CHAP. I.

THE most General Councils that can be procu­red joyned also with S. Peter's Chair, §. 1 being asserted in the former Discourses Of the Guide in Controver­sies. as the Su­preme, and Final, Judge, and Decider, of Ecclesiastical Controversies; And (of these Councils) That of Trent being, as the last, so, particularly applied to the Examining and De­termination of all those Points of Difference, which have late­liest afflicted these Western Churches; so that, if the Protestant Party could be induced to accept, and acquiesce in, its Judgment, all modern Controversies of moment were ended; it seems neces­sary, for perfecting the Design of the former Discourses, in the [Page 2]last place so far to vindicate the Supream, Legal, and Obliging Authority of this Council, from the many Objections, which Protestants bring against it; as that the more moderate among them may clearly see, that, if they are willing to submit either their Judgment, or their Silence, to any such Council, as the present times of the Church can afford, they have no just reason to deny it to this of Trent.

To manifest which, I will first set you down the chief Par­ticulars, that are ordinarily urged by the later Reformed Wri­ters against It: And then, shew you, what, in the same Par­ticulars, may be said for it: leaving both to your sober Arbitre­ment; as in a matter which is of no less concernment to you, than the setling of your Faith in so many weighty Points of Re­ligion, as this Learned and Wise Assembly hath determined: A­bout which Points others still remain questioning, and disputing; Divided, as from the Church, so among themselves; and unca­pable of a Remedy.

I wish you, in the Reading of this, accompanied with Soave's History, on the one hand, and that of Pallavicino, on the other; to whom, for avoiding tediousness; I shall often refer you. To the first, as an Author of much Reputation with Pro­testants; and one, who, it seems, would let no Falficy pass, prejudicial to their Interest. To the second, as One, who, though of an opposite side, yet, contrary to Soave's practice, is careful, in matters of Weight, to signifie the Writings, from which he extracts his Intelligence; Nor do I, herein, exact from a Protestant Reader more credit to him, that his Margin, or other known History secures. Yet, if that be true, that Cesar Aquilino, a Roman Catholick, and quoted for this by a late Pro­testant Writer Stillingst. Rat. Account p. 481. saith of him. — That he hath done more dis­service to the Church of Rome by his Answer, than ever Fa­ther Paul [the unmasked Pietro Soave] did with his History, I have reason from this also to hope, that what I shall have occa­sion to cite out of him, will pass with the more credit, and bet­ter acceptation to a Protestant Reader, since both the first, and second, of these Histories are still pretended to advance their Cause. And, yet further, since the things, wherein Aquilino saith Aquilino, p. 95. this disservice consists, are these — ‘ Quod in illâ Historiâ offendatur Romanorum Pontificum fama: — Haereticorum dictae enu­merantur, & amplificantur: — Rixae, Contentiones & Scandala inter Catholicos, quae in Concilio acciderunt, sigillatìm referuntur [Page 3][out of the Vatican Archives he perused] — Quae bona & recta [he means, advantageous to the Catholick Cause] à Petro Soave enarrata, vel minuuntur, vol praetermittuntur, vel in con­tradictionem vocantur;’ in all which Pallavicino seems only cen­sured, for not writing more cautiously, and partially, on the Ro­man side; 2 and for not drawing the Council, and the Actions of it much fairer, and smoother, than the Truth, in those secret Pa­pers, and Records he consulted, did discover them; 3 lastly, for imprudently publishing, what the greatest Patrons of this Coun­cill are said Soave, 7. l. Init. to have hitherto, with the greatest Art, conceal­ed, I shall, I say, the more confidently for this make use of his Te­stimony, without any further Vindication of his Veracity; de­siring Protestants to make their advantages of an Author re­ported so much assisting their Pretensions; and partaking so lit­tle of the Arts of a Politician; and, that valued more the fide­lity of an Historian, than the promoting of the Roman, or his own, Interest; which Himself also sometimes as freely profes­seth, as they say, truly; observing— That History is like a Picture, then better, and more commendable, when it represents, not what is fairest; but, what likest to the Original.

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

1 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 ex­tracts his matter; and is contradicted, in many of his Relations, by Pallavicino, referring, herein, to the Records of this Coun­cill, extant in several places, and to many other Writings suffi­ciently [Page 4]common, of such Persons, as were Members of the Coun­cil, or publickly employed in its Affairs, (the Names of which he sets down in his l. 18. c. 10. n. 14. and out of which, he saith, he compiled a good part of his own work): yet, none of which Writings, (as he collects from several passages of his History) had come to Soave's view.

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

4 ⁴ Lastly, That he was a Person, with whom the Arch-Bi­shop of Spalato had an intimate Acquaintance; and of whom also he gives this Character (in the Preface to the first Edition of this History, London, 1619. which Preface is omitted in the latter, as some think, because it too manifestly discovers the Hi­storians Dis-affection to those, whose actions he relates): ‘That he lived so in the Roman Captivity, as to guide himself by a right Conscience rather, than the common Customs: That he had a great Zeal to the purity of Religion, against such unexcusa­ble [ i. e. Roman] depravations thereof; That he abhorred those, who defended the Church of Rome's abuses, as holy In­stitutions; and professed, Truth, wherever found, was to be embraced; That this his work was only known to him, and some others, his great Confidents.’ From which, as also [Page 5]from some Extracts out of his Letters holding correspondence with some French Hugonots (mentioned in Casoni's Preface to the Second Volume of Pallavicino) may easily be gathered, that his Religion was much-what of the same temper and complexion, with that of Spalatensis: Unless perhaps we may think, that, after his writing this Book, he return'd to a better mind; and that, from this change, came that reluctance of his, Spalatensis mentions Prefat. to Soave's Hi­story., for communicating this work; Nay, (as the same Bishop relates it ‖) a Purpose, to have quite suppressed, and made it away; Destinato ad essere sommerso dal suo Genitore. Which thing as he imputes to his fear of some danger from it; so Charity will rather judge, that it proceeded from remorse of Conscience; when, in a pious reflection upon his former Con­ceptions, he discern'd, that, in stead of an History, he had brought forth a Satyre, against Gods Truth, and his Church, and the most Supreme, and Sacred of those Governors, whom our Lord himself had appointed over It, and Him. However, This his History hath not so far corrupted the truth of Affairs, as not to contain in it many Evidences, very advantageous to the Catholick Cause; and so much remains sound in it, as may serve very well to confute that which is vitiated; and in the main things, that are charged against the Pope, and Council, (espe­cially concerning the Councils Liberty), this History is found as it were, to destroy it self, by its own Contradictions. A thing, which, observed by Phil. Quorlius an Italian Doctor, pro­duced his Book entituled;, Historia Petri Soavis ex Authorismet assertionibus consutata. This account, in my entrance, I thought fit to give you of this Author, that you may see what just credit, on such a Subject he deserves, out of whose Quiver the Reform­ed have taken most of those arrows, with which they seek to wound this Council. The chief of which I shall first summarily relate to you, and so proceed to its intended Defence.

