not amount∣ing to above such a certain summe yearly, should not be, for the fu∣ture, charged with any such Pensions, Sess. 24. c. 13. And for the rest, since all Pensions could not be voided, (which perhaps had been best;) yet may it seem as equitable, That the Eccle∣siastick Governours do continue to make use of them for recom∣pensing persons of extraordinary merit in the Church, as Princes, those in the State; Especially when the Council hath provided; that they be taken from no Church, but where such an overplus may be spared; and that Revenue only applied to maintain two, which indeed is superfluous for one.

[§. 219] To ε. The like, much-what, may be said of Monasteries;* 1.444 or other Ecclesiastical Benefices with, or without, cure, given in Commendam, a superintendence over which the Council hath com∣mitted for ever, either to the Superiors of such Orders; or to the Bishops, as the Popes Delegates; to take care, that in the one all religious observance be maintained, with all necessaries sup∣plied; and in the other, the care of souls faithfully discharged, and the Vicar sufficiently provided for: See Sess. 21. c 8.—And, Sess. 25.20. Reform. Regul. And further, c. 21. That for Mona∣steries Commendatary, they, for the future, shall be conferred only on Regulars. A Constitution, which in France, where very many Monasteries are given by the Prince in Commendams to great Personages, hath been one of the chief obstacles of that Princes refusing to accept this Council, as to its Acts of Reforma∣tion.

[§. 220] To ζ. The uniting of Ecclesiastical Benefices: As the Council doth allow such an union to be made by the Bishops,* 1.445 as Delegates of the Apostolick See, where one single is not a suffi∣cient maintenance of the Pastor, Sess. 21. c. 5.—Sess. 24. c. 15. And allows the same to be done in Bishopricks by the Pope, upon Testimonials received from a Provincial Synod of such a necessity, Sess. 24.13. So, on the other side, Sess. 7. c. 6. It impowers Bishops for ever, as the Popes Delegates, to inquire into all former

unitings of Livings passed within forty years, and to void them, Nisi eas ex legitimis, aut alias rationabilibus causis, coram loci Or∣dinario vocatis, quorum interest, verificandis, factas fuisse constiterit. And, c. 5. and 7. Constitutes the Bishops likewise visitors of all those having cure, that are annexed to Chapters, or Monasteries, that the incumbent Vicars do their duty, and be provided of a sufficient Revenue, all manner of priviledges, or exemptions, be∣ing repealed. See more below (λ).

[§. 221] To η. Exemptions. This Council hath ordered. 1^st. That all Churches whatever,* 1.446 though formerly exempted, those also that are annexed to Colledges, or Monasteries, be subjected to the yearly visitation of the Ordinary, as Delegate of the See Apostolick; to see to, that the Cura animarum be rightly dis∣charged, all things kept in a due repair, &c. Sess. 7, 8. 2^ly. Sess. 22. c. 8. Bishops, as Delegates of the Apostolick See, are made Exe∣cutors of all pious Disposures, as well Testamentary, as of the living; Hospitals also, and whatever Colledges, Confraternities of Laicks, Schooles, the Almes of the Mounts of Piety, &c. whatever Exemptions they might have had formerly, are subjected to their visitation (where it is not otherwise ordered by the Founders,) to take knowledge of, and see executed therein, whatever is institu∣ted for God's worship, salvation of souls, or sustentation of the poor, and the Administrators thereof tyed to give to them a yearly account (c. 9.) 3. Again; All Secular Clergy, that had for∣merly any exemption, and all Cathedral Chapters (formerly exemp∣ted under the notion of Regulars, which many of them anciently were) are likewise submitted, for the future, to the visitation, and correction of the Bishop—Sess. 6.4.—Sess. 14. c. 4.— Sess. 25.6. 4. As for Regulars; All such, living out of their Mona∣steries, and other persons whatever relating to them, or other∣wise priviledged, may be visited, corrected, punished by the Bi∣shop, as are others, Sess. 6.3.—Sess. 29.11. Nor may any Regu∣lars preach in any Church, not belonging to their Order, without the Bishops licence first obtained; Nor in Churches of the Or∣der, without first shewing to the Bishop a licence from their Supe∣riors, and receiving his Benediction. 5. Lastly, for the Mona∣steries, and Religious Houses themselves exempted from the Epis∣copal Visitation, it is ordered; that, if the Regular Superiors, to whom this is committed, omit their duty, the Bishop, after a Pa∣ternal admonition, and their six moneths further neglect, may pro∣ceed to visit, and reform them; Notwithstanding whatever, Ex∣emptions, or Conservators appointed of their Priviledges. Sess. 21.8.

[§. 222] But an universal subjection of Monasteries, Universities, Colledges, to the Ordinary of the place, though motioned in the Council, was not approved by it. Not that such whose publick profession was a stricter life than that of all others, should injoy more liberty from Government; or, at least, from that of sub∣ordinate, and immediate superintendents; But because it seemed much more proper, that as their Profession was more severe, so they should be committed rather to the care of such Superiors, who themselves had the same obligations; which it was feared, that the Ordinary, living himself after a Secular way, would be more prone to mitigate, and relax; or some way, by contradicting their Orders, disturb their Peace. And therefore such exempti∣on tended not to an enlargement of their liberty, but a confirming their restraints, and a quiet and undisturbed observance thereof. And such Exemptions and Priviledges we find anciently grated to Religious Houses by Popes famous in Sanctity. Of which see many in St. Gregories Epistles, not only conceded by himself, but mentioned to have been so by his Predecessors. See, l. 7. Ep. 33. and Ep. 18. And see—l. 11. Ep. 8. such Priviledges granted, at the request of the Queen of France. Yet still, as was said but now, the Episcopal power is admitted by the Council of Trent in these Houses also, upon any continued neglect of their other Superiors, when first admonished hereof.

[§. 223] To θ. Abuses concerning Indulgences, and Collecting the Charities of Christians for pious uses: It was ordered, Sess.* 1.447 21. c. 9. That the Office of the ordinary former publishers of such Indulgences, and Spiritual Favours, and the Collectors of such Charities (having given so much scandal, after the indeavour of three several precedent Councils to reform them) and all their priviledges, should be taken quite away; and hence forward, that the Ordinary of the place, assisted with two of the Chapter, should publish the one, and collect the other, Gratis.

[§. 224] Thus much of this Councils rectifying those things, which seemed to minister any just cause of complaint concerning the Pope, or his Court; where also you see, how much the Episcopal Authority is inlarged by the Pope's free Concession to them of so many former Reservations, and Exemptions. So that Lainez the General of the Jesuites in his speech before the 24. Session † ob∣serves.—That the hand of the Council had fallen heavy upon others, without touching at all the Bishops; that there was contained in those Articles of Reformation much against the Pope, against the Cardinals, against Arch Deacons, against the Chapters, against Parish Priests, against the Regulars; but against the Bishops nothing. And Soave† 1.448 on

Sess. 13. produceth the Priests of Germany complaining of the Reformation; and saying,—That the Bishops authority was made too great, and the Clergy brought into servitude. And† 1.449 on the 22th Session, saith,—That points of Reformation were proposed fa∣vourable to the Authority of Bishops, that the Legats proceeding might not be hindered by the opposition of any. From all which you may further gather, what truth his words have, set in the entrance of his History:† 1.450—That the Bishops, hoping to regain the Episcopal Au∣thority, usurped, for the most part, by the Pope, now wholy lost it; and the Pope, fearing a Moderation of his former exorbitant power, had it now, much more than ever, established, and confirmed.

[§. 225] Next to proceed to the Grievances concerning the Clergy. To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.* 1.451 The Complaint concerning unfit, and unworthy persons elected both into Bishopticks, and inferior Benefices of Cure.

1^st. For the future Election of Bishops, this Council or∣dered, Sess. 24. c. 1. That there should be drawn up by the Pro∣vincial Synods a certain Form, for taking Informations, and ex∣amining the Persons nominated to such Ecclesiastical Dignities, to be approved by the Pope; Then, concerning the particular Per∣son to be elected; an Instrument of the Examination, made ac∣cording to the Form prescribed, is to be sent to his Holiness: And this Instrument there first to be perused by four Cardinals; who, if they also approve, are to subscribe, it and to affirm —Se certo (to give you the words of the Canon) existimare, sub periculo mor∣tis aeternae, idoneos esse, qui Ecclessis praeficiantur; the relation also of these Cardinals is to be made in one Consistory; but the de∣liberation deferred to another, that things may be more exactly weighed. The person also to be chosen is particularly to have the Testimonial of his Ordinary, or of the Pope's Nuncio, re∣siding in such place, Sess. 22. c. 2. And what course is obser∣ved in Bishops, the same ordered to be in the Election of Cardi∣nals, Sess. 24. c. 1. Lastly, the Council admonisheth in General * all those, who have the Right of any such Collation.—Eos mor∣taliter peccare, nisi eos praefici curaverint, quos [not dignos, but] digniores & Ecclesiis magis utiles, ipsi judicaverint; And particu∣larly, * the Pope, that, if he be faulty herein, either as to the Promotion of Cardinals, or Bishops, unfit,—Ovium Christi san∣guinem, quae ex malo negligentium, & sui Officii immemorum Pasto∣rum regimine peribunt, Dominus Noster Jesus Christus de manibus ejus sit requisiturus.

[§. 226] This for the Election of Bishops. Next, For the Election of worthy Persons into inferior Church-Benefices with Cure. 1^st. It is ordered, Sess. 24. c. 18. That, whoever the

Patron be, there be six Examiners nominated by the Diocesan Sy∣nod; all which, or at least three of them, together with the Bi∣shop are, at a time prefix't, publickly to try the sufficiency of such as are presented; and only such a person as is approved by them, or, if many be presented, who is thought the more worthy, is to be admitted to such Benefice; without such Examination, and approvement the Collation of such Benefice to be accounted Sur∣reptitious; and another Election to be made. The Bishop being permitted thus to choose the Person, even where the Pope gives Institution.—It a Sanctissimus voluit (saith the Congregation of Cardinals appointed for the Interpreters of the Decrees of the Council,† 1.452) quia Episcopus melius cognoscit personas. Pius the Fourth† 1.453 having also, before this Session, concerning Benefices in his Disposal, made this free offer to the Fathers of the Coun∣cil, 1. Either, that henceforth all Benefices having Curam Animarum, should be in their Gift, and the other without Cure in his, Or, that henceforth he would bestow them on none, who shall not also be, by the Ordinary approved worthy. 3. Or, that he would only make his Election out of such Persons, worthy, and of the Diocess, of whom the Bishop should send him a Roul: Af∣ter which, the Council agreed upon the Constitution foremen∣tioned: Which not escaping Soave's Censure, who saith,—That it was framed with exquisite artifice, and with a fair shew makes the Bishops Patrons to give the Cure to whom they please, upon pretence of Examinations But yet taketh no profit from the Court of Rome: [The Institution still being reserved to the Pope, and a Bull to be had from thence.] Pallavicino† 1.454 returns this answer,—That any reasonable man may well observe what a loss here of his own bene∣fit the Pope consented to, for the benefit of the Church, when he was pleased to take from himself the bestowing according to his own choise [by this being now left to the Bishop, and the Examiners] of so many Benefices, as should happen to be vacant, for eight months in the year, in so many Kingdoms of Christendom; and when he deprived his Court of that frequent Concourse, formerly made to it, of so many forreign Ecclesiasticks, who, otherwise, must first have made themselves known there, for the obtaining these Benefices at home.

[§. 227] 2. Again; to remove all temptations, arising from gain, to in∣troduce persons into the Clergy of less worth: It is ordered, Sess. 21. c. 1. that all things be passed Gratis; save that the under∣officers, such as have no set stipend, may receive some small fee, not to exceed the tenth part of a Crown for their labours, provi∣ded the Collator share nothing in it.—Nihil (saith the Council) pro collatione quorumcunque Ordinum, etiam clericalis Tonsurae, nec∣pro

litteris dimissorus, aut testimonialibus, nec pro sigillo, nec alia quâ∣cun{que} de causâ, etiam sponte oblatum, Episcopi & alii ordinum Colla∣tores, aut eorum Ministri, quovis praetevtu, accipiant. Notarii vero in iis tantum locis, in quibus non viget laudabilis consuetudo nihil acci∣piendi, pro singulis liteais dimissortis, aut Testimonialibus{que} decima in in tantum unius, aurei partem accipere possint; dummodo eis nullum Salarium sit constitutum pro officio exercendo; nec Episcopo ex Nota∣rii commodis aliquod Emoluentum, ex eisdem, Ordinum Collationibus directe, vel indirecte, provenire possit, tunc enim gratis operam suam eos praestare omnino teneri decernit: And—Qui secus fecerint, tam dantes quam accipientes, ultra divinam ultionem, paenas a jure in∣stictas ipso facto incurrant: which Decree is understood also of the Collation of Benefices, and of Dispensations. See the Exposition of the Congregation of Cardinals on this Decree, §. Item Decla∣rat.

[§. 228] 3^ly. To see also the Parochial duties rightly discharged by the Clergy: It is ordered, Sess. 24.3. That the Bishop by him∣self, or his Vicar, visit yearly his Diocess; or, if large, the great∣ter part of it; and the Remainder in the year following; and that the Provincial Councils punish any Bishops neglects here∣in.

[§. 228] 4^ly. Ordered also, Sess. 29. c. 4. That the Bishop, as Apo∣stolical Delegate, where the People of a Parish are very nume∣rous, may either erect a new, dividing the Profits; or compel the Rector of such Parish, when not able alone to perform the Pasto∣ral Duty to so great a multitude, to admit, and maintain so many other Priests, assistant, as may be sufficient; and also, where the Bishop finds an illiterate Rector, who is otherwise of a good life, may add a Coadjutor, partaker of the Profits. See Sess. 21. c. 6.

[§. 230] 5^ly Ordered also, Sess. 23. c. 18.—That, for the better supply of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, in all Cathedral Churches be erected a Seminary, for the educating a certain number of chil∣dren of poor people (or also of rich, if maintained by themselves) arrived to twelve years of age, in studies, and a discipline, fitting them for the Ministry. Which children, at their first entrance shall receive tonsure, and alwaies wear a Clergy habit; for the, maintainance of whom, the Bishop, with four of the Clergy joyn∣ed with him, are to detract a certain portion from the Bishops Re∣venue, and all the Benefices of the Diocess, and the care, of see∣ing this Order executed by the Bishop, committed to the Provin∣cial Council.

[§. 231] 6. Again; It is ordered, Sess. 5. c. 1.—Ne Coelestis ille sacrorum librorum Thesaurus, quem spiritus sanctus summâ liberalita∣te hominibus tradidit, neglectus jaceat (saith the Council) that Divi∣nity-Lectures, for the expounding of the Holy Scriptures, where these yet wanting, should be set up in all Cathedral, and Collegi∣ate Churches; in the Convents of Regulars; and publick Schooles of learning; and, in poorer Churches, at least a School-Master founded, to teach Grammar: All such Lectures to be approved by the Bishop: And for their Maintainance, the first vacant Pre∣bend, or a simple Benefice, or a Contribution from all the Bene∣fices of such City, or Diocess, to be applied to this use. All these Constitutions made for a better Provision for the future, of a learn∣ed and vertuous Clergy.

7. Lastly; For introducing amongst this Clergy a greater strictness and Holiness of Life: This Council revives and gives vi∣gour to all the former rigid ancient Canons; notwithstanding whatever present, contrary, customs, with the same or greater pe∣nalties to be inflicted on offenders, at the arbitrement of the Or∣dinary; and that, without admitting any appeales from his Cen∣sures. See Sess. 22, c. 1. de Reform.—Statuit S. Synodus, ut quae alias à summis Pontificibus, & à sacris Conciliis de Clericorum vitâ, honestate, cultu, doctrinâ{que} retinendâ, ac simul, de luxu, comessatio∣nibus, choreis, aleis, lusibus, ac quibuscun{que} criminibus, nec non saecu∣laribus negociis, sugiendis, copiose ac salubriter sancita fuerunt, ea∣dem in posterum, iisdem paenis, vel majoribus, arbitrio Ordinarii im∣ponendis, observentur: nec Appellatio executionem hanc, quae ad mo∣rum correctionem pertinet, suspendat; Si qua vero ex his [Sancitis] in desuetudinem abiisse compererint, [Ordinarii] ea quamprimum in usum revocari, & ab omnibus accurate custodiri, studeant, non ob∣stantibus consuetudinibus quibus cun{que} ne subditorum neglectae emenda∣tionis ipsi condignas, Deo vindice, paenas persolvant. This heavy charge have the Bishops in this Council laid upon Bishops concer∣ning reformation of the inferior Clergy.

[§. 232] To λ.* 1.455 Pluralities, and possessing superfluous wealth: It is or∣dered, Sess. 24. c. 17. That no person for the future (Cardinals themselves not excepted) shall hold two Bishopricks, or other Ec∣clesiastical Benefices, either simple, if one of them sufficient to maintain him, or with Cure, and requiring residence, on any terms whatever; and that all, having such Pluralities, shall, within six moneths, quit one, all former Dispensations, or unions for life, notwithstanding; and, if this not done within such time, they to lose both; pronounced, then, to be vacant, and disposed of, otherwise: A rule, in Benefices requiring Residence, still Religiously

observed, saith Pallavic.† 1.456 (one who well knew the Popes Court) replying to Soave,† 1.457 who saith, this Canon was too good to be kept, save in the poorer sort. And for other simple Benefices without Cure, as it is granted, that many are still possessed by one, and the same Person; so is this a thing permitted by this Rule, where one such living is insufficient for his maintainance.

[§. 233] Mean while: For the Moderation also of this Clergy-maintenance; the Council, Sess. 25. c. 1. layes a charge, ascending from Parish Priests to Bishops, and Cardinals, that, according to the ancient Canons,† 1.458 none spend more of the Church-Revenue upon themselves, than their Condition necessarily requires; nor bestow the remainder thereof on any of their Secular Relations, further than the relieving them, when, and as, poor; but expend it on those pious uses (viz. for maintainance of Holy Persons, and things; and the poor) to which it is dedicated. Its words there are,—Sancta Synodus, exemplo Patrum nostrorum in Concilio Cartha∣ginensi, non solum jubet, ut Episcopi modestâ supellectile, & mensâ, ac frugali victu, contenti sint; verum etiam in reliquo vitae genere, ac tota ejus domo, caveant, ne quid appareat, quod à sancto hoc Instituto sit alienum, quod{que} non simplicitatem, Dei zelum, ac vanitatum con∣temptum, prae se ferat. Omnino vero eis interdicit, ne ex reditibus Ecclesiae consanguineos, familiaresve suos, augere studeant; cum & A∣postolorum Canones prohibeant, ne res Ecclesiasticas, quae Dei sunt, consanguineis donent; sed, si pauperes sint, iis, ut pauperibus, distribu∣ant: Eas autem non distrahant, nec dissipent, illorum causa: Imo, quam maxime potest, eos sancta Synodus monet, ut om•••••••• humanum hunc erga fratres, nepotes, propinquos{que} carnis affectum, unde multo∣rum malorum in ecclesia seminarium extitit, penitus deponant:—Quae vero de Episcopis dicta sunt, eadem non solum in quibuscun{que} Beneficia Ecclesiastica, tam saecularia, quam regularia obtinentibus, pro gradus sui conditione, observari, sed & ad sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales pertinere, de••cornit, &c. And see, Sess. 22. c. 11. Therefore al∣so it was anciently decreed:‖ 1.459 That, a Clergiman having an Estate of his own, It, and the profits thereof, should be kept distinct from their Church means; That, in leaving their own to their Secular Heirs; the rest, whether Lands, Rents, Tithes, or Oblations, should be preserved for the uses of the Church: Where (occasionally) may be considered the great difficulty married Priests would undergo to be faithful in such a trust; and, to spend no more of the Churches Revenue on so near Relations, as Wife, and Children, than what may relieve their necessities in such a manner, as he doth those of the poor.

[§. 234] To the same end, the Council, Sess. 14. c. 6. prescribes to the Clergy not to wear any Laical Habit,—Pedes in diversis ponen∣tes, unum in divinis, alterum in carnalibus; but a Clerical, suiting to their Order, upon pain of the sequestring, and if they continue obstinate, Privation of their Benefices. Again, Sess. 22. c. 1. Renews the observance of all those former Church-Canons.—Quae de luxu, commessationibus, coreis, aleis, lusibus, ac quibuscun{que} crimini∣bus, nec non saecul aribus negotiis, fugiendis, copiose, ac salubriter sancita fuerunt, iisdem paenis, vel majoribus, arbitrio Ordinarii impo∣nendis: And, that no appeale should frustrate the execution of these laws, which belong to the correction of manners.

[§. 235] To μ.* 1.460 Non-Residence. In Sess. 23. c. 1.—And,—Sess 6. c. 1, 2. 1st. It is declared by the Council: That neither Bi∣shops, nor inferior Clergy, enjoying any Benefice with Cura ani∣marum, may be absent from their charge at any time, without a just cause; and, that, by their long, and causless absence, they incur mortal sin. 2ly, As to Bishops; for the absence of two months, or at the most, three in the year, the Council leaves the Examen of this just cause of such absence to their conscience, Quam sperat, religiosam, & timoratam fore; cum Deo corda pate∣ant, cujus opus non fraudulenter agere, suo periculo tenetur; yet ad∣monisheth them especially to forbear this absence, as to Advent, Lent, the Feasts of the Nativity, and Resurrection, Pentecost, and Cor∣pus Christi. 3ly But then, ordered; That none, whether Bishop, or also Cardinal, exceed such time of two or three moneths in the year, except upon a cause allowed, under their hand, by the Pope, or the Metropolitan; or, for the Metropoli∣tans absence, by the Senior Resident-Bishop of the Province; the Provincial Council being impowred to see to, that there be no abuses committed in such licences; and that the due penalties be executed on the faulty. 4ly. As for Priests having cure; the Bishop may prohibit their absence for any time, exceeding two or three dayes, unless they have a licence under his hand for it, upon some cause approved: Nor yet is such licence for just cause to be granted them, for above two moneths, unless this be very pressing, —Discedendi autem licentiam, ultra bimestre tempus, nisi ex gravi cau∣sâ, non obtineant. 5ly. Among just Causes of absence, as the Congregation of Cardinals hath interpreted the Council, such as these are not allowed; * want of a House; * a Suit in Law about the living; * a perpetual sickness; or if it not such, as that, for the Cure thereof, either Medicines, or a Physitian, is wanting in the place of Residence; upon which, absence may be conceded for three or four moneths, if necessiity require so much; * An unhealthful

aire of the place, to one bred elsewhere; unless this aire such only for some certain time; * absence desired for study; for a sufficiency of learning is supposed to be found, by the Examiners, in such persons, when elected: * Their being Officials of the Pope, or imployed in some service of the Bishop, or Cathedral Church; unless it be their assistance of him in the Visitation; * The living at a distance three or four miles off, and visiting his Church, every Lords day. These, I say, and some others are held no just causes, for which Residence may be dispensed with. 6ly, Where such Residence is, for a time, justly dispensed with, the Bishop is to take care, that, in such absence, an able Vicar be substituted with a sufficient allowance out of the Profits, by the Bishops arbitration. 7ly, The Penalty of absence, that is not thus allowed, is Sequestration of Profits for time of absence: to be applied, by the Ecclesiastical Superior, to pious uses; Or, in such absence continued above a year, and further contumacy shewed, when admonished thereof, ejectment out of such Bishop∣rick, or Living; The former to be done by the Pope, whom the Metropolitan, or Senior Bishop-Resident, is obliged to inform thereof by Letter, or Messenger, within three moneths; the lat∣ter, by the Ordinary. 8ly, All former Exemptions, or privi∣ledges, for non-residence, abrogated. See also the like strict∣ness concerning the Residence of the Canons of Cathedral Chur∣ches, and Personal performance of their Church-Offices, Sess. 24. c. 12.

To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.* 1.461 The want of frequent Preaching,* 1.462 and Catechising: As the Council orders, Sess. 23. c. 14. That the Bishops take care, that the Priests on every Sunday, and solemn Festival, celebrate Mass; so concerning Preaching, Sess. 5. c. 2. and Sess. 24. c. 4. They do declare it to be the chief office of a Bishop, and injoyn it to be performed by him in the Cathedral, and by other inferior Clergy, having care of Souls, in their Parishes, at least, on all Lords dayes, and solemn Festivals; Or, if the Bishop be some way letted, that he cannot do it himself; then, that he procure another to do it, at his charge; as also, if the Rector of a Parish be hin∣dered, or do neglect such office, the Bishop is to substitute ano∣ther to supply it, appointing to him part of the Profits. In which Sermons, the Council injoyns;—Ʋt plebes sibi commissas, pro suâ, & earum capacitate, pascant, salutaribus verbis; docendo, quae scire omnibus necessarium est ad salutem; annunciando{que} eis, cum brevitate, & facilitate sermonis, vitia, quae eos declinare, & virtutes, quas sectari oporteat, ut paenam aeternam evadere, & calestem gloriam consequi, valeant. The Bishop also is to take care, that in time

of Advent, and Lent, in such places as he thinks it meet, Sermons be had every day, or three times a week: and in these things the Bishop hath power to compel, if need be, with Ecclesiastical Cen∣sures.

The Bishop is to take care also; That,* 1.463 at least on every Lords day, and other Festivals, the Priest do catechise the Children of his Parish, and teach them the Principles of their faith, and obedi∣ence to God, and their Parents: Finally, Sess. 24. c. 7.—and Sess. 22. c. 8. to see to; That before the Sacraments be admini∣stred, the force, and use of them be explained to the people in the vulgar tongue; and that the Catechisme, to be set forth by the Council, be also faithfully transtated into the vulgar, and expound∣ed to the people by their Pastors; and that also, in the celebrati∣on of the Mass, and other Divine Service,—Sacra eloquia, & sa∣lutis monita eâdem vernaculâ lingua, singulis diebus festis, vel solem∣nibus, explanentur; That the Holy Scriptures, and instructions necessary for Salvation, be explained to them on all Holydaies, and solemn Festivals, in the vulgar tongue; without handling any un∣profitable matter, or question.

[§. 237] Thus, there remaining no more obligation on the Church, than to render so much of divine matters, or exercises intelligible to the common people, as is necessary for them to know, or pra∣ctice; and this abundantly performed; the Council, notwithstan∣ding earnest petitions to the contrary, saw much reason, to retain in the Latin Church the same constancy, as is found in the Greek; and to continue the Divine Service still in the same language, and words, without any alteration, in which their Ancestors had de∣livered it to them, and in which it had descended, to these, from all former ages (as for this Western Church) ever since that, next to the Apostles times. Neither doth this, or the following Ages seem imprudently to have chosen, for this service, the most common language, in the understanding whereof all these Nations are uni∣ted, and concur: So that, however any removed their Station, they might still find the Divine Service both in matter, and words, the same; and any Priest, however he changed his Residence, be able to serve the people in it.

[§. 238] To ξ.* 1.464 The Clergies being restrained from Marriage, and living continently. 1st. The Council, retaining the antient doctrine of the Church, so expounding the Scriptures,† 1.465 holds: That Continency is a Grace, or Gift, which, though not actually possessed by all, yet is denied, by God, to none, who, with using due means, and preparations thereto, seek it of him; the using of which means is a thing in every ones power (in such ordinary

sence, as other humane actions are said to be) 2ly. That Continency being thus, by every one, either possessed, or attain∣able, the vow of perpetual Celibacy is lawful; which is a thing seconded by the universal practice of the Religious, or Mo∣nasticks, as well in the Eastern, as Western, Church: all of them making such a vow. 3ly, Holds; That such Celibacy, attain∣able, and observable by all, may be injoyned, and imposed, by the Church, on some; viz. such, as shall desire to enter into the Priestly Function, for many weighty reasons; and particularly, for those given by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.28, 32, 34 35, 38.—Ʋt non habeant tribulationem carnis,—ut sint sine [mundanâ] solicitu∣dine — ut sint sancti & corpore, & spiritu,—ut faciant, non bene, sed melius: Whilst, mean while, none at all are compel'd absolutely either to become Priests; or, in order to it, to profess Celibacy: (but only; that if they are desirous of the one, they must under∣go the burden of the other:) nor none instructed, that God's law, but only the Churches Constitution, doth require it of them. 4ly. The Council had also, in this matter, the warrantable Prece∣dent of former ages, both in the Occidental, and Oriental, Churches, so far; as that none at all, entring into the holy Order of Priest∣hood in either Church, hath been hitherto permitted, after, to marry. 5ly. The Council, injoyning this, doth not deny this Celibacy of the Clergy, (as being only Ecclesiastical Constitution) to be dispensable. And, though the Council it self thought not fit to give such dispensation, especially since those Princes, and their Prelats in the Council, whose Kingdoms remained untainted with Protestanisme, opposed it (. See Soave p. 688, and 690. Where he saith, That the King of Spain, and his Prelats, had neither Inte∣rest [i.e. out of any necessary compliance with Sects] nor affection, to prosecute the three Instances of the marriage of Priests, communi∣on of the Cup, and use of the vulgar tongue): Yet neither doth the Council prohibit any such dispensation, if at any time, circum∣stances considered, it shall so seem good to the Pope. And so he, after the Council ended, was, both by the Emperour, and the Duke of Bavaria, much sollicited for it,† 1.466 I mean, for a tolerati∣on of it in their Dominions; being in hopes of reclaiming there∣by some of the Sectarists. But, both the Emperours death, fol∣lowing shortly after, hindred the further prosecution of it; and the Pope seemed very averse from gratifying any Prince with such an indulgment, of which he knew not, where it would stop; nor how far it might draw on Petitions from other places, in the same, or also in other, matters; and those, perhaps, of much more pre∣judice to the Churches welfare. In which thing, Soave

also† 1.467 is pleased to ••••commend the Popes prudence there∣in.

[§. 239] A Dispensation therefore in this matter, though lawful, nei∣ther the Council, nor Pope, to whom such power was left, thought expedient. But the Parochial Clergy, by reason of their Secular Imployment, and converse, being much more exposed, than Re∣gulars, to the breach of this holy Resolution of perpetual conti∣nency in a single life, and by their fall herein, highly offending God, and also bringing great scandal on their sacred Profession, the Council, Sess. 25 c. 14. made the strictest laws, that could well be devised, against any such miscarriage; prohibiting Priests to keep any women, of whom might be reasonable suspicion, ei∣ther in their house, or abroad; or to have any converse with such: Among which suspitious persons, saith the third Canon of Conc. Nice, are to be reckoned all: Nisi Mater, aut Soror. aut Avia, aut Avita, vel matertera, sit. In his nam{que} solis personis, & harum similibus, omnis quae ex mulieribus est suspitio, declinatur: which Canon the 3d. Carthag. Council thus expoundeth, or inlargeth,—Sorores & filiae fratrum, aut sororum, & quaecunque ex familia, domesticâ ne∣cessitate, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 antequam ordinatis Parentibus, uxores acceperunt, aut servis, non habitantibus in domo, quas ducant, aliunde ducere, necessi∣tas fuit.

[§. 240] Next the Council ordaineth: That the faulty herein, after the first admonition by the Bishop, should lose the third part of the profits of their Benefice; and after the second, not amending it, all; and further should be suspended from officiating; And, after disobeying a third admonition, should be ejected out of their Living, and made incapable of another. And the Bishop to pro∣ceed herein, without any formal Conviction in Court, so the veri∣ty of the fact were sufficiently proved to him. Their Concu∣bines also, by the aide of the Secular Power, to be expelled the Town, or the Diocess. [And Sess. 21. c. 6. the same power of Ejection of the Clergy, when found incorrigible, the Bishops have, as to any other great and scandalous faults, without the relief of any Exemptions or Appeales.] But if a Bishop were so faulty; after an admonition, from the Provincial Synod, if no amendment, he was to be suspended; and, still continuing so, the same Synod to inform the Pope thereof; and he to proceed to the Deposition of him from his Bishoprick: the Council providing also, that this their Constitution should not hinder the force and execution of any former Laws, or Canons, made for the correction of such crime.

[§. 241] To π.* 1.468 With-holding the Communion of the Cup. 1st. The Council, Sess. 21. c. 1. following the custom, and judgment, of former Churches, declares: That there is no divine Precept, that obligeth all Communicants to receive in both kinds; since the frequent practice of Antiquity, to some persons, in some places, administred it only one kind, when yet there was a possibility (though not convenience) of doing it in both: and 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 divi∣sible, is totally contained in, or exhibited by, every particle of ei∣ther Symbol. 3ly These things supposed; the Council main∣tains, Ib. c. 12. that the Church did not change the former ordi∣nary 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.† 1.469 Neither were the rest willing to pass such an act, with the displeasure of so consi∣derable 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‖ 1.470) laboured much for the Concession of it;† 1.471 Of which Concession these conditions also were proposed by some in the Council,† 1.472 — 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, be∣ing 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,‖ 1.473 That, since the Council could not at present determine such affair, They remitted it to the judgment of his Holiness: who, premising the dili∣gences that he thought fit, should either with the Conditions foremen∣tioned, or some other, according to his prudence, allow the use there∣of, 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, & sa∣lutare petentibus usum Calicis, fore judicaverit.† 1.474

[§. 242] And so it was, that, after the Council ended, the Pope, upon the Petition of the Emperour, and some others,‖ 1.475 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 Catho∣licks; 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,† 1.476 in the Cessation of the Council, to those in Germa∣ny, 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 Aene∣am Silvium, c. 52. — His [Boemis, & Moravis] qui consuevissent, sub binâ specie, panis scilicet & vini, divinae Eucharistiae communi∣care 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 di∣vine 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.

* 1.477To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.* 1.478 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.* 1.479 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 ob••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 su∣perfluous expence be made therein, not suiting to the vow of Pover∣ty. * That Monasticks never depart from their Convent, for the service of any place, or person, or any pretence of other imploy∣ment 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 str••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, if so inclin'd. For religious Houses of Women: * That none either receive the Habit, or profess with∣out first being examined by the Bishop, concerning her will••ng∣ness, and free inclination, thereto. * That in such Houses, most strict clausure be observed. None to go forth on what occasi∣on soever, without the Bishop be first acquainted therewith, and licence it: None, of what sex, or age soever, to enter in, without the licence of the Bishop, or Superioress: All such Votaries enjoyn∣ed to Confess, and Communicat, at least once a month, — Ʋt eo salu∣tari praesidio se muniant (saith the Council)† 1.480 ad omnes oppugnationes Daemonis fortiter superandas. These, and many other like, Con∣stitutions were passed by this Synod of Bishops, for the reforming of Monasticks: the effect of which Decrees, since the time of this Council, hath been very great, both as to removing much former scandal, and restoring Discipline relaxed. And perhaps if some Religious Houses, that now l••e in ashes, had but stood, till these De∣crees of Trent might have been applied to their great distempers, these severe remedies might have healed those Corruptions, for which, still more and more putrifying, and increasing, it is to be feared, the hand of God's Justice cut them off.

To τ.* 1.481 Correction of the Breviary and Missal, See,* 1.482 Sess. 25. Decret. de Brev. Where the Council, having committed this affair to certain Selected Fathers, and being necessitated to conclude, before it was finished, leave the care of it to the Pope; after which, the some Fathers, with some others joyned to them, still prosecuting it in Pius the Fourth's daies, Both the Missal, and Bre∣viary thus corrected, and reduced to a greater uniformity, were licenced and published by his Successor, Pius Fifth.

[§. 244] Thus I have run through many particulars, wherein the wisdom, and diligence of this Council (joyned, in the later, and Principal, actions thereof, with a Pope much inclined the same way, and also much sweyed by his holy Nephew Carlo Borrome••) indeavoured to repair the defects observed, and scandals complained of, in the former Ecclesiastical Government, and Discipline. By which it is clear, that many things are reduced into a much better order since this Council, than they were in before; and the opposition of ma∣ny enemies searching into the faults of those times, (by the Divine Providence bringing good out of evil) conduced much to the rectifying of them; and the pretended Reformation from the Church produced a true one in it. And if, after all this, some blemi∣shes do still remain, 1^st. It must be considered; * That some things the Council could have wished amended, and altered, which yet were too difficult to be brought about, without hazarding schisme amongst the National Churches, or Prelats, long inured to different Customs: And, * That several things also had de∣pendence on the Reformation of the Secular Governours; which when the Council touched upon, though very tenderly, and drew up some Articles concerning it, but such as were decreed both by former Church-Canons, and the Imperial Laws‖ 1.483 presently the Princes grew displeased: and so, for fear of alienating their minds, to whose favours, otherwise, the Church stands much obliged, and by whose sword (under the Divine Providence) she is upheld, the Council was forced to bear with their weakness, and desist from its purpose. Review the Councils complaint set down before, §. 210. — Adeo dura, difficilis{que} est Praesentium temporum conditio &c. 2^ly Again; It may be considered; That several things, that were well ordered by the Council yet are not so well executed: nor ought the Council to be charged at all with this, but its Mini∣sters; who as they shall happen to be more, or less active, or pi∣ously disposed, so its constitutions in all future ages will receive vigor, or languish; And, in this, Its laws do only suffer the com∣mon Fate of all others, made heretofore either in the Ecclesiasti∣cal, or Civil, States; No Court hitherto having been able to de∣vise

a law, that could infallibly promote the execution of their Laws, or of It self. 3^ly. After this, to be considered yet much more; that, if every thing, which private judgments (amongst which eve∣ry one is to reckon his own) do think fit to be corrected, was not thought so by the Council, they ought rather, with an undisputing humility, to submit these to that of so Reverend an Assembly, than to censure it, as not conformable to theirs, and that too, as to matters, not received, or rejected by this Council, but after that all sides had been much disputed, and weighed. Especially they ought to ponder well these two things.

[§. 245] The one; Concerning the Council of Trent its differing in some practices from what was observed in the antient Church; That all the same Constitutions do not fit all times, where the cir∣cumstances of things are much varied, the former manners much relaxed, the Christian Profession much inlarged, the Civil Go∣vernments much altered, &c. Nor is one age of the world (no more, than of a man) in every thing, to be treated, as the prece∣dent: Nor are the Distempers of Christianity in all times so agree∣able in their nature, as to be cured still with the same Medicines: And several projects, that seem very beneficial in the Speculation, yet, in the Experience, and Practice, by not finding such an indiffe∣rent matter to work upon, as is supposed, would have a quite con∣trary effect; and, instead of better order, bring in Confusion, in removing what good was before▪ and being unable to establish any thing better; A thing often pressed in the Council, in answer to those, who would have every thing restored according to the Mo∣del of Antiquity.

[§. 246] * 1.484The other, concerning that Supereminent-power in several par∣ticulars, which as it was found, so was left still, by the Council, in the hands of the Bishop of Rome; That, as by the Church-Canons anciently he hath possessed it, so it ought, if either, rather to be increased than any way diminished, in these later times: when the Christian Churches now much more inlarged, and extended, and seperated, under so many several Secular Heads, and so both by their bulk, and different temporal Interests, more subject to divide, and to fall a sunder, one from another, therefore we have much more need of a firm union in one Spiritual Head, and such Juris∣dictions and Priviledges to be enjoyed by him, whereby He may have some influence upon the whole Body, and It, some necessary re∣course to, and dependance on, Him. As we see in Civil States, how strictly upheld, and unviolably kept, are the Prerogatives, Le∣gislative, Dispensative, Donative, Power of Princes, to keep the whole Body▪ in a due dependance on a Supreme; and to secure the

publick peace, and happiness, in the best of Governments, a Mo∣narchical Regency.

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.

[§. 247] HAving thus dispatched the five Heads, which I intended to speak of; I desire you now to review the objections, which were proposed in the beginning of this Discourse (§. 3. &c.) against this Council; which, for the most part, I think, now will appear to you to have their main force and sting already solved, and taken away.

To α.* 1.485 The words of Bellarmine, who is quoted here by the Archbishop, are not, Ʋt ex omnibus Provinciis; or (which is more) from all particular Churches, which the Archbishop saith: But —Ʋt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Provinciarum aliqui con∣veniant. See touching this matter, what is said before, §. 35. &c. —65, 66, 67, 69. Whether a Council be General; or, in its obli∣gation, equivalent thereto, much matters not; that Council is equivalent to a General, whose Decrees are accepted by the much major part, * of the Church-Catholick, or * of all particular Chur∣ches in it. Now the Greek Churches do agree with the Council of Trent, in the chief points determined therein, against the reform∣ed.† 1.486 —Their Prelats also were invited in the General Summons; and the Council, or those who called it, no causers of their ab∣sence, but their great distance; their Present secular poverty, and oppression: The open wars then between the Turk and Christen∣dome. Lastly, the general accord and peace in their Churches, as to the Trent Controversies.

[§. 248] To β.* 1.487 See before, §. 70, 75, 77. The paucity of Prelats in some Sessions (occasioned by the long duration of the Council; by

the wars, and jealousies of Princes, by the Bishops necessary de∣fence of their several charges at home against the reformed, in France, and Germany) was abundantly recompenced * by the rati∣fication of the Decrees of those Sessions by a very numerous, and unanimous Body assembled in the later end of the Council, and * by the acceptation of the absent Prelats, after the Council.

[§. 249] To γ.* 1.488 See what hath been said, §. 47. &c. 80, 81. It was called, as General Councils ought, and use, to be: namely by the Prime Patriarch, and chief Ecclesiastical Person of Christianity, presiding in such Councils (as other inferiour Councils are also usu∣ally assembled by the Ecclesiastical Prelats presiding therein;) the Emperour, and much major part of Christian Princes consenting to it, desiring it, and sending their Bishops, and Orators, to it.

[§. 250] To δ.* 1.489 This title [representing the Church Ʋniversal] (never used by any General Council, save only by Constance, and Basil, who also de∣creed a General Council its superiority to the Pope) was opposed by the Pope, or his Legats; not because he held not this Council to be General, or Oecumenical; for the title of it every where, with the Pope's approbation, runs,—Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica & Gene∣ralis Tridentina Synodus; but because he held, no General Council whatever, neither that of Trent, nor that of Nice, to represent the Ʋniversal Church, exclusively to him; i. e. so as to have authority to conclude, and oblige the whole Church by its Acts, without these Acts first receiving their confirmation from the See Apostolick. That this only was the Controversie, see witnessed by Soave, p. 138. Now this: whether the Acts of a General Council, unconfirmed by the Prime Patriarch of the Church, be valid? the Dr. knows hath alwayes been a question among Roman Catholicks, and so hath that Proposition in him (Haeres. 11. s. 9. n. 10.) Whether the Ʋni∣versal Church Representative understood so, as not including the Apo∣stolick See, may erre? —Or, Whether the testimony of an Oecu∣menical Council, understood exclusively to the Apostolick See, be the testi∣mony of the whole Church? Which question as some of the French Church seem to affirm, so other Churches deny; neither was it de∣cided in the Council of Trent (of which see what is said before, §. 155.) but yet, de facto, the Pope's Confirmation was desired by this Council (see the last Act, Sess. 25.) Neither doth this thing concern the Council of Trent more than any other General Council. Nor is the deciding of this question material to the Protestants concerning any such Council, whose Acts are confirm∣ed by the Pope; in which the stating of this question surely is need∣less; whether such acts are also of force without the Pope?

[§. 251] To ε.* 1.490 See what is said, §. 67, 64. Neither doth the ab∣sence of Protestant Clergie, such as are not Bishops, disauthorize the Council; for such have no right to sit, or vote in it: Nor the voluntary absence of Protestant Bishops, if invited; if secured; as they were.* 1.491 Nor, lastly, the exclusion, or non admittance of them; if guilty of Tenents censured and condemned by former lawful Councils: as many of the former Protestant Doctrines were:* 1.492 The several causes, alledged by Protestants for absenting themselves, have been shewed in this discourse not sufficient, or satisfactory, from §. 82. to § 122. and from §. 159. to §. 172.

To ζ.* 1.493 review the answer to 〈☐〉〈☐〉. See the reason of the absence of the French Bishops in some Sessions, no way chargable on the Council, or on the non-freedom thereof, before, §. 70 &c.

[§ 252] To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.* 1.494 See what is said, §. 167. where is shewed; that the nearness, and non-impediment of the Italian Bishops by reason of the freedom of that Country from Lutheranisme, and not any par∣ticular interest of theirs, thwarting the proceedings of the Coun∣cil, was the true cause of their being so numerous. That the ab∣sence of other Bishops was culpable, but no way, their presence: that the much major part of them were Subjects to other Princes (the Emperor, King of Spain; Duke of Florence; the State of Venice, &c.) not the Pope; and did manifestly in the Council fol∣low and adhere to their Interests, and Instructions, in several matters. That, as to the Protestant Controversies, the Pope had no need of their assistance against the rest, the whole Council in these unani∣mously according: and that, as to the contests between the Episco∣pal and Papal Rights, many of them sided against him; which is every where shewed also in Soave's History describing the great perplexities, and Artifices of the Pope, and his Legats, in preser∣ving his pretended priviledges, and not that they might be confir∣med or asserted by the Council; but that, not diminished or voted down by it. Lastly, that, however such a number of Italian Bishops might hinder something, prejudicial to the Pope, from be∣ing voted in the Council; yet were they insufficient alone to vote any thing, or to pass any Decree, at least in matter of Doctrine, against the rest: because no such things were valid, a consider∣able part dissenting; as the non-Italian, or also the Bishops of any one greater Nation, were granted to be.

To θ.* 1.495 See what is said, §. 39. &c. 67. An universal Acceptation by all Churches of the Acts of a Council, to render them obli∣ging, is not necessary; for so none would be valid, wherein the Doctrines of any Church are censured.

[§ 253] To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.* 1.496 See what is said, §. 77. Both the Ecclesiastical, and Civil State of France accepted the Trent Decrees as to matter of Do∣ctrine; the things, wherein Protestants chiefly oppose it. The Ecclesiastical State of France accepted, and petitioned the King and Civil State to receive, this Council also in points of Discipline. And if the Civil State received it not in every thing, I mean, so far, as it medled not with their temporal rights, I think, it ap∣pears, from the former Justification of the Legality of this Council, that they cannot be freed from fault: Neither, if that State re∣fuse these Canons of Discipline, will it just fie the Protestants for refusing the rest, of Doctrine: unless the French plead the Coun∣cil totally illegal, as they do not; neither will it justifie the Prote∣stants, at least, in refusing these; if the French do, faultily, refuse them.

To λ.* 1.497 See what is said,* 1.498 from §. 113. to §. 127. where is shew∣ed. 1^st As to the Bishops; That the same plea hath been usually made against former Councils by the Hereticks, they condemned. That the Christian world was divided into Arrians, and Anti-Arrians before the Council of Nice, as it was into Catholicks, and Protestants before that of Trent; and the Arrians were many waies proceeded against, before the assembling of that Council, by some of those Bishops; who yet afterward sat in Council as their Judges; and the Anti-Arrian Bishops only, as the major number, condemn∣ed the other. That the Church-Governours, whatever their per∣swasions are formerly known to be in the controversie proposed, cannot be removed from the Tribunal, for the deciding purely eccle∣siastical, and spiritual, matters; and this is only necessary (not, to see, whether they side any way, or own a party; but only) to see on which side is the major part: That in causes of Religion, in which all men are concerned, and the Clergie especially stand obliged ear∣nestly to defend the truth, and oppose Novelties, and are culpable in remaining neuters, and omitting this duty (to use Mr. Chilling-worths words) it is in a manner impossible to be avoided, but that the Judge must be, some way or other, a party; if he may be called a party, who hath formerly declared himself of such an opinion. But, if their being questioned of judging in their own cause, re∣late not here to matters of opinion, but of honour, or profit; then, for most matters defined in the Council of Trent, its judgment cannot be declined on this later account, being given in matters, meerly speculative, or at least, far remote from such Secular con∣cernments.

2ly As to the Pope: That the same things may be repeated for him, as for the Bishops. That Popes have often presided by

their Legats in former allowed Councils, when they were accused, and excepted against, by those persons, for the judging of whose cause the Council was convened: As Celestine, excepted against by Nestorius, presided in the Third, and Leo, by Dioscorus, in the Fourth, General Council. That it is thought most reasonable, that the supreme Civil Judge, either by himself, or his Substitutes, be the Judge of all those causes, which concern his own Rights, when there is a controversie in these between him, and some of his Sub∣jects. That, if the Pope, for defects in his Office, or other per∣sonal faults, be Table to any other Judge, it must be to the Coun∣cil. Now by this Council he remaineth either cleared, or not condemned, as to the Accusations of Protestants.

This having ever been the chief plea for those,* 1.499 who fore∣see, that they shall be over-numbred, and over-voted in a Council to alledge it to consist of a contrary Party; and so to decline its judgment (for, usually, no Council happens to be called for suppres∣sing any new Doctrine, till a considerable opposition is first made by those Pastors of the Church against such Doctrine, who also are the proper Judges of it) I think it not amiss, in the last place, to give you the judgment of Protestants themselves touching the insufficiency of such an excuse, when (by God's providence) it hap∣pened afterward to be their own case, in, I think, the most noted, and general Synod, that hath been held amongst them since the Re∣formation; I mean, the Synod at Dort, assembled, A. D. 1618. Wherein were present Delegates from the King of England, Elect∣or Palatine, Landgrave of Hess, the four Protestant-Cantons of the Swisses, the Commonwealth of Geneva, &c. For some time, great Controversie had been in the Low-Countries concerning the high points of Predestination, Grace, and Freewill; the Pastors there divided into Remonstrants, and Contra-Remonstrants, the contest proceeding so far in several places, as to a seperation of Commu∣nion. Upon it this National Synod is called, and the Remon∣strants in this of Dort, foreseeing themselves in the same condition, as the Protestants did in that of Trent, defenc••d themselves with the same Arts and Excuses:† 1.500 Alledged, that the Synod, except∣ing the Forrainers, did mostly consist (a thing which could not be denied) of an already declared contrary Party, who, it was unrea∣sonable, that they should sit Judges in their own cause; a party too, who had before also separated themselves from communicating with the Remonstrants; and amongst other things, those Remon∣strants did particularly insist upon this very plea, we are now speak∣ing to, of the Protestants against the Council of Trent; which was held justly to exempt them from any obligation to its Decrees.

They required also a Synod, as the Protestants did in the time of that of Trent, In which a set and equal number on either side might be chosen to consider, how to accommodate, rather than de∣cide, these Controversies: After which, any Clergy dissenting, being only removed from their places, might still enjoy the same liberty of conscience as others: For that, since the Apostles, there was no such infallible Guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that Mo∣dern Synods might erre; as several Ancient had done.† 1.501

In answer to this; the Synod defends it self (all the forrain assistants thereof concurring in their judgment) with such replies as these,* 1.502 Than which, only changing the name, I cannot imagine a better justification of the Council of Trent. 1st Concerning the mem∣bers of the Synod, their being of a contrary perswasion, and so a Party, and Judges; They say (see Acta Synod. Dordr. Sess. 26. p. 84. Nunquam praxin hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse; ut, Pastores, quoties exorienti∣bus erroribus, ex officio. sese opponerent [as the Tridentine Bishops, before that Council, did] propterea jure suffragiorum, aut de illis ipsis erro∣ribus judicandi potestate, exciderent. Ita enim omnem everti judicio∣rum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem; effici{que}, ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant. Again, p. 88.—Eos, qui in doctrinâ aut moribus scandalorum authores sunt, semper Censores suos, Consistoria, Classes, Synodos, seu partem adversam, rejicere.—Ad eum modum, Arrianis aliis{que} olim haereticis, adversus Orthodoxos Pastores semper licuisset ex∣cipere. And,—Quo pacto (say they) iis Pastores se neutros, ut lo∣quuntur, praebebunt (Quando praesertim tam multi anni intercedunt, priusquam legitimum & publicum Ecclesiae judicium obtineri potest) quum Deus illis praecipiat, ut serio Doctrinae sinceritati attendant.

The English Divines there deliver their judgment also in the same case very solidly.—Non valet (say they) ad Synodi hujus, [but suppose they had said Tridentinae] authoritatem enervandam, quod causentur Remonstrantes maximam Synodi partem constare ex adver∣sariis suis: Ne{que} naturale jus permittere, ut, qui adversarius est, in causâ suâ judex sedeat. 1. Nam huic sententiae refragatur primo perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum. Nam in Synodis. Oecumenicis, Nicaeno, &c. ii, qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt, ab illis, qui eandem sibi traditam admiserunt approbarunt, examinati judica∣ti, damnati, sunt. 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit. Theologi enim, in negocio Religionis, ne{que} esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae, ne{que} esse debent. Si igitur soli neutrales possunt esse Judices, extra Ecclesiam, in quâ lites enataesunt, quaerendi essent. 3. Ipsa aequitas hocsuadere videtur. Nam quae ratio reddi potest, ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi Pastores, qui, ex officio, receptam Ecclesiae doctrinam propugnantes, secus docentibus adversati sunt. Si hoc obtinuerit, nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisleret, ne, ipso facto, jus om∣ne

postmodum de illis controversiis judicandi amitteret. Enough of this.

2. Again:* 1.503 For the just and obliging authority of this Council, and the Credibility, at least of its not erring, they urge.† 1.504 — Christum Dominum, qui Apostolis promisit spiritum veritatis, Ec∣clesiae quoque suae pollicitum esse, se cum eâ usque ad finem saeculi mansu∣rum, Matt. 28.20. And,—Ʋbi duo, aut tres in ipsius nomine congregati fuerint, se in eorum medio futurum, Matt. 18.20. They urge the precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.29, 31.—Ʋt judicetur de iis, quae Prophetae loquuntur: And,—Prophetarum Spiritus prophetis subjecti sint. And the Geneva Divines, Sess. 29. urge also,—Dic Ecclesiae,—and—Si Ecclesiam non audiverit, &c.

3^ly. In defence of the Protestants refusing submission to the Judgment of the Council of Trent,* 1.505 because it was a party, without their allowing the same priviledge to the Remonstrants, for that of Dort, they answer,—‖ 1.506 Valde disparem esse hanc comparationem. Illos enim [the Remonstrants, and Contra-Remonstrants] eidem sub∣esse Magistratui. And,—Remonstrantes membra esse Ecclesiarum Belgicarum, & Reformatarum. See the same said again, Sess. 26. p. 85. But, according to this answer, the reason, why the Protestants denied their submission to the Council of Trent must not be, because it consisted of an adverse party, but because all its members were not Subjects of the same Prince; a thing never alledged before. But here I ask, Is there then, no preservation of the Churches unity by Synods, no subordination of Clergy, no rule of one party, the Superior and Major, judging another, the Inferior and Minor, any further, than only in such little parcels of the Church, as happen to live under the same Secular Gover∣nours? Are our Lords Promises, and, Dic Ecclesiae, all confin'd to these? What will become of the Authority of Oecumenical and Patriarchal Councils? Why not in these also one Ecclesiastical major Party judge another, as well as in that of Dort. Credo unam, Catholicam, Ecclesiam: How this Church One, if united in no one common Government and Subjection? But if it be: here also one party must judge another; and so the Protestants alledg∣ing the Council of Trent an adverse Party, availes them nothing, as to the annulling of its Judgment. But, as the Remonstrants, yet further replied† 1.507 If, at least, of the Clergy living under the same Secular Government one adverse Party may judge the other, then may a Synod of the Catholick Clergy in France oblige the Protestant Clergy there to stand to their sentence: To this, there∣fore, the Synod shapes another answer, as me seems no better, than the former: That all Protestants are freed from being tryed or

judged by the Popish party in Synods,* 1.508 For that—† Primi Eccle∣siae Reformatores pro Doctoribus Ecclesiae Pontificiae haberi noluerunt, sed contra ab iis secessionem fecerunt. Again, Ibid,—Isti nunquam Ecclesiae Pontificiae Doctores censeri voluerunt, sicuti Hi [i. e. the Re∣monstrants] pro Ecclesiae Reformatae Doctoribus habert cupiunt. So also the Geneva Divines, Sess. 29. deliver their judgment,—Licuit (say they) nostris protestari adversus Concilium Constantiense, & Tri∣dentinum: quia non profitemur unionem cum illis: Imo ill am asper∣namur, & aversamur. But, I say: doth our renouncing, and pro∣fessing to have no communion with a lawful, Superior Ecclesiastical Authority presently, in justice, free us from it? For example, the Presbyter Arius his renouncing communion with the Bishop of Alexandria? or the Presbyter Luther, with his Ecclesiastical Supe∣riors in Saxony? Is there not a due subordination both of per∣sons and Synods, from the lowest to the highest, as well in several, as in the same secular Governments, to preserve the unity of the Church not only Belgick, or Brittannick, but Catholick? Which gradual Authority all those are obliged to obey, and conform to, and are liable to its censures; not who voluntarily profess obedi∣ence, but who truly, according to the Churches Canons, do owe it; as the Protestants did to that of Trent, and owe it not a whit the less for their declaring against it: Else so many as will venture to be schismaticks, and divide, will put themselves out of the reach of the Churches Spiritual Courts; And, had the Remonstrants, to their supposed innovation in doctrine, added a separation in com∣munion from the rest of the Belgick Clergy, the Contra-Re∣monstrants, they had, by this second fault, freed themselves from ha∣ving been either justly tryed or censured by the Synod: and their de∣claring once,—Non profitemur unionem cum vobis: immo illam asper∣namur, & aversamur, would have voided all the counter-actings of the Synod of Dort; as these Dort-Divines say, the Reformed's like Protestation did, those of Trent.

[§. 255] To μ. See what is said, §. 125. Leo. the Tenth did no wrong in declaring the Protestant-tenents Heresies,* 1.509 if several of them were condemned by several allowed Councils,‖ 1.510 and consequent∣ly the maintainers of them, were Hereticks: Yet is it usual for Councils, and other Courts of Judicature, to reiterate their sen∣tence so often, as offenders reiterate the same faults, or revive the same errors: And therefore was this done in Trent.

[§. 256] To ν.* 1.511 See §. 83, 92. The place of the Council was chosen by the consent of most Christian Princes: no place could be ap∣pointed of an equal convenience for all Countries: the place was under the Emperours power, as himself often declared; not ac∣cessible

by the Popes forces; and secure enough to the main Body of Protestants, those of Germany; from which place also their forces, when time was, frighted the Council: Lastly, nearer to them than to the Catholicks of Spain, and France. A Sase∣conduct also the Protestants had, as large, as could justly be desi∣red; and the Exceptions they took against it, were unreasonable. Of which see before, §. 104. The Council of Constance is also much wronged, and the proceedings thereof against Jo. Huss mis∣related: Of which see before, §. 101. The Divines also that, upon the Safe-conduct, came to the Council of Trent, were cour∣teously treated, and dismissed; though the designs of those Princes, that sent them thither, were treacherous, and bloody.† 1.512

[§. 257] To ε.* 1.513 The whole abode of the Protestant Divines of Trent, from their first coming to their departure, was but in all about a Fortnights time; after which short time the Protestant Princes, un∣expectedly, appeared in Arms. Though it is true also, that at their coming one of the Legats his accidentally falling sick of a dis∣ease, of which he died within a few weeks, somewhat retarded the business of treating with them; the manner of which treaty re∣quired much deliberation. Lastly, by their printing the defence of their tenents the Fathers of the Council heard sufficiently what they could say; yet were no way sweyed with their Argu∣ments,

[§. 258] To π.* 1.514 See §. 68. n. 2. and what is said before to λ. To refer the judgment of Spiritual matters to Lay-persons, as more indifferent; or to change the former ordinary Ecclesiastical Judges of such Controversies, because these are fore-known to be of a contrary opinion to those, who are to appear before their Tribunal is shewed before, §. 254. to be a most unreasonable de∣mand. Neither, if such thing had been granted, could it have ad∣vantaged the Protestants: For, whether their Judge had been the whole, and not only the Episcopal, Clergy, or Secular Princes, or People; a major part of all these, they knew, to be Catholick, and of a belief opposit to theirs.† 1.515 And, whom their writings had hitherto not changed, or perswaded, why should they think their discourse, or disputes would? Lastly; an equal number on both sides, without any umpirage, appointed to be their Judges, is a Court, that, where either party is resolute, can proceed to no sen∣tence. They, who foresee a major part of those, to whom our Lord hath committed the Government, and guidance of his Church, opposing their Doctrine, are already self-condemned, as to Authority; and ought not to seek a new Judge, but reform their errors.

[sect. 259] To ς.* 1.516 See what is said, §. 105. To shew, that this Oath was not given in any prejudice to the freedom of the Council, for 1st. It was only an oath used at Ordinations, not new framed for, or imposed on, the Council at Trent. It, or the like was anciently taken by the Bishops when ordained, without being thought preju∣dicial to the liberty of former Councils. 2. Again an Oath it was only obliging to a legal obedience due by the Divine, or Church-laws (an Oath to this purpose being taken also by Protestant Bi∣shops;) and so, strengthning only that engagement of Bishops to the observance of these laws, which they had before, when yet unsworn. So that, notwithstanding such Oath, they might questi∣on any Papal pretended right, which they thought not Canonical: As also it is clear they freely did, without any thought, or jealou∣sie, of their trespassing against this Oath, and without the Pope's Legats objecting it to them. 3. Again; neither did such Oath, in such a sence, restrain them to observance of the Canons; as that now, when in a conjunct Body, and the See Apostolick concurring, they might not also abrogate, and change the same Canons, as thought fit. 4 However; An Oath it was laying no restraint upon the Counicls liberty, as to voting any way concerning most of the Protestant Controversies: unless perhaps that of the Popes Supremacy. 5. Again, If this Oath binding them to any thing thought unlawful, their learning well enough knew, they were, without any Dispensation, obliged to break, not keep, it; and that in an unlawful ingagement, every one is free from it, as soon as he knows it such, 6. Lastly, this Oath being taken generally by all, how come the French; and Spanish Bishops to be said to have acted so diversly from the Italian Bishops, if all were so straightly tyed, by the same Oath, to the Popes inte∣rest.

As for what is said,— That none had suffrage in this Council, but such as were profest enemies to all, that called for Reformation, or a free Council: Here, since it cannot be denied; that all the Bishops, present in Trent, had Suffrages, none excluded, it is by the Ob∣jectors confessed, that not only a Major part, but the whole Coun∣cil of Trent, was an enemy to the Reformation; and the Pope, as to all those Points, that proceeded singly against them, secure enough of a full vote, without the multiplying of Italian, or Titular, or Pensionary, Bishops.

[§. 260] To σ.* 1.517 1 See §. 160 The proposal of the Legats could alter nothing in the Councils votes as to the things that were proposed; especially as to those Protestant Controversies, wherein they unanimously agreed; but only could hinder some things from being voted, be∣cause

not proposed, But no Protestant Controversies are found so omitted. Again, such Proposal seems very necessary for order sake; nor was any way used by the Legats to abridge the desires of any considerable part of the Council concerning any proponends, as is amply shewed, See §. 164 §. 160.

[§. 261] To σ.* 1.518 2 Things were first consulted on, and voted in Trent, not at Rome; the Pope usually advertised of their Consultations, after the judgment of the Congregations already passed, returned Instructions to his Legats, before the General Sessions, concern∣ing his opinion of the matter in hand; and commendable had it been, and advantageous to the Synod, could the Bishops, or Metro∣politans of each Province have done the like to their Representa∣tives. Celestine, and Leo declared their judgments to the third and fourth General Council, not to give a law to them, but advice. If the Pope's Instructions to his Legats concerning any Points to be handled in Council were lawful before the Council, why not during it: Especially the matters being so various, as that the Legats were not capable of such Instructions all at once; neither did this encroach on the liberty of the Council: unless it can be shewed, that the Council was obliged to follow it; which, it is clear, they were not, because, de facto, they many times opposed it. Neither was any thing in matter of Doctrine voted in Council, whatever instructions came in the male from Rome, a considerable part re∣sisting.

[§. 262] To τ.* 1.519 See what is said, §. 170, 171. The Popes Pensions given to some poorer Bishops, during so long a Session of the Council, might be an effect of his charity, not policy. However, it is clear, that their assistance to him was useless as to Protestant Controversies; and stood him in little stead as to those Catholick ones, wherein a considerable part of the Council opposed him; none of which were passed for him; if any perhaps were hindred by his party from being passed against him, this was the uttermost of any service, done by his Pensioners. As for many Titular Bishops sent, and new Bishopricks erected, during the Council▪ whilst those things are only in general said, and no particulars na∣med, they carry the suspicion of a groundless report.

[§. 263] To ν.* 1.520 The Councils determining things repugnant to Scrip∣ture. 1 That no injunction repugnant to the Holy Scriptures is to be obeyed, is on all sides agreed on: But, that some of the Councils decrees are contrary to the Scriptures, as it is a thing affirmed by the Protestants, the lesser; so is it denied by the Council, and its adherents, much the major, part of the Doctors and Church-Go∣vernours of the West. We are to seek then, which of them, our du∣ty doth oblige us to obey, and follow.

Next, ² As to the Councils determining things not warrant∣ed by Scripture, See before, §. 176. the two Propositions (both Divine Revelation) whereby the Scriptures warrant the Church, in her defining, and requiring a belief of, such things to be law∣ful, and in her injoyning such things to be practised, as the Holy Scriptures have not prohibited, or declared against. This warrant from the Scriptures, for any of their Decrees, the Council wants not: and affirms no further warrant from them, as to such De∣crees, necessary.

[§. 264] To φ.* 1.521 I answer. 1st, That the Council of Trent allows no Tradition, extra Scripturas, or unwritten there, to be sufficient ground of defining matter of faith, unless it be Tradition Aposto∣lical. —Traditiones (saith It)† 1.522 quae exipsius Christi ore ab Aposto∣lis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per ma∣nus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt.—And‖ 1.523 — Vult S. Synodus quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam, & Apostolorum Traditiones &c. in praedicto Concilio tractentur.

2^ly That any Council should make the word of God delivered by the Apostles either by Tradition written (the Holy Scriptures) or unwritten (i. e. by them,) equally a ground of Faith▪ where there is a certainty, equal, or sufficient, of the one, as of the other, that it is Apostolical▪ I see not, how it can be liable to any Censure.—Of this thus Mr. Stillingfleet,† 1.524—Your next inquiry is to this sense: Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible, as the Scrip∣tures? I answer freely: (supposing it equally evident,) what was de∣livered by the Apostles to the Church by word, or writing, hath equal Credibility. [As for the necessity of standing Records, which he there alledgeth, from the speedy decay of an Orall Tradition; this is sufficiently remedied, if the Apostles Successors at least do com∣mit to writing things which were by them orally received]. And thus Mr. Chillingw. † — We conceive no antipathy between God's Word written, and unwritten, but that both might stand very well to∣gether, —If God had pleased, he might so have disposed it, that part might have been written, and part unwritten: but then he would have taken order, to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it, which was not written [So he hath, sending us to our spiritual Guides,† 1.525 who do, by Tradition of their Predecessors writings conve•••••••••••• to us that right sence of Scriptures, which is dubious in the written letter of them.] 3^ly. None can rationally deny, that the Traditive Doctrine of the Church-Guides would have been a sufficient ground of our faith, had the Scriptures not been written, because it was so, before they were written; and is so still to some, who cannot read them written; or know, that others

read them right. Of this also thus Mr. Stillingf.† 1.526 —It is evident from the nature of the thing, that the writing of a divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground, and reason of faith, as to that revelation: Because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it; as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs, but of all those, who in the time of Christ, and his Apostles, did believe the truth of the Doctrine of Christ, before it was written, — and this is still the case of all illiterate persons, who cannot resolve their faith properly in∣to the Scripture, but into the Doctrine delivered them out of the Scrip∣ture. 4^ly We find the first General Councils, universally allowed, to have grounded their Decrees upon the Argument of Tradition, and the Doctrine, or Interpretation, of Scriptures, des∣cended to them from former ages, as well as upon the Text of Scriptures; and by both these, not one of them singly, to have defended their cause against Hereticks. Of which thus Athanasi∣us.† 1.527 — Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à Patribus ad Patres, quasi per manus, traditam esse,—and, —In eo Concilio illa sunt scripta, quae ab initio ipsi, qui Testes oculati, & Ministri verbi fuere, tradiderunt. Fides enim quae scriptis, decretis{que} Synodi sancita est, ea est totius Ecclesiae. And,‖ 1.528 — Ego arbitrabar omnium (quotquot un∣quam fuere) haereticorum inanem garrulitatem, Nicaeno Concilio seda∣tam esse. Nam fides, quae inibi à Patribus, secundum sacras Scripturas, tradita, & confessionibus confirmata est, satis mihi idonea, essicax{que} vi∣debatur ad omnem impietatem evertendam, & pietatem ejus, quae in Christo est, fidei constituendam. 5^ly. Protestants, in some point of faith, ground their belief only, or at least sufficiently, on Tradition† 1.529 namely in this: That the Scriptures are God's Word; and consequently must allow any other Tradition of equal evi∣dence a sufficient ground of any other Article of Faith; and so do,—When you can produce (saith Mr. Stillingf.‖ 1.530) a•• certain evi∣dence of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture, as we can do, that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church, you may then be hearkned to. And Mr. Chillingworth,† 1.531 —Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition [as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word] and we will yield to you in all things. 6^ly Tradition, unwritten in Scripture, is ei∣ther a delivery of something not contained in Scripture, or the ex∣position, or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there: The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of, and vindicates, than the former (see Disc. 2. §. 40. n 2.) Again, both these Traditions are either only orall, (in which is the less certainty,) or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors. Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scrip∣tures

found in the writings of the Fathers, is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith, where the sence of Scripture is in dispute. For, if we ask them, whether the letter of Scripture only, or the sence, is that which they believe, and call Gods word, or divine Revelation; they an∣swer, that they believe the sence of it to be so: If asked again, in Scriptures of dubious interpretation, why they believe this to be the sence, not another; they answer, because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it; which Tradition, so early, so universal, &c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles. 7^ly Concerning, what Traditions have the Evi∣dence of Apostolical (as Protestants grant some have) what not, I know no other authorized, or also fitter, judge, than the Council; nor any other way, that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them, than by her Councils. And, if Councils are to Judge, what Traditions are such, the same Councils may proceed, where they find these clear, to ground their decrees on them, as such. This is said to shew: that Traditions, if evidently Apostoli∣cal, are a sufficient ground of faith; that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so; and, that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment, which are so; That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition, as well as of Scrip∣ture, to ••••prove the verity of their Definitions; and for these reasons, the Council of Trent† 1.532 seems not culpable, if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies, de fide. 8. But, 8^ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith, that is opposed by Protestants, which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures▪ On these Scriptures, either, if it be in speculative points of faith, revealing it; Or, if in mat∣ter of practice, either commanding, or not prohibiting it: This lat∣ter being enough for an obliging of that assent, or belief, which the Council requires, viz. that the thing, not so prohibited, is lawful. 9. Lastly, where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition, not only extra, but, contra, Scripturam [speaking of the true sence thereof] the Catholicks freely joyn with them; that, where any Tradition is not said, but proved contrary to Scripture (i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written) such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected, the other followed.

[§. 265] To χ.* 1.533 That nothing, as matter of faith, was defined by the Council of Trent, which hath not descended from, and is not warranted by, Apostolical Tradition, is as constantly affirmed

by Catholiks, as denied by Protestants. That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition, that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is al∣so asserted by Catholicks, as the contrary is pretended by Protestants. But that nothing is, or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition, but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings (as if all that descended to posterity must needs be, in them, so few, so short, set down, and registred) this as Protestants alledge it a just, so Catholicks hold it too short a, measure, by which to examine Tra∣ditions Apostolical. This for matters of faith; as for other things decreed, or injoyned by the Council to be practised; and so consequently, this to be believed of them, that the practice thereof is lawful; it is not necessary, that such things be warrant∣ed by Apostolical Tradition, but only, that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it.

[§. 266] To ψ.* 1.534 See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint, from §. 173. to § 203. Where is shewed; that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions; and that it is no wonder, if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of for∣mer Church Doctrine, and Tradition; as Lutheranisme was a com∣plex of former errors (probably, the last, and greatest attempt, that shall be made against the Catholick Faith:) and that, for the Councils making so many Anathema's, it is only their blame, who have broached, or revived so many dangerous Tenents. That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds; though no just cause can be alledged, why this Council (only, if supposed a General one) might not have done so, had they thought fit, 1. no former Canon of any Council (not that of Ephesus See §. 77) having prohibited such a thing. 2 No former Canon, that prohibits such a thing, being valid, or justly prescribing to a suc∣ceeding Council of equal authority. That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith; and for its requiring assent to, or belief of, them under Anathema, or Excommunication, it is, if a crime, a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils, even the four first: and that the Protestants, accusing this Council thereof, yet do the same thing in their own. That this Co••n∣cil requires not, from all persons, an explicit knowledge and be∣lief of, or assent to, all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation; where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority, and where the persons, after knowing them, do not persist obstinatly ••o contradict, or refuse to submit their judgment, and give credit to them, as the Decisions of a

Judge, authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies, and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries. Lastly, That, in the beginning of the Council, two wayes being proposed, as Soave re∣lates, † the one,* 1.535 to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general, and their Books; only singling out some chief Article, thereof to be Ana∣thematized; the other.—To bring under examination all the propo∣sitions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction; and out of these to censure and condemn that, which, after mature Delibe∣ration, should seem necessary and convenient, with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter of these, though much more tedi∣ous and painful, For the greater benefit both of those within, and those without, the Churches Communion; that her children might more exactly know all those noxious Tenents they were to avoid, and her adversaries those they were to reform. And if, in taking this second way, the Council escaped not obloquy, yet much more had they incurred it in taking the firsti; e. in condemn∣ing so many Persons and their writings for many Corruptions of Catholick Truths, and then naming none, or a few; and not using so much care in sifting the Novelties of Luther, who drew such a train after him, as their Predecessors at Coustance did, in those of Jo. Wicleff or Jo Huss.

Neither, in so particular a Discussion and Censure of the Lutheran Doctrines, [§. 267] is this Council destitute of the Example of ma∣ny former Councils, very copious in their Anathemas against He∣resies of a much less latitude, and in some matters, as considered in themselves, seeming of no great Malignity. For which; see no less than twelve Anathemas of the third General Council passed against Nestorius, according to the several Particulars, whereinto his Error had br••••ched it self, and colours, he had laid upon it, though all pointing at one thing; two persons in our Lord Christ (a thing Soave saith,‖ 1.536 the Council of Trent took notice of, and set before them as a Pattern:) See the 25 Anathemas of the Syrmian Council, all relating to several branches of Photinianisme: The eight Anathematismes of the Milevitan Council pursuing all the particular points of Pelagianisme. The eleven Anathemas of the second N••cen Council,* 1.537 † all about veneration of Images; The twenty Anathematismes of that ancient Council at Gangra, A. D. 319. (wherein the famous Hosius was present) pronounced against the Eustathians, letting nothing, how small soever it might seem to be, in this their censure pass unbranded, wherein this Sect was found to oppose the Churches common Doctrine, and Practice. Many of which Anathemas of former Councils, if you please to compare with those of Trent, you shall find several of them, as to

the Gravity of the matter, much inferiour: Lastly, see the late Council at Constance condemning not only 45 propositions, of John Wicliff recited there,† 1.538 but 260 more, besides; of the same tem∣per: All which had been formerly with much care, by the Ʋni∣versity of Oxford, gleaned out of his writings: they bringing un∣der their censure not only such Articles, as were Blasphemi, Haeretici, or Sediosi, but also, as were temerarii, scandalosi, or piarum aurium offensivi, and letting none escape them, that might do hurt. In the same Council also afterward† 1.539 were no less than 30 propositi∣ons of John Huss condemned. Now, we may presume, that Lu∣ther, and his Followers, to those who put their sickle into their books, to bring to tryal what seemed faults, could not but yield an harvest much more fertile; Nor was the care here to be less, where the danger was much greater. And, for this strict Inqui∣sition, and search made by Councils, we owe great thanks to the providence of God. For thus, whilst the wantonness and curiosi∣ty of mens understanding, from the Faith delivered in General still descends to things more particular; and so, raiseth new Dis∣putes in the Church, and spreads false opinions, the contrary De∣terminations of Councils (regulated by necessary Consequences) render also the Christian Faith from time to time more particular, and so, more exact, and less liable to the corrupted; when all that (in question) comes to be stated, that is clearly evidenced, and the knowledge thereof, any way useful. So, since the settling, by Council, of those particular points contained in the Athanasian Creed, explicating that of the Apostles much more short, and General, the Church, as to these points, hath enjoyed a great re∣pose, and freedom from those disputes, with which some ages of it before were miserably distracted. And, if the Decrees of the Council of Trent have had the same effect (as Soave complains they have, in the beginning of his History† 1.540) the Protestants may im∣pute it to their precedent questioning of the Churches Doctrine, and disturbance of her peace.

[§. 268] To ω.* 1.541 See what is said before, §. 244. Bene facere, male au∣dire, is the common fortune of Governours, and to the censorious and male contents the world is still out of order (though God him∣self Governs it,) and the worst times are alwaies the present. Whe∣ther the Trent Decrees for Reformation, which were never so nume∣rous in any Council, and design'd from the beginning of it to have an half share, with points of Doctrine, in all their Consultati∣ons, and in the composition of which so many several Parties, well seen at least in one anothers Defects, concurred, were so con∣trived as to remove motes, and not beams, to cure itches, not fea∣vours,

I must refer you to the re-consideration of the particulars set down before, from, §. 212. Neither may we think, that it was the meddling with mo••es, that offended so much, either the Court of Rome, or of France, as Soave tells us their reformation did. For any defects, still seen in Church-Government, Discipline, &c, (which alwaies are, and will be, many) it ought not to be charged on these laws, but the non execution of them; which neg∣lect also useth to be much more in those laws, that are more exact, and perfect, and so more contrary to common practice. But, since the sitting of this Council, there have not wanted those pious Bishops (as S. Carlo Borremeo, and others) who molding their Re∣formations exactly according to these Decrees, have manifested to the world the great perfection thereof.