§ 3 First then, it is Objected by the Protestant Divines, That this of Trent can no way truly be called a General Council, as it is stiled by the Romanists. 1. α. α ‘Because it is necessary to the Generalness of a Council, that some be there, and those Authorized, from all particular Churches.’ [See Archbishop Lawd, § 27. n. 3. where he quotes Bellarmine De Concil. l. 1. c. 17. for it, §. 4. ut sal­tem.] ‘But none from the Eastern Churches were present in this of Trent, or so much as summoned; or, afterwards, ap­proved, or consented unto, its Acts: And [...] the number of the Bishops, β. who were present from other Churches, was [Page 6]frequently so small, that in many Sessions it had scarce 10. Arch-Bishops, or 40, or 50 Bishops, present [Bishop Lawd, §. 27. n. 2.] And, That it had not so many Biships pre­sent at the Determination of the weightiest Controversies con­cerning the Rule of Faith, as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a Months warning (B. Brambal, Vindic. c. 9. p. 247.’ And see what Soave saith to the same purpose, l. 2. p. 163.) Add to this, γ. γ. ‘That it was not lawfully called, so as General Councils ought, and used to be; namely, by the Emperor, and other Christian Princes; but only by the Pope [this was one of Henry the 8th's Pleas in his Manifesto's against it.]’ Last­ly, δ.δ. ‘That the Popes themselves, as many as lived in the time thereof, would never consent, that this Council should be affirmed to represent the Ʋniversal Church; prudently fore­seeing, that if this were granted (as in the Council of Con­stance it was) the Council, as being the whole, would put off its subjection, and depend no longer on the Pope, that was but a part of it; nor would need his confirmation to render it what it was before; viz. the Representative of the whole Church’ [thus Dr. Hammond. Her. 11. §. n 8, 9.] This against its being a General Coucil.

§ 4 2. That neither was it a plenary Patriarchal Council, 2. for the West. ε ε Because from some Churches in the West, as from the Britannick, and some other Reformed Churches, there were no Bishops present there; who also had just cause for their not coming thither (B. Lawd, ib. n. 2.): neither can it justly be plead­ed, that they were Heretical, or Schismatical Churches, being never condemned by any former Council (B. Brambal, Answer to Chalced. p. 351.) ζ. ζ. And, of other Western Churches, (save only Italy) present very few; in all the Sessions under Paul the 3d. but two Frenchmen; and sometimes, none; as, in the sixth Session under Julius the 3d. (B. Lawd, ib. n. 2. [...].) And ‘Twice so many Bishops out of Italy present, as there were out of all other Christian Nations put together, (B. Bramb. Vind. p. 247.) as appears at the end of the Coucil; where the Italians are set down 187. and all the rest make but 83. (B. Lawd, §. 29. n. 2.) [...]. [...] Neither was this Council, after its rising, fully acknowledged, or received, by the Western Churches; nor, by the Britannick, and other Reformed Chur­ches; Nor, by the Gallican Church of the Roman Communi­on: And, Let no man say (saith B. Bramb. Vind. p. 248.) [Page 7]that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline, not of Doctrine; for the same Canonical Obedi­ence is equally due to an acknowledged General, [I add, or o­ther Superior] Council in point of Discipline, as in point of Doctrine.’

§. 5 3. 'That it was not a Free, and Lawful Council. 3.

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

2. ν. ‘Where was no security in the place of Meeting, ν. 2. for the Reformed party to come thither; nor where no form of Safe-conduct could be trusted, since the cruel Decrees, and behaviour of the Council of Constance towards John Huss, though armed with a safe Conduct. ξ. Whither also, ξ. notwith­standing this, some of the Protestant party being come, yet they were not suffered to propose, and dispute their cause: And again, π. Where, after dispute, π. (had it been granted them) yet they, if no Bishops, could not have been permitted to have had any decisive vote with the rest; but must, after the Disputation, have been judged, and censured by their Adversa­ries. 3. ς. Where all the Members of the Council, ς. 3. that had a vote, had takan an Oath of Fidelity to the Papacy; and none had suffrage, but such as were sworn to the Church of Rome, and were professed enemies to all that called for Refor­mation, or a free Council; (B. Lawd, §. 27. n. 1.) 4. σ. σ. ¹ 4. * Where nothing might be voted or debated in Council, but only what the Popes Legates proposed; the Popes Commission running, Proponentibus Legatis; & σ 2 * where nothing was determined, σ ² till the Popes judgment thereof was brought from Rome, (him­self not vouchsafing to be present therein); and therefore, it was commonly said, that this Council was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male. 5. τ. τ. 5. Where many Bishops had Pensions from the Pope; and many Bishops were introduced, who were only titular; and B. Bramb. Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 248. divers new Bishop­ricks also erected by the Pope, during the Council; all this to enable therein the Papalines to over-vote the Tramontanes: and hence, such an unproportionable number, there, of Italian Bishops.’