[§. 269] To α α.* 1.542 See what hath been said in Defence of this Dispen∣sative Power placed in the supreme Ecclesiastical Governour, before, §. 216. 1. The Council, weighing the conveniences thereof with the inconveniences, yet declared,† 1.543 —Publice expedit, legis vinculum quandoque relaxare, ut plenius, evenientibus casibus, & ne∣cessitatibus, pro communi utilitate satissiat. Else, the laws may sometimes hurt, where they should help. 2. Again, this Dis∣pensative Power, deposed in this Ecclesiastical Supreme, is no new usurpation, but an ancient priviledge injoyed alwaies by him; Of which see before, § 217. 3. Next: It had here some qualifi∣cations, and clogs laid upon it by the Council: As;† 1.544 that such Dispensation shall be accounted surreptitious and void, when not given gratis, and causâ prius cognitâ; the Ordinary being constitu∣ted the Inspector and Examiner of this.† 1.545 Now he must be very perversly wicked, who will issue forth such a Dispensation, where he neither receives benefit by it, nor sees just cause for it. 4. Last∣ly. The same Dispensative Power, as to the civil Laws, is reposed in the Secular Supreme; neither is the vigor of such Laws esteem∣ed to be overthrown by it.

To β β.* 1.546 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 Re∣formation, 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 Consci∣ence, 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 contro∣verted 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 Sub∣jects, 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 Dis∣course may not be frustrated, by such pretences, of its desired effect.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

[§. 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 cer∣tain (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 pro∣pose 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. 3^ly Yet: That in the action, wherein he followeth it when er∣ring, 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 grie∣vously 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 ig∣norance 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 submit∣ting to Authority, is devolved wholy on this, our care, that this our dissenting Conscience, or Judgment, be rightly informed; see∣ing 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 in∣trusted; 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 a∣voided,] the Judgment cannot suffer the least corruption, or alte∣ration, 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 in∣dustry 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 ne∣cessarily 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 Eccle∣siastical 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 to her, and check her contents; Applying it rather to Secular Affairs, or Humane Literature, and cautiously waving the consideration of matters of Religion, and keeping it a stranger from all such Debates; that so, when it is summoned, by its local Superiors, to a professi∣on thereof, it may soon resolve it self out of that stock, which in our former Education it hath received from our Parents, or other Instructors: and may alwaies, without scruples, move with the common stream, where we live, and whereon depend our fortunes: Or also, may readily become of any other perswasion, if a diffe∣rent interest calls for it: whilst it is solidly founded in none, nor hath any deep counter-impression to any side; but keeps the

judgment, as to these matters of the greatest concernment, in an indifferent, tepid, lazy, lukewarm sloth, most pernicious to so many, as are not, by God's merciful providence, ranged under the Guidance of a just Church-Authority. And, such persons, ordi∣narily, quiet themselves with that perswasion of some of the Do∣natists mentioned by S. Austin,† 1.547 — Nihil interesse credentes, in quâ parte quis Christianus sit; & ideo permanebunt in eâ parte, in quâ na∣ti sunt. Or else think, at least, by their voluntary winking, that they shall be excused, if they after this, stumble, or miss their way.—Tria sunt (saith this Father† 1.548) hominum genera, profecto im∣probanda ac detestanda: Ʋnum eorum, qui neque se scire existimant, nec quaerere volunt. Alte••um eorum. qui sentiunt quidem se nescire, sed non ita quarunt, ut invenire possint. Tertium eorum, qui se arbitran∣tur scire, quod nescinnt. These then seem to be of the first sort. Qui ne{que} se scire existimant, nec quaerere volunt. This is the first De∣ceit.

[§. 275] 2. But, If the Will, (more piously inclined) thinks fit to apply it self to the considering of matters of Religion (as which, surely, most concern all men, as to their Salvation, and Eternity;) 2ly It hath another way still of corrupting the Judgment, * by permit∣ting it only to be acquainted with such Authors, or Directors, in these matters, as are of its party, and conspire with its interests; and * by most carefully with-holding it from such others, as write, or teach contrary; unless it be only so much of them, as its own Authors take in hand to confute. Which Authors, though they usually relate both sides of the Controversie, and explain their adversaries Tenents, as well as their own, (and so the Reader con∣ceits himself impartial enough, in his receiving information of both parties) yet seldom do they, I mean, those, who have not only an Adversary, but the Truth, against them (for those Writers, who have truth on their side, need no such arts) seldom, I say, do they do this intirely, or advance and press their opponents reasons, or ar∣guments any further, than they think themselves able to resolve and dissipate them: Often do they misrelate, often also misunderstand, them: Often is the Question, they not speaking to the same thing, on both sides stated true: and the answer very good, because the objection is proposed amiss, and a reply shaped, to their own, not their Adversaries, Arguments: and thus the Judgment, confin'd by the Will to such a partial information from persons, pleading both their Adversaries cause, and their own, is, if not of an ex∣traordinary apprehension, easily deluded; or if such, much per∣plexed. The Fathers also, here not consulted by this judgment in the••r own works, but only considered, as cited by these Authors

in some short Sentences disjoynted, and separated from the context (which, viewed in the whole piece, perhaps would appear quite of another colour) are made to speak whatever the Controvertist pleaseth; and, in all matters disputed, are usually brought in to bear witness on both sides. And by this device of conversing only with one sort, or sect, of Authors, the Will renders the Judgment of what opinion it pleaseth, by opening to the under∣standing in fair characters, and a full prospect of them, all those ar∣guments and reasons, that favour one side; and removing quite out of sight, or much disfiguring, what is brought for the contra∣ry. Or at least, if, by many shifts, matters on both sides can but be brought to an Aequilibrium; or, by much bandying to and fro, and multiplied replies, be made appear somewhat intricat, and Quodlibetical, here also with good reason, we think, we may take that scale, or side, which much complies with our secular advan∣tages. These persons seem to be of the second sort of S. Austins improbandi (mentioned before) qui sentiunt quidem se nescire, sed non ita quaerunt, ut invenire possint.

[§. 276] And, by such a predominancy of the Will (either our own; or, if we in minority, theirs, who have the command and govern∣ment over us) in these matters of Science, it is, that, though the persons be of very different intellects; and some, in all Places and Sects, of excellent parts; yet almost all those of one Nation; or Society; or such, in these, as are more bound together in one interest; from their having the same education under Parents, or other Instructors, that are all of the same perswasion; or, after∣ward, from their turning usually the same Books, are seen to be of the same Opinions, and to continue the same Sect of Religion; and those, contrarily instituted, and ingaged, elsewhere, to be all of another; though these two contrary opinions (whereof one many times is a truth, the other an error) are never almost support∣ed with equal reason: nor would these opposit influences upon judgments equally piercing happen to be so universal, but from these Arts used by a Will preingaged. Now, as this is to be esteem∣ed an happy captivity of the Judgment, and a very safe course for those, who are bred: in the bosom of the Church-Catholick, and who are secure under an Ecclesiastical Guide; So is it to be looked on as a great misery in those Sects, divided from it. And it may be rationally presumed; that would private interest, every where, permit a free search, Truth, in all places, (I mean, such eminent truths, as the Catholick Church in her Councils hath recommend∣ed to the faith of Christians) would find more Disciples than Er∣ror; as having much more reason, and evidence, on its side.

[§. 277] 3. A third way of blinding and misleading the Judgment is When the Will, yet more candidly, allows and invites the Under∣standing, * to make a free and impartial search into all sides, and into whatever Authors, or other Teachers, seconding, or oppo∣sing, its present perswasions; and * equally to admit all such ar∣guments produced by these pro or contra, drawn from Scripture, or from Reason, that intrinsecally relate to the matter in Contro∣versie: But yet (perhaps fearing, that, here, all stands not right with him) allows it not to study first, and duely examine the main point of Church-Authority (which, if found so great, as it is pre∣tended, would save many other searches;) Of Church-Authority I say: viz. what perpetual power our departing Lord hath left to the Governours thereof, and what assistance promised them, for ex∣position of the sence of the Divine Scriptures, where this dispu∣ted; and for deciding controversies in matters of faith: And what obligation he hath laid upon all the Churches Subjects to hearken to them, and not to depart from their Directions, and De∣terminations, ne circumferantur omni vento doctrinae in nequitiâ homi∣num (a yoke the pride of the will hath no great mind to,) Yet a search this to be undertaken much rather, than all the other; Be∣cause, abstracting from this Guide, after never so impartial a view of other intrinsecal arguments belonging to the subject debated, an ordinary understanding in points somuch ab••ve reason, may happi∣ly mistake the Truth; and because matters of Faith and Religi∣on, wherein the Intellect now negotiates, depend chiefly on Church-Tradition, not rational-seeming proofs; And because a Judgment, left to a free information of it self herein, must needs find many perswasive arguments to entertain and prefer the Judgment of this Authority, when it is on one side, though this na∣ked, and seconded with no reasons at all (that are known to such person) for its Proposals, before all those intrinsecal reasons rela∣ting to the nature of the subject, that appear on the other. Such perswasive Reasons, I mean, drawn from Authority, as these; That this Authority, that delivers the contrary to what all my other arguments, or reasons, recommend to me, is by our Lord instated in an Infallibility in all necessaries: and that it, not I, also is to judge, what, or how much, is necessary: Or however, that this Authority (fallible or infallible) is, by the Divine Ordi∣nation, in such points of Faith, and Religion, appointed my guide; and, in opposition of such Authorities happening, the Superior this Guide: (of which things enough hath been said in the former Discourses:) That, setting aside these principal considerations, the persons constituting this Authority are also of greater parts,

get studies, and (I have reason to presume) more dispassionate than my self; and more in number, than I, or those others of my per∣swasion: that they have seen and considered all those reasons, that as yet swey me, and have pronounced contrary: that they may have reasons for their Decisions that I have not seen, nor they are obliged to shew me, since my judgment stands subjected to theirs on another account, than the evidence of argument.

[§. 278] Now in such a case, or supposition, that the Intellect, left free to consider, doth assent to such extrinsecal arguments in be∣half of Church-Authority, against any Reasons belonging to the subject in debate, that perswade me contrary to what it hath de∣fin'd; Here, after studying both Authority, and Reason, my final Judgment is, that I ought to joyn and side with the first, against the second; though these reasons be unsolv'd, or that none better, or none at all, be presented to me, by the said Authority. And so, now, to go against my Reason is to follow my Judgment, or Conscience; and on the contrary; It is to go against my Judge∣ment or Conscience, if I follow these my reasons, or my private judgment as grounded on them.

[§. 279] It may be some, who pretend that Conscience releaseth them from Authority, have not well considered this; and there∣fore give me leave to dilate a little more upon it. If we look then into Secular Affairs, this matter seems decided in our ordinary practice. Do not we commonly, upon receiving the advice of an experienced Friend, a learned Physitian, or Lawyer, concerning our Estate, or our Health, both believe his Directions good: and, according to them, do, and also judge we ought to do, many things contrary to our own private Judgments: i. e. con∣trary to those reasons, which our selves have imagined, not to do so. Is not Abraham said to believe a thing that seemed contrary to his own reason, Rom. 4.17, 18? And so the man in the Gos∣pel, Mark 9.24.. What is the meaning of that saying, ordina∣rily used also by Protestants, [These and these reasons I have for my opinion, but I submit my judgment herein to the Church.] Is it (as Dr. Fern comments on it† 1.549) only; I submit my judgment, as to the publishing of it? But this is only a submission of silence, not of our judgment at all, to the Church; and is a submission, which may well be performed in things. wherein our judgment is utterly fixed and unalterable; namely, in things, whereof we are infallibly cer∣tain. Again; What means that of Dr. Hammond (Schism. 2. c. §. 10, where he saith, — A meek son of the Church of Christ, when the Fundamentals of Faith are not concern'd in the concessions, &c. will chearfully express his readiness to submit, or deposit, his own judgment

in reverence, and deference, to his Superiors; Submit and Deposit; means it not, to renounce, and desert it in such matters; and to believe and hearken to the judgment of the Church, rather than to it? Neither can that of the Apostle, Rom. 14.23. Whatever is not of faith is sin, be objected to any for so doing; Because, who thus deposits his judgment, doth it out of faith, namely, that the Churches Judgment is wiser, safer, preferrable to, his own.

[§. 280] Nor can this indeed rightly be construed, a going against our own conscience, or judgment, considered in general: Be∣cause this preferring the Churches, before our own, judgment, is, certainly, an act also of our judgment: Since, when there is such a weighty authority on the one side, and such reasons of our own, but these short of certainty, on the other, our judgment here sits up∣on, and examins, both; and at length gives sentence, that, here, it is a safer course for us to submit to the first, than rely on the second. And here then, I only go against conscience, if I adhere to the second, and forsake the first. But indeed, if the Church (which it never doth) should require me to subscribe, not, that I give more credit to her Authority, than to my private Reasons: but, that I have no private reasons, ot scruples, no repugnances of any veri∣similities to the contrary of her Definitions, when indeed I have so, nor as yet know how to clear them, such subscription or pro∣fession, I grant, would be going against my conscience, and must at no hand be done. This, That a submission of our Judgment, or professing our assent to Authority, where we see no reasons confirming its assertions, and many, for the contrary, is not, ne∣cessarily, a going against our own Conscience, or Judgment.

CHAP XV.

Remedies of the former Deceits of the Will.

Considerations, For remedying the first Deceit. §. 281. Whether Salvation, &c.

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 indiffe∣rent, as Reasons may move, to change their Religion, Ib.

For remedying the third, §. 291.

Where,

• 1. That the Illiterat, or other persons unsatisfied, ought to submit and adhere to present Church-Authority, §. 292.

  That learned Protestants have so determined this Point, §. 294.

  That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary, §. 296.

• 2. That, in present Church-Governours divided, and guiding a contrary way, such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors; and those, who by their Authority conclude the whole, §. 298.
• 3. As for Church-Authority past, such persons to take the testi∣mony, concerning it, of the Church-Authority present, §. 301.

  Yet, That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings, what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive, §: 302.

  Where; of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme, §. 311.

[§. 281] NOw a Judgment once set free from the three former great Arts of the Will to misguide it as any ones Secular Inte∣rest shall require, will begin to consider,

1. In opposition to the first of them, mentioned before, §. 274 [keeping the judgment in ignorance as to Divine matters, and imploying it wholy about other studies] That, since a right perswasion in Religion is of so great consequence to salvation, All those, who are not settled, in their Belief, upon the Basis of Church Authority, and so, under it remain in a sufficient secu∣rity of their Faith, as to all those points, wherein the sense of the Holy Scriptures is disputed, and controverted by several parties (as for example, in these: Whether Justification is by Faith alone? Whether there be Evangelical Councils as well as Precepts? Whether Christ our Lord be Co-Essential with God the Father? Whether exhibiting his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist? Whether there be a Purgatory after this life for some imperfect souls, though departing in God's Grace? or the like;) All such, I say, since they have taken the guidance of themselves, in Spiritu∣als, into their own hands, have great reason themselves to fall, most attentively, to the study thereof. For it were to serve God too carelesly, and at hap—hazard, to cast off Church-Authority for the Exposition and Sence of God's Word in these disputed, and difficult matters, and not himself to use any other indeavour at all for the right understanding of them: And in such indeavour he ought not only to take a perfunctory view of some places, that may seem at the first sight to represent to him what he would have, but to seek out all those Texts, that both sides build upon; and then diligently to examine and compare them, For, though some Texts may seem never so plain, as to the Literal, and Gram∣matical sence [as what more clear, than, — Accipite, comedite, Hoc est Corpusmeum;* 1.550] yet scarce is there any sentence, where the terms are not capable of several acceptions, Figurative, and Non-literal; Or, if they be not, all sides must necessarily agree in their sence, and so about such Texts be no dispute; And again, there being a necessary consonancy, and agreement in every title of Scripture, no place, how plain soever, for the expression, it seems to be, may be so inter preted, as to contradict another, that seems as clearly to say the contrary. He ought also to weigh not only the immediat sence of Scripture, but the necessary conse∣quences; and, since whatever things are not opposit to Scripture, are truly lawful, and practicable, to discern the true, and not only pre∣tended, repugnances thereto; He ought also to examin Translations, peruse the Comments, and Expositions of others, Modern, Anci∣ent: For all these things that Authority most exquisitly doth, whose judgment and conduct he declines. Lastly, he must be a Divine, who will not be guided by Divines; for of the true way of Salva∣tion

none can securely be ignorant. And what Prelatical Pro∣testant allows this in an Independent, or Fanatick, when he will neither guide his ignorance by following the learned, nor remove it by study?

[§. 282] As for Salvation to be had in any Christian Profession; though it may be true in a Church, where all fundamentals are truly believ'd, and Baptism rightly administred, for so many as are invincibly igno∣rant of any better, or perhaps other communion, for Children, and Rusticks, those of an immature age, or of very low imployments, void of literature, and publick converse, and, by their mean condition and inexperience, destitute of any improvement of their knowledge; yet for all the rest, who have better means of understanding Di∣vine matters, and of searching the grounds of their Faith, and state of their Communion; and on whose direction and example, every where depend the other meaner and younger sort of people, and by their default miscarry;‖ 1.551 For these, I say, their case seems very dangerous, who happen to be in any separated Society out of the external Catholick Communion: Since the One God will be worshipped (as S. Austin† 1.552 answered those Latitudinarian Donatists) not only in verity, but unity; and, again, hath left marks and Testi∣monies sufficiently evident for the discerning and distinguishing that Catholick Communion, wherein he will be worshipped, from all other Heretical, or Schismatical, Societies. All those there∣fore, who either, through their own fault, do not know this Com∣munion, because they will not search; or, knowing it, yet vo∣luntarily still remain in any other divided from it, must needs be in a very perillous Condition. The first, because their ignorance, in a thing so manifest, and withal so important, must needs be very gross, and unexcusable. The second, because any long stay in any such separated Society, to one convinced, seems both by the Scrip∣tures, and by the Church, frequently prohibited; And, were it not so, at least brings so much detriment, and damage to the spi∣ritual Condition of such a person; as is no way to be recompen∣ced by any other fancied advantages injoyed, therein. Which things it will not be amiss to discourse a little more fully, if perhaps some Laodicean complexion may receive some benefit thereby.

[§. 283] 1st. Then; The remaining in any such Communion is pro∣hibited by the Scriptures, in many places. Eph. 5.7, 8. The chil∣dren of light are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, nor to be partakers with them, but to reprove them, — 2 Cor. 6.14. Light and darkness, Justice and iniquity, Believers and Infi∣d••ls, the Temples of God [which all good Christians are] and of

Idols, are to have no fellowship or communion, together: But, Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord. And, 1 Cor. 3.16. Si quis Templum Domini violarerit disperdet illum De∣us. Nor may such separation be understood from Infidels, Hea∣thens, or non-Christians only: For, 1 Cor. 5.9.11. If a Brother [i. e. one that professeth Christianity with us] be a Fornicator, an Adulterer, an Idolater, a Drunkard, with such a one we are charged not to eat. [But, to with-draw our ordinary converse from him: i. e. where no duty of charity, either to our selves, or to them, or to some others, obligeth us to the contrary. And this, for many good ends; as to preserve our selves from, all contagion, and infection, from their vices or partaking of their punishments, or giving suspicion of our consentment with them in their errors; or scandal to others, who, by our example, may use the same con∣verse to their hurt: To produce some shame and confusion, and so perhaps amendment, in them.] Upon this we read St. Austins Holy Mother Monica forbare sitting at table, or eating with her Son, when addicted to the Manichean Heresie.† 1.553 Matt. 18.17. If any Brother [i. e. in Christianity] refuse to hear the Church, we to carry our selves to him as to an Heathen [who were Idolaters] or a Publican, [with whom the religious Jews forbare to eat, or con∣verse] — Rom. 16.17. [Those [Christians] that cause divisions contrary to the Doctrine. which we have received, to mark and avoid them. — Titus 3.10. An Heretick, after admonition, to be rejected, 2. Thess. 3.14. If any man obey not our word, [be a Separatist from the Church, and her Doctrine] note that man, and have no company with him.—2 Joh. 10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this Apostolical Doctrine, receive him not into your house; nor say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God save you, to him: For he that saith so to him commu∣nicates with his wickedness. And it seems this Apostles practice was according to his rule: For Irenaeus‖ 1.554 saith, S. Polycrap related of him; That going into a Bath to wash himself, he presently leaped out of it, and departed, when he saw Corinthus there, who denied our Lords Divinity.

[§. 284] The same may be gathered from our glorified Lords own vehement expressions after his Ascension, (Apocal. 2d and 3d. chap∣ter) against those new Sects that indeavoured to mingle themselves with, and to seduce, the Catholicks, by tempting them to compli∣ance, when in persecution; where he calls them,—the Synagogue of Satan; Profunda Satanae; Jesebels, followers of Balaam, &c. Praiseth the Churches of Ephesus, and Philadelphia,—for trying them, and not suffering them, and not complying, and denying him, with them; but hating their deeds, as himself did, See Apoca∣lyps,

2.2, 6.—3.8.9.) and censureth others of the Churches for doing the contrary (Apoc. 2.14, 15, 16, 20.) and especially re∣prehendeth that of Laodicea, —for her lukewarmness, and neither being cold, nor hot; and then urgeth her to be zealous, Apoc. 3.15, 16, 19. The same also seems to appear by his severe cen∣sure (upon occasion of the Samaritan Woman's consulting him about her Religion) of the Samaritan, Schismatical, worship (in a Temple built, in opposition to that in Jerusalem, some 250. years before our Lords coming, in Mount Garisim: Which one Manasses the High Priest, expelled from the function of his Office in Jeru∣salem, procured to be erected, and afterward officiated there) our Lord telling this woman, That the Samaritans knew not what they worshipped; and that salvation was of the Jews. And before this, the same appears * from Gods great displeasure against the Divisi∣on made by Israel in setting up the Calves, though 'tis probably ima∣gined, worshipping still the same God in the same Representation of Cherubims, only in another place. And afterward, * from Elias his expostulation with the people, 3 King. 18.21.—Ʋsque quo claudicatis in duas partes? which holds as well for separating Sects, as false Religions: God having so established the Oecono∣my of his Church; as to be worshipped therein in unity, as well as verity: Ʋnus Dominus [Caput] unum Corpus, & una fides, Eph. 4.4.

From all these Texts prohibiting Communication, in our daily converse, with particular persons so affected, I argue, how much more, we not to communicate, 1 with whole Congregations of them; and 2 with such Congregations separated from the Church, and 3 this, in holy things; lastly, 4 so communicating with them, in these, as to forbear the same Communion with the Church Catholick.

[§. 285] Yet some of these, and several other Texts (See 1 Cor. 10.20, 21.— 1 Cor. 5.4, 5, 13. — 2 Cor. 6.14, 17) seem more chiefly to prohibit Communion with such in the Sacraments (espe∣cially that of the Holy Eucharist) and the publick Divine Worship; and this, upon some other, yet higher, reasons: Namely, the duty of the publick owning and professing our Religion, and the keeping it pure from, and unmixt with, any unbelieving, Heretical, or Schismatical, Societies. For this Holy Sacrament of feeding at the Lords Table, being instituted as for a sacred instrument of our Communion with the Deity, so also for a publick tessera, and mark, of a strict league, and amity between all those, who together partake it, so that, (as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 10.17.) by being made partakers of that one bread and Body [of our Lord] we though

being many, become one bread, and one Body; and so, in this Body members of one another; things, I say, standing thus in this Grand Sacrament of Union, neither will the honour we owe to God the Father, who dwelleth in us, and adopts us for his children (2 Cor. 6.16.18) Nor, to God the Son, of whose Body we are members, (1 Cor. 6.15, 16.) Nor to the holy Spirit, whose Temples we are, (1. Cor. 3.16, 17.) suffer us, by such a sacred, and solemn tye to link and unite our selves to any Congregations, that are once estranged from him, or disclaimed by him. This is mingling light with darkness:* 1.555 † joyning the members of Christ to a Spiritual Har∣lot, by which they two become one Body (1 Cor. 6.15, 16.) (For such a vertue hath this Sacrament, as that they become one Body amongst themselves, that partake it:‖ 1.556) And, by touching the unclean, our selves also becoming unclean (Lev. 5.2, 3.) For all those sepa∣rations under the law of the corporally unclean from the Congre∣gation of the Lord, because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord, and holy as he is holy (Lev. 11.43, 44.) were only types of the separation, which ought to be, from such notorious sinners, and such false worshippers of him, as we here speak of: To which the Apostle makes application of them, 2 Cor. 6.17.—Be ye separate; and touch not the unclean thing, saith the Lord: taken out of Esa. 52.11. And hence also taketh he strict order for the separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church (especially from the communicating the Sacraments thereof) as of a piece of Leaven from a lump unleavened, that our Christian Passeover may not be celebrated with such a meslange (See 1 Cor. 5.2, 5, 7, 13.) Ejecti∣on, I say, or casting them out, where the Church hath the power: Or, her going out from them, (2 Cor. 6.17.) where they have the power; but still a separation there must be; else, in consorting with them, we provoke our Lord to jealousie, (1 Cor. 10.22.) as if we are not a true and loyal Spouse to Him, and entirely his.

To these may be added all those Texts requiring the glorify∣ing of God in our publick worship of him in the Society of his true Church, and in the Confession of Christ before men: Con∣fession 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 man∣ner to imply that Confession, which is made in the publick Assem∣blies of the Church: Which Assemblies therefore were never inter∣mitted in its greatest persecutions from the Civil Magist∣rates.

To these again may be added those many precepts of Ʋnity 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 exter∣nal, 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 Persecuti∣on, 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 re∣ward, 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‖ 1.557 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 opor∣tere 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 bene∣dictiones 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 excommunice∣tur. 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 Ca∣nons of Councils. And hence all those stand so too, who communi∣cate 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 Sacra∣ments, and hath admitted some limitations; Yet the communica∣ting with any of a separated external communion in their Divine Service, or in such▪ Holy things, or Divine Worship, as are com∣monly understood, and taken, for a distinctive note of such separa∣tion 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 dissimula∣tion 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 absti∣nence, 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 admit∣ting these to their own) Their Letters Commendatory, mention∣ed, C••n. Apost. 13. called Epistolae formatae, sufficiently shew, how cau••••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 subscrip∣tion of no positive Heresie, br••••only an omission, in their Creeds, of some Truth, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; yet were the Catholicks, even when much persecuted by the Secular Princes, and, by the banish∣ment 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 Theodo∣ret,‖ 1.558 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 habitatori∣bus in Ecclesiam, dum ille intus erat, ingredi voluit. And this resolu∣tion, signified to Constantius, happily procured the return of Libe∣rius. 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 ne∣cessitated to forego the practice of many other things beneficial, (not to say, necessary) which are to be injoyed only in the Commu∣nion of this Catholick Church, not so in others. For a particular Ca∣talogue of which (not to be here too tedious) I refer you to the Preface before the former Discourses touching the Guide in Con∣troversies, 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 participa∣tion of its Sacraments, that some may have; they seem no way

to such persons as those, who are not by force hindred of her Com∣munion; 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 in∣teresse, 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.† 1.559—Quis∣quis 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 dis••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. Its 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 re∣solve; That all those, who are not well settled upon this Basis of Church Authority; and so, by a resign'd obedience, have prevent∣ed 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 in∣cline 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 or∣dinarily 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 con∣trary, perfidiousness, and Apostacy) is indeed, before we have ex∣amined 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 thou∣sand 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, pro∣miscuously, the Education of Christian Youth happens to be moulded, namely that which adheres to the Supreme Church-Autho∣rity, that is Catholick, and truly disingaged of Schism; That all those, who find themselves to live under such Superiors, as are bro∣ken 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 that Authority that is established by our Lord. Again, in the next place, that such a one ought to improve, or to check, in himself, these suggestions of a change, as the Religion he deliberates on, is more licentious, or more strict in comparison of that, which for the present he

professeth. For strong inclinations to change to a Religion that is more rigorous, and mortifying his lusts, that requires much Obedience, Resignation, and Humility from him, that captivates his understanding as well as curbs his appetites, things nature much relucts against, we may presume to proceed from the Spirit of God: But, if to a Religion, that promiseth him in many things more liberty; to proceed from his lusts.

And, such a happy discovery being made by him, such a freed Judgment will proceed to consider; That, if yet further, by reason of the persecution of such a Religion, in the place where he lives, such a Convert hath an occasion also offered him of lea∣ving Father, or Mother▪ Friends, or Fortunes, and, among the rest, not the least, his Reputation, and good Name, in being esteemed a Turncoat, an Apostate, a Seducer; to imbrace, again, in the Religion he turns to, nothing but Crosses, and Fastings, Con∣fessions and Penances, Resignation of Judgment, strict obedi∣ence to the Churches, as well as Gods, Laws, and many more hardships, set before him, if he purposeth to arrive at perfection; such a true inlightened Judgment, I say, will here consider: that this is one of the greatest Honours, that his Divine Majesty could do him upon earth; and a happiness next to Martyrdom. Last∣ly, will consider, that the wisdom of God hath permitted so ma∣ny Sects and Factions, divided from the true Church, and propaga∣ting their Schisms to their children, to exercise the diligence of such, as have the hap to be so mis-educated, to find out that holy Communion, of which he hath left sufficient testimony, and, after this, to practice their Christian Courage and Resolution, to own and repair to it.

[§ 290] I find a lively description, of such fetters in an Hereditary Religion, and of a happy deliverance out of them, by repairing into the bosom of the Church, made by S. Austin in an instance of the Donatists (frighted with the Emperours severe Edicts) which I think may be usefully here transcribed for a pattern to such others, as are detained at present in the like chaines, in any other divided Sect.— Quam multi (saith he, speaking of the Donatists) quod certo scimus, jam volebant esse Catholici, manifestissimâ veritate commoti; &, offensionem suorum reverendo, quotidie differebant; Quam multos non verita••, sed obduratae consuetudinis grave vinculum, colligab••t?— Quam multi propterea putabant veram Ecclesiam esse partem Donati, quia eos ad cognoscendam talem veritatem securitas [or much more, res prosperae in the continuing in their present Sect] torpidos, fastidiosos, pigros{que} faciebat? Quam multis aditum intrand•• obserabant rumores maledicorum; qui nescio quid aliud nos

in altari ponere jactitebant [what maledicency doth the Church still suffer touching what she affirms to be on her Altars?] Quam multi nihil interesse credentes, in quâ parte quis Christianus sit, ideo permanebant in parte Donati, quia ibi nati erant? His omnibus h••rum legum terror it a profuit; ut nunc alii dicant: Jam hoc vole∣bamus; sed Deo Gratias, qui nobis occasionem praebuit; faciendi{que} jam, & dilationum morulas amputavit. Alii dicant: Hoc esse ve∣rum, jam sciebamus; sed nescio quâ consuetudine tenebamur; Gratias Deo, qui vincula nostra dirupit, & nos ad pacis vinculum transtulit. Alii dicant; Nesciebamus hic [i. e. in the Church] esse veritatem; nec eam discere volebamus: Gratias Deo, qui negligentiam nostram stimulo terroris excussit, ut saltem soliciti quaereremus, quod, securi, nun∣quam nosse curavimus, Alii dicant; nos falsis rumoribus terrebamur intrare; quas falsas esse nesci remus, nisi intraremus; nec intraremus, nisi cogeremur; Gratias Deo, qui expertos docuit, quam vana & in∣ania de Ecclesiâ suâ mendax fama jactaverit. Alij dicant; putabamus quidem nihil interesse, ubi fidem Christi teneremus; sed Gratias Deo, qui nos à divisione collegit; & hoc uni Deo congruere ostendit, ut in unitate colatur. Thus S. Austin. I need not comment upon it. A return into the Church, upon whatever occasion, is welcom, and to be wished for: and happy they, who, to preserve an estate here on earth, are reduced into the true way to gain a better in heaven: or, to escape some punishment here, become freed also from that hereafter: But yet, much more acceptable, and praise-wor∣thy, is such a Conversion, wherein fear and force have no hand; and where perhaps this their securing their eternal state, and hap∣py condition, must be built upon the ruine of their temporal.

[§. 291] 3. This, for remedying the second Deceit. For the third (delivered before, §. 277.) Viz. The weighing indeed universally, and impartially, all the intrinsecal reasons, and arguments, pro and contra, that relate to the subject in hand; but not those extrinsecal ones also, that confirm obedience, and submission of judgment, in all points whatsoever, already determined, to Church-Authority: Here also a judgment, set at liberty, will consider: That, in points of Controversie, some of them certainly of great conse∣quence; where both the true sence of the Scriptures, and of the ancient Church, is debated, with many adherents to either side; here all those, who by reason of illiterat education, and mechanick imployments, are not able to compare, and weight Texts of Scripture, and search former Church-Records; or also those, who, after such search (especially if being of no extraordinary

capacity) find on all fides things either, by subtile wits, rendred so smooth and probable, or, by multiplied replies, so intricated and involv'd, as they know not which to hold to; or also be∣come still of his opinion, whom they read last; That all these, I say, can take no other prudent course (were it no duty enjoyned) than to repair, and submit their judgment, to Church-Authority, i. e. to their spiritual Pastors, and Superiors, set over them by our Lord, and stating these things.

[§. 292] Which Authority also, if it be supposed, either as to the understanding of Scriptures, or examining of ancient Tradition, liable to error; yet this still seems more to perswade their adhe∣rence to it, as implying more obscurity and difficulty in the thing defin'd. And much reason have they to presume, that these their spiritual Governours, both by reason of their convening in a greater body, and their consisting of more dignified persons (pro∣bably advanced to such high places by their greater merits) and by their great learning, being acquainted with, and weighing, all the same arguments that private men do, and in charity we ought to think, they as dispassionat as our selves, and lastly, by their ampler fortunes, less necessitated to serve private interests, are, by all these, the less liable to error of the two: And that the confi∣ning 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 er∣rors of the Church, in matters obscure, will be multiplied thou∣sands, 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 dota∣ges) advising him submission of judgment to Church-Authority. —Nihil est facilius (saith he† 1.560) quam non solum so dicere, sed etiam opinari, verum invenisse, sed reipsâ difficillimum est. And† 1.561 — 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] utili∣us, at{que} salubrius esse, praeceptis obemperare sapientum, quam suo ju∣dicio 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 cultum{que} debemus, eo sceleratius, periculosius{que} peccatur. And c. 17. he argues.—Si unaquae; disciplina, quanquam vilis & facilis, ut per∣cipi

possit, Doctorem aut magistrum requirit▪ quid temerariae superbiae plenius, quam divinorum sacramentorum libros ab interpretibus suis nollecognoscere? And, c. 7. — Nullâ imbutus poeticâ disciplinâ Teren∣tionum 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, om∣nes ne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus, quibus ad divinam in∣telligentiam 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 Episco∣porum, 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, salutem{que} animis via est, nisi cum cos rationi praecolit [prepares them] fides, quid est aliud ingratum esse opi, at{que} auxilio divino, quam tanto labore, praeditae [praedictae ra∣ther] authoritati velle resistere? Again, c. 16.—Quae authoritas sepositâ ratione (quam sinceram intelligere, ut saepe diximus, difficilli∣mum stultis est, dupliciter nos movet, partim miraculis [very fre∣quent in his times. See De Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.] partim sequen∣tium multitudine. And c. 14.—Quae celebritate, consensu, vetustate, roboratur. And c. 11.—Si jam satis tibi jactatus videris, finem{que} 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 some∣what 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 re∣ceived for a truth, thus the greatest part of Christians, are, here∣by, for ever settled in their religion, and belief, as to all points de∣termined by the Church, I will here also set down, for the bene∣fit of such Readers, as most value their judgment, the testimo∣ny 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 mat∣ter so evident, and would only know, when Ecclesiastical Authori∣ties 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 pas∣sage of Dr. Field in the Preface of his Book,* 1.562 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 mat∣ter so intricate, that few have time, and leisure, fewer strength of un∣derstanding to examine them, what remaineth for men desirous of satis∣faction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which, amongst all the Societies of the world, is that blessed compa∣ny 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,§. 1.563 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 Gover∣nours 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 ser∣vants 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 fall into such a temptation, as it must be, in case the whole Representative, should erre in matter of Faith [I adde, to define, therein, any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum, and which Christians may not safely believe, or, without Idolatry, practice] and therein find ap∣probation, and reception amongst all those Bishops, and Doctors of the Church diffused, which were out of the Council. And, though, in this case, the Church might remain a Church (and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it) and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians, which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree, or, out of it, to resist the ge∣neral,

approbation; yet still the testimony of such a General Council, so re∣ceived, and approved, would be a very strong argument, and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian; and it is pi∣ously to be believed▪ though not infallibly certain,—That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation. Thus he. [But, if here the Doctor be asked, why, upon these considerations, he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church, that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents: For example, all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation, held before Luther, I suppose his answer is ready, because these were not General, nor universally accepted; But, since these were the most General, that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction; and had also the most universal acceptati∣on, that those times could afford, unless he would have also the Berengatians, the persons condemned in them, to accept them (an acceptation most unreasonably demanded,) why do not here al∣so Gods Providence, and Promises, stand ingaged in compassion to the meek, and pious, Subjects of the Church, that these Councils erre not, nor the Christians of those times fall into such a tempta∣tion, as it must needs be, if these, the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes, should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence, as is the committing of Idolatry ever since?]

See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15. [The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth.] According to this it is (saith he) that Christ is said, Eph. 4.12. to have given not only Apostles, &c. but also Pastors and Teachers, i. e. the Bishops in the Church, for the com∣pacting the Saints into a Church; for the building up of the body of Christ, confirming and continuing them in all truth, that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine. And so again, when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages, 'tis every where apparent by Ignatius his Epistles, that the only way of avoiding error and danger, was to adhere to the Bishop in commu∣nion and doctrine; and whosoever departed from him, and that form of wholsome words kept by him, was supposed to be corrupted, &c. And in his Treatise of Schisme, chap. 2. §. 10. he speaks in this manner,—A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be con∣tent to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion; and when the fundamentals of the faith, and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions, he will chearfully express his readiness to submit, or de∣posite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church, where his lot is fallen. [Methinks he might better have

said, where his obedience is due: For, the Church, where his lot is fallen, may, by Heresie, or Schisme, stand divided from the Church-Catholick.] Here he allows depositing of our judgment in defe∣rence to our Superiors, where the Fundamentals of Faith, &c. are not concerned; But would not one think rather, that in these points especially a person, to be safe, should adhere to the Churches judgment rather, than his own? Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality.

Doctor Jackson on the Creed,* 1.564 l. 2, §. 1 c. 6. p. 175. in sta∣ting the Question.‖ 1.565 Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concern∣ing the unlawfulness of any opinion, or action, goes on thus,—Supe∣riors (saith he) are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine; or not of capacity to discern; or not of power or place to determine, whether they be lawful or no. Again, p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion, he argues thus. Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great, as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill, that may ensue,—a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice, either for doing, or omitting it. The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent: for here is an in∣differency of perswasions. But suppose we have not such in∣differency, yet, p. 172—Whilst men of skill and judgment (saith he) appointed by God to advise in such matters, are otherwise perswaded than we in private are, the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion, and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action, wherein heretofore we thought was not.—And the performance of obedience it self is a good, and accept∣able action in the sight of God. [Now what he saith here concer∣ing the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion.] Again, Ibid p. 174.—True spiritual obedience, were it rightly planted in our hearts, would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake, than to disobey autho∣rity for the private dislike of them. Both our disobedience [i. e. dissent, or non-submission of judgment] to the one, and dislike of the other, are unwarrantable, unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors, and express law of the most High.