§. 6 4. v. Suppose the Council, in all these Objections, cleared; v. 4. suppose it never so Oecumenical, and Legal; yet have the Reformed this Reserve, after all, wherefore they cannot justly entertain it; * ‘Because some of the Decrees, and Defini­tions, are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures; or, at least, not warranted by them, φ φ This Council not regulating its proceedings wholly by the Scriptures, as the Nicene, and o­ther primitive Councils did; but holding Tradition extra Scripturam a sufficient Ground of making Definitions in mat­ter of Faith.’ [Concerning which, thus Arch-Bishop Lawd, §. 28. — The Scripture must not be departed from in Letter, or in necessary sense, or the Council is not Lawful. For the con­sent and confirmation of Scripture is of far greater authority, to make the Council Authentical, and the Decisions of it, de fide, than any confirmation of the Pope can be. —Now the Council of Trent, we are able to prove, had not the first, [but have departed from the Letter, and sense of Scripture] and so we have no reason to respect the second. See likewise, §. 27. n. 1.] Where he asks— How that Council is Le­gal, which maintains it lawful to conclude a Controversie, and make it to be de fide, though it hath not the written word of God for warrant, either in express Letter, or necessary sence, and deduction; but is quite extra, without, the Scripture? —See also Mr Stillingfl. p. 477, & 478.] — χ, χ. Or * Because some of its Decrees are repugnant to, or at least not warranted by, Primitive and Apostolical Tradition Soave, p. 228.. [...] And, in the last place, [...] Dr. Ham­mond of Her. §. 11. n. 3, 7. ‘Because this Council hath imposed Anathema's, in these, and in many other slight matters (if truths,) upon all those, who shall dissent from, or at least, who shall contradict, their Judgment in them; (this one Council having made near hand as many Canons, as all the preceding Councils of the Church put together:) Soave, p. 228. and among these hath added 12 new Articles to the former Creeds; * drawn up bp Pius the 4th. ac­cording to the order of the Council Sess. 24. c. 12. de Refor. and * imposed to be believed by all, who would enter into the communion of the Church; contrary to the 7th. Can. of the Third General Coun­cil at Ephesus. All these Articles Imposed too, as Fundamen­tal; and to be assented to, as absolutely, and explicitly, for at­taining salvation, as the Articles of the Creed; and so, that, in disbelieving any of them, it profits nothing to have held all the rest of the Catholick Faith entire; which Articles are concluded, there, as the Athanasian Creed, with an — Haec [Page 9]vera Catholica Fides, extra quam nemo Salvus See Archbi­shop 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 touch­ing Reformation, p. 45. — Stillingfl. Rat. Accc [...]nt, p. 48, &c.’ So that (saith Mr. Thorndyke Fpilog. Con­clusion, p. 413.) it was the Acts of this Council, that fra­med the Schisme; because when as the Reformation might have been provisional, till a better understanding between the Parties might have produced a tolerable agreement, this proceeding of Trent cut off all hopes of Peace, but by yielding to all their De­crees.

5. This for the Articles touching Doctrine. And next, §. 6. n. 2. For those of Reformation, which also are very numerous; and, 5 one would think, the more, the better: yet, these also are not free from their complaints. ω. ω. ‘That these Decrees are meer Illusions; many of them of small weight; taking Motes out of the eye, and leaving Beams. That the Council, in fra­ming them, imitated the Physitian, who, in an Hectical Body, laboured to kill the Itch: That the Diseases in the Church are still preserved, and some Symptomes only, cured. That; in some of more consequence, the Exceptions are larger, than the Rule: And αα. αα. That the Popes Dispensative power may null and qualifie them, as he pleaseth.’ (Thus Soave fre­quently.) ‘That nothing of Reformation followed up­on them, and the most important things to that end could ne­ver pass the Council; and, it ended, ββ. ββ. great rejoycing in Rome, that they had cheated the world so, that that, which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome, had confirm­ed and advanced the Interest of it Stillingfl. Rat. Acc. p. 480, 482.’

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 [Page 10]first sitting; interrupted by sickness; interrupted by wars; ma­naged under several Popes of several inclinations; and under of­ten-changed interests of most warlike, and rival Princes, accord­ing 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 al­ways retain the same face, security, frequency, splendor, and re­putation, 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 engage­ment of the common people, as well as of Princes) separation and division, that ever was in the Christian Church, which de­parted also, from the former unity, in so many points of Do­ctrine 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 over­sights. 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 pro­ceeding in them, I shall reduce to these Heads 1. Con­cerning the Generality, 1. Liberty, and just Authority, of this Coun­cil, or of the persons constituting it, to oblige the Churches Subjects; 2. 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; demand­ed;, and, as should be limited with all the conditions they pro­posed. 3. Concerning the Legal Proceedings of this Council of Trent, 3. especially as to those matters, which re­spect the Protestants. 4. 4. The many Definitions and Ana­thema's of this Council, and its pretended-new Articles of Faith. 5. 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 disor­ders, observed in the Churches Government, or Discipline.

CHAP. II.

§. 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); [Page 12]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 Coun­cil, for governing the Church, was Episcopal, or Diocesan. (ta­king 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 Metropoli­tan.

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 Pri­mates, or primae Sedis Episcopi, of whom the Chief was the Bi­shop of Carthage.