And. c. 4. p. 165.—Sundry (saith he) in profession Protestants, in eagerness of opposition to the Papists, affirm; that the Church, or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed, then only be obeyed, when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart, and consciences of such, as must believe

and obey them. And this, in one word, is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors; and to deprive them of all obedience, unto whom doubtless God, by his word, hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock. Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed, when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars, unto which he demands belief or obedience, what obedience do men perform unto him more, than to any other man whatsoever? For whosoever he be, that can shew us the express undoubted command of God, it must be obeyed of all, But whilst it is thus obeyed, it only; not he, that sheweth it unto us, is obeyed. And if this were all the obedience, that I owe unto others, I were no more bound to believe or obey any other man, than he is bound to obey, or believe me: The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastors, than the Pastors, them. Yet certainly God, who hath set Kingdoms in order, is not the Author of such confusion in the spiritual regiment of his Church. Thus Doctor Jackson tying all to obedience or sub∣mission to the judgment of their spiritual Guides, save only those who are certain of a formal contradiction between God's Laws, and their Injunctions.

To this may be added that much noted place of Mr. Hooker in his Preface to Ecclesiastical Policy,* 1.566 §. 6. commenting there on Deuteron. 17.8. &c. where it is said, ver 11.—According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not de∣cline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand, nor to the left.—God was not ignorant (saith he) that the Priests and Judges, whose sentence in matters of controversie, he ordained, should stand, both might, and oftentimes would, be deceived in their judgment. However, better it was in the eye of his understanding, that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail, till the same authority perceiving such oversight, might afterwards correct, or reverse it, than that strifes should have respit to grow, and not come speedily to some end. And here he answers the objection; that men must do nothing against conscience, saying,—Neither wish we, that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are per∣swaded they ought not to do: But we say, this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts, that, in litigious and controverted causes of such quality, the will of God is, to have them to do, whatsoever the sentence of judicial, and final decision shall determine; yea, though it seem in their private opinion [i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn à parte rei] to swerve utterly from that which is right: as, no doubt, many times the sentence amongst the Jews did, unto one, or other, part contending. And yet in this case, God did

then allow them to do that, which in their private judgment seemed' yea and perhaps truly seemed, that the law did disallow. For, if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace, &c, And again, — Not, that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe these laws, which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the law of God; But their perswasion in this case [i. e. where their Superiors have determined otherwise.] they are bound for the time [i. e. till the same Authority reverse it and release them] to suspend, &c. — unless they have an infallible Demonstration. Thus he. Where, you see, he grounds their yielding to Autho∣rity, and changing their former perswasion, upon an non-certainty of such perswasion. As for his limited expression before, — in litigious and controverted causes of such quality, whatever he mean∣eth thereby, the Commission and Injunction, Deut. 17. extends to all litigious, and controverted causes whatsoever; As also it is more clearly drawn, 2 Chron. 19.5, 8, 10, 11. Where it runs, — What cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall &c. And note also, that the command, Deut 17.10. Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee, re∣quires not only a passive (willingly paying mulcts or undergoing punishments) but active, obedience: Again, an active obedience, not only in doing something thought by me lawful, but to which I think I am not obliged; but in doing also of something, where the lawfulness of it is questioned by me; which thing also, here by the text, I am to do, if they command me. And there∣fore after such Injunction I ought to alter my former perswasion concerning it, and to believe, either that in general it is lawful to be done, or at least lawful to be done by me, not certain of the contrary, rebus sic stantibus, and such sentence past.

[§. 296] To all these testimonies concerning the obligation which illiterat and ignorant, or also, though learned, after much exami∣nation, doubting and unsatisfied, persons have to submit their judgment to Church-Authority, I may add the apparent mis∣chiefs which follow the contrary, observed amongst Protestants (neglecting this duty) from the beginning of the Reformation, Luther himself much lamenting the divisions he saw among his Disciples even in his own daies,—Ego (saith he† 1.567) qui jam sum in ministerio Christi viginti annis, quanquam nihil sum, vere possum testari, me plus quam viginti sectis esse petitum, &c. And, in Gen. c. 6. published not long before his death. Quantum sectarum ex∣citavit Satan nobis viventibus? Quid futurum est nobis mortuis? Profecto tota agmina Sacramentariorum, Anabaptistarum, Antino∣morum,

Servetianorum, Campanistarum, &c. And himself also is much noted for his varying from himself in his opinions often changed. But still these divisions are more apparent in the lon∣ger course of his Schisme; which daily multiplies and brancheth its self into more and more clefts and sects, and some of them most gross, and ridiculous, and for which it is hard to find names; and which their forsaken Leaders are much ashamed of, whilst the Plebeians will neither study truth themselves, nor fol∣low the learned; The mistakes of these persons in such high and Divine matters, being greater, as their science less: and their opi∣nions, since weakly grounded floating and unconstant: and, from the usually prevailing interests of the flesh, inclined to liberty and sensuality.

[§. 297] Of which Divisions, Grotius, in several of his writings, sadly complains, as caused by this, that they will pitch upon no Superior and common authority, by which they will be content to be guided, and regulated in their Faith.—Protestantes (saith he in his last reply to Rivet† 1.568) nullo inter se communi ecclesi∣astico regimine sociantur: quae causae sunt, Cur factae partes in unam Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant; immo & cur Partes aliae at{que} aliae sint exurrecturae. And in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace, speaking of their primitive Dissentments.—Confessiones (saith he) factae sunt variis in locis variae, atque inter se pugnantes: & non modo quae factae erant partes non potuere unquam inter se coalesce∣re, sed & novae quotidie exortae sunt particulae tot, ut nemo sit, qui ea∣rum inire possit numerum: & ut faecunda est ista seges (unoquoque sibi licere credente, quod alius ante usurpavit) credibile est, novas quotidie extituras. A presage at this time too much verified in this our Nation. But Dudithius, the famous Bishop of Quin∣quecclesiae in his disconsolate Letter to Beza, when Dudithius now a Protestant, and married, and beginning to stagger in his new Religion, that had dispensed with his Celibacy, much more de∣plores these their intestine discords, and schismes in a scisme. There,† 1.569 —Si quae aliquando (saith he) inter eruditos, ex quodam disputationis quasi calore, Controversiae extiterunt, illis statim Conci∣lii, sive etiam Pontificis, decreta finem imposuerunt. At nostri quales tandem sunt? palantes, omni doctrinae vento agitati, & in altum sublati, modo ad hanc, modo ad illam, partem differuntur. Horum quae sit hodie de Religione sententia, scire sortasse possis; sed quae eras de eadem futura sit opinion, neque ille, neque tu certo affirmare queas. Again, — Ecclesiae ipsae pugnant inter se capitalibus odiis, & horren∣dis quibusdam Anathematismis [perhaps looking at the Dissentions then between the followers of Futher, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius,

Calvin, &c. not yet healed.] Ipsi, qui summum haberi volunt, The∣ologi, à seipsis indies dissident: fidem cudunt, & à suá ipsius, quam paulo ante professi fuerant, & ab aliorum omnium, fide abhorrentem; deni{que} menstruam fidem habent [perhaps looking at the often va∣ryings of Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and others, from their own former opinions, and doctrine.] Thus Dudithius. For, though the Churches make some particular standing Articles to bind to∣gether their own Subjects, yet both the Articles of the several Churches do not accord one with another, in some principal Points (as appears in the Lutheran, Calvinist, Belgick, French, English, reformed Churches;) and the Subjects of each Church do, upon the reforming Principles, without scruple, break these Bonds, upon any new greater verisimilities, thinking their Christi∣an liberty infringed by them. And certainty, whatever deviation from Truth, and former Tradition, we may suppose the first Re∣formers to have made, yet if they could have restrained the people their Subjects from following their example, and from ta∣king that liberty of dissenting from them, which they, being also Subjects, took of dissenting from their Superiors, both the whole Body of the Reformation would have had much more unity and peace, and such persons much less error.

[§. 298] 2.* 1.570 Advanced thus far (learned Protestants consenting) That all such persons, as we here speak of, are to conform to, and to suffer themselves, in matters of Religion, to be guided by Church Authority: Next, a Judgment freed from the interests of the Will, may easily further add: That where these Ecclesia∣stical Governours happen to differ amongst themselves, and guide a contrary way, here, since these are placed, for avoiding schismes, in a due subordination, such persons, in such case, owe their obedience to the Superiors of them: To which, in all regular Governments, the inferior Magistrates, if they do not, ought to give place.—Si aliquid (saith St. Austin† 1.571) Proconsul jubeat, & aliud jubeat Imperator, nunquid dubitatur, isto contempto, illi esse serviendum? [i. e. in things, which our Ecclesiastical Guides do not instruct us to be contrary to the Divine Laws.] So, as to spi∣ritual matters, and the sence of Scripture, a Provincial, and a National, Synod guiding such persons several waies, their obedi∣ence is due to the National; again, a National, and a Patriarch Council of all the West, or a General, determining matters in a diverse manner, the obedience of such persons is due to the Patriarchal, or General, not the National, Council. And the same it is, in any Patriarchy, or Province, in the intervals of Sy∣nods, as to the subordinate Pastors and Prelats.

See the obedience required by the Church of England from all inferior Clergie, or Synods, to a National Council, in the Canons made, 1603. Can. 139. and 140.—Whosoever shall here∣after affirm, that the sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation.—Or, that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity, not being themselves particular∣ly assembled in the said sacred Synod, are to be subject to the decrees thereof, &c. let him be Excommunicated. And as of persons, so Churches.—That Church (saith Bishop Bramhal† 1.572) which shall not outwardly aquiesce, after a legal determination [i. e. of its Su∣periors] and cease to disturb Christian unity, though her judgment may be sound, her practice is schismatical. And elsewhere† 1.573 — If a Superior presume to determine contrary to the determination of the Church [i. e. of his Ecclesiastical Superiors] it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him [and obey them.] And,—I acknowledge (saith Dr. Hammond† 1.574) as much as C. G. or any man, the Authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation, much more of a particular Bishop. And, in his Book of Schisme, p. 54. and 66. He grants it Schism, for the Bishop to withdraw his obe∣dience from the higher power of the Metropolitan, or Primate, as well as for Presbyters, from the Bishop. Now from these I collect, that if these inferior Synods, or Clergy, are to yield such external obedience to their respective Superiors; Then are the Subjects of these, when ever a lower Church-Authority clasheth with an higher (either in submission of their judgment, or of their silence) to adhere to the higher; nor are the one freed from this duty, because the other neglect it. So some National, and a Patriarchal Council dissenting, or some Metro∣politan, and his Patriarch; here the forenamed persons, being the Subjects of both, owe their submission of judgment only to the higher Church-Authority of the two; which Authority if the forecited Protestants allow the lower to dissent from, yet not to gain-say.

[§. 299] Nor is it reasonable for any to decline here the present Supreme Authority, that is extant, and in being; and transfer such his obedience, and submission to a future, that hath no be∣ing; as to transfer it from his Primate, or Patriarch, or so large and universal Councils, as have been convened in his own, or in former times, to a future, absolutely General, Council; For thus, so many only are subject to the present supreme Powers, as are content to be so, if an appeale to a future Authority streight unties them from it. And yet more unreasonable this, if this appeale is to such a future Council, as probably can never be;

namely, where either the Assembly, or the approbation of it, must be absolutely Ʋniversal; either as to the whole Body of Christian Bishops; or, at least; as to some Bishops of every Pro∣vince; an usual demand of the Reformed. For such Provinces as are censured, or condemned by the Council (which thing often happens) it cannot be presumed, that they will ever accept it: No more than the Council of Trent supposed never so universal as to the rest of Christianity, would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops, who fell under its censures.

[§. 300,] But, if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual be∣ing is that, to which such persons, in any contests of Superiors, alwaies owe their submission, the most of those, who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies, yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide: For example: Whether a Patriarch, or a Primate be of an higher au∣thority: Whether an Occidental Council at Trent, under Pius: Or a National at London, under K, James be the Superior and more comprehensive, and universal: For the Subordinations of Clergy, and their Synods are well known: and, amongst Sects, that are in corners, the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill, and a light on a Candlestick. — Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani, ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum, frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus, &c. (as St. Austin before, §. 293.) culmen authoritatis obtinuit; and which its very Adversaries shew (but as an intolerable ambition in it) to be that body, which challengeth, in our Lords name, obedience from all the world Christian, and, hitherto, hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion. For all Sects, as they divide from it, so also most certainly (from the same continued liberty against Authority) among themselves. And there∣fore, though such others, as by their mean education, and low imployments, know no more of the Church, its Governours, or Doctrine, than what their Parish Priest (perhaps factious) teacheth them; and so, without ascending higher, here terminate their obedience, may be excused by invincible igno∣rance for a thing, that is their unhappiness indeed, but not their crime; yet those, who by their more liberal Education, and inge∣nuous imployments, cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Au∣thority, and whose example the ruder sort are steered by, if they neglect to range themselves under it, shall bear their own judg∣ment, and also that of their followers. And, if any Authority, canonically subject to another, shall rebel against it, and declare it self, as to some part of the Church, supreme; and will govern

that part independently, what less can it expect from the Divine Justice, than that its Subjects, likewise animated by its example, should revolt from it; and as it reforms for it self, against others above it, so it should suffer more Reformations still, for them∣selves, from others below it; and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it; till all divine matters, not on a suddain (which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering) but in process of time, be brought, in such part, to confusion and Anarchy.

[§. 301] This from §. 292. 1. That such, as are wholy unstudied in Controversies; or, after reading them, still unsatisfied, are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority; 2. And then, this divided, to the highest in actual being; which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christi∣ans.

3. Next, as to Church-Authority past, with which many would evacuate the present, here also such, as cannot search and examine; or, in examining, cannot clear to themselves its cer∣tain Traditions, ought also, concerning it, to take the judgment of the present Church; for, whose can they prudently prefer to it? But yet, give me leave to add one thing more, that with∣out looking into the Ancients themselves, for which few have lei∣sure, or Books, such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms, and evidences, and by their travelling no further, than the modern writings, on what side Antiquity stands, as to matters of religion in present debate, and which of the oppo∣site parties it is, that hath deserted, and receded from it. Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose, in 3 Disc. §. 78.)

[§. 302] 1. For first, He, that is acquainted only with the modern writings, will find the one party, in general, much claiming, and vindicating liberty of Opinion, of Judgment, of Conscience; and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority, whereas the other, generally, presseth obedience, and adherence to Authority; and defends the Infallibility also of it, as to all necessaries. Which argues, that such Authority pincheth the one, promotes the other.

[§. 303] 2. Again, As to this Church-authority past, whether taken collectively in its Councils; or disjunctively, the particular Fa∣thers: As to the first; He will find the one party, usually dispa∣raging, and weakening, upon some pretence or other, most of those Councils, formerly held in the Church: * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience, as indeed nei∣ther

past Councils were, nor future can be, capable of; I mean either, as to such an universal Convention; or acceptation, as this Party demands, He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils; the difficulty to know, the right qualifica∣tions of the persons; the legality of their proceedings; the sence of their Decrees: * Quarrelling about the calling of them; the presiding in them; the paucity of their members; inequality of Nations: Pretending their contradictions (Councils against Councils, saith Mr. Chillingw.† 1.575) their being led by a faction; * carping at their Anathema's; even those of the very first Coun∣cils. [—The Fathers of the Church (saith Mr. Chillingw.† 1.576) in after times [i.e. after the Apostles] might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed. But to oblige others to receive their Declarations, under pain of damnation [i. e. of Anathema] what warrant they had, I know not. He that can shew, either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority; or, that it continued in the Church for some ages [viz. for the four first General Councils] and then expired, let him; for my part, I cannot. Thus he;] Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith, after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it. All these, I say, are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners, that the fore∣past Councils are no friends to their cause.

[§. 304] 3. Next; For the Fathers apart; he will find the same Par∣ty * frequent in alledging the corruptions, and interpolations of those writings, which it confesseth theirs; * affirming several writings, which the rest of the world admits for genuine, to be supposititious, and none of theirs, will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity; sometimes of their Rhetorick, and Allegories (which occasion often a mistake of their opinion;) and their using terms in a much other sense, than the modern do: * Representing them, as to the many matters now in Controversie, impertinent, or ambiguous, confused, not clear, (by their own judgment then, the Fathers not clear on their side:) * Discover∣ing their nakedness as much as they can; and laying open their errors, Repugnances and Contradictions: Contradictions of one to another; of the same to himself; —[Some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves: A consent of Fa∣thers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age; the Church of one age against the Church of another age; saith Mr. Chillingw,‖ 1.577] * Allowing certain Tradition hardly of any thing, save of the H. Scriptures; And, few, or no, Traditive interpretations thereof. I have the words from Mr. Chillingw. [No Tradition

(saith he† 1.578) but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Foun∣tain [our Lord and his Apostles:] but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in, in such an age, after Christ; or, that in such an age it was not in. And, — Traditive Interpretations of Scripture are pretended; but there are few, or none to be found. So he. * Alledging, that the Fathers tranferred several conceits and customs, into the Church, from their new-deserted Paganism; Platonick philosophy; And Divinity of the Sybils; or at least out of compliance with such new Heathen Converts: And then, that the more prudent and sober Fathers, through timo∣rousness and despair of a reformation, have complied with the rest, and been carried down with the stream. Thus Zuinglius† 1.579 of S. Austin, touching Corporal Presence (in which point many Protestants would have him their Patron) — Facile adducimur (saith he) Augustinum, prae aliis acuto, perspicacique ingenio virum, suâ tempestate non fuisse ausum diserte veritatem proloqui, quae jam casum magnaâ parte dederat. Vidit omnino pius Homo, quid hoc Sa∣cramentum esset; & in quem usum esset institutum; verum invalu∣erat opinio de Corporeâ carne. And thus Chemnitius‖ 1.580 of the same Father, touching Invocation of Saints,—Haec Augustinus, sine Scripturâ; temporibus & consuetudini cedens. And Bochart Ori∣gin. de l' Invoc. p. 488.—St. Austin (who seems to have been of a disposition wonderfully sweet and courteous) suffers himself often to comply with the common errors, and superstitions, indeavouring rather to put a good sense upon them, than to cross them, &c: And, —Tan∣tae vir authoritatis in negocio Dei libere loqui non audebat.—Cum praesumptionibus omnia impleri videret, schismatis metu, aperte damnare non audebat, saith Vossius† 1.581] Again, * saying, they held many things only as probabilities, which later times have advan∣ced into matters of faith, and that necessary. He finds them al∣so, in Appeale to this Antiquity, ascending rather to the 3 first ages thereof; ages wherein the Church was persecuted; and few Records are left of her general Doctrines, or Practices; and more willingly declining the later; where the Records many; and the Church, in her flourishing condition, more fully display∣ing to the world all her Government and Discipline; these men confessing some appearances of several of the Tenents and Cust∣om••, they oppose, in the fourth age. Lastly he finds them, apt to change the phrase, and language of the Ancients; and bogling at many of their terms [such as those of Merit, Satisfaction, Altars, Priests, Sacrifices, &c.] which novelty of words often argues a new conceit of things▪

This the Protestants behaviour to Antiquity (in relating which, those who are versed in their books of Controversie, especially the writings of the French, know, that I falsifie no∣thing,) whereas on the other side, the opposite party to this he finds usually defending those works of the Fathers, which the others question; and not discarding Records certainly anci∣ent, because perhaps some of them mis-entitled as to the Author, or somewhat antidated as to the time: Again stating their Theo∣logical questions, and extracting their Comments on Scripture controverted, out of their writings: Covering their defects: and charitably interpreting what, in them is any way capable there∣of, and reconciling their seeming Contradictions: Lastly Saint∣ing the Fathers, and solemnly commemorating them in their pub∣lick service: Often urging, and laying much weight on ancient Tradition, and so keeping stable, and firm from generation to generation, the Doctrine and Faith of the Church, and, out of this Tradition, convincing Heresies: Defending the legal au∣thority of those Councils, which the other oppose; and gather∣ing their Canons into certain Heads for the standing Laws and Rules of present-Church Government: Not looking back with such rigor and jealousie upon their supreme Judges, and examin∣ing their numbers, their Commissions, Elections (if these free from Simony) Ordinations, nay Baptism: nor holding them of more virtue, authority, or illumination, as to the deciding of Controversies, or enlarging Creeds, in one age, than another; but, in all ages, alike necessary, alike assisted.

[§. 305] 4. But, yet further; He may discover the pretence to the Fathers, that is made by this party of late, not to have been so much, in that beginning of the Reformation. See before, §. 104. and 128. in the times of the Council of Trent, their plain refusing to be tried by the Councils, Fathers, Church-Tradition, but as these are first proved to have founded their Doctrine in the Scriptures.

See the two heads thereof, Luther and Calvin, their plain dealing in this matter in the many Quotations cited out of them before, Disc. 3. §. 78. n. 3. &c.—Quanti errores (saith Luther) in omnium Patrum scriptis inventi sunt?‖ 1.582 Quoties sibi ipsis pugnant? Quis est, qui non saepius scripturas torserit? &c. And, contra Re∣gem Angliae—Non ego quaero (saith he) quid Ambrosius, Augustinus Concilia, & usus saeculorum, dicunt,—Miranda est stultitia Satanae, quae iis impugnat, quae ego impugno. And, lib. de ministris Eccl. i••stituend.—Non habent Papistae quod his apponant [i. e. to his private sence, and exposition of Holy Scriptures]

nisi, Patres, Concilia, Consuetudinem. [Is not that enough?]

Calvin, De Ecclesiae reformandae ratione, c. 19. to the judge∣ment of Antiquity urged against him in the point, De sacrificio & Missâ, returns such general answers as these, not unfrequent with him also concerning many other points.—Veterum sententias non moror, quas ad obruendam veritatem hic congerunt Moderatores. So∣lemne est nebulonibus istis [you must pardon his heat, like that of Luther] quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur, corradere. And be∣low. —Desinant boni Moderatores veterum sententiis pugnare, in malâ causâ. Again,—Non est, quod vel Ambrosium, vel alium quemp iam ex totâ veterum cohorte, acutius vidisse putemus, quam ipsum Aposto∣lum. Again,—Ʋt millies clament Papistae, oblatum olim fuisse panem; veteres ita solitos facere; non novam esse censuetudinem; toties excipere nobis licebit: Christi mandatum inviolabilem esse regu∣lam, quae nullâ hominum consuetudine, nullâ praescriptione temporum, convelli, aut refigi debeat. And, —Quod ad veteres spectat; non est quod, in eorum gratiam, ab aeterna, & inflexibili Dei veritate [i.e. his own fancies concerning God's Truth] recedamus. And, 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‖ 1.583—Si, quid in controversiam vocetur, quia flexibile est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instar nasi ceres, si absque Traditionis [i. e. Patrum] subsidio, quicquam definire fas non sit, Quid jam fiet praecipuis fides nostrae capitibus? Tria solum exem∣pli causâ, preferam, 1 Naturae nostrae corruptio, & misera animae servi∣tus sub peccati tyrannide; 2 Gratuita Justificatio; & 3 Christi sa∣cerdotium, 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 par∣te 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, quo∣modo 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 Fa∣thers. And, that you may not think, that herein Calvins cen∣sure stands single; before this man, Melancthon, speaking of Lu∣thers new discovery to the world of the Apostolical Doctrine in the very same points, in his Preface to the second Tome of Lu∣thers

works, thus pleaseth himself in the rare invention thereof. Eruditis (saith he) gratum erat, quasi ex tenebris ••duci Christum, Prophetas, Apostolos; conspici discrimen Legis, & Evangelii, pro∣missionum legis, & promissionis Evangelicae: Quod certe non exta∣bat in Thoma, Scoto, & similibus [This throws off the School∣men, 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 ami∣sit 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 rati∣onal 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‖ 1.584 alledgeth,—Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus ca∣pisse 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 Fa∣thers 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 depar∣ted less from Antiquity than other forrain Protestant Churches, seem also more desirous of being reputed to keep a fair corre∣spondence with it) in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's daies;

in his challenge at Pauls Cross, proposed no less than 27. Ar∣ticles 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, concern∣ing Penances, and Satisfactions. Concerning Auricular Confession. Distinction of venial and mortal sin, &c. His silence in which, ar∣guing 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,† 1.585 who return'd this answer,—Quaestiones se primum leviores movisse, ut post ad alia dogmata veniretur: Alia [i. e. the points he omitted] esse ejusmo∣di, ad quae probanda Conciliorum & Patrum authoritates quaedam obtendi possint. Haec, quae ab ipso sunt posita,—nullum colorem pro∣babilitatis 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 dogma∣ta 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 constitu∣unt? &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 Chur∣ches. Hospinian in the Preface to his Histor. Sacrament. to An∣tiquity urged as opposing the new reformed opinions, and

practices, returns for answer, * the command in the Prophet, Jere∣my. —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 prae∣judicare veritati nec posse, nec debere. The forementioned Du∣dithius in his discontented Epistle to Beza.† 1.586—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.—Col∣legi (saith he) quae essent illa, quae veterum testimonio; & manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis, semper & ubique, & perseveranter, essent tra∣dita; videbam ea manere in illa ecclesia, quae Romanae connectitur. Is. Causabon (cited by Arnauld, in his late answer to Claude an Hu∣genot Minister, with many others, which you may view in his 1. Book 5. chap.) in his Epistle to Witenbogard,† 1.587 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 Prote∣stants) 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,† 1.588 that are urged to confirm the Roman Doctrine, spurious and counterfeit, As. S. Am∣brose 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cui mediocriter docto fidem faciet? Falsus illi Cy∣rillus Hierosolymitanus, falsus Gr. Nyssenus, falsus Ambrosius, falsi omnes: mihi liquet falli ipsum; & illa scripta esse verissima, quae ipse pronunciat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus Causabon;

[§. 308] 1. More general yet that confession of Socinus, Ep. ad Radecium. Le∣gantur (saith he) Pontificiorum scripta adversus Lutheranos, & Calvi∣nianos, & satis intelliget, si, praeter sacras literas, illorum [Patrum, produced by the Pontificii] authoritate sit standum, nobis omnino cau∣sa cadendum esse. And indeed the followers of Socinus, despairing as to their chief points concerning God's Attributes, and the Tri∣nity, to produce any just plea from ancient Church-Authority, do also, more candidly, relinquish this interest as to those other Con∣troversies,

which they, in common with other reformed, main∣tain 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 Apo∣stles 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 Thess. 2. 2 That the Fathers would have the Holy Scrip∣tures 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, impu∣dently, 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 ne∣cessaries; 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) im∣impartial 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 con∣sent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age, Tra∣ditive Interpretations of Scripture, few or none found,—no suffici∣ent 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† 1.589 (that you may see the Au∣thority 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 Ro∣man Catholick Religion: viz.—That a perpetual visible Pro∣fession 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 Pro∣testant Doctrine are the opinions of Hereticks, condemned by the Pri∣mitive Church He answers, not, by denying the Protestant Doctrines to be condemned as Heretical, by the Primitive Church; But, that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such; that were not so. To the Sixth, —That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable, and the doctrine of Protestants contrary, to the doctrine of the Fathers, who lived in the first 600 years, even by the confession of Protestants themselves. He Answers, not by denying this; but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church:—That the Doctrine of Pa∣pists is confest by the Papists, contrary to the Fathers, in many points. But here he tells not, in what points. And had he, I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants; As perhaps about the Millenium: communicating of In∣fants, or the like; or else, in some circumstances, only of some point controverted. To the Tenth,—That Protestants, by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils, or Church, to determine controversies of Faith, have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie, or restoring unity to the Church: He answers, not, by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority, Pope, Councils, or Church: But by maintaining, that Protestants, in having the Scriptures only, and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence, have no need of any such authority for deter∣mining matters of Faith; nor, can be Hereticks; and do take the only way for restoring unity. In all which, you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Ca∣tholick; and the rejecting this authority, and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence, reduced him to Protestantism. He mean-while not considering, how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence; or, to secure himself from Heresie; or to conserve unity, * who refuseth, herein, to obey the direction of those spiritual Superi∣ors,

past, present, Fathers, Councils, Bishops, whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures, as to matter of Faith, Ʋt non, fluctuantes, circum∣feramur omni vento doctrinae, &c. Eph. 4.14. Again, * who re∣fuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides, so to escape Heresies; and, to continue in their Communion, so to enjoy the Catholick unity. And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw. suppresseth? which none can incur, that is verily perswaded, that sence, he takes Scripture in, to be the right; and what Heretick is not so perswaded? For professing any thing against ones Conscience, or Judgment, or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture, is not Heresie, bu Hypocrisy. And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw. entertains? that none can want, who will but admit all to his communion (what∣ever tenents they are of) that, to this Interrogatory, whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence? Will answer affirmatively.† 1.590 But this is beside my present purpose; and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc. 2. §. 38. &c. So much of Mr. Chillingw.

By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern, what way he is to take, if he will commit his ignorance, or dissatisfa∣ction in Controversies, to the guidance of Antiquity, or Church-Authority past, when he sees so many of the Reformed in the be∣ginning, but also several of late, deserting as it were their Title to it (excepting the times Apostolical) as not defendable.

5. Lstly, In all this he will be the more confirm'd, when he observes, that these men, instead of imbracing, and submit∣ting to, the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Do∣ctrine, fly, in the last place, to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world; who also (as they say) must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church, and be a professor of Christianity; nay, must be the very chief Guides, and Patriarchs thereof; and these, as high as the Fourth, or Fifth age; nay much sooner, (say some) even upon the Exit of the Apostles. A conceit, which, arm'd, with the Texts, 1 Jo. 2.18. [little children, as ye have heard, that Antichrist shall come, so are there even now many Antichrists]—and c. 4. v. 3.—[This is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard, that it should come; and even now already is it in the world,] arm'd, I say, with these Texts misapplied to the persons, whom they think fit to discredit, at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authori∣ty, Tradition, Fathers, Councils, how ancient soever: And the main Artifice this was, whereby Luther made his new Doctrine

to spread abroad and take root; when he had, thus, first taken away all reverence to former Church, and its constant Doctrines and Traditions, as this Church having been, for so long a time, the very seat of Antichrist, Babylon, the great Whore, and I know not what. And after this ground-work laid; now, so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes, presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy: and in his resisting, and opposing the Church, he quiets his conscience herewith; and seems to himself, not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours, but a Champion against Antichrist. But on these terms, if they would well consider it, our Lords promises to the Church, that it should be so firmly built to the Rock, as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it, and the Apostles Prediction, that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth, are utterly de∣feated, and have miscarried, in its very infancy. For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail, than, that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church, signified by the false Prophet, Apoc. 13.11. &c. with great signes and miracles, shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it, shall practice a mani∣fold Idolatry within it; and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines; and lastly, maintain this kingdom of Satan (thus set up, I say, not without, or against, but within the bowels of, the Church) now, by the ordinary computation of Protestants, for above Twelve hundred years; whilst the Emperor, and other Ro∣man Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast, or Secular State, that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God; and makes war with the Saints?† 1.591 To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life, Apoc. 13.11, 15. Both which, this Beast and this False-Prophet, for their Idolatry and Oppression, at the appointed time (before this expected; now, they say, not far off;) shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire. For so their doom runs, Apoc. 19, 20.—And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet,—and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire.

[§. 312] And this, so great, and mischievous, an error, becomes in them much the less excusable, since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage: and since they might easily discern, and the phenomena, or Chara∣cters 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† 1.592 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 fol∣lowed upon them. * Who hath introduced a new Gospel, and that pretended to have been written in heaven, he assuming there∣in 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, vio∣lence, the sword, slavery, and the law martial, on another: and hath invented new future sensual—Beatitudes suitable to the ob∣servance of his laws. * Who hath changed Dies Dominica, for so∣lemn 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 Sacra∣ments, 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 treache∣rous 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,† 1.593] 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 ver∣tue 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 great∣est,* 1.594 and last, Art; (after the world was somewhat well acquaint∣ed 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 Sa∣tan 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 him∣self 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, in∣to 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 Epi∣stles (except one, where the woman cloth'd with the Sun hath hitherto had a place provided for her) and,* 1.595 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 ha∣ving thrust up the Church as it were into a corner, and the outer∣skirts, thereof, the Islands of the West, hath erected a new dread∣ful 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 Christi∣an 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 ei∣ther 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‖ 1.596 taken for years: & near upon the same time (that they may see the ••∣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.† 1.597 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 Reformati∣on, (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 called God; and shewed himself, as though he were God: if we may understand these expressions of the Apostle, coucerning this later enemy of God, and his Church, as we do those of the Pro∣phets (whence they were borrowed) concerning those ancient ones: The King of Babylon, and the King of Tyre, and Antio∣chus Epiphanes, of whom like things are spoken there. Of the King of Babylon thus the Prophet Esay† 1.598—Thou didst say in thine heart: I will ascend into heaven; above the Stars of God, will I ex∣alt my throne: I will sit in the Mount of the Testament [the Temple] I will ascend above the height of the clouds, and be like to the Highest. Of the King of Tyre thus the Prophet Ezech.† 1.599 —Thou hast said, I am God; and have sitten in the chair of God, &c. and, ver. 6.—Thy heart is elevated, as the heart of God. And of Antio∣chus thus the Prophet Daniel.† 1.600—That he should elevate and magni∣fie himself against every God; and against the God of Gods speak magnificent things,—That the God of his Fathers he should not ac∣count of, neither care for any of the Gods. Yet, in the fulfilling of these Prophesies; their exaltations and blasphemies (who still had some Deity whom they externally professed to adore,) their Empires, and Tyrannies over the Saints, are no way comparable to those of the present Mahometan Empire; and this Son of Is∣mael's presuming to exalt himself above the Son of God; Christ our Lord, who is over all things, God Blessed for ever. Lastly,‖ 1.601 * who hath effected all his Projects with the greater success, and less disturbance or jealoufie of Christians, because one part of them, out of a particular interest, and intestine quarrels, mis∣apply the Prophesies to another Person; Another part, from the high expressions of them, (which are usually very Hyperbolical) expect yet greater matters, than have been discovered in him, or probably shall be, in any other.

However, I think, He, that soberly weighs the things said before, will see, what little reason Protestants have had to ar∣raigne, and condemn, the Bishop of Rome; the chief Pastor of Christs Flock, for this great false Prophet; and mean while to absolve, and dismiss this Barrabas. To whom the New Testament Prophesies seem to agree with much exactness, but no way to suit to the other.

CHAP. XVI.

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 de∣monstrative certainty, in matters intellectual; more, in mat∣ters Divine, and Spiritual; and especially, in such Divine mat∣ters, where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a cer∣tain 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 neces∣sary (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-Authori∣ty, a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures (though this be the heaviest, Excommunication; and that unjust;) without erect∣ing,

• or joyning to any other external Communion, divided from it. Which third obedience only yielded, preserves the Church from schisme. §. 332, 333.

[§. 316] I Have spoken hitherto of the first of the two Guards (men∣tioned before, §. 27••.) which Protestants use, to defeat obe∣dience to the Council of Trent, or any other, though proved ne∣ver so legal, or supreme; viz. the obligation to follow their Con∣science against any humane Authority, even though this Consci∣ence be erroneous. To which hath been replied: That, such obligation granted, yet there is no general security to any one in this practice; because of another obligation precedent to this: namely, his duty, first, rightly to inform his Conscience; so that, whensoever the first is neglected, the latter excuseth not. And then: For the rectifying this information of Conscience, which requires our greatest care, I have set down. (§. 274, 275, 277.) the three common deceits, the interested Will useth to corrupt, or misguide the Conscience, or Judgment, as it pleaseth; namely, 1. Either by hindring the Judgment from any search of such matters of Religion, and wholy diverting it to other imploy∣ments, whereby it may become more pliable to any impression, in these spiritual matters, which secular interest recommends: 2. Or, by indulging a search into such matters, but this pre∣ingaged, and confined to a Party: 3. Or, by admitting an im∣partial search into all sides: But this, only as to arguments drawn from seeming Reason; but not, as to those other, drawn from the just weight of present, or past, Church-Authority. All which Arts and Deceits, of the Will, have been seriously reflected on, and censured (the first in, §. 281, &c. The second, §. 289 &c. The third, §. 291, &c.) And so, a well-informed Conscience, reduced to obedience of Church-Authority, in all spiritual matters; at least, such, or so many, wherein it acknowledgeth no absolute Certainty of its own opimions.

[§. 317] Now of the second Guard, or Defence, (mentioned before, §. 271.) against obedience to a legal Church-Authority; (used by those Protestants, who see the weak plea of a misinformed conscience, which every gross error makes use of; and who seem more respect∣ful, and wary, to preserve their duty to their spiritual Superiors) viz. Where persons have a certainty, that such Church-Autho∣rity manifestly errs. Which certainty they say, any one may presume of so often, as he can demonstrate the contrary of what is mainteined by this Authority. The trial of which Demonstra∣tion

also, whether it be a true one, they say, is thus certainly dis∣covered, if so many others, as hear it, and understand the terms, are also satisfied and convinced by it (for such a fence against false Demonstrations the more judicious Protestants have made against the Puritans, and those, who have pretended manifest errors in, and so refused obedience to, their own Provincial, or National Synods.)

[§. 318] In answer to this Second Defence. First: It may be noted here: That all persons not-certain are, by this plea, left to Church-Obedience, Secondly. These things, concerning Certain∣ty, shall freely be granted unto them: 1. That, who is certain of any thing, neither ought, nor indeed possibly can, yield the obedience of Assent to any Authority whatever proposing the con∣trary; nor may profess to yield it; for this is lying, and acting against Conscience: 2. And again; That to one liable to error in some things, yet some other things may well be so plain, and manifest, that he may have abundant certainty thereof. And: 3. That such a Demonstration of his Certainty, as, proposed to any that understands the terms, satisfieth and convinceth him, is good. But, these granted, yet a Judgment, well purged from Secular Interest, will here also consider,

1. That it is no such easie matter, as it is thought, to arrive at certainty in things intellectual, where our sences do not assist us; and especially those, that are Divine, and Spiritual; * where, these things not being collected by Reason, but originally deliver∣ed to us by Divine Revelation, both the matters are, many times, very mysterious, treating of the perfections, wisdom, and waies, of God: His Divine Laws, and Sacraments; things above our natural reach; and the words also, signifying these to us, are many times not free from several acceptions, literal, and figura∣tive (else all persons would agree in the same sence) so that appa∣rent contradiction in the words, by distinguishing of some term, is none in the sence, but both the verbal Contradictories very true; * Where again, these Revelations being many, and all most certainly true, none may be taken in such a sence, as to con∣tradict any other; And lastly, * where, the true essence of things, abstracted from all their Accidents (which accidents again cannot be known to us to be so, but by an actual separation) being not per∣fectly known to us, hence also though it be most certain to us that two contradictories cannot be true, yet is it most difficult to dis∣cern, what things truly contradict. For it is a Contradiction only, when the same thing is denied of, or removed from, its felf. As

this [a man is not a man.] Or this [A man is white, and not white] where the formal Contradiction, being resolv'd, is [white∣ness is not whiteness: Manhood is not Manhood.] And it is no contradiction, but truth, when ever a thing is denied of any thing not it self. Therefore this, what is, or is not, the thing it self; or, its essence; must exactly be known, before a true and reall con∣tradiction be so. And this difficulty, which is indeed in all na∣ture, must still be the greater in these things spiritual, and more remote from sence; of which we are speaking.—Cum res tanta sit (saith St. Austin† 1.602) ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit, omnesne putas idoneos, &c. And, Tu in eos libros, qui sancti, Divinarum{que} rerum pleni, &c, sine Duce irruis? And,—Nihil est facilius, quam, non solum se dicere, sed etiam opinari, verum invenisse; sed hoc reipsâ difficillimum est. And therefore, in that excellent Trea∣tise,† 1.603 he adviseth them first, laying aside such fancies of cer∣tainty to believe the Church.—Quo illuminaturo praeparentur Deo.] And, indeed, who is there, if he reflect upon the many seeming certainties, that he hath had in some opinions, afterward forsaken, that will not perceive, that this conceited certainty is an ordinary fallacy, which those, who know least, and so have least reason to think themselves certain are most subject to.—Qui ad pauca respicit, facile pronunci∣at.