The next, a Council Patriarchal; consisting of the Metro­politans, &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 Ge­neral; 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 acknow­ledged by Learned Protestants, I will first give you some fur­ther Account of this; that, so, you may make a better Judg­ment 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 [Page 13]Difficulty, Charge, and many other Inconveniences, of so uni­versal 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, with­out theirs, i. e. of the major part of them: For example; The Presbyters nothing, without their Bishop; nor the Bishops, with­out 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; ve­lut 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 conscienti­am, 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 [...], praeter sententiam illus qui primus est, must be un­derstood, (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 See Dr. Field, of the Church, p. 511. 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 ( [...]) 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 [ [...]] 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 ur­ged — '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; when­as perhaps some, propter suum contentionis studium, may contra­dict; and not; That such major part may pass such Acts without, or against, the Metropolitan: The consent of which Metropo­litan, for the Ordination, or Confirmation of such a B [...]shop, is expresly required by the 4th. and 6th. Canon of the first Gene­ral 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 Ordain­ed, or exercise any Jurisdiction belonging to such place, with­out 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 Provin­cial 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 preeminen­cies of the Chief Patriarches, as well as those of inferior Pri­mates, 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 Metropoli­tanorum, 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, & corri­gendum, 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 Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them, either by Imposition of Hands, or giving the Pall. [Page 15]—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 o­ver the Bishops of his own Province; the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces, within his own Pa­triarchate. And afterward— Wherein, then, consisted Patri­archal Authority? In Ordaining their Metropolitans, or Confirm­ing 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 Infe­rior, be denied to, or a discession made from, any Superior, up­on 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 con­sequence 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, con­vened), 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; §. 13. n. 1. in the Provinces sub­ject [Page 16]to this Patriarch: where we meet with the appeal of Basili­des, and Martialis, two Spanish Bishops, desiring by him to be restored to their Bishopricks, of which they pretended they were unjustly deprived Cyprian, Ep 38.; (in which matter S. Cyprian Ep. 68. indeed blames the Pope, for receiving them rashly into his Communi­on, 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 Ep. 67., made to the Pope for his Let­ter to the Bishops of France, to depose Marcianus a French Bi­shop, 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 ju­stified 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 Athanas. de Sententia Dionys. Alex­andrin. 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 Chryso­stom Ep. ad In­nocent., Theodoret Ep. ad Leo­nem., Flavianus, and other Eastern Bishops.

As for the famous Contest, that was had about these Appeals, §. 13. n. 2. 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 ano­ther at Carthage, as some think, it much matters not), prohi­bits such Appeals beyond Sea only to the inferior Clergy, in these words Conc. Me­levit. c. 22. — Placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis, quas habuerint, &c. non provocent, nifi ad Affri­cana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum. But it en­joyns nothing concerning Bishops 2ly. In their dispute with Boniface, they handled the matter so gently, that, as Baro­nius observes A. D. 412. they seem'd to debate rather de modo, than de Re; bespeaking him on this manner Ep. ad Bo­n [...]ifac, — Impendio deprecamur, ut ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis. — [Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus l. 4. c. 8. n. 32. — Rogant ut Episcopi non tam facilè audiantur [i. e. à Rom. Pontifice], nisi viz. noto­ria, & manisesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omni­bus, [Page 17]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 se­des Apostolicas, recurrere; and quotes, for it, S. Austin, Ep. 162. in Cacilian's case.] And — Concilium Nicenum voluit obser­vari, ne in suâ Provinciâ Communione suspensi, à suâ sanctitate, vel festinatò, vel praeproperè, vel indebitè videantur communioni resti­tui. 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 Communi­on any such Bishop, as was excommunicated by his Province, if the Roman Bishop found him wrongfully suspended. And there­fore '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 dissensi­onis, 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 Episco­pos, qui cum eo sederent, & de tot â ill â causâ, quid justum videre­tur, 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, obse­cro— & Jube, tibi, quae directa sunt, omnia recitari— Existat exem­plo, ipsâ Apostolica sede judicante, vel aliorum judicia firmante, quosdam, &c. And the same Father relating to the forecited Af­frican Canon Conc. Me­levit. c. 22. argues thus, against the Donatists, the lawfulness of Cecilian's Transmarine Appeal Ep. 162. — Ne (que) enim (saith he) de Presbyteris, aut Diaconis, aut inferioris Ordinis clericis, sed de col­legis [Episcopis] agebatur; Qui possunt aliorum Collegarum, & praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, judicio causam suam inte­gram [Page 18]reservare. Upon which passage, joined with some other Reasons, some See Ant. Ca­pellus de Appel lationibus, c. 4. 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. Epist. Celest.— Etsi (say they) de in­ferioribus Clericis, vel Laicis videtur ibi, [in the Nicene Canon], praecaveri, quantò magis de Episcopis voluit observari? &c. And Dr. Field, touching this matter, hath these words Of the Church, p. 563. — The Af­fricans, though within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the Ap­peal of their Bishops to Rome, because they might have right a­gainst their Metropolitans in a General Synod of Affrick, wherein the Primate sate, as President. For, otherwise, Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans, might, by the Canons, appeal to their own Patriarch. Thus he. For otherwise, here meaneth he not; when such Councils do not sit? (For, surely he would not have a Provincial Council purposely new called upon every personal contention): But this overthrows the arguments of the Affrican Bishops; who also are said to have denied such Ap­peals, not when Affrican Councils sit only, but altogether. A­gain, S. Austin clearly justifies Appeals from Affrican Councils al­so. This of the Affrican Controversie about Appeals, of as little advantage to non-Appealants, as it is of great noise, if the matter be, on both sides, equally weighed.

Again, §. 13. n. 3. Touching another ancient Contest, that happened, (and is also urged by Protestants) between the Cyprian Bishops, and the Patriarch of Antioch, decided in the 3d. General Coun­cil. Can. 8. you may observe: That, whatever priviledge, or exemption, any Church, or Province may have had, from any Patriarch or his Council, as to Elections, or Ordinations; yet no Church, or Person, hath been freed from a submittance thereto, in point of Appeals; or of Decision of Controverfies in matter of Faith. Neither here can the Cyprian Bishops by vertue of any such Canon of Ephesus plead their particular exemption from the 7th. Canon of Sardica, or 9th. of Chalcedon, (which Canon is also seconded by the Imperial Law, in Cod. Tit. 4. c. 29.) or from the 17th. or 26th. Canon of the 8th. General Council; which Canons command such submittance, and allow such Appeals; in which Appeals also the Inferior Pa­triarchs were subject to the Superior (See before §. 12, 13, and below, the Concession of Dr. Field, §. 16 n, 5); And of the Jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarch over Cypras, as to [Page 19]these matters still remaining after the Canon of Ephesus, see S. Je­rom Epist. ad Pamachium, in his controversie with John, Bishop of Jerusalem— Ni fal­lor, hoc ibi [i. e. in Concilio Niceno], ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit; & totius Orientis, Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesa­riensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras, cui, spretâ communione tuâ, communicare nos noveras; aut, si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potiùs literae dirigendae. [ Totius Orientis; and so, Cy­pri.]

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

1st. Care was taken; That Co-ordinate Churches, 1. or Pro­vinces, or their Synods, ( i. e. such, whereof the one could claim no Jurisdiction over the other, neither by ancient Custom, nor Conciliar Constitution), should usurp no authority over one ano­ther: For which, see Can Apostol. 36.— Conc Nicen. c. 6.— Conc. Ephes. c. 8.— Conc. Constantinop. c. 2, 3, 5. Compared with Conc. Chalced. Act 16. Which Canons, and particularly the second and third of the Second General Council at Constantinop. (do not prove, what some would infer; That all Provinces are, for all power, absolute, supreme, and independent, from whom might be no further appeal; nor any other Person or Council, as Superior, take account of their Acts; for the contrary known practice in antiquity shews this to be otherwise See §. 12, 13.: and thus, Provincial Coun­cils would have no subjection to General; but) only signifie these two things; 1st. That neither Patriarch, nor Primate, 1 or Metropolitan, should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriar­chy, or Province, co-ordinate, and over which he had no Juris­diction in such affairs: (i.e.) over which, neither by ancient custom, nor constitutions of Councils, he could claim any such superiori­ty. (See the limitation, Conc. Ephes. c. 8.— Quae non priùs, 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 — Soli­us Aegypti curam gerant, servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae. Ser­vatis, i. e. without encroaching upon them; Nor the Patriarch of Alexandria, or Antioch, to meddle with the Ordination of the Bishops in the several Provinces subjected to them: Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace; to whom Thrace owed no subjection. 2 ^ly. That, in every Province, the Provincial Synod be the Supreme, and last, Court, 2 above any other authority in that Pro­vince; and exclusively to the judgment of the Bishops of any neigh­bouring [Page 20]Provinces, which are only co-ordinate with it. (See them below §. 28. called by Gregory, Episcopi alieni Concilii). For observe, that some of those Diocesses that are urged, in the former Canon Conc. Ephes. c. 8. to be independent, viz. the Diocess of Thrace, Pontus, and Asia, are, in the 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 confirma­tion of their Metropolitans, and as to Appeals, see Conc. Chalced. Can. 9. & 16. Though still their priviledge stood firm— Ʋt Epis­copi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae; namely, unusquis (que) Metropo­lita praefatarum Diocesium ordinet sua Regionis Episcopos, sicut Divinia Canonibus [ (i. e.) the Canons of Nice, and these of Constantino­ple] est praeceptum. And, as these Diocesses were subject to the Pa­triarch of Constantinople; so were others to those of Alexandria, and Antioch.

The second necessary provision made by the Church, §. 15. n. 1. was, That in the Intervals of Synods, the respective Presidents thereof should be authorized, 2. as standing Church-Officers, always extant, and accessible, to end controversies, interpret, and execute their Canons; since these greater Bodies could not be, so frequently as occasions might require, without much trouble, assembled See, below, §. 16. n. 6, & 8..

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

This in the third place (from §. 12.) of the Churches sub­jecting both Ecclesiastical Persons, and Councils, One to Ano­ther, the less to the greater, in point of Judicature and Authori­ty, for preventing of Schismes.

IV 4 ^ly. When the two Ecclesiastical Courts, or Officers, that are subordinate, §. 15. n. 2. do dissent, the obedience of the Subjects of both, in such case being once apparent, was to be rendred to the Supe­rior. So, if a Diocesan, or Provincial, Council ought to yield [Page 21]to a National, the Subjects of such Province, or Diocess, when these two Councils clash, ought to conform, in their Obedience, to the National, not to a Diocesan, or Provincial, Council, a­gainst it.

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

Of this matter, then, thus Dr. Ferne. in the Case be­tween the Church of England, and Rome, p. 48.— The Church of Christ is a society, or company, under a Regiment, Discipline, Go­vernment; and the Members, constituting that Society, are either Persons taught, guided, governed, or Persons teaching, guiding, go­verning; and this, in order to preserve all in unity, and to advance every Member of this visible Society, to an effectual, and real parti­cipation of Grace, and 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 p. 46.— They have incurred (saith he) by leaving us (and I wish they would sadly consider it) no less, than the guilt of Schisme; which lies heavily on as many, as have (of what perswasi­on, or Sect, soever) wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England; whether they do this by a bare separati­on; or by adding violence, and Sacriledge unto it.

And thus Dr. Hammond, §. 16. n. 2. somewhat more distinctly in his Book of Schism, c. 8. p. 157. — The way (saith he) provided by Christ, and his Apostles, for preserving the Ʋnity of the Faith, &c. in the Church, is fully acknowledged by us— made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence; 1st. Their re­solving, &c. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior Officers of the Church to the Bishops in every City; of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitans; of the Metropolitans in every Region or [...], to Patriarchs, or Pri­mates; [Page 22]allowing also, among these, such a primacy of Order, or Dignity, as might be proportionable to the [...] in Scrip­ture and greeable to what is, by the ancient Canons, allowed to the Bishop of Rome, and this standing subordination sufficient for all ordi­nary uses. And when there should be need of extraordinary reme­dies, there was, then, a supply to be had by congregating Councils Provincial, Patriarchal, General. Again, Ib. c. 3. he declares Schism in withdrawing obedience from any of these; beginning at the lowest, and so ascending to the highest— Those Brethren, or People (saith he 7.) which reject the Ministry of the Deacons, or Presbyters, in any thing wherein they are ordained, or appointed by the Bishop, (and as long as they continue in obedience to him); and of their own accord break off, and separate from them, refuse to live regularly under them, they are, by the ancient Church of Christ, ad­judged, and looked on as Schismaticks— 8. In like manner; if we as­cend to the next higher Link; that of the Bishop, to whom both Pres­byters, and Deacons, as well as the Brethren, or People, are obli­ged to live in obedience, the withdrawing, or denying this obedience, in any of these, will certainly fall under this guilt.