[§. 319] But then further: If in those things Divine, this particu∣lar point, wherein we pretend a certainty, be such, as that the supremest Church-Authority, proposeth to us the contrary as certain; an Authority, (not to mention here the supernatural as∣sistance promised them) of the same, or better abilities, than we, for their Intellectuals; and that hath all the same external means, and Grounds, of the knowledge of such point as we, perhaps more; to whom also all the Grounds, Motives, Arguments of our certainty of it have been communicated; persons likewise (we ought to presume) of as much diligence in searching truth, as much integrity, and freedom from passion, and interest, as our selves; For these judge for themselves as well as for their Sub∣jects; and set down their own, as well as prescribe anothers, faith; this, I say, will make any such conceited certainty on our side yet much more irrational: (See more said of this in the 4th. Disc. §. 11.) And lastly, besides all this, our pretended Demon∣strations, being put to the trial according to the former Prote∣stant. Definition of a demonstration, will prove constantly false, as from which so many rational and learned persons, hearing or

reading them, continue to dissent. Neither here will the plea, of the perspicuity and clearness of the Scriptures in such point (ordinarily the chief pretence we have for our certainty) any way relieve us, or release our obedience to these Governours, but rather promote it. Because, if these Scriptures to us clear, so will they be to them: Or, if these Scriptures, like the Israelites Cloud, be light to one, and darkness to another, our humility ought to believe, that the light side of it will be rather toward the Church-Governours, than toward us, when singular, and differing from them; who also are appointed to enlighten us‖ 1.604

[§. 320] The four main points, that are maintained by the supreme Church-Authority, to which Protestants refuse conformity, and at which, they take most offence, and many of them charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Sacriledge; 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 1. The cor∣poral presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and consequently Adoration of them, as present. 2. Worship and In∣vocation of Saints. 3. Veneration of Images; 4. Com∣munion in one kind. As for a fifth, which might be added: The language, that ought to be used, according to several Nations, in the Celebration of the publick Service of God, I here omit it: Supposing this might be easily so accomodated, as solely, to be no hinderance of an union; where all the other real Controversies are accorded between the two Churches.

For the First, then, of these four points, the corporal pre∣sence of our Lord in the Eucharist, [§. 321] from which follows Adoration: Since, as hath been shewed in the first Discourse, §. 62, and more copiously in the Historical Disc. of the Eucharist, §. 35. a possi∣bility thereof is not opposed by many of the Reformed; and the true sence of Hoc est Corpus meum, and of other Scriptures, whether de facto, these do declare it so present, is that, by which this Question, between the two Parties must be decided; I see not what Demonstrative certainty, any Protestant can rationally pretend, of the sense he gives to these Scriptures, in opposition to that other sence of them, which is maintained by Church-Au∣thority; and hath been, by so many Councils, expresly declared, (long before Protestancy thought on; — Of which Councils, see 1 Disc. §. 57. &c) and this, after so long, and subtile disputes for about three hundred years; viz. from the 2d. Nicen Coun∣cil to the daies of Berengarius; and after so diligent an Exami∣nation

(on all sides) of Primitive Tradition, by Paschasius, Ber∣tram, and others, Eight hundred years ago; and, fince that, by Lanfrank, Guitmund, &c. at the appearance of Berengarius. Which Primitive Tradition, and judgement of Antiquity, that it was, (if this may not be taken on the credit of so many Councils,) the same concerning these Scriptures, with that of the present Church Authority, I think any one, that is well affected to the peace of the Church, and not pre-ingaged in Disputes, will re∣ceive sufficient satisfaction, herein, who will at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read, entire, and not by cited parcels, the short Discourses, on this subject, of * St. Ambrose, De Myster, initiand. chap. 9. — * The Author of the Books, De Sacramentis [ascribed to the same Father] l. 4 the 4, and 5. Chapters. * Cyrill. Hierosol. Catechis. Mystagog. 4. and 5. * Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. 83. — In. Act. Apost. Hom. 21. —In, 1 Cor. Hom. 24. * Greg. Nyssen, Orat. Catechet. c. 36, 37, * Euseb. Emissen. or Caesarius Arelatens. De Paschate Serm. 5. * Hi∣larius Pictao. De Trinitate, the former part of the eighth book. * Cyril. Alexand. In Evangel. Johan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the Authenticalness of several of which pieces (for the last Prote∣st••ant refuge is to pronounce them spurious) you may remember the fore cited passage of Casaubon† 1.605 speaking of such a subterfuge of Du Moulins, — Falsus illi Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, falsus Gr. Nyssenus; falsus Ambrosius, falsi omnes; mihi liquet, falli ipsum [Molinaeum.]

Not, that I affirm here, that every one, that reads these pieces, shall be so perswaded, and convinced. For, as hath been shewed, the Interests of the Will have a strange power of disguising, and miscolouring, things to the understanding. As, when, perhaps, the pre-design of making a Reply to an Adversary, is the reason of ones reading of such a piece of a Father; and when one hath, first, stated the Question to himself, ordered his Arguments, deduced his Conclusions, solved Objections, &c. and then, upon such provocation of an Antagonist, is brought to examine their writings; here we may presume, such a one will be very loath now to pull down the whole Fabrick he hath built before, and to lay down his Arms: and that it will go hard, if he cannot find something in them seeming favourable to his cause. Either, 1. for the Terms used by the Father; he will contend, that they are to be taken according to the mode of those times, and not in a proper, or modern, sense: O••, That their Rhetorick, and Eloquence, fitted, not to state the Question, or inform the Judgement, but to move Affections, and gain

the Will, doth often make use of such expressions, as, rigour∣ously taken, transcend the Truth. Or, 2. For the sense given, when apparently against him; he will propose some seeming-irrational consequences and absurdities, that follow from it; or, some other Tenents of the Father, that will not consist with it; and the Translation alsor, or the Copy, shall many times be blamed. Or, 3. Touching the Discourse; 1 He will either pronounce the whole illegitimate and spurious, as pretended to be found of a different stile from the Father's other works: or, some words used in it, some Rites, or Customs mentioned, that are of a later date or age; or, such work not found in such Editions; or, not mentioned by later writers: or, that it is in part corrupted and interpolated; and, not all of a piece. 2 Or at least, He will find some Clauses, in the same, or in some other, discourse of the Fa∣ther, whereby he may seem to confess in one place, what he de∣nies in another: or, which may serve at least to render him somewhat confused and obscure in the Point, and so, serviceable to no Party. I name these defences not so, but that some times they may be true, but, that they are much oftner made use of, than there is any just cause; and, are apt to blind the unwary, and preoccupated, and such, as have the infelicity to be engaged against Truth, before they are well read in Antiquity.

So the late Censurer of Dr. Arnaulds last Book concerning the Eucharist,* 1.606 Vigier, after the two former Combatants, Arnauld, and Claude, one by taking the Fathers in a plain, and literal, the other, in a Metaphorical sense, had each of them challenged Antiquity, as clearly on his own side, seeks to dispatch the Con∣troversie, much what like the Woman in the Book of Kings† 1.607, whose the childe was not. —Nec mihi, nec Tibi sit. Saying‖ 1.608 — That the true belief of the ancient Church, about this point of the Eucharist, is very hard to be known; That there are innumerable perplexities in it; and that, if the Fathers have believed the Re∣ality, as he seeth no reason to doubt, but they did, they believed it in such a manner, which neither Roman Catholicks, nor Protestants, nor any other Christian Society, would approve of. And so. p. 66, &c. That the former Greek Church may not be found Transubstanti∣alists, he is content, they should be Stercoranists; (i. e. holding I know not, what panified corruptible corporal presence of our Lord, much more gross, and incredible, than that of Transub∣stantiation) For, whether the Greeks fall short of, or ago beyond, the Latine Church herein, he thinks all to his purpose, so they be not just the same. But then, over-born with Dr. Arnaulds modern testimonies, manifesting the unanimous accord herein

of the present Oriental, with the Western, Churches, here he will have them, to have taken up this their opinion of late from Travellers, but by no means to have derived it from their Fore∣fathers, —There may have happened (saith he‖ 1.609) a change, since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Latine Church, either by the mixture and commerce of the Latines and Greeks, or by the Voyages of the Portugais, and other Nations, into the Oriental Churches;— mean while, the present Oriental Churches thus consenting with the Roman, it may well be con∣sidered, what would become of the Protestant cause, if the Con∣troversie should now be referred to the Decision of a lawful General Council.

Much what the same course takes Monsieur Claude in his last Reply to Dr. Arnauld.§. 1.610 For the shewing of which a little more at large, because I am speaking here of the Eucha∣rist, and what I shall say, may serve for a pre-advertisement to some, less experienced in this Controversie, that may light on his Book, and are in danger of receiving some impressions from it, prejudicial to the Catholick Faith; I beg leave of the Rea∣der to make a step, though somewhat out of my way, yet not much beside my purpose; Remitting those, who think this Forreign Author less concerns them, to the prosecution of the former Discourse, resum'd below §. 321. n. 27.

1st. This Author busyes himself‖ 1.611 to accumulate many Testimonies concerning the miserable ignorance, and decay of Learning, in the modern Greek, and other Oriental, Churches, as also that of the Moscovites‖ 1.612, even amongst their Monasticks, Priests, and Bishops; which industrious disparaging of their Sci∣ence 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 Chari∣ties, 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‖ 1.613 to tell us the many opportunities,§. 1.614 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 accom∣modate 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;) especi∣ally, 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 Phy∣sitians, 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 cir∣cumvented, 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 Con∣version of Infidels, as well as the instruction of ignorant Chri∣stians: 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,§. 1.615 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 Prote∣stant Doctors have pretended is. And Ibid. after his stating of the Greek Opinion, To the censure that he makes it pe•••• raisonnable,

he saith* 1.616 That to this he hath nothing to answer; save, that Pro∣testants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks: and, that his business is to enquire what it is; not; how maintain∣able. And saith elsewhere, That both the Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity,* 1.617 and the main and natural explication, the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist.

Here then; 1^st as to the later ages of the Church, Prote∣stants stand by themselves; and the Reformation was made, as Calvin confessed it,† 1.618 à toto mundo. 2. After such a Confessi∣on, M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely, in that with force e∣nough, 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 Ʋnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far, as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Vir∣tue 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‖ 1.619 and again,† 1.620 Damascen not to have been the first, that had such thoughts. (viz. of an Aug∣mentation 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 An∣cient 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 Opi∣nion.

[§. 321] 4. Having said this.* 1.621 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, con∣cerning 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 di∣verted the Controversie to Transubstantiation, His words I say are these.* 1.622 In the Dispute concerning the Greeks, our business is only about Transubstantiation; and not at all, about Real presence. For it was to this only, and Adoration, that I formally limited my self in my last Answer. But then; as if this might do him some prejudice, he, as it were cautiously, addeth: — Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence, that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church, [But here to make his words true, he adds again,] in that sense, as the Roman Church understands it. And, what sense is that? surely, by the way of Transubstantiation. And so, you see, he pares his words, till they say no more, than just what he said before: That he acknowledgeth no Real presence, (viz.) by way of Transubstantiation, established in the Greek Church. And, this is to say only; that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Tran∣substantiation. 2. Next; concerning the Greeks their recei∣ving, or opposing Transubstantiation, he hath one Hold more, Ibid. — It is not (saith he) our business, to know; whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation; Or, whether they have made It an Article of Controversy between them and the Latines; but only, whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith, or no: Our Dispute is only concerning this matter. One would think, that he had been chaced very much, and driven up to the wall, that to preserve himself safe, he makes so many out∣works; and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass. But doth he not here, for the Greek Church also, thus decline, and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks, which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject; (viz.) The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord; and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith, as well East as West. in the constant Belief of this, for all the later times of the Church Catholick; which consent found in the later times, is the truest proof, from which we may collect also the true sense of the former? And, from this Corporal presence once established, whether a Tran∣substantiation

be, or be not, necessarily follows also the law∣fulness of a Soveraign Adoration: which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless; and decideth it against him: since, an Adoration of the My∣steries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow, but not, Soveraign; Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one.

5. His way thus far made;* 1.623 and his cause pretended not to be conterned, in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants; Nor, that they take, Hoc est corpus meum, as also the Latines, in a literal sense, and hold a Real presence: Nor, that they do not reject the Roman Tran∣substantiation; Or make any Controversie with the Latines about it: And, so all Authorities, save those that press Tran∣substantiation, being removed from giving him any trouble: Next; For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation, the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow, and frequent∣ly occur in their Authors, will not be admitted by him as good, or to the purpose. — That, by the Consecration, the Bread is changed, and converted into the very, the proper, the True, (or in veritate, in reipsa,) Body of Christ, which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin, and that suffered on the Cross. — That the Eucharist is not a Figure, or Image only, of this Body, but the very Body of our Lord, united to his Divinity, as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was; Neither are these now two, but one. —Unum corpus, & unus Sanguis cum eo, quod sumpfit in utero Virginis; & quod dedit Apostolis. And—Calix, quem Sacerdo•• sacrificat, non est alius, nisi ipse, quem Dominus Apostolis tradidit. — That the Bread, that is offered in the Mysteries, is the very same Flesh of Jesus Christ, that was Sacrificed at the time of his Passion, and buryed in the Sepulchre, and which St. Thomas handled, and which is at the Right Hand of the Father. —That, after the Consecration, Though it appears Bread, yet, in verity, it is the Body of Christ. Or, — Licet Panis nobis videa∣tur, revera Caro est. Or, — Non manet Panis; sed pro Pane factum est Corpus Christi. I say, such expressions as these (very usual in the Greeks,) are not current with him for proving a Substantial change of the Bread; Or, That the Substance of it, after Consecration, doth not still remain so entire as be∣fore. For, as for Ipsum, proprium, verum, &c. he can pro∣duce places in the Fathers, where they are applyed to a Meta∣phor; where the Poor, the Faithful, the Church, are said to be

Ipsum, or Verum, Corpus Christi▪ The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ [i. e. saith he, not in Substance, but in Vertue] The Eucharist is not a Figure, or Image of this Body [i. e. with∣out all Ʋertue or Efficacy,] but the very Body it self: [i. e. in being such an Image, or Figure, as retains the supernatural Ʋertue of it.] But, still I say; This Supernatural Ʋertue is not the Body. And, if the Greek's arguing from our Lords Dixit Hoc est Corpus meum be good, viz. That what-ever is not our Lords Body, the Eucharist is not; It holds as well against Ʋirtus, if taken exclusively to Substance, (for such Sub∣stance is [Body] here, or else, why not Imago a Body?) as against Imago, or Figura; as well against Imago cum Efficacia, as sine, &c. For—Non dixit. Hoc est Ʋirtus, or continens virtutem Corporis mei, but Hoc est Corpus meum. And, this being urged by his Adversary, the best answer that I see M. Claude makes to it† 1.624 is; That the Protestanes are no engagers for the verity of the Greek's Opinions. i. e. He imposeth such a sense on the Greeks, as makes a Contradiction in their Opinion, or argu∣ing; and then leaves them to make it good. Again: Though it appears Bread, it is truly Flesh: [i. e. saith he; The Greeks hold it indeed still Bread in Substance, and not Flesh at all: But they mean here; that, though it appears or seems, yet it is not, [simple] Bread: but it is truly Flesh [in as much as it now hath the true Ʋertue of Christs Flesh:] making them say, It is, in truth, that, which yet they hold it is not; save only in Ʋertue, or Efficacy: And again: that it only appears that, which yet they hold, that in Substance, and, in truth, it is. And, to render this his Exposition more current, in his 2. An∣swer, he saith, — We must not press too much such manner of expressions as these,† 1.625 licet appareat Panis, tamen in veritate Cor∣pus Christi est, lest we make the Fathers speak many absurdities; And so urgeth a place in S. Chrysostom, where the Father saith, — That we ought not to think of our selves, that are upon the Earth; because we see the Earth under our feet: for we are translated into Heaven, and placed among the Angels. Where, saith he, the Father denies not absolutely, that we are upon Earth: and so, he thinks himself as safely guarded here against the Panis appa∣ret by this; as before, against the Eucharist being pretended to be Ipsum Corpus Christi in a litteral or a proper sense, by his shewing, that the poor were said to be ipsum, or Verum, Corpus Christi too.

Such Evidences therefore rejected by M. Claude, he requires, for the verifying of Transubstantiation, that we produce a Te∣stimony,

such as this. That the Bread is Transubstantiated; or, the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body. So that, according to him, The Bread, [but, not a Substance,] is said by them to be changed into Christs Body, [but, not in••o a Substance.] And, by the same reason, we may say; That our Lords Nourishment, when he lived here on Earth, being changed into our Lords Body, proves not, that it was changed into the Substance of his Body, But suppose then the Expres∣sion running, as he would have it. — That the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body; And, that though it seems the Substance of Bread; Yet, in truth, it is the Subst••nce of Christs Body, or Flesh, are we ever a whit now the abler to si∣lence him? Or, will not his answers still fit as well as befo••e, viz. That, though it seems, yet it is not the simple, or naked, Substance of Bread. — That it is, in truth, also the Substance of Christs Body: i. e. containing in it the whole Vertue (or, if I may so say▪ the Substance) of this Substance. For so, it may be shewed, sometimes, that Substance is used for Vertue.

He Grants† 1.626; the Greeks cannot think, Christs Flesh, or Body, to be the Subject of those accidents, which are perceived, by our Sences, to remain in the Eucharist; and then, the Greeks also to say: Videtur Panis, & Vinum; in veritate Corpus Christi & Sanguis est; and yet will not yield, that they hold the Exist∣ence of these Appearances or Accidents in the Eucharist with∣out a Subject. He grants the Greeks to hold, our Lords Body, that is distributed in the Eucharist, to be indivisible, impartible, im∣passible; and then affirms them (though it is not so) to say; that no other Substance is this Body, than the Bread; and yet not to hold, the accidents only of the Bread to be passible, partible, &c. The Greeks say, that the Body of our Lord, which is consecrated and offered in many places at once, and at many times successively, yet in all these, is but one, and the same, Body: and, that, though it is in all these places broken, divided, and eaten by many Com∣municants, yet is received by each of them, not in a piece of it, but whole, and entire: and, after this, remains still, perfect, un∣consum'd, alive, immortal. And yet he saith† 1.627, the Greeks do not hold or affirm; Idem Corpus in pluribus locis: do not maintain a concomitancy of our Lords Flesh and Blood; not the exist∣ence of his Body in the Eucharist, after a non-natural manner. And, that the same Greeks do hold, the Substance of that which is offered and distributed in one place, as to one person, to be really, and numerically diverse from that offered, or di∣stributed, in another: But, that their meaning only is; that

the Vertue of this Body is in all places one, and the same; and to all persons, whole and entire; and must he not say also, that this Vertue is incorrupted and alive?* 1.628 — I yield [saith he, † in answer to D. Arnaud's Objections touching Remigids] that, if the Bread were made the Body of Christ in its Substance, it would follow, that our Lord would have so many Bodies, as he is united, [i. e. in his Divinity.] to different Breads [this he grants, not∣withstanding Remigius his arguing; all these Breads but one, and the same Body, from the same Divinity replenishing them; of which more below:] But, the Bread not being made Christs Body save only in Vertue, and in efficacy, this consequence is null; because this Vertue, through the whole world▪ is one and the same. — For this Ʋertue is indivisible, and is all of it entire, wherever it is. Thus he. And, that such are his answers and explications, of these expressions of the Greeks, as I have here represented, You may see in his 2^d. Answer part. 3. c. 2. & 4. — His last Answer. l. 3. c. 9 c. 10. — l. 4. c. 7. — l 5 c. 7. — l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere.

[§. 321] [Where chiefly you may observe;* 1.629 that, how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the pre••ence of Christs very Body, yet he expounds them only of the Vertue, exclusive to the Substance, of Christs Body. And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold,† 1.630 — That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ [opposed to figure] by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body; so as our Nourishment is made our Body. And yet elsewhere,† 1.631 more fully — † That [upon the Consecration] they held and Ʋnion of the Bread with the Divi∣nity of our Lord; and, by the Divinity, [an Ʋnion] to his natural Body; and that they understood, that by the means of this Ʋnion, or of this Conjunction, the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and is made the same Body with it. [I add, as our nourishment, by its union to the same Soul, is made the same Body with our's.] Now then; when we say, that our nourishment, upon such an operation passing upon it, is, or is changed into, or is made, our Body or Flesh, did he candidly here interpret our meaning, who should say, that we affirm only; that this nourishment is our Body, or Flesh, in Vertue, or changed into the Vertue of it, exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it? So; doth this person deal candidly, for instance, when Euthymius a Greek Author, that held this opinion, expresseth himself thus† 1.632 — Quemadmodum Jesus Christus, supernaturaliter, assum∣ptam carnem deificavit;m 1.633 Etiam Hac [the Bread and Wine] in∣effabiliter transmutat [i. e. by his united Deity] in ipsum vivi∣ficum

Corpus, & in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suunt, & in gra∣tiam ipsorum. (which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthening us, as Bread doth; and this Blood exhila∣rating, and encouraging us, as Wine† 1.634;) I say, doth he deal ingenuously, to expound the [&] here by a [C' est a dire,] or, [id est] — Transmutat ineffabiliter in ipsum Corpus, & in ipsum Sanguinem, id est, in gratiam ipsorum? Making the Body a Synonyman with its vertue; Such a Synonyman saith he, as that of S. Paul, in 1. Tim. 4.3. They who believe and know the truth. or 1 Tim. 6.3. Wholsom words, and Doctrine of Godliness. But might he not have said, more aptly, such a Synonyma•• as that in Psal. 32. — Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt, & omnis virtus eorum; firmati sunt Caeli, id est, virtus eorum. Or Psal. 147. — Magnus Dominus & magna virtus ejus. Dominus, id est, virtus Do∣mini. — But, if the Greeks mean, as, he saith indeed they do, — That the Bread, by Consecration, is made out Lords proper Body, though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin, yet another, added to it by way of Augmentation; and so, in some sence, made the same with it, (viz. so, as our nourishment is with ours) by the Union, and inhabitation of our Lords Divi∣nity to, and in, them both; and lastly, that, by its being thus made our Lords Body, it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body, inherent in it; then I say; in plain dealing, this Person, expounding the Expressions of the Greeks, ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence, in the Eucha∣rist, of this Substance of Christs Body, as well as of its Vertue; this Substance I say, of which they affirm, that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as, to be united to the same Di∣vinity, and in the same person, of our Lord; and, from this, to receive the same vivisicating Vertue; though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct. Nor, consequently, ought he to impose upon the Greeks, as every where he doth, their holding the Bread, after Consecration, to remain still so entirely Bread, as it was before; but only, the matter of it so to remain, as the matter of our Nourishment doth, when yet that, which was Bread, is now truly our Flesh, and no more Bread; our Flesh, not by I know not what Mysti∣cal Relation to it, but by a most interior receptio, and incor∣poration into it, and dispersion through that our Substance, or Flesh, which was existent before. Nor, lastly, using the same integrity, ought he to have said, this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body, or also to be the same with it, (as the Greeks alwayes

say it is) by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it, (as he usually explains them;) for one thing may have the Vertue of another; without being an aug mentative part of it, or contracting any Identity with it: But, that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body, and the same also with it, from its Ʋnion to the Divinity, and so its change into Christs Flesh; and so its partaking also the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Graces, or Vertues of it; which the Greeks speak of, with much reason, as well as of the substance, because in these we are most concern'd.

Thus, perhaps with much less labour, might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth, and gained from his Readers more belief. And for this, I appeal to any sober Person, when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below, n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner (which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transub∣stantiation,) and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence. Now, in this way he takes, many of these Ex∣pressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them, as a proof can hardly be brought against such an∣f••wes, that will not have as little, or perhaps less, evidence in it, that the thing that is proved. And, in such manifest wrest∣ing of an Authors clear sence, it is Conscience only must con∣fute such gain-sayers, not an Argument. And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to ano∣thers engagement's; nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy, (especially when opposing Church Authority) nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long, as he sees it to be contested.] This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such, as seem very evident, and indisputable Testimonies.

[§. 321] 6. But,* 1.635 6ly. Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced, as that no such answers can discountenance them; nor no Exceptions be made against them, then especially out of the 1^st. and 2^d. Observations precedent; he hath some at least against the Person. Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers, such as will admit none of his Qua∣lifications, He tells us, many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd, and won over to Rome: Or, the writing quoted wants another

testimony, that it is not forged; such as lived in the same times, having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece; thus he throws off Samonas, and Agapius† 1.636; Proceed, in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy; and that in several Countreys, and Churches of the East, distinct, and averse, from the Roman Communion. By a diligent Collection of which, his prudent Adversary, hath done the Church Catholick great service, * in manifesting, that the doctrine, and practice of the Greeks, not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation; but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West, consents and agrees with the Church of Rome, and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants, how singular they stand, and divided, in their Faith, from the whole Christian world. He tells us: They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized, and corrupted by the Roman Missions: Though the same persons, still, maintain their dissent from the Latines, as to those Points formerly in Controversie be∣tween the two Churches: and though the Testimony, they give, is not so much concerning their particular perswasion; as, what is the Common Tenent, and Profession of the Greek, [i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion,] or other Oriental, Churches: A matter, wherein a false testimo∣ny, as it would carry a greater guilt, so lies too open to disco∣very. Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals, especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy, that have travailed, about some negociations, into the West. He saith, l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People, who come not usu∣ally into the West, but for their own Interest; and who fail not to speak in such a manner, as one would have them. Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion, inhabiting in the West, and here indulged their own Service, and Rites, easily inquired into; as for example, the Greek Church in Venice. See (Respon. 2. part. 2 c. 8.) his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there. — That we are not to think it strange, is one, who had lived some 40 years in that place, suffered himself, [and so those under his charge,] to be wrought upon by the ordinary commerce they had with the La∣tines. Urge the Oriental Liturgies, which, though not denyed to be different in several Regions, or perhaps several also used in the same, (as both S. Basil's and S. Chrysostom's are by the Greeks,) yet have a great congruity and harmony both amongst themselves, and with the Greek and Roman, as to the Service,

and Ceremonies, of the Eucharist. His answer is† 1.637, — That we have not any certainty, that these Pieces are sincere, or faith∣fully translated; or, some of them not corrected by the Missions.

As for the Liturges, and other witnesses, produced for the Faith of the Jacobites of Syria; the Armenians; Cophtites, or Egyptians: Ethiopians, or Abyssines, agreeing in this Point with the Roman, he thinks them all sufficiently confuted, from Eutychianism being held by these Eastern, and Southern, Churches. For, saith he,† 1.638 — What can one find more directly opposite; than, to maintain on one side, that Jesus Christ hath no true Body; that there is nothing in him save only the Divine Na∣ture: that all that which hath appeared, of his Conversation in the World, of his Birth, Death, Resurrection, were nothing but simple appearances without Reality: and, on the other side, to believe, that the substance of the Bread is really changed into the proper substance of his Body, the same he took of the Virgin. Thus He; for his advantage, applying the extremities of that Heresie to all these Nations, contrary to the Evidence of their publick Li∣turgies. But Entychianism, taken in the lower sence, as Entyches (upon the mistake of some expressions of former Fathers, Atha∣nasius, and Cyrill, Patriarchs of Alexandria, which perhaps also induced the engagement of Dioscorus their Successor on his side) maintained, and the Ephesin Council, i. e. above 90 Bishops, under Dioscorus, allowed; it affirms no more than — that the two Natures of our Lord, the one Divine, the other Humane, Con∣substantial with us, and received of the Bl. Ʋirgin, after their con∣junction, become one, yet this without any confusion, or mixture, or conversion of the two Natures into one another. Now, that these Nations adhere to Eutychianism only in this latter sence, not well distinguishing between Nature, and Personality;) I refer him that desires further satisfaction, to the Relations of Thomas à Jesu, l 7. c. 13, 14, 17. — and Brerewoods Enquiries. c. 21, 22, 23. — and Dr. Field on the Church. l. 3. c. 1. p. 64. &c. and of the several Authors cited by them: and to the testimony of Tecla Mariae a Learned Abyssin Priest cited by M Claud.† 1.639 who saith: They hold, after the Union, only Ʋnam Naturam; sine tamen mixtione, & sine confusione. [i.e. of those two Natures, of which the One, afterward, is compounded.] Which Testi∣mony may serve either to expound, or to confront, one, or two, of the other he brings, that seem to say otherwise.

Urge to him the Confession of Protestants, Grotius, Bishop Forbes, and others, (though themselves of a contrary persw••∣sion) that the Modern Greek Church believes Transubstantia∣tion:

for which they cite their late Writers; the Reading of whom convinced them in this, though it cannot M. Claude. Of these two Grotius and Forbes, he replies,† 1.640 — That they are persons, who permitted themselves to be pre-possessed with Chi∣merical fancies and designs, upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions, Catholick and Protestant; which they pretend to accommodate, and reconcile. So he cen∣sures Casaubon out of Spondanus. † — Levitatem animi Vacil∣lantem eum perpetuò tenuisse; cum & his, & illis placere cuperet, & nulli satisfecisset. Where indeed, whose judgement ought sooner to be credited, than theirs, who appear more indiffe∣rent between the two contending parties? So, To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius. Interroga Greacos, Armenios, seu ••ujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem, [i. e. Transubstantiationis] se testabuntur habere, cited by Dr. Arnaud. He answers.† 1.641 — That Pre occupation renders his Testi∣monie nothing worth.

Urge the Socinians, because the Fathers oppose so mani∣festly their ōwn opinions, therefore more apt to speak the truth of them, in their opposing also those of other Protestants, and part••cularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist; He tells us, they are not creditable in their Testi∣mony, because so much interested, to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard; and thus they imagine, Pro∣testants will have less countenance to press them with an Au∣thority, that themselves cannot stand to. Urge the Centu∣rists, confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fa∣thers; and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of for∣mer times. He† 1.642 denies them fit witnesses in this Controver∣sie, because, themselves holding a Real Presence, they had ra∣ther admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers, than a presence only Mystical. And suppose such excuses should fail him; yet how easie is it to find some other, whereby a person may be re∣presented never to stand in an exact indifferency, as to whatever Subject of his Dicourse?

With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause, where nothing else will do it. Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men, especially as to these matters of Fact, that, where a multitude, though of a party concern'd, concur in their Testimony, they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account, either, that their being deceived, or purpose to deceive, and to relate a

lie, is possible; or, that, what they say can be shewed a thing well pleasing, and agreeable, to their own inclinations. For as it is true, that ones own interest, if, as to his own particu∣lar, very considerable, renders a Testimony lees credible; So, on the other side, almost no Testimony would be valid, and current, if it is to be decryed, where can be shewed some fa∣vour, or engagement of affection, to the thing, which the person witnesseth: and so, for Example, in the Narration of another Countreys Religion, (often made by all Parties,) none here can be believed, save in what he testifies of them, against his own. Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude, and paucity, and the Reputation, of the wit∣nesses rather, than their (only some way general) interest; and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Rea∣ders Judgement.

[§. 321] But,* 1.643 7ly. Should all that is said touching the later Greek's, from the 11^th. or the 8^th. to the present, age, their holding Transubstantiation be, undeniably, made good; and, al the testimonies concerning it, exactly true: Yet he saith† 1.644 — It will not follow, that a change [of the Churches former Faith in this Point] is impossible: or, hath not actually happened: and con∣sequently, that all M. Arnaud's long dispute, about it, is vain, and unprofitable. I add; and then, so his Replies. But here, since the true sence, and meaning of Antiquity, on what side This stands, is the thing chiefly questioned, and debated be∣tween the Roman Church, and Protestants, (unless he will throw off this too, and retreat, only to sense of Scripture,) I suppose to wise men it will seem little less, than the loss of the Prote∣stant cause, and too great a prejudice to it, to be so slightly yielded up; if that, not the Roman only, but the whole visible Catholick, Church (besides themselves,) from the 11^th. to the present age, doth defend a Corporal presence, and a literal sence of Hoc est corpus meum; or also Transubstantiation; and so, consequently, doth concur, and Vote against them, touch∣ing the sense of former Antiquity; for this, each side, in their present Doctrine, and Practice, pretend to follow. And I can hardly think M Claude, would spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post, the loss of which he thought no way harm'd Him. Again; thus it is manifest, that in an Oecume∣nical Council, if now assembled, the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned.

8. After all these Defences, wherewith he seems suffici∣ently garded;* 1.645 He proceeds l. 3c. 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject, which I will give you in his own words. p. 310. — They believe (saith he;) That by the Sanctification [or Consecration] is made a Composition of the Bread and the Wine, and of the Holy Ghost: That these Sym∣boles, keeping their own Nature, are joyn'd to the Divinity, and, That by the impression of the Holy Ghost, they are changed, for the Faithful alone, [the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all, or to cease to be so, in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy] into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: being, by this means, made not a Fi∣gure, but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ; and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ. To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment, which is made our own Body by Assimilation, and Augmentation Again, p. 237. more briefly — The Doctrine of the Greek Church is: That the substance of Bread, conserving its proper Being, is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ; that it is rendred like unto it: That it augments, and by this means becomes the same Body with, it. By this also (he saith, p. 334. and see the same in his 4 l. c. 7.) the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sence of the words, Hoc est Corpus meum, which (saith He) we do not; we understand them in this sence: This Bread is the sacred sign, or Sacrament of my Body. Or, which comes to the same pass, The Bread signifies my Body. They, on the contrary, taking the word [is,] in some sort according to the letter, would have, that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ. From pre∣serving this pretended literal sence it is also; That they would have it; That the Bread is made one with the Body, by its Ʋnion to the Divinity, by the Impression of the Holy Ghost, and by a change of vertue. Or, as he hath it in his 6. l. c. 10. — That there is an Ʋnion of the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord; and by the Di∣vinity, to his natural Body: by means of which Ʋnion, or Con∣junction, the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and made the same Body with it. [with his natural Body.] Again, for preserving this literal sence, That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body [of Christ] It seems also, That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost, and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ, upon the Bread, with some kind of inherence, [i. e. of the vertue]

Although I will not (saith he) ascertain positively, that this is the General Belief of their Church, though the expressions seem to sway on this side. But however it be, this is not our opinion. We believe, that the Grace of the Holy Ghost, and vertue of Christs Body, accom∣panies the lawful use of the Sacrament; and, that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith, as much or more really, then of we received it in the mouth of our Body. But we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 understand this Real impression, or inherence, [i. e. of the Supernatural Ver∣tue of the Body of Christ,* 1.646† 1.647 viz. that born of the Virgin,] of the Greeks. Whence it is, that our Expressions are not so high, as theirs. And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as Damascen—This Opinion [of the Modern Greeks, faith he] seems to be taken from Damascen: some of whose expressions I think fit to produce. For it is certain, that, to make a good Judge∣ment of the Opinion of the modern Greeks, we must ascend as high as him.—And M. Arnaud himself hath observed; That John Da∣mascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks. Thus He.

But,* 1.648 lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own, nor others easily believe, they maintain; (for he confesseth, that it hath some∣thing in it, that appears little reasonable; and especially, as to the Augmentation of Christs natural Body, to be assez bizarre †;) and lest he should make it lyable to so many and odious absur∣dities, as that a Transubstantiation, which he endeavours to avoid, may seem much the more plausible, and eligible of the two; perhaps I say for these considerations; he undertakes to qualifie, and render a credible and likely sence to, it on this manner: In saying, 1. That they hold indeed an Ʋnion of the Divinity to the Bread, and that in an higher manner, than to any other Sacred sign, or Ceremony; but yet not Hypostati∣cal. 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmen∣tative part of Christ's natural Body; but, it remaining still entire Bread as before, and altered only in a Supernatural vertue, added to it. 3. Hold it to be joyned to Christs Body and aug∣menting it; but so, as to be not individually the same, but un∣merically distinct from it, as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body.

To be joyned to this natural Body of Christ, not locally, or to it as present in the Eucharist; but, as in Heaven. How this? As, saith he, a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix, or Accessory, to the thing, of which it is a Mystery. And, to these 4 Qualifications this Author semms necessitated; because, otherwise, Adoration, and Transubstantiation, in some part, tho

not a total; Existence of the Accidents without a Subject; The same Body at once in many places; and several other Consequents, thus appearing also in the Greek's Opinion, would have given too much countenance to the Roman.

Where you may observe;* 1.649 that there are three things where∣in his explaining of this Opinion, he imputes to the Greeks, to render it more remote from the Latines, falls short of that, which, according to the Comparison, and the expressions, they use, he is justly obliged to maintain. 1. The first, That the Ʋnion of the Divinity to the Consecrated Bread, is Hypostatical or Personal. For such an Union had our Lords Divinity to the Nourishment, (to which this is compared) received by him,* 1.650 and added to his natural Body, born of the Blessed Virgin: † And no less Union than this will serve to make the Eucharistical Bread one, and the same, with it (a thing constantly affirmed by the Greeks,) at least as to the Suppositum; or to make both these the Body of the same Person. The difference of the Ʋnion, (saith M. Claude† 1.651) is discerned by the difference of the effect it produceth in the things. Now what thing more is requisite to stile it an Union Hypostarical (Hypostasis, and Subsistentia, or Persona, with the Greeks, importing the same thing,) than this effect, that it renders this Body, to which it unites it self, and that Body born of the Blessed Virgin, the same Body of one Per∣son: and this Union gives to this new Body the self-same vivi∣cating vertue, Physically inherent, as it doth to the other Na∣tural? And then, such an Hypostatical Union, if granted, will infer the same Dignity of this breaden body with the other: the same Ceremonies of Honour and Adoration due: Things, which this Person is unwilling to hear of; and that would ruine his Gause.

The 2^d. That there is a Substantial change of the Bread;* 1.652 i. e. of the substantial form of Bread at least; in that this Bread is truly made the Flesh, and Blood, and animated with the hu∣mane Soul, of our Lord, as well as, united to his Divinity: For so the Nourishment received by our Lord on Earth, and ad∣ded to his Body born of the Virgin, remained not, still, Bread; but was truly changed into his Flesh; and so also is ours. And the Expressions of the Greeks are suitable, and cannot, without an unjust force and straining, be otherwise explicated.

To instance in one or two. Such is that of Theophilact, in Mats. 26, — Non enim dixit: Haec est figura; sed Hoc est Cor∣pus meum. Ineffabili enim operatione transformatur, etiamsi no∣his videatur Panis, quoniam infirmi sum•••• & abhorrenius crudas

ca••••es comedere, maximè hominis carnem: & ideo Panis quidem. apparet sed reverâ Caro est. And in Mart. 14.—Et quomodo, inquis Caro non videtur? Sanguinem propositum, & carnem vi∣dentes, non ferremus sed abhorremus. Idcirco misericors Deus, nostrae infirmitati condescendens, speciem quidem Panis, & Vini servat; in virtutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat. Where, if Theophylact had meant by [Caro verè est,] Caro tan∣tùm in virtute est, he would never have given this reason, in his comment on Matt.—Panis apparet, quod verè est Caro, quoniam infirmi sumus, & abhorremus crudas carnes: but rather would have removed all difficultie here, and prevented such a Que∣stion; Cur Caro non videtur? by telling them: Ʋt apparet, it a est, Panis: Caro audem est, non verè, aut in substantiâ, sed tantùm in Virtute. This had been plain dealing: but then he had over∣thrown his Text: Hoc est Corpus meum, non figura Corporis mei; and made it only, (as M. Claude doth,) at the most, Hoc est Efficax figura Corporis mei, non ipsum Corpus. As for the pains M. Claude hath taken† 1.653 to qualifie this Panis apparet, caro verè est, in mingling together Theophylact's Comments on Matt. Mark, and John; and in taking Speciem Panis in S. Mark, not for the shew, or appearance; but Substance, of Bread (by which it should run, not verè Caro, but verè Panis, in his Com∣ment on S. Matt.) and in understanding Virtus Carnis in S. Mark, with a tantùm; (so as this excludes verè Caro, in S. Matt.) I am confident, that the ingenious Reader will find therein only great industry used to obsure a clear Truth.

[For Vertue may be used as well augmentatively, as diminutively, in respect of Substance; as including Substance, and adding something to it, and as opposing an outward shew only without Reality, or a Substance without efficacy; as D▪ Arnaud† 1.654 hath judiciously observed; and for clearing it, in∣stanced in that of St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.5.—Habentes speciem qui∣dem pietatis, virtutem ejus abnegantes: and that of S. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. Catechet. c. 37.—Igitur unde in illo corpore [of our Lord, when here on Earth] transmutatus Panis transit in Divinam vir∣tutem; per idem [Verbum] nunc fit similiter; Nam & illic Gratia Verbi Corpus, cui expane erat substantia & quodammodo ipsum erat Panis: sanctum secit: & hic [in the Eucharist] similiter, Panis, sicut dicit Apostolus, sanctificatur, per Verbum Dei, & orationem; non eo quidem, quod, per comestionem & bibitionem, in Verbi Corpus evaedat; sed quod, starim, per Verbum in Corpus transmutetur, sicut dictum est à Ʋerbo: Hoc est Corpus meum▪ And afterwards he saith,—In illud [••orpus immorale Cur••sti, mentioned be∣fore

transelementatâ eorum quae apparent, Naturâ▪ Which place, because D. Arnaud much pressed as throughly clearing that of Theophylact, our Lords Nourishment being changed, as into the vertue, so doubtless also into the Substance of his Bo∣die; and because it is that place, from which first Source M. Claude,† 1.655 derives the Modern Greek Opinion, I was curious to search what M. Claude would say to it; but I found him, as to speak to that of S. Paul, and other passages, so, prudently, to pass over this, the most insisted on by his Adversary, in silence. But who pleaseth may see in another place† 1.656 (where it is urged against Protestants for Transubstantiation) how miserably this plain passage of this Father suffers under his Exposition of it: Whilst this Expression (dure & irregulier, as he cals it) repre∣sents nothing else, but Damascen's and the Modern Greek Opi∣nion to any one, that hath not shut his eyes, and shews the mo∣dern and ancient Greek Church to be all of one Faith. Here then you see, in Greg, Nyssen, Virtus includes Substance; Now see it in that place of Euthymius cited before,† 1.657 added to Sub∣stance, as being indeed the main thing to be insisted on.—Haec inessabiliter (saith he) transmutat in ipsum vivificum Corpus, & in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suum, & in Gratiam [or virtutem, or vim] eorum: which Grace he explains presently after, by this Body strengthening us as Bread doth; and this Blood exhilara∣ting us, as Wine† 1.658. And see Theophylact's Comment on Joh. 6. the like addition.—Panis, (saith he, speaking of our Lords nourish∣ment,) in corpus ejus mutabatur [there is the change of the Sub∣stance.] —Et in augmentum & sustentamentum conferebat, [there is the vertue.] Again,—Ita & nunc Panis in Carnem Domini mu∣tatur [there is the Substance;] Nec nudi hominis Caro est, sed Dei, & quae deificare valet [there is the Vertue.] Now, Virtus taken thus in Theophylact, all things in him agree well together: Thus, it suits well with, verè Caro est:—with, Ineffabilis Operatio, Lan∣guage not so usual for a change of vertue only.—With the Que∣stion, Cur non videtur Caro? simply asked, if Theophylact spake only of a change of vertue, and not Substance too; and if this then the known common Doctrine.—With his answer to the Question; which, as I have shew'd, in case he held a presence of vertue only, ought to have been quite another; and such as a Protestant now would give. Lastly, it suits well with his former arguing.—Non enim Dixit; Hoc est Figura Corporis, sed, Hoc est Corpus, (which, if good, must hold as well of virtus, or of any thing else, that is not ipsum Corpus) But Vertue taken so exclusively, overturns all; and makes Theophylact contradict himself, that he may not,

M. Claude. Thus much in vindication of the true sence of Vertue, when used by the Greek Authors.]

A like passage to this in Theophylact, see in Remigius Antisi∣codor: in Expos. Missae, a follower, a M. Claude grants† 1.659 of the Opinion of Damascen, and the Greeks.—Cum Mysterium sit (saith he) quod alind significat, Si [Eucharistia] in veritate Corpus Christi est, quare appellatur mysterium? Propterea utique; quia post Consecrationem aliud est, aliud videtur. Ʋidetur siqui∣dem Panis & Vinum; sed in veritate Corpus Christi est & sanguis. Consulens ergo omnipotens Deus infirmitati nostrae, qui usum nou habemus comedere Carnem erudam & sanguinem bibere facit, ut in pristinâ remaneant formâ illa duo munera, etsi, in veritate, Corpus Christi & Sanguis, sicut ipse dixit, &c. Where Pristina forma cannot be extended to the internal substantial Form or Essence of Bread still remaining, as M. Claude† 1.660 would divert the sence; For this internal Form or Essence, either in the Bread, or Flesh, since not seen, neither causeth, nor removeth Horrour and the maintaining of this Form, suits not with the, In veritate Christi Corpus est; and verè Caro est, in these Authors; which expres∣sions do imply, In veritate, not Panis; but is to be understood only of the external form, and other qualities thereof, occur∣ring to sence, the sight, taste, &c. For, so that the Eucharist hath all these exterior qualities of Bread, where we do not see, or taste, we dread not, crude Flesh; and the horrour, we have, is from its appearing, not from its being, Flesh. Now this, [Panis quidem apparet: Caro verè est,] of the Greeks, what is it, but saying the same thing with that of the Latines.—Sub∣stantia panis mutatur in carnem, licet remaneant adhuc accidentia Panis, quae sub sensum cadunt. And Hence, when, upon an unusual expression happening in the Council at Constantinople under Constantius, Copronymus, [that the only Image adorable, was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Corporis Christi in the Holy Sacra∣ment] the Real and corporal presence, from a jealousie, (though causless as this Council explained it self) that this expression might vary, or derogate something from it, began now to be more particularly insisted upon and explicated, a curi∣ous Question arose among the Greeks, as well as Latines: whether, upon the Bread being thus changed, and becoming our Lords Body, the Body of our Lord were digestible, and corruptible? which caused to some, affirming it, the im∣putation of Stercoranism. But such odious name, surely, these could never have incurr'd, no more than now Protestants do, had they held, (at least, as the opposite party understood them)

only a vivisicating vertue of our Lords body to reside in the Bread, and not the very Substance of his Body to be present instead of it, according to the then common Opinion.

This of the 2^d thing, wherein M. Claude's explication is deficient; the change the Greeks held of the Bread, into the Substance of our Lords Body, at least so far, as our Nourish∣ment is, into the Substanct of ours, the principal reason of their using this similitude; Yet, wherein M. Claude deserts it, though, in some other things, more advantagious to him, (as in the matter of the nourishment still remaining, and that nu∣merically distinct from the Body nourished,) he presseth it too far. Now this 2^d. thing, [the Bread in the Eucharist its re∣ceiving such a change, as our Nourishment,] once granted, will be at least an half-Transubstantiation of it; the Substantis Form of Bread being gone; the former Qualities of Bread gone, viz. from their any longer inherence in the Bread; So that the Substance, not of Bread, but of Flesh, is also under the former Accidents of the Bread; The name also gone with the thing; it being in truth now no more to be called Bread, but the Flesh of our Lord. And so, when the Bread is said by S. Damascen. to be united to the Divinity, it must be under∣stood so, as that, in the Union, it becomes another thing; though still it remains a diverse thing from the Divinity. Hence also the pretence of the Bread its being made our Lords body only in Vertue, not in Substance, gone; and all M. Claud's quest after this word Vertue in the Greek Authors useless, and his Descants upon it unsound: of which enough hath been said al∣ready, §. 321. n. 8.

The 3^d. (If we may prosecute their similitude of nourish∣ment to its utmost extent,* 1.661) That there is a local Union of the Bread and the Body of our Lord; not, by way of Accumula∣tion, and Addition: or of Continuation only; as a Leg and an Arm are joyned in the same Body; but by way of an interior reception one into the other, and the most intimate commix∣tion and con-fusion of them, as to the least natural parts, that are divisible, and capable of a digestion, one within the other: So as the least part of one cannot be severed from the other, or communicated without the other; and, as to any actual se∣paration of them, (a thing not fecible,) they may be said to be numerically the same; which comes also the nearest to a total tranfition, even of its matter also, into another Substance; though, as to this total Conversion, we must permit the opera∣tion of Gods Omnipotency (out of his infinite kindness to us)

in the Holy Fucharist to stand fingular, and unparallel'd by any work of Nature.

All these three therefore the Author, in dealing ingenu∣ously with the Greek's comparison, and their expressions, as it seems to me, ought to have allowed. But this, probably, he much dreaded; as seeing he might as well, nay in some re∣spects better, have admitted a total Transubstantiation of mat∣ter as well as Form; which would have avoided those many prejudices and indignities, which an Impanation labours under. But yet thus the Sentiment of the Greeks, supposing no total Conversion, is advanced far beyond not only M. Claud's, and The Calvinists, vertual presence, but also the Lutherans Consub∣stantiation. For, whereas these hold only Bread, and Christs natural Body joyned in the Eucharist, so that the Body and the Bread are two several things still, this Opinion holds the one changed into the other so, as that, as Jeremy the Patri∣arch of Constant. replyed upon the Lutherans in his 2^d. Answ.† 1.662 (and as Damoscen also said long before.‖ 1.663)—Non duo jam sunt [i. e. as the Lutherans said, Panis, and, Corpus Christi, joyn'd,] sed unum, & idem, [i. e. Corpus Christi only.] The Bread made his natural Flesh; animated with his Soul; Hypostati∣cally united to his Divinity: in fine, the same with his Body, as much at least as our Nourishment, interiorly received, and digested, is with ours.

Thus far the Greeks usual simile carries us.* 1.664 But their com∣mon Doctrine farther, even to a Total Transubstantiation, as I think will appear from what follows.

1. For, 1^st. They hold; that the same Numerical Body of our Lord, that was born of the Virgin, and Crucifyed, is exhibited to us in the Eucharist: Present, not by its descending from Heaven; but, by the Conversion of the Consecrated Ele∣ments into the self-same Body, and by the multiplication of its local Existence in more places, than before.

1. Which appears; 1^st. From this; That the Identity of the Body Consecrated, and that Crucifyed, quod suppositum, or as both united to, and filled with, the same Divinity, (which well consists with a, Real, Substantial, Numerical, diversity between themselves▪) is not sufficient, that the one of them, therefore, may be denominated of the other; or this said to be th••••; nor yet sufficient, that all the same things may be said of them both. Some general things indeed may be predicated of them, wherein both agree; but their Properries individual, as local presince, Motion, any particular Qualities or applications

them cannot: (Yet which Individual properties are usually applyed by the Greeks to the Body Crucifyed, and to that di∣stributed in the Eucharist, as one, and the same.) Any Indivi∣dual Properties of the one or the other, I grant, may alwayes be truly demonstrated of our Lords Body in general, as we will; But cannot be truly said of both, or either of these, the Conse∣crated, and the Crucifyed, as we please, if these not numerically the same. So we cannot say, That ones Soul is his Body; or a Leg, an Arm; or, the one in the same place, or motion, or every way affected, as the other is, because that both are parts of one and the same Person, or Body, and both animated with one and the same Soul. And, for a Grecian Priest to tell his Communicants, that he delivers them the same Body that was Crucifyed and offered for their Salvation, and Redemption (when he gives them neither it, nor any part of it,) because he gives them another Augmentative Breaden part, belonging to the same Person, which Person indeed was Crucifyed for them, seems too bold an Equivocation to be, by this Person, so con∣fidently imposed on the Greek Church, and their ordinary ex∣pressions. The Truth therefore of that, which the Greeks, or other Latines, embracing their Opinion, do affirm; viz. that the Eucharists, Consecrated in never so many places, are all the self-same Body, one with another; and all with the Cru∣cifyed; because replenished every where with the same Divinity, must be understood to proceed, not from the meer Union, or Conjunction, how intimate soever, of these two (as is shewed but now:) but to proceed from the effect (as M. Claude, pressed with his Adversaries Arguments, confesseth† 1.665) from the effect, I say which this Divinity, first uniting, or conjoyning it self to the Elements upon the words of Consecration, worketh in them, to make them, by a total Transmutation of their Sub∣stance, (for nothing less can do it) individually all one, and the same, with one another, and with that crucifyed; after which follows another, an Hyppostatical Ʋnion of the same Divi∣nity to them, as made our Lords Body.

2. Again: Their holding a Numerical Identity every where of this Body of our Lord appears from this; that they explain its being, in all places, but one; and in every place, and in every Particle whole and intire, by the Divinity's being so; and the Divinity is so, numerically. See that passage of Remigius, and Alcuin. (cited by M. Claude l. 6. c. 10.) con∣cerning the effect of this repletion of the Consecrated Elements by the Divinity. — Sicut Divininas Verbi Dei una est, [una nu∣mero]

quae totum implet mundam; Ita licet multis locis, & in∣numerabilibus diebus, illud Corpus consecretur, non sunt tamen multa corpora Christi, neque multi Calices; sed unum Corpus Chri∣sti, & unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis & quod dedit Apostolis. Divinitas enim verbi replet illud quod ubique est, [the Bread] & conjungit, ac facit [by a transmutation of this; Bread by the Divinity joyn'd to it] ut, sicut ipsa [Divinitas, quae totum implet mundum, tamen] una est, ita [quod ubique est, or Panis] conjungatur [i. e. by such a transmutation of it] Cor∣pori Christi, & unum corpus ejus sit in veritate. [i. e. one not only, as to the Person, but one in Reality and Essence▪ as the Divinity is one; and otherwise, that, which follows, and which he col∣lects from this Unity, cannot be true.] Ʋnde animadverten∣dum est, quòd sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat, omnes equa∣liter Corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt, & generaliter omnes, & specialiter unusquisque. Certainly, where the whole is in every part, and every part (if I may so say) contains in it the whole, here is supposed a numerical Identity, and a sicut Divinitas una est. Nor hath M. Claude, in his holding the Substance of the Eucharist, in several places, really diverse, and so, to each Communicant, any way to relieve himself in answer to such ex∣pressions, necessarily inferring a total Transubstantiation, but by inducing vertual presence only, which Vertue he saith is every where numerically the same; and whole, and entire, to every Receiver. This for Remigius.

And here also, if we may make use of a Negative Argu∣ment (which is sometimes very weak, sometimes very strong, and convincing, according to the circumstances, which must be left to the prudent to consider,) whereas the Greek Doctors, had they, declared the Body of our Lord, that is distributed in the Eucharist, to be really diverse from that on the Cross; and when Consecrated in several places diverse one from ano∣ther, (a necessary consequent, as M. Claude saith, of their Te∣nent,) might have rendred th••s Mystery much more easie, and intelligible; Yet they have never mentioned any such diversity; but still, as it were to prevent and strangle any such fancy, cau∣tiously added, that it is one and the same with that which was born, and dyed for us; And, for this numerical Identity, urge our Lords own words† 1.666, — Hoc est illud, quod tradetur, that Flesh of his, that was to be Crucifyed; and so for his Blood, qui ef∣fundetur, that was to be shed on the Cross. As if our Lord would make this for ever a firm Article of our Faith, and pre∣vent all such Equivocation, as eadem caro quoad suppositum, or

personam. And, upon this supposition of the same numerical Body here present, the Greeks (mistaking the sence of it) cen∣sure the expression of the Latines in their Canon. — Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in supercaeleste Altare tuum, &c. as incongruous, if pronounced after the Consecration once ended. For so, saith Cabasilas †, Quomodo fuerit,* 1.667, si nondum est, supercaeleste ipsum Corpus Christi, quod est supercaeleste? Quo∣modo sursum ferretur in manu Angeli, quod supra omnem Princi∣patum, &c. [that is above already,] But this Quomodo might soon have been answered by himself, if he held this Consecrated here a new body, really distinct from that above. This, of the 1^st. proof of a Total Transubstantiation, the Greek's holding the Eucharist the same numerical body with that Crucifyed; which, according to M. Claude, necessarily infers a total Tran∣substantiation of the Bread, as well for its matter, as Form.

2^ly. they hold the Body, that is thus present by Consecra∣tion,§. 1.668 to be incorruptible; and this Incorruption of it to depend on its Resurrection, and so, to relate, only, to that numerical Body that was Crucifyed, and Raised from Death.— Quod nec laeditur, nec corrumpiour, nec in secessum abit: Hoc avertat Deus, saith Damascen: and therefore the Greeks, who are said generally to follow his Opinion, must, in Justice, be freed from Stercoranism. Now the Bread, remaining entire for its whole Substance, or for its Matter and qualities at least, as before Con∣secration, cannot be held such a Body of our Lord, as suffers no digestion, or corruption. For, something there is in the Sacrament, that suffers this: And we cannot imagine, that the Greeks, whilst holding the Substance of Bread to remain, will lay these changes only upon the Species, or Accidents of it; and not the Substance at all; so that, though they eat the Bread, they taste, and are fed only by the Accidents; and so, without a Transubstantiation, will espouse the difficulties of it. Their holding, then, the Body, that is present, and partici∣pated in the Eucharist, to be incorruptible, excludes the Sub∣stance, or matter, of Bread from this Body. And,— Panis quidem videtur, or, apparet, sed revera Caro est: as Theophylact.† 1.669 —Corpus Christi non particulatim diducitur, &c.—Partitio est acci∣dentium, sub sensum cadentium, as Samonas:‖ 1.670 — Non Panis, sed Corpus Domini sacrificatur: — and — Si Panis manens, sacri∣ficatus fuisset, Panis esset Sacrificium, non Agni Dei: and Cabasilas:‖ 1.671 must all be understood of an entire change of the Bread, as well its Matter as Form.

3^ly. They hold this Body, that is present, and distributed in the Eucharist, to remain, — quoties frangitur, totum, & inte∣grum in unoquoque frusto: And, — Omnibus distributum, minimè diminutum. — Frangitur Agnus Dei, & non comminuitur; semper comeditur, & non consumitur; saith their Liturgy‖ 1.672. Not a seve∣ral piece, or part of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord's Body received in the several Particles, but all: Nor, those receiving more of this Body, that receive more of the Symbole: In infinite places offered only the same Sacrifice, viz. that one which was offered on the Cross To several Communicants distributed the self same Body; and: It to each entire; A Tenent flowing from the former, Its in∣corruptibility (and by all the same persons maintained.) For, what is so, is no more capable of being parted, or divided, &c. Now these things cannot suit to our Lords Body, if the matter of Bread be said, still to remain, and to make up an augmenta∣tive part of our Lords natural Body, but this numerically and really distinct from it. For so, in several places will be offered Sacrifices, but these really different from one another, as also from that of the Cross: Nor will the Communicants receive our Lords Body entire, but each a part; and this part numeri∣cally differing from that Corpus, quod traditum est (which Com∣munion of a parcel was a thing objected to the Stercoranists, and those, who held our Lords Body corruptible.) See M. Claud's Concessions concerning this, 2^d. Answ. part. 3. c. 2. and so his retreat to a Virtual presence, to verifie these expressions of the Greeks, of this Body every where the same, and received by every one entire.

As for some speeches used by the Greeks, in making appli∣cation of their Similitudes, (none of which can exactly fit so high a Mystery,) that seem not to accord so well with a Total Transubstantiation. — The Bread said by them to be assumed by, or united to, the Divinity of our Lord: — The Bread, and his Body, by the Divinity, to be made One: — An Augmentation of Christs Body to be made by the Bread consecrated, as, here on Earth, by his Nourishment, &c. I see no Reason, why this Person should not be contented with the former Explications given of them; Such, as 1 both free these Authors from contradicting them∣selves; and 2 do render the sence of the Fathers unanimous, and the Christian Doctrine to run all in one common Stream; [viz. the Real Presence, and Exhibition, in the Eucharist, of that numerical Body that suffered for us on the Cross;] 3. and where∣by also may be avoided those many gross absurdities concerning new Contracts, and Unions, and new Bodies of our Lord, which,

being so unworthy these high Mysterious, and very injurious to our Lords Incarnation, are all avoided by a total Transubstan∣tiation. See, if you please, these absurdities mentioned by Bellarmine De Euchar l. 3. c. 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and by Suarez. De Sacra∣ment. Disp. 49. §. 3. The Divinity of our Lord, then, may be said to assume, or unite it self unto the Bread; or, to make the Bread one with his Body, not by a meer joyning it to Him∣self, or to his Body, whilst it remains still Bread; but, by his first converting and changing of it, by his Divine Omnipotency, into his Body, and then, his uniting, Hypostatically, his Divi∣nity to it. And, his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body, in as much as there is a daily multiplica∣tion of his Body, as to its local Existence in more places than before, according to the frequency of Communions; whilst his Body, in Heaven, doth not descend, but keeps its constant for∣mer residence there.

Thus Greeks and Latines, ormer and latter times,* 1.673 will be at some accord. Whereas this Author, to maintain a variance between the two Churches, seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion, which being taken in its just extent, Tran∣ubstantiation seems much the more eligible; and which he is forced many times also to pare, and qualifie so, that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants, and keep a greater distance from the Roman, as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words. For Example. He allows, * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist, as the Greeks say; But no such Vnion Hypostatical. * Christ;s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Vir∣gin, as they say; but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really, essentially, numerically, diverse from it. * The Bread, the same body with that born of the Virgin; but, It not changed into Christs Flesh, but remaining still Bread. * Bread still, not only for the matter; as it was in our Lords, or is in our, nou∣rishment; but, for the same Substantial Form, and Qualities, still inhering in it, as before. * The Bread made the very, and true, body, as they say; But virtually only, in having infused in∣to it, and inherent, in it, the vivisicating virtue of Christs natu∣ral body; (Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves; allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only, not to the Symbols.) * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd (as our nourishment is to ours,) to Christs natural body, as they say, but the one only in Heaven, the other on Earth. * Our

Lords Body in the Eucharist, by the same Divinity inhabiting in both, made one and the same with that born of the Virgin, as they say; but Mystically and Sacramentally only. For the same Divinity, replenishing both, doth not, therefore, render them really the same one with another. * The same Body this, with that; but no Sovereign Adoration due, or by the Greeks given, to this, as to that. * This the same body with that; and this also, as indivisible, received entire by every Communicant, as the Greeks say; But this Body entire, in vertue only, not in Sub∣stance. * The same Body of our Lord in all places, where this Sacrament is celebrated; But only in the former sence; i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it, the same. If such be their sence, the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions; or, if not their sence, this person presuming, he should meet with very credulous Readers. This (from n. 11.) of the 8^th. Observation, M. Claud's explication of the true Opi∣nion of the Modern Greeks; and the necessary consequents of it.

9^ly. After this,* 1.674 He confesseth; That it doth not appear, that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation. l. 4. c. 5. p. 390.—In a word, saith he, the Greeks neith••r Believe, nor impugne, Transubstantiation. They believe it not; for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church. It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith; nor Decisions of Coun∣cils, nor Liturgies; [i. e. in such Language, as he exacts. Surely, this main Point, the Manner of our Lords Pres••••ce, is not omit∣ted in all these: the Constantinopolitan, the second Nicene, Council, the Liturgies speak of it; Nor is Transubstantiation im∣pugned in them, according to Him: is clearly maintained by them, according to Catholicks] They do not impugne it; For, as far as appears, they have not argued with the Latines, nor for∣mally debated it with them in their former Disputes. Thus He. And, as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines,* 1.675 because they held Transubstantiation, So † the Latines never to have accused the Greeks, as if they held it not. There seems therefore no great need of Missions, distributing charities, teaching Schools there, &c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Tene••t, which they never formerly contested; and of an er∣rour in which, though the main Point, these two Churches never accused one another: Nay, the Greeks, in some of their Con∣fessions, as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise, seem to have out-done the Latines; and to go beyond Transubstantiation.

Mean-while; the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Chri∣stian Service, and the chief Substance of its Liturgies, the Eu∣charist, as about the manner of the Consecration; and about Azy∣mes; and, on the other side, the great Storms, that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants, from the very begin∣ing of the Reformation, about this very Point of Transubstan∣tiation, do shew, that, if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein, there could not have been, on both sides such a constant silence; Though in some other matters, of little consequence, or, at least, of little evidence, such as M. Claude instanceth in, there can be shewed a silent to∣leration of the different Judgments, as well of Churches, as of private Persons.

10^ly. Hitherto,* 1.676 from §. 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Tran∣substantiation. Now to view the other Point, Adoration. Here 1^st. He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be al∣lowed to be due, and paid by the Greeks, to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist; such as is given to the Holy Gospel, and to other Sacred things. Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse, that, before his reading the Gospel,—Diaconus respondet. Amen. & reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet. See M. Claud's last An∣swer, l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants; That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures; for the Evangile, and for the pain benit, for the Bread of the Eucharist, before the Consecration. 2^ly. A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful, and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present, and allows such an Adoration actually given, even by Protestants, at the time of their receiving the Eucharist, to our Lord Christ, and to his Sacred Humanity, as in Heaven. And, to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion, he re∣plies. —‖ 1.677 The Author deceives us, in proving what is not controver∣ted. For the Question is, not: whether in the Communion we ought to adore Jesus Christ our Redeemer, and his Flesh personally uni∣ted to the Word, represented by the Sacrament: We practice it with an ardent, and humble Devotion, when we approach to the Holy Table. And afterward, Who doubts; but that the Body of Jesus, Christ is Soveraignly Adorable. 3^ly. He cannot but know, or else hath been very careless to inform himself; that no Soveraign Adoration is pretended either by the Roman, or Greek Church to be given to the external Species, or Symboles, of the Eucharist,

(which they hold Venerable only with an inferiour cult, such as is due to all other Holy things,) but only to the Body and Blood of Christ contained under them; as the Council of Trent, allowing the Expression of adoring the Sacrament cultu Latriae, yet explains it in their Canon thus.‖ 1.678 — Si quis dixerit in Sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum, unigenitum Dei filium, non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum, Anathema sit: And, as Bellarmin† 1.679 also resolves the state of the Controversie.—Quicquid sit de modo loquendi; status questionis non est, nisi An Christus in Eucharistiâ sit adorandus cultu Latriae. 4^ly. In the 4^th. Observation prece∣dent, M. Claude saith he will not contest the Greek's holding a Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, Though, he con∣tends, it is not by the Roman way of Transubstantiation. Now from this Real Presence held by the Greeks even after that way he allows, at least, if he will but grant the true consequences thereof, mentioned before, §. 321. n. 13. Viz. An Hypostati∣cal, or other, Union to this Body offered and distributed in the Eucharist, such as converts it into the Flesh of our Lord, and renders it the Body of the same Person, with that born of the Blessed Virgin; non aliud ab eo, quod sumpsit in utero Virginis; (By which she People seem sufficiently instructed not to distinguish, in their Mode of Adoration, between these two, that they are taught to be personally the same.) I say from such a Real Presence held by the Greeks a lawfulness of adoring Christs Body, as there present, must be held by them. And then; if it can be shewed by M. Claude they do not actually adore, it must be reckoned a matter of neglect; not, of Conscience, or denying such thing due.

5^ly. But, now, to consider their Practice. He denies not the Greeks to adore, in their Mode of Adoration, (which is by inclining the Head and Body; seldom, kneeling,) when they re∣ceive the Communion; their Liturgies have it, often repeated; and, surely, he will allow them, herein, as much Devotion as he doth to the Protestants: and also them, to give at least an exter∣nal Relative Devotion to the Mysteries, for such they give to the Evangiles: and, methinks, the witnesses he produceth. p. 216. should not, in general, denie simply, any Adoration of the Greeks at all. The Question, then, only is; granting already an external Adoration given by the Greeks, when they approach to the Com∣munion; whether this, in their intention, be a soveraign Adoration exhibited to Christs Sacred Divinity & Humanity, as there present, Now; the Greek's holding this Humanity there really present, conceded before, seems sufficient to determine this, without

more ado. And, for one to pretend, that this Adoration of the Greeks is given only to God; or to Christs Divinity as every where present; or, to the Humanity united to it, but only this as in Heaven; and, not to it also as present in the Eucharist, when the same Greeks confess it to be so; and, when the Eucharistical presence is the occasion of such their Adoration; here I say, not to allow the extent of their Adoration, so far as they believe the presence of the Person adored; and their worship the same latitude, as their Faith, would be an unjust and groundless abridge∣ment of their Devotions: as also this, to pretend an interior, or relative. Adoration given by them only to the Mysteries, where the same Com∣municants hold a supreme due to the Person Present with them.

To view a little the Form of their Liturgy. We read in S. Chryso∣stom's Masse: That the Priest, after Consecration, and before he takes the Holy bread, to communicate himself with it, adores: and saith,—Attende, Domine Jesu Christe, de Sancto habitaculo tuo: veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis cum Patre simul resides, & hic unâ nobiscum invisibiliter ver∣saris; & dignare potenti manu tuâ nobis impertiri immaculatum Corpus tuum, & pretiosum sanguinem; & per nos, toti Populo. Corpus tuum. I add, never severed from thy Divinity, and thy self. To whom also the Priest had faid before in the begining of the Service. — Tu enim es, qui offers & offerris; assumis, & distribueris, Christe Deus noster. Then the Priest adores again, and saith thrice to himself; — Deus propitius esto mihi Peccatori; An Act of Humiliation used here by him, before he takes the Sancta into his hands for the Communion, as it was once before, at the be∣gining of the Oblation. And so, saith the Rubrick, all the People adore with him.—Populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat. Then he takes the Holy Bread, and makes the Elevation of it, yet whole, and entire; saying, Sancta Sanctis; And the Quire answers, with relation to It yet one, and entire,—Ʋnus Sanctus, Ʋnus Dominus, Jesus Christus. Then the Priest, breaking it into 4. Pieces, saith.—Frangitur Agnus Dei; qui frangitur, at non comminuitur; qui semper comeditur, & non consumitur; [which shews, what Agnus Dei, whether this in Heaven, or present here, is now spoken of, and thus adored.] Sed eos, qui sunt participes, sanctificat. So ta∣king a piece thereof in his hand, and preparing himself to receive it, he saith,—Credo Domine & confiteor, Quòd Tu es Christus, &c.—Dignare in praesepe animae meae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & in coinquinatum meum Corpus ingredi — & dignare me participem effici sanctissimi tui Corporis & Sanguinis. [I add never severed from thy Divinity, and thy self.] Also, when he calls the Deacon, to communicate him with the Holy Bread: 'tis said, —Accedens Diaconus Reverentiam exhibet. And so also before receiving the Cha∣lice It is said again, — Diaconus venit, & adorat semel, dicens: Ecce venio ad immortalem Regem, &c. Where it must be remembred, that the Greeks also held, the Body of our Lord that is received in the Eucharist, to be immortal, and incorruptible. This we find in the Liturgy. And, suit∣able to this, we read, in Cabasilas† 1.680 (expounding the Liturgy,) concerning the People before their communicating.—Ipsi autein (saith he) fidem at∣tendentes, & aedorant, & benedicunt, & Jesum, qui in eis [donis Sanctificatis]

intelligitur, [oppos'd to videtur] ut Deum, celebrant; Where M. Claud's note is† 1.681 that — Non adorant dona, sed Jesum. But who saith, that a Soveraign Adoration is due, or given, to the Dona? Again 2 Jesum, (saith he) qui intelligitur, i. e. only, qui representatur in Donis. But all the former Expressions, implying our Lords presence, shew their belief to be contrary. Tues, (said the Priest before) qui offers, & offerris: assumis & distribueris, Christe Deus noster. And the People, after this adoring, in their receiving, say.—Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini, of which, the same Cabasilas,—Tanquam nunc ad eos venientem, & apparentem, Chri∣stum benedicunt Who also before (c. 24.) intimates the custom of the Greeks, in the Service adorare, & alloqui corpus & sanguinem Domini. Now I say, All these Passages in the Greek Liturgy well considered; Here for one to grant, the Real and corporal Presence of our Lord in his whole Person in the Holy Mysteries to be believed by this Priest, Dea∣con, and other Communicants, and yet to say, their Adoration, and other Addresses and Allocutions are not given and made to him, as there present; but to him, only as in Heaven; or only to his Divinity as there, and every where present, abstracted from his Humanity, is such a Com∣ment upon this Liturgie, as nothing but a strong pre-ingagement can force upon any ones judgment.

The Testimonies,* 1.682 this Author brings,† 1.683 do accuse the Greeks of some neglect in this Duty, but do not shew them to justifie it; and these very Persons, that censure such neglect toward the Holy Mysteries after Consecrated, accuse them almost of committing Idolatry toward them before, So that it seems rather some defect, of knowledge, in such, con∣cerning the Ceremonies of Consecration, than want of Devotion. Ca∣basilas† 1.684, long ago, observed the same in some ignorant People, and blamed it: but yet, in the same place, allows the Adora••ion of, and Al∣locutions made to, the Body and Blood of our Lord, when the Offerings are Sacrificed, and perfected. The Consecration also of the Greeks being longer extended, and the Adoration not so unitedly pe••formed present∣ly upon the pronouncing of our Lords words of Institution, as amongst the Latines; but, disjunctively, at their communicating, might occasion some mistake in those Latines, who accused them of a Non Adoration. So, the other irreverences and indecencies, objected, are to be esteem∣ed, only negligences in priv••te practice; not, consequences of the publick Doctrine; nor countenanced by their Liturgies. Which L••turgies use as much Ceremony towards the Holy Mysteries, as the Roman doth; Where also, first, the Remains of the Holy Bread are carefully put into the Chalice, for the People to be communicated threrewith; and then, for the Remains, after the Communion consummated. —Sacerdos (saith the Rubrick) quod residuum est Communionis in Sancto Calice, cum attentione, & devotione consumit, & ter S. Calicem abluit, & attendit, ne remaneat par∣ticula, Margarita vocata [not the least crum of the intinct Host]

As for several Devotions and Honours performed to the Blessed Sacrament, here in the West, (which this person d••ligently reckons up, much to its praise,) not so in the East; (freq••ently urged by M. Claude,

as good Arguments of the Greek Church not believing Transubstan∣tiation, or such a Real Presence, as the Roman;) and, in latter times here more, than in the former. 1^st. they are held no such necessary circumstances, or consequences, without the which a Real Presence may not be believed, and a due Adoration, (in some convenient man∣ner or other,) practised 2^ly. The occasion of them is well known to have been the Berengarian, and many other, Errors concerning the Eu∣charist: which appeared here in the West, but disturbed not the East. Which Errors, inferr••ng many Indignities and affronts to this richest, and dearest Legacy of our departing Lord, caused the Church to mul∣tiply also the external testifications of her Devotion, Gratitude, and Reverence, to it; and Gods wisdom, as usually, out of such vilifyings, and disrespects extracted a greater Honour, as to External Ceremony, to these High Mysteries. So also the many subtle Questions, that have been discussed and stated among the Latines, not so much thought on by the Greeks, but all shut up in a Quo modo novit Deus, (another fre∣quent Argument with this Author, of the Greeks not believing Tran∣substantiation) acknowledge the same Originall, viz. the Provocati∣ons, Objections, contrary false positions, of the Heterodox, Which forced the Church to descend to the same particulars with them; Nor could she censure these as Errours, without establishing their Contra∣dictories, as Truth. This of Adoration.

To conclude. The many Concessions of M. Claude,* 1.685 and the Con∣sequences of them, forementioned, seem to me sufficient, 1^st. to disswade any sober and modest person, who relies not on his own judg∣ment for the controverted sence of Holy Scriptures, but holds it a safer way to conform to that of Church-Authority, to disswade him. I say, from any such Communion, as he sees, by the former Account, opposed both by the Latines and the Greeks; Greeks, present, or past, as high as Damascen, in the 8^th. age; and may not I say as high as Gre∣gory Nyssen.† 1.686 in the 4^th. whilst both these Latines and Greeks hold a Real, or Corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist,* 1.687 and agree in a literal sence of Hoc ost Corpus meum. Nor will M. Claude enter with his Adversary into this Controversie. 2. Next; to perswade him, of the two, rather to the Roman Communion: as whose Transubstan∣tiation, besides that it hath been established by so many Councils† 1.688, is of it self much more credible, and more accommodated to the Scripture-expressions, then I know not what Augmentation of Christs natural Body, born of the Blessed Virgin, by a new Breaden one assumed in the Eucharist, numerically distinct from the other; yet, by the like assum∣ption, and Union to our Lords Divinity, rendred personally one and the same Body with it. But much more will be confirmed in the same Resolution, if, by what hath been said above,† 1.689 he discerns M Claud's Relation of the Modern Greek opinion unsound; and that the main Body of them (except perhaps some few Impanatists, that have been there, as also in the Western Church,) in holding a total substantial change of the Bread, have accorded with the Roman Church.

I hope the Reader will pardon this digression,* 1.690 the rather, because, it serves much to illustrate that, whereof I was discoursing, † That, (notwithstanding whatever evidence of Truth,) Answers, and Replyes, from Persons ingenious, and pre-ingaged, find no end; and that, when Controversies are, by one of the contending parties denyed any Decisive Judge; though error may easily be overcome, yet it can hardly be si∣lenc'd. For as God, for the greater tryal of our obedience, hath per∣mitced in the world not only Evil, but very many allurements also, and enticements, to it; so, not only Errors, but many verisimilities, and ap∣pearances of Reason, ever ready to support it, with those, that do not by Humility attain the illuminations of his Grace. Evidence sufficient God hath left always to clear, and manifest all necessary Truth to those, who are of an obedient Spirit, and willing to learn it: But not suffici∣ent to force (like the Mathematicks) the Understandings of the self-confident, and interested to gain-say it; But that they may have some fair colour or other, to oppose to it, and catch the credulous.