Next, For the higher Ranks of Church-Prelates, 16. n. 3. §. 20. he goes on thus. It is manifest, That as the several Bishops had pre­fecture over their several Churches, and over the Presbyters, Deacons, and People, under them, such as could not be cast off by any, without the guilt, and brand of Schisme; so the Bishops themselves of the ordi­nary inferior Cities (for the preserving of unity, and many other good uses), were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropoli­tans [he having shewed, in §. 11.12, the first Institution thereof Apostolical, in Titus, and Timothy] nay, we must yet ascend (saith he) one degree higher: from this of Archbishops, or Metropoli­tans, to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs, [Concerning whose authority, having produced several Canons of Councils, §. 25. he concludes thus] — All these Canons, or Councils, deduce this power of Primates over their own Bishops, from the Apostles, and first Planters of the Churches; wherein that which is pertinent to this place is only this; that there may be a disobedience, and irregularity, and so, a Schism, even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans, and of the authority, which these have by Canon, and Primitive Cu­stom, over them. And the obedience due to these several ranks of Ecclesiastical Superiors, he affirms also due, on the same ac­count, to their several Synods Answ. to Ca­tholick Gent. c. 3. p. 29. — It is evident (saith he), That the power, which severally belongs to the Bishops is united in that of a Council, where these Bishops are assembled; and the despising of that [Page 23][Council] is an offence under the first sort of Schism— and a despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors, whereof it is compound­ed. Thus Dr. Hammond: ascending in these subordinations as high, as Primates.

But Dr. Field, Bishop Bramhal, and others, §. 16. n. 4. rise one step higher, to the Proto-primates, or Patriarchs, [...] so called, and their Councils. And strange it is (if it were not from an engagement to the present English Interest) that Dr. Hammond could pass by these, in his speaking of the remedies of Schism, with so much silence, (not mentioning Pa­triarchs, but only as taken for Primates; or their Councils. See * Answ. to Cathol. Gent. c. 3. n. 9, 10, 11. Where he speaks of the authority of Provincial, National, Oecumenical, Councils, but passeth by Patriarchal; and, * Schism; p. 158, where he names Provincial, Patriarchal, General, but useth Patriarchal there for National, or the Council presided-in by the Primate, to which Primate sometimes was applied the name of Patriarch) Strange, I say, considering not only the clear evi­dence of ancient Constitutions, and 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 ma­ny Kingdoms; by reason of which secular contrary Interests, the several parts, and members of the Catholick Church, dispersed a­mongst them, are more subject to be disjointed, and separated, from one another. Which unity and peace, (if we reflect on * the great rarity of General Councils (not above 5, or 6, in the Protestant account, in 1600. years) and * the multiplicity of Primates that are in Christendom, all left by Dr. Hammond Su­preme, and independent, of one another; or of any other per­son, or Council, when a General one not in being; and * the experience of their frequent Lapses into gross Errors: (For al­most what great Heresie, or Schism, hath there been in the Church, whereof some Primate was not a chief Abettor); and * The Rents in the Church, made by these, apt to be much great­er, as the person is higher, and more powerful), is not sufficiently provided for, though much pretended, in Dr. Hammonds Scheme.

Come we then to Dr. Fields Model yet more enlarged — The actions (saith he Of the Chur. p. 513.) of the Bishop of each particular Church of a City, §. 16. n. 5. and places adjoining, were subject to the censure, and judgment of the [Page 24]rest of the Bishops of the same Province; amongst whom, for order sake, there was one Chief; to whom it pertained to call them together; to sit as Moderator in the midst of them, being assembled; and to ex­ecute what by joint consent they resolved on. The actions of the Bishops of a Province, and of a Provincial Synod consising of those Bishops, were subject to a Synod consisting of the Metropolitans, and other Bishops of divers Provinces. This Synod was of two sorts. For either it consist­ed of the Metropolitans, and Bishops of one Kingdom, and Nation on­ly, as did the Councils of Affrica; or of the Metropolitans, and Bi­shops of many Kingdoms. If of the Metropolitans, and Bishops of one Kingdom, and State only, the chief Primate was Moderator: If of many, one of the Patriarchs, and chief Bishop of the whole world [was Moderator]: every Church being subordinate to some one of of the Patriarchal Churches, and incorporate into the 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, Provin­cial, National and Patriarchal Synods; [Synods Patriarchal an­swering to Patriarchs: National to Primates] and that neither so depending of, nor subject to, the power of Princes; but that, when they are enemies to the Faith, they may exercise the same without their consent, and privity, and subject them, that refuse to obey their Summons, to such punishments, as the Canons of the Church do pre­scribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence.—And, Ib. p. 557.— That the Decrees of Popes, made with the consent, and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops, did bind the Western Provinces, that were subject to him, as Patriarch of the West. Bind them so, as that these had no liberty to contradict the judgment of the Patriarch, and this Council: for which see Ib. c. 39. p. 563. where he quotes the Emperors Law, ( Novel. 123. c. 22. — Patriarcha Dioceseos illius huic causae praebeat finem, nullâ parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente), confirming the 9th. Canon of Conc. Chalced. Again, p. 567. 568. he saith— That it is a Rule in Church-government; that the lesser, and inferior, may not judge the greater, and superior.— That, if any Bishop have ought against his Me­tropolitan, he must go (as I shewed before) to the Patriarch, and his Synod, to complain; as to fit, and competent Judges.— That the great Patriarchs of the Christian Church are to be judged by some o­ther of their own rank in order before them, assisted by inferior Bi­shops; that the Bishop of Rome, as first in order among the Patri­archs, assisted with his own Bishops, and the Bishops of him, that is thought faulty, [though these later are not found always necessary, or present at such judgments; nor, more of his own Bishops, [Page 25]than those whom he can at such time conveniently assemble, and consult with, as appears in the Appeals of those persons named before, §. 13. n. 1.] may judge any of the other Patriarchs; That such as have complaints against them, may fly to him, and the Synod of Bishops subject to him, and that the Patriarchs themselves, in their distresses, may fly to him, and such Synods, for relief, and help. (See the same, §. 16. n. 6. p 668) Nor doth he acknowledge such an authority of Judicature in these Church Prelates, only as joined w th their Sy­nods, but also in them single, and without them. For, since it is manifest; that the constant meeting of the Provincial Synods twice, as it was ordered at the first, or once, in the year, as after­ward, did very early cease, either by the Clergies neglect, or the great trouble, and charge of such Assemblies, and so later Councils accordingly appointed such Synods to be held in stead of twice yearly, once in 3. years (nor yet are in this well obeyed), Hence either all such Causes, and Appeals to their Superious (still multiplied, as Christianity is increased,) must be for so long a time suspended, and depending, which would be intolerable; and a quick dispatch, though less equitable, rather to be wished; or, the hearing of them must be devolved to these single standing Judges, as directed by former Church-Canons. Concerning this therefore thus the same Doctor goes on, l. 5. p. 514. quoting the Ca­nons of the 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 Can. 8. decreed it should be once in the year; and then things amiss to be redressed, which Canon was renewed by the 7 ^th. Ge­neral Council Can. 6.: But afterwards, many things falling out to hinder their happy Meetings, we shall find; that they met not so often [and very early may this be found] and therefore the Council of Basil ap­pointed Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year, and Provincial at the least once in three years: And so, in time, Causes growing ma­ny, and the difficulties intolerable, in coming together, and in staying, to hear these Causes thus multiplied, and increased, it was thought fit­ter to refer the hearing of complaints, and appeals, to Metropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited, and directed by Canons, and Imperial Laws, than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors, and Guides. Thus He. And, if this rarer meeting of Provincial Synods trans­ferred many Causes on the Metropolitans sole Judicature, much more did that rarer assembling of a Patriarchal, or General, Coun­cil, leave appeals in greater Causes to the single Arbitrement of [Page 26]the Patriarch, assisted with his ordinary Council, or Consistory.