All which still more infers the great necessity of Church-Authority, and a conformity to it, and the reasonableness of Monsieur Mainbourg's Method for reducing Protestants to the true Faith,† 1.691 viz. — That matters, once decided by this Authority, should be no longer disputed; A Rule, the Protestants, i. e. the more potent Party of them, for preserving their own peace, would have to be observed in the Differences among them∣selves, (shewed in the proceedings of the Synod at Dort, of which see before §. 254. n. 2.) but not, in those between them and Roman Catho∣licks, because here they are the weaker. To whom M. Claud's answer in the Preface of his last Reply to D. Arnaud, is this.—It is unjust (saith he,) that he will have the Decisions of Councils to be Prescriptions against us [the Protestants;] not remembring, that nothing can prescribe against Truth, especially when it concerns our Salvation. And, the Determinations of Councils not being with us of any Consideration but as they do conform to the Holy Scriptures, and to the Principles of Christian Religion, we can∣not have from hence any reasonable or profitable way to end the particular differences that divide us, but only this, to examine the matter to the bottom, to discern whether such conformity [i.e. of the Councils to the Scriptures,] which we suppose necessary, is; or, is not.

To which he adds there, as also frequently elsewhere: That the shortest, and surest, and only right, way for settling the Conscience in repose, (which must rest its Faith immediately on Gods word & Divine Revelation, is, for both Parties to proceed to the Trial of their cause, all other Authoritie and Methods laid aside, by the Holy Scriptures. And, when he is pressed by his Adversary; That, in these Contro∣versies, at least all persons doubting, i e. what is the true sence, of the Scriptures controverted, and of Antiquity expounding them, and not certain of the contrary of what the Church teacheth concerning them, (as all unlearned Protestants must be,) ought, herein, to con∣form, and adhere rather to the Church, than to Separatists, he seeks to decline it thus: That the simplest person may receive

sufficient certainty from the clearness of Scripture, in all matters ne∣cessary; that, from these Scriptures learning what he ought to believe, he may easily know also, whether the society, he lives in, be a true Church, and such as will conduct him to Salvation, that hence he needs not trouble himself with Controversie, touching what the former Church hath believed; Yet that, our Lord promising to be with true Believers to the end of the word, so as they shall not fall into damnable error, Chari••y obli∣geth him, (without his reading them,) to believe, that the Fathers are of this number; and so, believed, as they ought; and so, were of his Faith. To give you his own words. l. 1. c. 4. — The word of God, (saith he) con∣tains purely, and clearly, all that, which is necessary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 form our Faith, to re∣gulate our Worship, and Manners. And, God assisting us with his Grace, it is easie for the most simple to judge, whether the Ministery, under which we live, can conduct us to salvation: and consequently, whether our society is a true Church. For, for this, he needs only examine It as to these two Characters. One, if they teach all the things clearly contain'd in God's word, and the other, if they teach nothing, besides, that is contrary to those things, or doth corrupt the efficacy, and force of them. And afterward.—This Examen, (saith he,) is short, easy, and proportion'd to the capacity of all the world: and, it forms a judg∣ment as certain, as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another. Again l. 1. c. 5.—There are two Questions: One, touching what we ought to be∣lieve on the matter of the Eucharist. The other, touching what hath been be∣lieved by the ancient Church, The first of these cleared, we need not trouble our selves about the 2d. Now, as for those of our Communion, the first Question is cleared by the word of God. And for the 2d. he resolves it thus, l. 1. c. 6:— That the Promises of J. Christ assure us, that he will be with true Believers to the end of the world. Whence he concludes,—that there hath always been a number of true Believers, whose Faith hath never been corrupted by damnable Errors. Then, — that charity obligeth us to believe, that the Fathers were of this number. And then lastly, We knowing from Scripture what we ought to believe in this Point, we also are confirmed, without studying them, that the Fathers believed the same.

Now to reflect briefly on what he hath said in the order it lies here. A Council (saith he) cannot prescribe against Truth. True. But the Council is brought in for a Judg, where a dispute & Question is: what, or, on what side, is the Truth. The determinations of Councils are not with us of any con∣sideration, but as they do conform to the H Scroptures. Right. But the Coun∣cil is call'd in for a Judg, where a doubt and dispute is; what, or on what side, is the true sence of such, and such, Scriptures. Where, if he meaneth; that they refuse to submit to a Council unlesse conforming to Scripture, as the sence of Scripture is given by the Council, that is it we desire: for the Council will still profess its following the sence of Script: if, as this sence understood by the Protestants, what is this, but to say they will subm••t to the Judgment, or Decision, of a Council, so often as it shall agree with their own? The only reasonable and profitable way to end differences, is this, to examine the matter to the bottom; i.e. whether the Decisions of the Coun∣cil

conform with H. Scripture. But, when this is done, How will the Dif∣ference end? Will not the Controversie, as the Replies multiply, swell ra∣ther still bigger; as his, and D. Arnaud's doth? Search to the bottom; Sup∣pose a Socinian should say this, against the former Church-decisions, con∣cerning the Trinity, the supreme Deity of the Son, and H. Ghost; Gods essential Omnipresence, his absolute prescience of future Contingents, &c. will Prote∣stants say, he makes a rational motion? Then, how can any Protestant rest his Faith in these Points upon the Authority of the Councils, and their Creeds? will you say, he doth not? but, on the Scriptures. Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there; compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian, and those urged against him; and weigh∣ed them in the Ballance? If, yet, they have not, ought they? If they ought; what a task here for young Protestant-students? what an Eternal Distra∣ction in this, [a search!] what heavenly peace, in the other [obedience to the judgements of former Councils;] and Vacancy for better imployments! Again. If they ought: what, all Protestants? the most of them, as of all Christians, are illiterate Men, not having either leisure, or ability, to search, &c. Must these adhere, therefore, to former Councils, and their Creeds, in these Points? Then in others; and in this of Real Presence, or Transubstantiation; and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party. Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiasti∣cal Authority, or Ministry, standing in opposition to a superior? But this is Schism in them both: and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd, for his denying it to another, to whom it is due; Nor would M Claude be well pleased, if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers, divided from the rest of their Consistory, Class, or Synod.

As for the Tryal,* 1.692 he motions, to be made by H. Scriptures. This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done, first; as it ought. And the issue of it was; That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence, the other in another; For Example. The one understood, Hoc est Corpus meum, literally: the other in a Metaphor, and so differently under∣stood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause. Here, the true sence of Scripture, became the Question, and their Controversie. For the Judge and Dec••der of this between them, when time was, they took a Council: For, since Scripture they could no more take, the sence of that being their Question, to whom should they repair, but the Church? and of the Church a Council is the Representative. Councils, several, to a great number, in several ages† 1.693, decided this matter, & declared the sence of the Scriptures; but so, as it liked not one Party. These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sen∣tence of the Fathers, and Primitive Church; i.e. of their writings Again, the sence of these writings as, before that of Scriptures, is understood diversly by the Contesters; And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question, and Controversie. Nor, here will Disputes end it; Wit∣ness so many Replies made on either side. Former Councils, as they have gi∣ven

their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures, so they have of those of the Fathers, but their Authority is rejected, in both; And, a new Council, were it now convened, besides that M. Claud's Party, being the fewer, and, so, easily over-voted, would never submit to it, we may, from M. Claud's Confession† 1.694—That both Greeks and Latines are far depart∣ed from the Evangelical simplicity, and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist, rationally conjecture that Protestants, in such Councils, would remain the party condemn'd. What, then, would this person have? He would have the Controversy begin again, and return to the Scriptures. Which is, in plain Language: That, the Question should decide the Controversie: and, till this can do it, That, so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party, all should have their Liberty. For, when they are the stron∣ger, they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences; and, though not professing themselves infallible, ye••, upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils, think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction, upon pain of Suspension from their Functi∣on, to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth; and to teach them to the People, as such; and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary, till they shall recant their Errour. Of which see before §. 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants, who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal, as they had done from that of Trent; but could not be beard.

As for that which follows, in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal chal∣lenging a Submission, and Conformity, of so many Protestants, as have no certainty of their new Opinions, rather to the Church, than to Innovators, to me it sounds thus. That every plain, and simple Protestant, 1st. thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture, in this Point of the Eucharist, and so in others, any way necessary, to be clear, and without dispute, [and the more simple he is, the sooner he may think so; because he is not able to compare all other Texes, nor to examine the contrary sences given by others, or the reasonable grounds thereof,] 2. Next, that every one, who thinks his Exposition, or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point, is by this sufficiently assured, that he hath a right Faith; or, from this sence of his, knows what he ought to believe, and forms a Judgement herein as certain, as if one had discussed all the Contro∣versies, one after another: [a strange proposition; but I see nothing else, from which such person collects his faith to be right; if any doth, produceit] 3ly. That every such simple person now easily knows, whether the Society, where∣in he lives, be a true Church, or otherwise, viz. as they agree with, or dissent from, that right Faith of his already supposed; or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word, i. e. in his clear Sence thereof. 4ly. Knowing thus, from this his clear exposition, or sence of Scripture, what he ought to believe, he needs not trouble himself, what the Ancient Church hath believed; [which is very true:] nay, he knows, without reading them, or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them, that the Fathers, if of the number of the Faithful, were of his Opinion, by M. Claud's arguing foremen¦tioned. I desire the Reader to review his words, or, the 5th & 6th Chapters

of his 1st. Book, and see if he can make any better construction of them. Now, if there be any Sence in this, he saith; How can he hinder, but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea (Church-authority being laid aside) for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions, viz. his clear sence of Scripture, quite contrary to the Protestants— clear sence? And, in any Controversie amongst Protestants: (Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants,) here both sides have the same Plea, one against another; namely, the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them. And, why doth not this cer∣tainty void their Synods. For M. Claude saith,—The word of God contains nettement & clairement, all that which is necessary to form our Faith, and that the most simple are capable to judge of it, &c. Unless the Protestant Contro∣versies be never about any thing necessary. This is the way M. Claude thought on to leave no Doubters, though never so unlearned, among Protestants as to the Eucharist, or other Points of their Faith. But mean while, if, after such Speculations of his, any such Doubters there be, I do not find, but that he leaves so many wholly to D. Arnaud's disposal, viz. that they return to, and remain in, the bosom of the former Church so long, till they become certain of its errors; and not follow strangers that have not entered by the dore, into Christ's Fold; and, I hope, they will consider it. As for the settling of our Conscience this person speaks of, by resting our Faith immediately on Gods Word, I see not, where the sence of the Scriptures is supposed the thing controverted, how any one rests his Faith more immediately on God's word by following his own Exposition or Sence thereof, or the Exposition of a Mini∣ster, &c. (for some person's exposition he must follow,) than he, that follows that of the Church.

If we are, then, for a total application to the Scriptures, and for searching things to the bottom; Let us search there first this main Point, (that decides all other) concerning our Lord's establishing a just Church-Authority for ending contentions. Where we shall find also; that he is not a God of dissention, or Confusion,* 1.695 in his House, the Church; but of Peace. And — That he hath given his Clergy in a certain Subordination, that we should not be carryed about with every wind of Doctrine; as we must be, when ever these disagree in ex∣pounding Scripture to us, if we have no Rule, which of them to follow. The truth of this once found out by our search, will save many other searches; of which, without it, I see no end. In vain do we endeavour, with what∣ever pains, so discern Gods Truth without the illumination of his Holy Spi∣rit and Grace; and since, revelat parvalis, in vain expect this, without great Humility, and self-d••s-esteem, and a reverent preference of, and pious Cre∣dulity toward our just, and lawful Spiritual Superiours.—Credendo, first, [i. e. Ecclesiae] saith S. Austin in his Tract De utilitate Credendi† 1.696, praemuni∣m••r, & illuminaturo praeparamur Deo.

To resume then here the matter we were speaking of before,* 1.697 §. 321. n. 1. from which we have so long digressed. For such Persons, as are self-con∣fident, despisers of Superiors, much pre-engaged, whatever evident Testimo∣ny Truth may have on its side, I can affirm nothing, For Pride, and think∣ing they see utterly puts out their eyes. But I think, so many as are no way

thus intangled, and are humble, and well affected to Authority, will by reading the pieces aforesaid, be reduced either to a full perswasion on the Churches side in this great Point; or to a Dubi∣tancy and uncertainty of that, which is maintained against it. And then, this later only (as hath been shewed† 1.698) is a sufficient Ground, and Inductive of their conformity to it, I mean, to the authority of the present Church,

In this point, then, the main Trial seems to be 1. Whe∣ther Antiquity indeed so understood, and Councils declared, the sense of these Scriptures, as is pretended. Since, as Mr. Thorn∣dike hath it; in his Rule of Reformation,† 1.699 this is to be ta∣ken for granted,—That nothing can be the true sence of Scripture, which the consent of the whole Church contradicteth. 2. If this found so; whether this Authority ought not to prescribe to any particular judgment; especially when he perceives, the new pre∣tended Demonstrations to the contrary no way to perswade this present Church-Authority, as any true Demonstration (in the Pro∣testants Definition of it) necessarily must.

For the Second Point, Invocation of Saints.

1. It is granted by Protestants;* 1.700 that if the Saints deceased hear, or otherwise know, our requests made to them, it is lawful to in∣vocate them, or desire their prayers for us, as we do those of Saints here; and the invocation of them in any other manner Catholicks disclaim.

2. It sufficiently appears, from the knowledge of things done, ‖ or said,† 1.701 in absence, that several Prophets,† 1.702 and other Saints of God, by Revelation, or Vision, have had here in this life, that it is possible; that the Saints glorified, without imagining any their omni-presence or omni-science, may know, by the like Revelation, Representation, or Vision, or by some other way as God pleaseth, (for the particular manner thereof is no way stated by the Church) may, thus, know, I say, either all, or so many of those prayers, that are made to them (though at the same time, by several persons, in the most distant places) as it may concern their Petitioners, touching any benefit to be received by their Intercessions, that they should know them. Lastly, possible, that the Saints Glori∣fied may know these, or some other instrument of God's mercy, viz. Angels, know these for them, or in their stead (for this clause also is put in by St. Austin, proceeding most cautiously in this matter.) These things, I say, are possible: And if any of these be put, it is abundantly sufficient to render Invocation of

Saints glorified not vain. For, to frustrate the benefit here, of, the Saints must neither know, nor others for them; who, only upon their general Intercessions offered, may be, as God pleaseth, made his instruments in relieving the necessities of such Suppli∣cants. They must neither know all, nor any of our affairs or prayers: For if they, or others for them, only know and relieve some, it will be lawful, at any time, in any thing, to implore their help, who, we know not, but in that time, and thing, they may assist us. Again, suppose, neither the Saints, nor others for them, save God only, to know at all our particular prayers, or wants; but the Saints, only in grosse, to intercede for all those, that implore their help; or, yet more generally, only for all their fellow-members here, that are in distress, whether imploring, or not imploring, their help; yet, if God, at least, apply the benefit of any Saints general Intercessions more particularly to those, who more particularly honour, and, with their addresses, solli∣cite such a Saint; Such Invocation, and Honour still remains pro∣fitable, and advantageous to the Supplicant.

[Where note,* 1.703 that neither those, who make, nor yet God who reveales, their prayers to the Saints, do it at all for this end, that so the Saints may make known such their prayers to God (a thing in which Protestants please themselves to find absurdities and contradiction;) but, that these nearer favourites of God, and more powerful with him, may obtain from him (who knows all our prayers before we think them) the grant of those requests, which great sinners many times cannot. And out of great mercy to the Supplicants it is, that God manifests such their prayers to the Saints: much what so, as he vouchsafed to direct Jobs three Friends to make their addresses to his Servant Job, to pray to Him for them, that so he might pardon them; because Him he would accept.† 1.704 Or, as he spake to King Abimeleck,† 1.705 whom he had smitten, that he should procure his Servant Abrahams prayers, to Him, that so he might heal him; for, how little will it differ from this, had God revealtd to Abraham himself Abimilecks ne∣cessities, and willed him to pray for him; that so, upon his in∣tercessions, he might heal him? So God reveals Saul's prayers to Ananias, Act. 9.11. And Cornelius his, to Peter, Act. 10.19. both, in order to their assisting them. And why may not God manifest to his Saints the necessities of others, that, by thus occa∣sioning their Intercessions, he may relieve them, as well, as mani∣fest to his Saints the impenitency of others, and so prohibit such their Intercessions, that he may punish them (As we find God speaking to Moses,‖ 1.706 —Let me alone that mine anger may wax

hot, &c. And to the Prophet Jeremy† 1.707 — Pray not thou for this people, neither make intercession to me, for I will not hear thee. This to shew, that there is no absurdity in the former possibi∣lities.]

Sufficient, I said,* 1.708 were any of the waies above-mentioned (and all possible enough) to render the supplicating of Saints deceased not vain, 〈☐〉〈☐〉 And so also, in obtaining the benefit, and effect of such supplications, it cannot be denied possible; that the Saint, that obtains it, may be also the Instrument in conveighing it (and what de facto is done, I meddle not;) but yet this thing is no way necessary; no not, when the Supplicant, in any such supernatural effect, fees their appearance, or hears the sound of their voice. For such Apparition was that of Ananias, Act. 9.12, who appear∣ed, and spake to, and laid his hand on, S. Paul in a vision, when himself knew nothing of it. And such that of S. Austin† 1.709 to Paul the trembling youth, and his sister; and they hereby admo∣nished, that they should repair to Hippo, where S. Austin was Bi∣shop, for their Cure; where also both of them miraculously re∣ceived it; and yet St. Austin saith† 1.710—Apparui illis, nesciens. Illi enim me videbant, & ego nesciebam: & admonebantur, ut ad istam civitatem venirent. And such also his appearance to Curma (in that his strange extasie and peregrination out of his Body) seeming to baptize him; when he far distant (as he saith† 1.711) and busied in other affairs, And such that of S. Ambrose (at the dis∣covery of the Bodies of the Martyrs, Gervasius and Protasius) his torturing of the Devils, who publickly confessed it, and beg'd his forbearance,—Illo aliud agente, atque hoc, cum ageretur, om nino nesciente, as S. Austin, then himself at Millan, relates it.† 1.712 Such presence, or instrumency of the Saint supplicated to is not ne∣cessary for such effect; but it is sufficient, if this be done by the more ordinary, ministry of Angels: (And these, perhaps, some∣times representing the likeness of such Saints,) or yet some other way, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God pleaseth. And therefore may such appearances of a Saint be made, at the same time, in many places, without affirm∣ing the Saints presence in all, or any, of them. This therefore in the second place, I presume to be put out of dispute, that all those things, that are necessary any way to render the Invocation of Saints glorified beneficial to their clients, are possible: Possible, that they, or some other Instrument of the Divine Mercy for them, may hear, or otherwise know, our prayers; and may effect, or procure, the relief of our wants.

3. So that Thirdly. The only Question here is:* 1.713 Whether they, or some for them, actually do so: Because so generel a

practice may seem too rashly grounded upon a bare possbility. Now this latter Catholicks affirm, from the much experience, that the Church in all ages hath had of such their prayers, being fre∣quently answered with supernatural, and miraculous effects. And it will be hard for any Protestant to deny this, who will take the pains to look into the Ecclesiastical Histories, or only to read over the 8th Chapter of S. Austin's 22 Book de Civitate Dei, and Serm. De Diversis, 31, 32.

In this Point then, the main Trial seems to be, concerning the pretended experience whether not falsified? Which Falsifi∣cation, that Protestant would seem to have an hard forehead that would undertake to demonstrate, * against what occurs in all former Church-History, Ancient, Modern (and these so uniform, and like one another, both in the Devotions used, and fa∣vours received; no stranger relations in the latter, than the for∣mer; and these in both many times witnessed beyond all excepti∣on) Or even * against those particular relations only, fore menti∣oned, in S. Austin.

For the Third Point:* 1.714 Veneration of Images. 1. The use of these Images Protestants allow: Nor, these to be removed for every abuse of, or scandal taken at, them (which Puritans do at theirs) 2. For the Veneration of them; The Churches Councils have stated, That no Latria or Divine Worship may be given to any Images: but only such an inferior honour, and re∣spect (and that too meerly for the Exemplars sake) as to other sacred utensils, and also to the name of Jesus (at the last of which, when read, or heard, Protestants also bow.) The Council of Trent (dispatching this Article concerning Images, as also some others, in some hast, so to conclude the Council before the much feared death of the Pope then dangerously sick) refers us to the more full Declaration of the Second Council of Nice, where this matter had beed much examined. Now the Definition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that Council runs thus,—Definimus venerandas, & S. Imagines dedi∣candas, & in Templis Sanctis Dei collocandas, habendasque: Quo scilicet, per hanc imaginum pictarum inspectionem, omnes, qui contem∣plantur, ad Prototyporum memoriam, & recordationem, & desideri∣um, veniant [this for the lawful use of them.] Illis{que} salutatio∣nem, & honorariam adorationem, exhibeant: Non secundum fidem no∣stram [or, sicut fides nostra est] veram latriam; quae solum Divinae naturae competit; sed, quemadmodum typo venerandae, & vivificantis Crucis, & sanctis Evangeliis, & reliquis sacris, oblationibus suffito∣rum, & luminarium, reverenter accedimus. [Which last was then

the general practice, as well of the Iconoclasts, as the Catholicks, nor any Controversie in those daies concerning it,] Thus the Se∣venth General Council, whose whole business was the stating of this Question. And see the comparing of the Honour given to Images with that, to the Name of Jesus, in a Synod held at Mentz. A. D. 1549. since the Reformation, c. 41, in the larger Acts of it.† 1.715 —Codicem oculis perlustrans, cum ad venerabile & tremendum no∣men Jesu devenerit, caput aperit, & suspiciens in coelum, oculos at∣tollit: & ob id, omni reprehensione & Idololatria suspicione caret; si∣quidem non literas, &c. sic honorat; sed, cogitatione & veneratione mentis suae, ad eum honorandum [i. e. latria] rapitur, cujus memoriam hae literae ei suggerunt. Cur ergo superstitionis, aut Idololatriae reus per∣agitur, qui ante Imaginem crucifixi Domini caput aperit, aut procum∣bens adorat, &c. And see Vasquez, who cites this Synod, thus entitling his, c. 11. Disp. 108. in. 3. S. Thom. —Eodem modo at{que} Imagines, nomen Jesu, & alias res sacras (naming, Crucem, vasa sa∣cra, lib. Evangeliorum) esse adorandas. And see Suarez: Disput. 54. §. 6.—Card. Lugo de Incarnatione. Disp. 36. §. 6. saying the same. I have the rather mentioned here the reverence given at the name of Jesus, because, though that to the sacred utensils, and Holy Gospels is grown into desuetude among Protestants, yet this other is still retained.

When therefore we speak of that Superior Honour [latria,* 1.716 or Dulia] that is given, or due, to the Exemplar, I mean either the in∣ternal honor of the soul, or also external of the body, for the latria, Divine worship consists of both, and herein the external act receives its specification from the internal; and not one, but both these, we equally give to our Lord, then also, when we pray to him, not-before, or without, an Image; or, if you will, when, in the middle of our prayers, an Image is presented before us: I say, when this Superior Worship is spoken of, though here we uncover our Heads, we kneel 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and ••••brace it; yet is the Image neither objectum, nor Ratio Adorationis, but only Adjunctum (as the Cardinal hath it) De Imag. l. 2. c. 23.—Ipsa Imago nec est sup∣positum, quod adoratur, nec ratio adorationis, sed quiddam Adjunctum, a Circumstantial, an Inductive, a Motive, thereof. For the mental intention here wholy directs (as it can at pleasure) to the Pro∣totype these outward notes of Honour, some of which, (as kissing, or embracing) are accidentally, and concomitantly, applied to the Image. Neither is such external latrical worship conveighed to the person represented, either by, or through the Image, as a me∣dium to it: any way so to facilitate, or promote the acceptance thereof, or ingratiate it with the Prototype: But the Image is a

meer circumstance of such Adoration, as time, and place are, and any creature of God may be. Yet a circumstance very beneficial for reminding us of such duty, as also for rendring this service more fixt and steady; or intense, and devout. This for worship due to the Ptototype.

Next, as for the inferior relative Veneration exhibited to their Images: Catholicks do not here pre∣tend, or affirm, any peculiar presence of our Lord or his Saints, or any vertue either natural, or accessary and deri∣vative, in any such Image, for which it should be worshipped, or honoured; or our requests to have any more access, or efficacy by, or through, any such Image, upon the Exemplar, or person repre∣sented; Or, again, the Exemplar any greater influence by, or through, it, upon those, who supplicate him before it (these are Heathen fancies derided by Christians); lastly, pretend no advan∣tage in the use of such Images, either to render our prayers, or worship more acceptable to our Lord, or his Saints, or more effectual to us, save only, as the retaining of such a grateful me∣mory of our Lord, and his Saints, is conceived a thing well-pleasing to them: And, as the frequent beholding also such re∣presentations may excite, and increase our Devotion, Affection, Imitation, &c. and these again, performed, obtain a greater reward.

Things standing thus on the Catholick side,* 1.717 as most certainly they do, I ask, what certainty, or demonstration can a Protestant here produce of any other error, or fault in the Church; unless he will dispute here against, some subtile expressions of some School-men; or some practice of rude people: The first of which he is neither tyed by the Church to justifie; nor the se∣cond, to follow. In this po••nt, if any tryal necessary, it seems to be: Whether the present Church continue to teach, what the former hath defin'd? (For which see the late Council of Trent referring to that ancient 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and sufficiently expressed in a very eminent stating of this point) Whether the practice of some ignorant people in the Church be so faulty, as some would make it? And, if it be; whether the Church, teaching otherwise, be chargable with it; or obliged to take away Images, for it? Lastly, if here a fault in the Church; Whether a Subject of hers, obliged to nothing in this matter unlaw∣ful, may, for such her fault, quarrel with her, and desert her Com∣munion?

For the Fourth; Communion in one kind. Here, since it is granted by Protestants, [§. 324] *† 1.718 as also taken for Principle by Catho∣licks

† 1.719 That Christ is wholy and entirely contained, and exhi∣bited in either species taken singly, and in every least Particle of ei∣ther species; Christs Body, Blood, Soul, Deity, suffering no more separation since his Resurrection; (so that none need fear the being deprived of our Lords precious Blood by receiving only the Symbole of his Body) Since this, I say, is agreed on, The Question only is; Whether there be any absolute Precept in Scripture commanding, alwaies, to all persons, the communi∣cating in both kinds. Now Catholicks think this matter, that there is no such precept, sufficiently cleared by the practice of An∣tiquity, and the purest times: Which on several occasions, gave it in one kind only; and this, when there was no case of absolute necessity to give it in one kind (but, then, alwaies indeed some in∣convenience in giving it in; both which is still pretended, when the Church administers it in one.) Now such practice could be in no times lawful, if there were a Divine Precept absolutely, to all persons, enjoyning the contrary.

But if such universal precept there be, [§. 325] enjoyning a necessary Communion of the Cup, [As; Drink ye all of this, Matt. 26, 27. —Or, Do this in remembrance of me, Luk. 22.19. —Or, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, Jo. 6.53. which is equivalent to this: Let all those eat my flesh, and drink my blood, that will have life.] It seems most reason∣able. 1. That such Precept be extended to all Communions whatever, as well those private, or domestick, as, the publick (since in both possible to be observed) For there occurs nothing in our Lords words distinguishing these Communions, one from another: or ordering a receit of the Cup, in the one, which shall be left at liberty in the other: And so by such sence of Scripture, as we have said, the practice of Antiquity is con∣demned. 2. That it be extended, as to the receiving in both kinds, so to the receiving them apart, and to the drinking of the one, as the eating of the other: For the Scripture is no more ex∣press for the receiving of the blood, than it is, for receiving it separated by it self, and for drinking of it: By which the pra∣ctice of the Eastern Churches is condemned, who receive the Symbole of Christs Body only intinct in the Blood. 3. Espe∣cially, from that text in c. 6. John 53. That this precept be exten∣ded to all persons for whom we expect eternal life: and so to In∣fants. Therefore the communicating of them also in both kinds, or one at least, was a custom used in Antiquity. Yet such a necessity, by vertue of any Scripture-precept, Protestants toge∣ther with Catholicks deny; and both desist from such a practice.

[§. 326] Again, several other Texts we find in Scripture, that may seem to have the force of Universal Precepts, as much as any con∣cerning communicating in both kinds; As Act. 15.29. for ab∣staining from Blood, and things strangled. Luke 6.30.—Of him, that takes away your Goods, ask them not again,—and; Give to eve∣ry one that asketh, Matt. 6, 17.—When you fast, wash your face, and anoint your head. c. 5.34.—Swear not at all, Matt. 23 9. —Call no man your Father on the earth; neither be ye called Ma∣sters [The Quakers Precepts.] Salute one another with a kiss of charity, or an holy kiss, frequent in the Apostle, Rom 16.16. 1 Cor. 16 20.—2 Cor. 13.12.—1 Thess. 5.26.—I have given you an example, that ye should do, as I have done to you, Jo. 13.14, [for the Clergies washing feet before the Communion]—Do this, unlimited, in St. Luke 22.19. for any Christian whatever his breaking bread, or, consecrating, and distributing the communion. —If any be sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church: and let them pray over him, anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up [not, that every sick person, that the Apostles prayed over, should be cured:] and, if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him, James, 5.14, 15. urged as enjoyning extreme unction.

[§. 327] Now, notwithstanding the shew of strict and universal Pre∣cepts, yet in the understanding and practising of all these, save the last, Protestants conform to the judgment of former, and present, Church. And in the last, though Catholicks think them∣selves obliged to receive it, as a Precept; and, accordingly pra∣ctice; yet Protestants deny the one; and forbear the other.

Lastly, some Protectants there be, and those of note, that deny any peremptory precept, or command in Scripture, as in these, so in those urged for Communion sub utraque species.— *Ʋbi jubentur in Scripturis (saith Bishop Montague† 1.720) Infantes baptizari? aut, Caenam Domini, sub utraque specie communicantes, participare? Sexcenta sunt ejusmodi, &c. —de quibus possumus profiteri: Nil tale docet scriptura. * Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97.—Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are receiv'd, and ho∣noured by us: Now such are these which follow. The historical Tra∣dition concerning the numbers, and dignity of the Books of Canoni∣cal Scripture: The Catholick exposition of many sentences of holy Scripture [Which indeed unless received, there will be no convicti∣on or cure of Heresies, and Schismes:] Baptism of Infants, obser∣vation of the Lords day: The service of the Church in a known tongue [the tongues used by the Apostolical times for God's pub∣lick

Service, the Church still continues, unchanged:] The deli∣vering of the Holy Communion to the people in both kinds [i. e. for publick communions: For as for private, ancient Tradition many times practised otherwise:] * Spalatens. de Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 6. Dico, non esse adeo sub praecepto, ut Eucharistia & in cibo & in potu semper à fidelibus sumatur, quin ex gravi, seu privatâ privatorum causâ possit, cum fructu & licite, etiam sub solo pane sumi, &c. And, in∣deed, in the omnes added to Bibite. Matt. 26. it seems clear, that our Lord had no particular intention, thereby to prescribe, what every Christian was necessarily to practice; because the Mandu∣cate, as necessary as the Bibite, is pronounced without an omnes: But, only to shew, what he would have to be done at that time by all the other Apostles, as well as by him, whom he first delivered the Cup to. For whereas several portions of the bread were severally given to every one of them: Yet the Cup was deliver∣ed only to one, from whom it was to be handed successively to all the rest, and divided amongst them all. Therefore St. Luke in∣stead of omnes, hath, Take this, and divide it among your selves.

[§. 328] In this point then, the main Trial seems to be: Whether Antiquity did, indeed, use such a practice, as, on several occasions where inconveniences happened of giving it in both, to communi∣cate persons in one kind only. Which if found true, it would be too great a temerity and boldness in a Protestant to alledge cer∣tainly, or pretend Demonstration of the sense of any Text of Scripture contrary to that, wherein both the present and ancient Church hath understood, and interpreted it. Especially (as I said) when these they stile Demonstrations do not convince others, or, if, notwithstanding this, they be good and sufficient Demon∣strations, then must they be so too for m••••y other Texts named before, as well as for these touching communion, to impose the same sence, and universal preceptive force, on them: Yet, against which sence, Protestants are necessitated to concur, in their judgment, with Catholicks; nay proceed further to deny some to be Precepts, which Catholicks accept for such.

[§. 329] This Digression from §, 320. I have made, as hoping, it might be beneficial, to shew, in some Controversies of conse∣quence, what small Foundation. Protestants have to pretend Certainty and Demonstration, against the former Church's Do∣ctrine. To which, in the last place, I may add, that such pre∣tence of Certainty against Church-Authority suffers a grea•• preju∣dice from that, which S. Austin hath observed; that it is a plea used by all Hereticks,—Hoc facium (saith he† 1.721) Haeretici universi, —vetant credere [Ecclesiâ proponente] incognita; & certam sci∣entiam

pollicentur. And he saith,† 1.722 that he was enticed by the Sect of the Manichees on this account, because they promised.—Se, terribili authoritate separatâ, merâ & simplici rations [or, as after∣ward, magna quadam praesumptione, & pollicitatione, rationum] cos, qui se audire vellent, introducturos ad Deum, & erroreomni li∣beraturos: And,—Se nullum premere ad fidem, nisi prius discussâ & enodatâ veritate. And again,—† 1.723 Eos Catholicam Ecclesiam eo maxime criminari, quod illis, qui ad eam veniunt, praecipitur, ut cred••nt; se autem, non jugum credendi imponere, sed docendi fontem aperire, gloriari. And therefore he saith in his Retract. l. 1. c. 14. That upon this he writ, against this presumption of their's, his Book, De utilitate Credendi: Or, Of the benefit of ones believing Church-Authority. This from (§. 318.) of the weak Grounds Protestants have of pretending Certainty against Church Au∣thority.

[§. 330] 2, But next, Suppose a person may be infallibly certain of, and can truly demonstrate, something, the contrary of which Church-Authority delivers as certain, yet if this certainty be only of such a Truth, from the knowledge of which ariseth no great benefit to Christians, or to the Church: or at least, not so much benefit, as, weighed in the ballance, will preponderat this other benefit of conserving the Churches peace. Here again these Demonstrators, Protestants also being Judges, are to yield to Church-Authority the obedience of silence, and non-contradiction: and are to keep such Truth to themselves; and not to disturb the publick peace, after any thing defined to the contrary, by di∣vulging it to others.

[§. 331] [In vindication of such obedience, thus Dr. Potter,— | It is true, when the Church hath declared her self in any matter of opi∣nions, or of rites, her Declaration obligeth all her children to peace, and external obedience; nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick. Where he saith also,—That, by his factiously opposing this his own judgment to the publick, he may become an Heretick in some degree, and in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true; and much more, if it be false. After him Bishop Brambal, thus,† 1.724—That Church [and much more that person] which shal. not outwardly acquiesce, after a legal Determination, and cease to disturb Christian unity, though her judgment may be sound, her practice is schismatical. And, Vindic. of Church of England, p. 27.—When inferior Questions, (saith he) not fundamental, are ••nce 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 Authori∣ty, and disturb the peace of the Church, deserve to be punished as He∣reticks. Doctor Fern, Division of Churches, p. 81. requiring conformity of Sectaries to the Church of England, argues thus, If Sectaries shall say to us: You allow us to use our reason and judge∣ment in what you teach us: True, say we; for your own satisfaction: not to abuse it against the Church. But we do not abuse it, say, they: but have consulted our Guides, and used all means we can for satis∣faction, We tell them; You must bring evident Scripture, and De∣monstration, against publick Authority of the Church: and [next] having modestly propounded it, attend the judgment thereof. [But what if, after all, this go against them.] To which, if you cannot assent inwardly, yet yield an external peaceable subjection, so far as the matter questioned is capable of it.] Thus he states the point.

Now, such an external peaceable subjection, and obedience (as hath been often said) if it were well observed, stops all Refor∣mations as to these points, that are found of less consequence; the Demonstrators Truth must die with him. Nor, thus, will any Disciples be drawn from the Church, or their Pastors, to fol∣low Strangers.

[§. 232] Next; To know, whether the truth, they are so certain of, be also of so great weight, as that the Churches peace and exter∣nal unity is to be broken, rather than such a Truth strangled, or lost; what less thing also can secure them for this, that it is a Truth of much importance, than that, which secures them of their certainty, that it is a Truth, namely a Demonstration hereof. Now, the Evidences Protestants have brought either of the one, or the other; either, that such Church-Doctrines are errors; or, if so, errors of great consequence, have been heard and considered by Church-Authority: And these, by it, neither thought errors in∣tollerable, nor errors at all, But, if Church-Authority may not interpose here, and every one may rely on his own particu∣lar Judgment, when truths, or errors, are of moment, when not; who is there, when his thoughts are wholy taken up with a thing, and he totus in illo, and perhaps, besides, troubled with an itch, that that knowledge of his, which he esteems extraordinary, should be communicated, and that se scire hoc sciat alter, will not thus in∣duce himself to think the smallest matters great? Lastly, con∣cerning truths of much importance, let this also be considered: Whether that, which is so much pretended by the Reformed, that the Holy Scriptures are clear in all Divine Truths necessary, doth not strongly argue against them, that none of those things, wherein they gain-say the Church, are matters much important,

or necessary: Because all these Scriptures, clear in necessaries, will surely be so to the Church, as well as to them: As they grant, these Scriptures to be generally, as to all persons, perspicu∣ous, in all those common points of faith, that are not at all con∣troverted.

[§. 333] 3. But let this also be allowed: That the error of Church-Authority is not only manifest, but that it both is, and is certainly known to be, in a point most important and necessary: and that neither the obedience of assent, nor yet of silence, or non-contra∣diction, ought to be yielded to Church-Authority therein, yet all this granted will not justifie or secure any in their not yielding a third obedience, meerly passive, viz. a quiet submission to the Churches censures, however deemed in such a particular case un∣just: Whereby, if this censure happen to be Excommunication, he is patiently to remain so (as who, in such case injoyes still the internal communion of the Church, though he want the external) till God provide for the vindication of Truth, and his Innocen∣cy: But, by no means, to proceed further to set up or joyn himself to, an external communion apart and separated from that of his Superiors; and, such a communion as either refuseth any con∣junction with them, or at least is prohibited, and excluded, by them; which must alwaies be schismatical; as being that of a Part differing from the Whole; or, of Inferiors divided from their Canonical Superiors, by which now that Party begins to lose that internal Communion of the Church also, which, when unjust∣ly excommunicated, and acquiescing therein, he still enjoyed. Of which persons, thus S. Austin,† 1.725 — Saepe sinit divina Providen∣tia expelli de congregatione Chrstianâ etiam bonos vir••s; quam contu∣meliam vel injuriam suam cum paticu••••ssime pro eccl••siae pace, tule∣rint, ne{que} ullas novitates, vel schismatis [i. e. segregationis conventi∣culorum, as he explains it afterward] vel haeresis, moliti fuerint, do∣cebunt homines, quam vero affectu, & quantâ sinceritate charitatis. Deo serviendum sit.—Hos coronat in occulto Pater, in occulto videns. And, (De Baptism. l. 1. c. 17.) of such persons he saith,—Ibi magis probantur, quum si intus permaneant [only with this excep∣tion] Cum adversus ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur, sed in solidâ unitatis petrâ, fortissimae charitatis robore, radicantur. Thus he in the defence of such.

[§. 334] But, If an unjust Excommunication should further warrant any to erect Anti-communions; and then, a private person may also pass sentence of such injastice, against the Church, who sees not, that this pulls down the whole structure of Church-Govern∣ment,

and fills it full of schisms; and is the same in the Church, as this would be in the Civil State, if a Subject unjustly condem∣ned to some mulct, or imprisonment, should presently raise, and head an Army against the Prince, and with it detain from him some part of his Dominions. No man is authorized, by suffer∣ing injustice, to do it.

[§. 335] See, Christian Reader, how many bars are set to keep us within such a degree of subjection to the Church, as prevents Schism. 1 If we are of those, that do not profess certainty of the contrary to that which the Church teacheth (as the most of Chri∣stans are such) here Protestants† 1.726 agree, that we owe the obedi∣ence of assent, and submission of judgment to the supremest known Church-Authority, that presides over us. 2 But next, suppose we pretend certainty of a Truth against this Authority; yet, in case this truth be not of much concernment, Here Protestants‖ 1.727 consent, that we are to yield the obedience of silence, and non∣contradiction to it: 3 But, if the Truth be of moment; and so supposed, that neither silence may be used herein; yet are we still tied at least to yield a third sort of obedience, a passive one to the Churches censures, even to that of Excommunication, though sup∣posed unjust, without erecting, or resorting to, any Anti-Com∣munion to that of our Superiors, and of the whole; i. e. the Com∣munion Catholick: 4 And then, whatever degree of obedience a Person, well considering these things, shall judge due to be yielded to Church-Authority in General, I hope the former Dis∣course, by clearing the Legality of it, hath justly vindicated to the Council of Trent. 5 And this Council, once submitted to, in∣fers, as to all the principal modern Controversies, an universal Settlement and Peace. Now the great Pastor and Bishop of Souls, in an accptable time,* 1.728 bring home all those Sheep that are yet going astray, and hearken to the voice of Strangers, into the happy Communion of all his Saints; That there may be one Fould, and one Shepherd, unus Dominus, una Fides, unum Corpus.* 1.729 To Him Allpowerful, and Good, and the constant lover of his Spouse, the Church, be given all Glory, and Praise, in the same his Church, forever. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• † 1.1

  Of the Guide in Controver∣sies.
• ‖ 1.2

  Stillingst. Rat. Account p. 481.
• ‖ 1.3

  Aquilino, p. 95.
• † 1.4

  Soave, 7. l. Init.
• ‖ 1.5

  Prefat. to Soave's Hi∣story.
• * 1.6

  1.
• * 1.7

  α.
• ‖ 1.8

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 17.
• * 1.9

  §. 4. ut sal∣tem.
• * 1.10

  β.
• * 1.11

  γ.
• * 1.12

  δ.
• * 1.13

  2.
• * 1.14

  ε
• * 1.15

  ζ.
• * 1.16

  ••.
• * 1.17

  〈☐〉〈☐〉
• * 1.18

  3.
• * 1.19

  λ. 1.
• * 1.20

  μ.
• * 1.21

  ν. 2.
• * 1.22

  ξ.
• * 1.23

  π.
• * 1.24

  ς. 3.
• * 1.25

  σ.¹ 4.
• * 1.26

  σ²
• * 1.27

  τ. 5.
• ‖ 1.28

  B. Bramb. Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248.
• * 1.29

  v. 4.
• * 1.30

  φ
• * 1.31

  χ.
• ‖ 1.32

  Soave, p. 228.
• * 1.33

  〈☐〉〈☐〉 Dr. Ham∣mond of Her. §. 11. n. 3, 7.
• ‖ 1.34

  Soave, p. 228.
• ‖ 1.35

  Sess. 24. c. 12. de Refor.
• ‖ 1.36

  See Archbi∣shop Lawd, p. 51.—Bishop Bramh. Vindie. of Church of England, p. 23••.231.— Reply to Chal••ed. p. 322.—Dr. Hammond, Ars. to Cath. Gent. p. 138.—and to Schism Disarm'd, p. 241. — Dr. Fern, Considerations touch∣ing Reformation, p. 45. —Stillingfl. Rat. Accc••nt, p. 48, &c.
• † 1.37

  Fpilog. Con∣clusion, p. 413.
• * 1.38

  §. 6. n. 2.
• * 1.39

  5
• * 1.40

  ω.
• * 1.41

  αα.
• * 1.42

  ββ.
• ‖ 1.43

  Stillingfl. Rat. Acc. p. 480, 482.
• * 1.44

  1.
• * 1.45

  2.
• * 1.46

  3.
• * 1.47

  4.
• * 1.48

  5.
• ‖ 1.49

  See Dr. Field, of the Church, p. 511.
• † 1.50

  Can. 17.
• * 1.51

  §. 13. n. 1.
• ‖ 1.52

  Cyprian, Ep 38.
• † 1.53

  Ep. 68.
• ‖ 1.54

  Ep. 67.
• † 1.55

  Athanas. de Sententia Dionys. Alex∣andrin.
• ‖ 1.56

  Ep. ad In∣nocent.
• † 1.57

  Ep. ad Leo∣nem.
• * 1.58

  §. 13. n. 2.
• ‖ 1.59

  Conc. Me∣levit. c. 22.
• † 1.60

  A. D. 412.
• ‖ 1.61

  Ep. ad Bo∣n••ifac,
• † 1.62

  l. 4. c. 8. n. 32.
• ‖ 1.63

  Conc. Me∣levit. c. 22.
• † 1.64

  Ep. 162.
• ‖ 1.65

  See Ant. Ca∣pellus de Appel lationibus, c. 4.
• † 1.66

  Epist. Celest.
• ‖ 1.67

  Of the Church, p. 563.
• * 1.68

  §. 13. n. 3.
• ‖ 1.69

  Epist. ad Pamachium,
• * 1.70

  1.
• † 1.71

  See §. 12, 13.
• ‖ 1.72

  Conc. Ephes. c. 8.
• * 1.73

  §. 15. n. 1.
• * 1.74

  2.
• † 1.75

  See, below, §. 16. n. 6, & 8.
• * 1.76

  §. 15. n. 2.
• * 1.77

  §. 16. n. 1.
• ‖ 1.78

  p. 46.
• * 1.79

  §. 16. n. 2.
• ‖ 1.80

  7.
• † 1.81

  8.
• §. 1.82

  16. n. 3.
• † 1.83

  Answ. to Ca∣tholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29.
• * 1.84

  §. 16. n. 4.
• ‖ 1.85

  Of the Chur. p. 513.
• * 1.86

  §. 16. n. 5.
• * 1.87

  §. 16. n. 6.
• ‖ 1.88

  l. 5. p. 514.
• † 1.89

  Can. 8.
• ‖ 1.90

  Can. 6.
• §. 1.91

  16. n. 7.
• §. 1.92

  16. n. 8.
• ‖ 1.93

  l. 3. c. 10. n. 26.
• ‖ 1.94

  l. 4. c. 9. n. 1.
• §. 1.95

  16. n. 9.
• † 1.96

  fast wa••gnte, p. 41.
• ‖ 1.97

  p. 39.
• † 1.98

  p. 40.
• ‖ 1.99

  Ad Art. 7.
• † 1.100

  Adversus Jovin. l. 1. c. 14.
• ‖ 1.101

  Apol. Dis∣cussio, p. 255.
• * 1.102

  De Concil. l. 2. c. 28.
• * 1.103

  1.
• † 1.104

  Contra Episc. Fu••d. c. 4.
• * 1.105

  3.
• * 1.106

  4.
• * 1.107

  5.
• ‖ 1.108

  Dr. Field, p. 651.
• † 1.109

  Epist. ad E∣piscopos Dar∣daniae.
• * 1.110

  6.
• ‖ 1.111

  §. 9, &c
• † 1.112

  §. 16.
• † 1.113

  See, before, §. 10.
• ‖ 1.114

  l. 1. c. 4. & Conc. Eph. pars 2. Act. 1.
• † 1.115

  Act. Concil. Eph. Tom. 1.
• ‖ 1.116

  Conc. Constan Collat. 1.
• † 1.117

  Conc. Constant. c. 5.
• * 1.118

  Act. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 5.
• † 1.119

  Apolog. 2. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes.
• * 1.120

  Euscb. de vita Const. l. 2. c. 62. Socrat. l. 1. c. 4.
• ‖ 1.121

  p. 652.
• † 1.122

  p. 653:
• * 1.123

  1.
• * 1.124

  2.
• ‖ 1.125

  p. 653.
• ‖ 1.126

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 12.
• † 1.127

  Of the Chur. p. 697.
• ‖ 1.128

  p. 668.
• ‖ 1.129

  p. 513.
• † 1.130

  Vind. c. 1. p. 257.
• * 1.131

  3.
• ‖ 1.132

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 12.
• ‖ 1.133

  §. 8.
• ‖ 1.134

  See, before, §. 11, 12. &c.
• † 1.135

  §. 16. n. 4. &c.
• * 1.136

  2,
• ‖ 1.137

  See Tertulli∣an Apol. & ad versus Judaeos c. 7.—Origen in Ezech. Hom. 4, — Bede Hist. Angl. l. 1. c. 4.
• ‖ 1.138

  Schism p. 110.
• † 1.139

  Vindic. of the Church if England, p. 98.
• ‖ 1.140

  B. Bramhal, Reply to S. W, p. 24.
• ‖ 1.141

  Schism guar∣ded, p. 160.
• † 1.142

  In Chronico.
• ‖ 1.143

  l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.144

  1.
• ‖ 1.145

  A.D. 314.
• † 1.146

  Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.147

  2.
• ‖ 1.148

  Hist. l. 2. c. 19.
• * 1.149

  3.
• * 1.150

  Just weights, p. 40.
• ‖ 1.151

  §. 55.
• * 1.152

  3.
• ‖ 1.153

  See before, §. 40.
• * 1.154

  1.
• † 1.155

  See before, §. 16. n. 5, 2.
• * 1.156

  3.
• ‖ 1.157

  §. 55.
• † 1.158

  Answ. to Schism Dis∣armed, p. 174.
• ‖ 1.159

  Reformation justified, p. 84.
• * 1.160

  2.
• ‖ 1.161

  Of the Church p. 557.
• † 1.162

  Answ. to Ca∣tholick Gent. p. 30.
• ‖ 1.163

  Of Schism, c. 9. p. 163.
• * 1.164

  3.
• ‖ 1.165

  See, before, §. 36, & 43.
• * 1.166

  1.
• † 1.167

  See before, § 39.
• * 1.168

  2.
• ‖ 1.169

  See before, §. 43.
• * 1.170

  3.
• † 1.171

  Schism Guar∣ded, p. 352.
• ‖ 1.172

  Soave, l. 7. p. 642. & 367.
• * 1.173

  4.
• * 1.174

  5.
• ‖ 1.175

  Acta Theol. Wirtemb. Epist.
• † 1.176

  1. Respons.
• ‖ 1.177

  See Leo Al∣latius, de perpe∣tuo consensu, l. 3.—Arhould's Ans. to Claud. l. 4. c. 7.
• * 1.178

  4.
• * 1.179

  1.
• * 1.180

  2.
• ‖ 1.181

  p. 651.
• * 1.182

  3.
• * 1.183

  §. 86. n. 1.
• ‖ 1.184

  See Soave, p. 374, 375.
• † 1.185

  Conc. Trid. Bulla cel brat. Co••e. Sess. 17.
• * 1.186

  §. 68. n. 2.
• ‖ 1.187

  Apud Binni∣um, Conc. Trid. Sess. 15.
• † 1.188

  See Soave, p. 369.
• * 1.189

  1.
• * 1.190

  2.
• ‖ 1.191

  Spendan. A.D. 1545. n. 17.— Pallavic. l. 6. c. 1. n. 10. — l. 10. c. 7. n. 2. —c. 2. n. 6.
• † 1.192

  Pallav. l. 18. c. 17. n. 21.
• ‖ 1.193

  Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 7. c. 13. —l. 20. c. 17. n. 7.— l. 23. c. 5. n. 4.
• * 1.194

  3.
• ‖ 1.195

  l. 11. c. 18. n. 7.
• † 1.196

  Pallavic. l. 23 c. 1.— Soave, p. 783, 784, 798.
• ‖ 1.197

  See Soave, p. 194.
• ‖ 1.198

  p 164.
• ‖ 1.199

  Soave, p. 434. —Pallav. l. 15. c. 1. n. 6.
• † 1.200

  Soave, p. 315, 321, 819.
• ‖ 1.201

  See Mr. Stil. linfl. R••t. Acc. p. 496.
• † 1.202

  Stillingfl. p. 536.
• * 1.203

  6.
• * 1.204

  1.
• ‖ 1.205

  In A. D: 1615 n 7
• ‖ 1.206

  A D 1546 n 4
• * 1.207

  2.
• ‖ 1.208

  See. below, §. 147.
• * 1.209

  3.
• * 1.210

  Soave, p. 760.
• † 1.211

  Pallav. l. 22. c. 6. n. 1.
• ‖ 1.212

  Sess. 25. c. 19. de Reform.
• ‖ 1.213

  De Repub. Eccles. l. 6. c. 10. n.
• ‖ 1.214

  Sponda. A.D. 1595. n. 9. Pallavi••. 24. ••. 10. n. 15.
• ‖ 1.215

  Pallavic. Ib. c. 11. n. 2.4.
• * 1.216

  6.
• † 1.217

  Soave, p. 8. 12.
• † 1.218

  § 47. &c.
• * 1.219

  7.
• * 1.220

  sect. 82.
• * 1.221

  1.
• † 1.222

  See the Preface to the Acta Council. Ni, caen.
• † 1.223

  p 482.
• * 1.224

  1.
• * 1.225

  3.
• † 1.226

  S•••• Soav•• p. 77.
• * 1.227

  4
• * 1.228

  5.
• † 1.229

  See Spondan. A. D. 1562. —Soave, p. 374. &c —Pallavicin. l. 13. c. 3.
• * 1.230

  6.
• * 1.231

  3.
• † 1.232

  p. 344.
• ‖ 1.233

  De sid. Hae∣ret. servand. l 3 c. 10
• ‖ 1.234

  l. 3. c. 14.
• ‖ 1.235

  De Jure l. 8. q. 1. c. 9.
• † 1.236

  l. 2. Tract. 3.••.12.
• † 1.237

  De Rom. Pontis. l. 5. c. 3.
• † 1.238

  Theol. Moral. l. 2. Tract. 3. c. 12.
• † 1.239

  De fid. Haeret, servand. l. 5. c. 14.
• † 1.240

  Stillingfl. Rational Ac∣count. pt. 2. c. 3. p. 352. & 350.
• ‖ 1.241

  l. 2. c, 3.
• ‖ 1.242

  p. 344.
• * 1.243

  8.
• * 1.244

  1
• * 1.245

  2.
• ‖ 1.246

  See Stil∣linsl. p. 490.
• * 1.247

  3.
• * 1.248

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 21.
• * 1.249

  4.
• * 1.250

  5.
• * 1.251

  6.
• * 1.252

  7.
• * 1.253

  9.
• * 1.254

  1.
• * 1.255

  §. 125. n. 1.
• * 1.256

  2.
• * 1.257

  §. 115. n. 2.
• † 1.258

  Mr. Stil∣lings. p. 478.479.
• † 1.259

  p. 60.
• * 1.260

  2.
• * 1.261

  1.
• ‖ 1.262

  See §. 114.
• † 1.263

  Stillingf. Rat. Ac∣count. p 482.
• † 1.264

  See §. 77. &c.
• † 1.265

  p. 8, 6.
• * 1.266

  3.
• ‖ 1.267

  See below §. 198.
• † 1.268

  Mr. Stil••ingf. R••t. Account. p. 492.
• † 1.269

  See Adam vitae Lutheri.
• ‖ 1.270

  Matt. 17.15.
• † 1.271

  Jo. 10.
• ‖ 1.272

  1 Teess. 5.21.
• † 1.273

  See Soave, p. 18, 65, 80. 1. —2 —3.
• ‖ 1.274

  Sozom. l. 7. c 12. Socrat. l. 5. c. 10.
• † 1.275

  Pallavic. l. 3. c. 13. n. 2.•• —Soave p. 64.
• † 1.276

  Soave, p. 18.
• * 1.277

  7.
• * 1.278

  8.
• * 1.279

  9.
• † 1.280

  3d. Paper.
• † 1.281

  4th Paper.
• * 1.282

  To 7.
• * 1.283

  To 8.
• * 1.284

  To 9.
• * 1.285

  Diet, 1530.
• * 1.286

  Diet, 1541.
• * 1.287

  Diet, 1546.
• † 1.288

  A. D. 1546. n. 10.
• * 1.289

  §. 139.1.
• * 1.290

  Diet, 1547.
• † 1.291

  Spondan. A. D. 1558. n. 4.
• † 1.292

  Soave, p. 288.
• * 1.293

  §. 139. n. 2.
• † 1.294

  Soave, p. 306.
• † 1.295

  p. 295.
• † 1.296

  A.D. 1548. n. 5.
• * 1.297

  §. 139. n 3.
• * 1.298

  1555.
• † 1.299

  p. 393. 389.
• * 1.300

  1557.
• † 1.301

  Spondan. A. D. 1557. n. 15.
• * 1.302

  1561.
• * 1.303

  3.
• * 1.304

  §. 151. n. 1.
• ‖ 1.305

  See below §. 153, 168.
• * 1.306

  §. 151." n. 2.
• * 1.307

  1.
• ‖ 1.308

  Pall. l. 24. c. 14.— Soave p. 496, 623.
• ‖ 1.309

  l. 16. c. 4. ••••. 21.
• † 1.310

  p. 737—& Pallav. l. 21. c. 11. n. 4.
• * 1.311

  2.
• † 1.312

  See Soave, p. 623, 734.
• * 1.313

  3.
• † 1.314

  l. 19. c. 15. n. 3.
• † 1.315

  Sorve p. 818.
• † 1.316

  Soave p. 803.
• † 1.317

  Pall. l. 19. c. 13. n. 6. — c. 12. n. 11. —l. 21. c. 14. n. 12. Soave, p. 657.
• † 1.318

  §. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 70.
• † 1.319

  §. 155.
• * 1.320

  5.
• † 1.321

  Apud Pal∣lav. l. 20. c. 5. n. 5.—l. 21. c. 6. n. 1, 2, 6, 7.— l. 22. c. 1. n. 5, 12, 13.
• * 1.322

  §. 207. &c.
• * 1.323

  6.
• * 1.324

  To 1.
• † 1.325

  Soave, p. 138.
• † 1.326

  Sess. 17. De∣cret. de Cele∣brand. Conc.
• † 1.327

  p. 781.
• † 1.328

  See Soave, p. 760, 766, 769.
• † 1.329

  Soave, p. 513, 652.
• † 1.330

  Soave, p. 751, 759.
• † 1.331

  Seep. 481▪ 507.
• † 1.332

  p. 497.
• † 1.333

  Sav. p. 518. and, 496
• † 1.334

  p 657. & 723.
• * 1.335

  2.
• † 1.336

  p. 723.
• † 1.337

  p. 684.
• † 1.338

  l. 20. c. 8. n. 9.
• † 1.339

  p. 503.
• † 1.340

  Pallav. l. 2. c. 8. n. 4.
• * 1.341

  To 3.
• ‖ 1.342

  See Soare, p. 694.
• ‖ 1.343

  See p. 559.
• † 1.344

  See Soave, p. 231.468. 496, 551, 559. 609, 711.
• † 1.345

  254, 144, 145.
• † 1.346

  p. 559, 567.
• † 1.347

  p. 699, 769.
• ‖ 1.348

  p. 551.
• † 1.349

  p. 504.
• † 1.350

  Soave, p. 766.
• † 1.351

  p. 504.
• ‖ 1.352

  A.D. 1415. n. 14 & 16.
• ‖ 1.353

  A. D. 1431. 11.
• * 1.354

  To 4.
• * 1.355

  To 5.
• † 1.356

  A. D. 1546. n. 3.
• † 1.357

  §. 167.
• † 1.358

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 4. de Deform. —Sesss. 14. c. 2
• * 1.359

  To 6.
• † 1.360

  See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8.—l. 21. c. 1. n. 3.
• * 1.361

  1.
• * 1.362

  1 Tim. 2.17.
• * 1.363

  Mat. 18, 17.
• † 1.364

  Considera∣tions on the Church of Engl. Pre∣face.
• † 1.365

  Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27.
• † 1.366

  De Concil. l. 2. c. 10.
• * 1.367

  2.
• * 1.368

  3.
• † 1.369

  Conc. E∣phes. c. 7.
• * 1.370

  § 179. n. 2. R. To α.
• * 1.371

  R. To α.
• † 1.372

  See Conc. Florent. 7. Sess.
• † 1.373

  See below §, 183. n. 1.
• * 1.374

  To ••
• † 1.375

  See Conc. Florent. Sess. 1.
• * 1.376

  To γ.
• * 1.377

  To δ.
• * 1.378

  §. 183. n. 1.
• † 1.379

  Allocut. ad Marcianum
• §, 1.380

  183. n. 2.
• † 1.381

  Sess. 5.
• † 1.382

  Sess. 5.
• ‖ 1.383

  Austin de Hares.
• * 1.384

  4.
• ‖ 1.385

  l. 12. c. 1. n. 4.
• † 1.386

  p. 822.
• † 1.387

  See Sess. 4. & Sess. 5. c. 1.
• † 1.388

  Com. leci. l. 5. c. 5.
• † 1.389

  De Concil. l. 2. c. 12.
• † 1.390

  See Pal∣lav. l. 12. c 2. n. 7. n. 12.
• † 1.391

  Com. loc. l. 5. c. 5.
• † 1.392

  See Soave, p. 155.—& Bishop Co∣sin. Hist. of Canon, c. 18. §. 192.
• † 1.393

  c. 7. §. 81.
• † 1.394

  Conc. Car∣thag. 3. c. 47.
• † 1.395

  Ibid. §. 77.
• † 1.396

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. De∣cret. de ca••e•• script.
• † 1.397

  See in him, §. 194.
• * 1.398

  See Chemnie, Exam. conc. Trid. 4. Sess.
• ‖ 1.399

  De viris il∣lustribus in Jacobo.
• ‖ 1.400

  De viris il∣lustribus in Jacobo.
• ‖ 1.401

  Apud Hie∣ron. ••om. 9.
• † 1.402

  Ibid. p. 561
• ‖ 1.403

  See p. 81. &c.
• † 1.404

  See in him, §. 198.
• † 1.405

  De Doctr. Christ. l. 1 c. 8.
• * 1.406

  7.
• † 1.407

  See Disc. 3. §. 18.
• * 1.408

  §. 195. n. 1••.
• * 1.409

  3.
• † 1.410

  §. 192.
• † 1.411

  See before
• §. 1.412

  195. n. 2
• † 1.413

  Stillingf. p. 70, 71.
• * 1.414

  4.
• † 1.415

  Rep. to Chalced. p. 322.
• † 1.416

  Epilog. Conclus. p. 410.
• ‖ 1.417

  §. 15. p. 51.
• † 1.418

  Rat. Ac∣count, p. 48.
• * 1.419

  8.
• † 1.420

  See Capi∣tulare. l. 2. c. 5.—c. 27.
• † 1.421

  Ib. l. 4. c. 16.
• ‖ 1.422

  Ib. l. 3. c. 24.
• † 1.423

  See Capi∣tulare pre∣fat. —Dr. Hamn••ond o Idol, § 57.— Thornd. Epi∣log. l. 3. p. 363.
• † 1.424

  p. 263.
• * 1.425

  9.
• † 1.426

  §. 85 n. 2.
• † 1.427

  §. 85. n. 3.
• §. 1.428

  83. n. 1.
• * 1.429

  10.
• † 1.430

  §. 200.
• † 1.431

  l. 1. p. 2.
• † 1.432

  Rat. Ac∣count, p. 480.
• * 1.433

  Introduct. c. 10.
• * 1.434

  l. 8. p. 792.
• * 1.435

  To α.
• † 1.436

  p. 792.
• † 1.437

  p. 336.
• * 1.438

  To β.
• † 1.439

  Socrat. Hist. l. 7. c. 39.40.
• * 1.440

  † See Conc. Antioch, c. 2.
• * 1.441

  To δ.
• * 1.442

  To δ.
• † 1.443

  Mentioned in Soave, p. 769.
• * 1.444

  To ε.
• * 1.445

  To ζ.
• * 1.446

  To η.
• * 1.447

  To ••
• † 1.448

  See Palla. l. 23. c. 3.—n. 30. p. 343 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• † 1.449

  p. 568.
• † 1.450

  p. 2.
• * 1.451

  To 〈☐〉〈☐〉
• † 1.452

  In 24. Sess. c. 18. fig. 33.
• † 1.453

  Pallavic. l. 22. c. 1. n. 18. quot∣ing Card. Borrom. let∣ter to the Legats.
• † 1.454

  l. 23. c. 3.12.
• * 1.455

  To λ.
• † 1.456

  23. c. 11. n. 8.
• † 1.457

  p. 792.
• † 1.458

  Conc. Car. 4. c 15. Can. Apostol, 39, 40.75.—con. Antioch c. 21—Gratian Caus. 12, 9.1, 2. De Re∣bus Ecclesus dispensandis.
• ‖ 1.459

  Canon. A∣post. 40. — Concil A∣gatheni, c. 48. & Gra∣tian. caus. 12. q. 1.
• * 1.460

  To μ.
• * 1.461

  To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.
• * 1.462

  §. 236. n. 1.
• * 1.463

  §. 236. n. 2.
• * 1.464

  To ξ
• † 1.465

  Matt. 19.11.—1. Cor. 7.78. &c,
• † 1.466

  See Soave, p. 823, 824 Pallav. l 24. c. 12. n. 9.
• † 1.467

  p. 690.
• * 1.468

  To π.
• † 1.469

  See Soave, p. 459,
• ‖ 1.470

  See Soave, p. 459.
• † 1.471

  Soave, p. 567.
• † 1.472

  Soave, p. 525.
• ‖ 1.473

  Apud Pal∣lav. l. 18, c. 7. n. 13.
• † 1.474

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. fin.
• ‖ 1.475

  Soave, p. 823.
• † 1.476

  Soave, p. 293, & ••••4.
• * 1.477

  §. 243. n. 1.
• * 1.478

  To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.
• * 1.479

  To σ.
• † 1.480

  De Reform Reg. c. 10.
• * 1.481

  To τ.
• * 1.482

  §. 243. n. 3.
• ‖ 1.483

  See Soave, p. 769. Pallav. l. 23. c. 4. n. 6.
• * 1.484

  2
• * 1.485

  To α.
• † 1.486

  See 3. Disc. §. 158, &c.
• * 1.487

  β.
• * 1.488

  To γ.
• * 1.489

  To δ.
• * 1.490

  To ε.
• * 1.491

  n="†" See §. 68.82. &c. 92.
• * 1.492

  n="‖" See §. 198.
• * 1.493

  To ζ.
• * 1.494

  To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.
• * 1.495

  To θ.
• * 1.496

  To 〈☐〉〈☐〉.
• * 1.497

  To λ.
• * 1.498

  §. 254. n. 1.
• * 1.499

  §. 254. n. 2.
• † 1.500

  See Acta Synod Dor∣drecht Sess. 25.
• † 1.501

  See Sy∣nod Delf. Sess. 26.
• * 1.502

  §. 254. n. 3.
• * 1.503

  §. 254. n. 4
• † 1.504

  See Sess. 26. Syn. Delf.
• * 1.505

  §. 254. n. 5.
• ‖ 1.506

  Sess. 25. p. 82.
• † 1.507

  See Synod. Delf. Sess. 26
• * 1.508

  Conc. Delf in Acta Dor∣drecht, Sess. 6.
• * 1.509

  To μ.
• ‖ 1.510

  See §. 198.
• * 1.511

  To ν.
• † 1.512

  §. 68, 90.
• * 1.513

  To ε.
• * 1.514

  To π.
• † 1.515

  See before §. 115. n. 2. §. 118. &c.
• * 1.516

  To ς.
• * 1.517

  To σ. 1
• * 1.518

  To. σ. 2
• * 1.519

  To τ.
• * 1.520

  To ν.
• * 1.521

  To Φ
• † 1.522

  See Sess. 4. Decret. de Canon Scrip.
• ‖ 1.523

  Salv. Con∣duct. Sess. 15.
• † 1.524

  p. 210.
• † 1.525

  Heb. 13.7, 17. — Eph. 4.11, 14.
• † 1.526

  p. 208.
• † 1.527

  Synodi Ni∣cen: decreta.
• ‖ 1.528

  Epistol. ad Epictetum.
• † 1.529

  Stillingf. pt. 1 c. 7.
• ‖ 1.530

  p. 210.
• † 1.531

  p. 73.
• † 1.532

  Sess. 4.
• * 1.533

  To Χ.
• * 1.534

  To ψ.
• * 1.535

  p. 192.
• ‖ 1.536

  p. 192.
• * 1.537

  ‖ Act 7.
• † 1.538

  Sess. 8.
• † 1.539

  Sess. 15.
• † 1.540

  p. 1, 2.
• * 1.541

  To ω,
• * 1.542

  To α α.
• † 1.543

  Sess. 25. De Reform. Gen. c. 18.
• † 1.544

  See before §. 215.
• † 1.545

  Sess. 25. c. 18.
• * 1.546

  To β. β.
• † 1.547

  Epist. 48.
• † 1.548

  De utilita∣te Credendi, c. 11.
• † 1.549

  Consid. touching Re∣formation. c. 1. n 16.
• * 1.550

  Matt 26.
• ‖ 1.551

  1 Cor. 8.1••.
• † 1.552

  Epist. 48.
• † 1.553

  Austin. Confess. l. 3. c. 11.
• ‖ 1.554

  l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.555

  2 Cor. 6.14.
• ‖ 1.556

  1. Cor. 10.16, 17.
• ‖ 1.557

  l. 6 c. 13.
• ‖ 1.558

  Hist. l. 2. c. 17.
• † 1.559

  S. August. Epist. 152
• † 1.560

  De utilita∣te Credendi c. 1.
• † 1.561

  c. 12.
• * 1.562

  §. 295. n. 1.
• §. 1.563

  295. n 2.
• * 1.564

  §. 295. n 3.
• ‖ 1.565

  p. 170.
• * 1.566

  §. 295. n. 4.
• † 1.567

  Prefat. comeut. in Galat.
• † 1.568

  Apolog. Discussio p. 255.
• † 1.569

  Apud Be∣caw. Epist. 1.
• * 1.570

  2
• † 1.571

  De verbis Dom. Serm. 6.
• † 1.572

  Schism guared, p. 2
• † 1.573

  Vindic of Church Engl. p. 12.
• † 1.574

  Knew. to Cath. Gentl. c. 8. §. 1.
• † 1.575

  p. 376.
• † 1.576

  p. 200.
• ‖ 1.577

  p. 376.
• † 1.578

  p. 376.
• † 1.579

  De verâ & fallâ Re∣ligione. p. 214.
• ‖ 1.580

  Exam. Con. Trid. 3. part. p. 197.
• † 1.581

  Thes. de In∣vocat. S.
• ‖ 1.582

  In asserti∣••••ne Articul.
• ‖ 1.583

  Apud Cas∣sand. p. 802.
• ‖ 1.584

  Class. 4 c. 4.
• † 1.585

  See Dr. Humphrey vita Juelli, p. 132.
• † 1.586

  See Beza Epist. 1.
• † 1.587

  §. 207.
• † 1.588

  §. 297.
• † 1.589

  See the conclusion of his Preface, §. 41. &c.
• † 1.590

  See his Preface, §. 43. parag. To the 10th.
• † 1.591

  Apoc. 13.6, 7.
• † 1.592

  Apocal. 13.13, 14. —2 Thess. 2.9, 10.
• † 1.593

  See Socrat. Hist. l. 7, c. 32.—Irenae∣us, l 3. c. 18.
• * 1.594

  Apoc. 13.2.
• * 1.595

  Apoc. 12.6, 14.2 Thess 2.4. Apoc. 13.3.12, 13. Apoc. 13.3, 4.
• ‖ 1.596

  Apoc. 12, 6.14.—13.5.—11.3. Dan. 7.25.—12.7.
• † 1.597

  Mede Apo∣stacy of lat∣ter times, c. 14.—Dr. More Synops Prophet, c. 7. n 7.—Apo∣leg. p. 552.
• † 1.598

  c. 14.13, 14.
• † 1.599

  c. 28.2.
• † 1.600

  c. 11.36, 37.
• ‖ 1.601

  Rom. 9.6,
• † 1.602

  See before, §. 293.
• † 1.603

  De utilira∣te Credendi.
• ‖ 1.604

  Mat. 5.14.
• † 1.605

  §. 307.
• * 1.606

  §. 321. n. 2.
• † 1.607

  3 Reg. 3.27.
• ‖ 1.608

  Eng. Tran∣slat. p. 80.
• ‖ 1.609

  p. 94.
• §. 1.610

  321. n. 3.
• ‖ 1.611

  l. 2. c. 1.
• ‖ 1.612

  l. 5. c. 1.
• ‖ 1.613

  l. 2. c. 2. &c.
• §. 1.614

  321. n. 4.
• §. 1.615

  321. n. 5.
• * 1.616

  p. 336.
• * 1.617

  p. 337.
• † 1.618

  Epist. P. Me∣lancthoni.
• ‖ 1.619

  l. 3. c. 13. p. 315.
• † 1.620

  l. 3. c. 13 p. 326. — & l. 4 c. 9. p. 488.
• * 1.621

  n. 6.
• * 1.622

  l. 3. c. 1. p. 157.
• * 1.623

  §. 321. n. 7.
• † 1.624

  l. 4. c. 7.
• † 1.625

  part. 3. c. 2.
• † 1.626

  l. 3. c. 10. p. 263.
• † 1.627

  l. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.628

  2 Resp. p. 514.
• * 1.629

  n. 8.
• † 1.630

  l. 4. c 7.
• † 1.631

  l. 6. c. 10.
• † 1.632

  Comment.
• m 1.633

  Matt. c. 64
• † 1.634

  See Psalm 103.15.
• * 1.635

  n 9.
• † 1.636

  l 4 c. 3.
• † 1.637

  His last An∣swer, l. 5. c. 5.606. & 608.
• † 1.638

  l. 5. c. 6. p. 604.
• † 1.639

  l. 5. c. 6.
• † 1.640

  l. 4 c. 4.
• † 1.641

  p. 361.
• † 1.642

  l. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.643

  n. 10.
• † 1.644

  l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.645

  §. 321. n. 11.
• * 1.646

  See p. 338.
• † 1.647

  l. 3. c. 13. p. 315.
• * 1.648

  § 321. n. 12.
• * 1.649

  § 321. n. 13.
• * 1.650

  See M. Claud 2 Answ part. 2. c. 2 p. 249
• † 1.651

  l. 6. c. 10. p. 867.
• * 1.652

  §. 321. n. 14
• † 1.653

  l. 4. c. 7. p. 448.
• † 1.654

  l. 2. c. 9. p. 186.
• † 1.655

  l. 3. c. 13.
• † 1.656

  2 Resp. part. 2. c. 2.
• † 1.657

  §. 321. n. 8.
• † 1.658

  See Psal. 103.15.
• † 1.659

  l. 6 c. 10. p. 862.
• † 1.660

  p. 869.
• * 1.661

  §. 321. n. 15.
• † 1.662

  c. 4.
• ‖ 1.663

  De Fid. Or∣thod. l. 4. c. 14
• * 1.664

  §. 321. n. 16.
• † 1.665

  p. 867.
• † 1.666

  Matt. 26.28 Luke 22.19
• * 1.667

  Liturg expos. c. 30.
• §. 1.668

  321. n. 17.2.
• † 1.669

  In Matt. 26
• ‖ 1.670

  Dialog. cum Saraceno.
• ‖ 1.671

  Liturg. Ex∣positio. c. 32.
• ‖ 1.672

  Missa Chry∣sostom.
• * 1.673

  §. 321. n. 20.
• * 1.674

  §. 321. n. 21
• * 1.675

  p. 375.
• * 1.676

  §. 321. n 22.
• ‖ 1.677

  2 Resp part. 2. c. 8 p 416.
• ‖ 1.678

  Sess. 13. c. 6.
• † 1.679

  De Euchar. l. 4. c. 29.
• † 1.680

  c. 39.
• † 1.681

  l. 3. c. 7 p. 222.
• * 1.682

  §. 321. n 23.
• † 1.683

  l. 3. c. 7. p. 216.
• † 1.684

  c 24.
• * 1.685

  § 321 n. 24.
• † 1.686

  See before
• * 1.687

  §. 321. n. 14.
• † 1.688

  See the guide in Con∣troversy. Disc. 1. §. 57, 58.
• † 1.689

  §. 321. n. 16 &c.
• * 1.690

  §. 321. n. 29
• † 1.691

  §. 321. n. 10
• * 1.692

  §. 321. n. 26.
• † 1.693

  See Guide in Controver. Disc. 1. §. 57 58.
• † 1.694

  l. 3. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 337.
• * 1.695

  1 Cor. 14.33 Eph. 4.11, 14 1 Cor. 12.28.
• † 1.696

  c. 1.
• * 1.697

  § 321. n 27.
• † 1.698

  §. 291. &c.
• † 1.699

  Forbea. and Penal∣ties, c. 8.
• * 1.700

  §. 322. n. 1.
• † 1.701

  2 King. 6.8, 9, 12, 31.32.
• † 1.702

  King. 5 25.—Act. 5.3.—Col. 2.5.
• * 1.703

  §. 322. n. 2.
• † 1.704

  Job 42.8.
• † 1.705

  Gen. 20.7.
• ‖ 1.706

  Exod 32.9
• † 1.707

  Jer. 7.16.
• * 1.708

  §. 322. n. 3.
• † 1.709

  De Divers. Serm. 31, 32. and De Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.
• † 1.710

  Ibid.
• † 1.711

  De Cura pro mort. c. 12.
• † 1.712

  De Cura pro mort. c. 17.
• * 1.713

  §. 322. n. 4.
• * 1.714

  §. 323. n. 1.
• † 1.715

  Apud Vas∣quez in 3. Thom. Disp. 108. c 14.
• * 1.716

  §. 323. n. 2.
• * 1.717

  §. 323. n. 3.
• † 1.718

  See Con∣fess. Wirten∣berg.—Cha∣mier l. 9. c. 8. —Confess. Protest. in the Diet at Aus∣burg.
• † 1.719

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 21 cap. 3 & Can. 3.
• † 1.720

  Origin. Eccl. p. 396.
• † 1.721

  Enarrat in Psal. 8.
• † 1.722

  De utilita∣te Cred. c. 1.
• † 1.723

  Ibid c. 9.
• † 1.724

  Schism guarded, p. 2.
• † 1.725

  De vera Relig. c. 6.
• † 1.726

  See §. 295
• ‖ 1.727

  See §. 331.
• * 1.728

  •• Pet. 2.25.
• * 1.729

  Jo. 10.16. Eph. 4, ••.5.