Here, 16. n. 7. then, you see, in Dr. Field, the ground of a tho­row Union in Christs Church: whereas that of Dr. Ferne, and Dr Hamond, though it served their turn for the remedy of a Pres­byterian defection, or the extravagancies of some particular Bi­shop, yet afforded no standing cure (as it did concern them, it should not,) for those of a Primate, or for any National Division. Only one Reservation Dr. Field hath in this place, perhaps with an eye to protect the Reformation thereby, which Dr. Hamond, I conceive thought it not safe to trust to — That the Bishops of a Pro­vince, subject to a Metropolitan, or the Metropolitan, and his Bishops, subject to a Patriarch, may declare in what cases he incurreth the sen­tence of Suspension, Excommunication, Deposition, or Degradation, pronounced by the very Law, and Canon it self; and so may withdraw themselves from his Obedience. Thus he. Where, suppose this, [...]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 grant­ed, concerning such proceeding against any Subordinate Superior, (as against the Metropolitan, or Primate) whenever he freely con­fesseth that transgression of the Canons, which they charge him with; for, in such a case, their obedience is due not to him any longer, but to the Canons, and to his Superiors, that maintain them. But, most presumptuous; and unreasonable it seems, for Subjects to make any such Declaration, and withdraw Obedience, whenever such matter is in contest between them and him; and a superior person, or Court, provided to decide it; and yet more un­reasonable; if a part only of the Subjects, suppose, of a Primate, or Patriarch, should declare so, when another part withstands them, and declares the contrary. And see Can. 10. of the 8. Ge­neral Council punctual against any such Delaration, or Discession, before a Judgment— Nullus Clericus, ante Synodicam Sententiam, à communione proprti Patriarchae se separet, &c. Idem de Episcopis statuimus, erga proprios Metropolitanos; similiter & de Metropolitis, circa Patriarchum suum. This of Dr. Field. See the places quoted out of B. Bramhal to the same purpose, Disc. 2. §. 24. n. 1. — And Disc. 1. §. 27.

The like is acknowledged at large, 16. n. 8. by the Archbishop of Spalato; and amongst these Patriarchs, the supereminent Privi­ledges [Page 27]of the first, or Roman, Patriarch, (the evidences of Anti­quity producing such a consent in these Learned men) are display­ed by him, in his Repub. Eccles. l. 3, c. 2, & 10. There, c. 2, n. 1. having named the other lower subordinations of Church-Govern­ors, ad vitanda Schismata; he goes on— Ac demum & Primati­bus, & Metropolitanis, & Episcopis unus Patriarcha in totâ integrâ aliquâ Provinciâ, in certis similiter causis, praeside ret— Et quia non semper adeo facile est Episcopos comprovinciales [or compatriarchales much more] in vnum convenire, expedien, fuit, ut Metropolitant, & Primates [& Patriarchae] multa, soli, absolverent, qua Synedi ab­solvere debuissent; essent (que) quasi totius Synodi Vicarii & Commissarii Further of these Patriarchs he saith l. 3. c. 10. n. 26. — Si [...]ut Metropolitanus Episco­pus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere, & corrigere debeat; & emen dare; ita, si Metropolitanus erret, sive in moribus, sive in judiciis, & actis suis, ne etiam in hoc Synodus etiam semper, cum incommedo, con­veniat, à Patriar [...]his voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo, & lex, M [...]tropo­litanos emendari; nisi tam gravis sit causa, & publica, praesertim fi­det, ut totius regionis Synodus, sive & Oecumenica, debeat convenire: Quoting the words of the 8. General Council, Can. 17. say [...]ng the same— Senioris & novae Romae Praesules, &c. Metropolitanorum habe­ant potestatem, ad convocandum eos [not this in t mes of Heathenism, but when Christian Religion flourished under secular Princes, al­ready subjected to it], urgente necessitate, ad 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 l. 4. c. 9. n. 1. — Habebat etiam Romrnus Pontisex Patriarchalia privilegia. palliu [...], sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus, concedere, eosd [...]m à lege divina, velsacris Canonibus▪ deviantes corripere, & in officio con­tinere; controversias inter cosdem exortas componere, causas (que) eorundem interdum [ (i. e.) in causis gravioribus] audire, & decidere; toti­us Patriarchatus Concilia convocare — n. 14.— Ex lo [...]o sui primi Patri­arehatu, sSacrorum Canonum primus habebatur, & praecipuus, observa­tor, custos, ac vindex; quos si alicubi violari cognosceret, ac [...]r moni­tor insurgebat. n. 15.— Ad ipsum quicun (que) Episcopi cujuscun (que) pro­vinciae, & regionis, [not only of his Patriarchy] qui se ab Episcopis propriae provinciae gravari sentinent, & in judicits Ecclesiasticis tan­quam ad sacram anchoram, consugerent, apud ipsum innocentiam su­am probaturi — Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant, & ab objectis criminibus, tanquam si essent supremi judices, absolve­bant [and this so anciently as Cyprians time, and before the first General Council of Nice] n. 16.— Ille, propter summam ipsius existi­mationem, commune quasi vinculum, & nodus erat praecipuus Catholi­cae [Page 28]Communionis in tota Ecclesiâ— Catholicae Communionis dux, & ar­biter, ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret, vel adimeret, caeterae quae (que) Ecclesiae omnes ordinariè darent pariter, vel adimerent. So Spalatensis. 16. n. 9.

Mr. Thorndike, first in general, saith fast wa [...]gnte, p. 41. — That the Soul of the Visible Unity of the Church, consisteth in the resort of in­ferior Churches to superior [of which he discourseth more largely, in Right of the Church, c. 2] and in the correspondence of Parallel-Churches. — That the Church, so stated is a standing Synod, able, by consent of the chief Churches containing the consent of their resorts, [ i. e. of the inferior Churches resorting to them] to conclude the whole. — That Rome, Alexandria, Antiochia, were from the be­ginning of Christianity, visible Heads of these great Resorts in Church Government; which the Council of N [...]ce made subject to them, by Ca­non-Law, for the future p. 39., our British Church not excepted p. 40.. And, more particularly, in justifying the Authority of the Roman Pa­triarch, and the Canons of Sardica, concerning Appeals to him. — Shall I not ask (saith he) what pretence there could be to settle from other parts Appeals to Rome, rather than from Rome to other parts, had not a preeminence of power, and not only a precedence of Rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome? And, before, speaking of the Eastern Arrians desiring to be heard at Rome, by Julius: — Shall I believe (saith he) as some Learned men [ i. e. Pro­testant] conjecture; That Pope Julius is meerly an Arbitrator, named by one party, whom the other could not resuse; and that any Bishop, or at least any Primate, might have been named, and must have been admitted, as well as he? Truly I cannot. Thus Mr. Thorndike. I fear I have tired you with the same things so often repeated by several Authors, but this may serve the more to confirm the verity of that, wherein they agree. As for the Obedience acknowledged by them due to the Church, according to these Subordinations, I shall have occasion to give you a further account of it here­after.

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

§. 18 A thing, which the moderate spirit of Grotius well observ­ed, [Page 29]and spared not often to speak of — Quae ver [...] est causa, (saith he in his first Reply to Rivet Ad Art. 7.) cur, qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholices, maneant in eodem corpore, non ruptâ Communione; con­trà, qui inter Protestantes dissident, idem sacere nequeant, utcun (que) multa de dilectione fraternâ loquuntur? Hoc qui rectè expenderit, in­veniet, quanta sit vis Primatus. [which brings to mind that of S. Je­rom Adversus Jovin. l. 1. c. 14. concerning S. Peters Primacy— Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut, capite constitute, Schismatum tollatur occasio. Capite constituto; but Pr [...]macy of Order, without power, helps no schisms.] And again, the same Grotius in the close of the last Reply to Rivet Apol. Dis­cussio, p. 255. written not long before his death— Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idem (que) Corpus, semper optatam à Grotio, sciunt, qui eum no­runt. Existimavit autem aliquando, incipi posse à Protestantium inter se conjunctione. Postea vidit, id planà fieri nequire; quia, praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia sermè omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissi­ma, Protestantes nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine socian­tur; quae causae sunt, cur sactae partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant; immo & cur partes aliae 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 Ro­manae cohaerent; sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune Regimen: Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio, quae evenit, & causae divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secun­dum Canonas, fatente Melancthone; qui eum Primatum etiam neces­sarium putat ad retimendam unitatem. Thus Grotius. Which pas­sageis taken notice of by Dr. Hammond, in Schism, p. 158, and seemingly allowed: the 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 Aristo­cratical, or rather, so many several Monarchical, absolute, equal, independent, Covernments (in regard of any spiritual Superior) as there are Primates, ( several Monarchical Governments, I say; for the Aristocratical Government consists in one Council or Court, having its constant, and set Meetings, such as are not those Meet­ings of the Highest Ecclesiastical Synods, and therefore they can­not bear this Stile) seems most destructive of the Churches 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 hi­therto [Page 30]been; how difficult such a Council, since the Division of the Empire, to be convened; or rather, how impossible, accord­ing to the Protestants Composition of it; who, as they frequent­ly appeal to it; so load it with such conditions, as they may be sure, such Court can never meet to hear their Cause. Thus much is contributed by Learned Protestants toward the confirmation of the two last, the 3 ^d. and 4 ^th. Constitutions.

§. 20 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 Delin­quents; That no Clergy, in any ma [...]ters of meerly Spiritual Con­cernment, should decline the Authority, or Judgment, of these their Ecclesiastical Superiors, or their subjection to the Church-Canons; by repairing, or appealing, to any secular Tribunal; (from which Tribunals some in those days sought relief); either that of other inferior Lay Magistrates, or, of the Emperor him­self; Nor should seek new Ecclesiastical 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 Soveragn­ty; It is to be noted, (and therefore give me leave to spend a few lines in the hand); That the Church, from the beginning, was con­stituted by our Lord, a distinct Body from the Civil State: and is, in all such States, but one visible Society, (Credo unam Catho­licam Ecclesiam); all the parts of it having one, and the same inte­rest, through those several Dominions▪ and regulated, within these Territories, by its own Laws (without which Laws no Commu­nion can consist) independently, as to matters purely spiritual, on the State▪ and the exercise of these not lawfully to be inhibited, or altered by it; whilst all the Civil Rights of such States, mean while, doremain unviolated, by these Church-Laws; and the se­cular Sword is left, where it was before, in the hand of the Secu­lar Governors; so that, the Church, in any difference, cannot be the invading, but only the Suffering, party.

§. 22 Now, if you would know more particularly, what those [Page 32] Rights are, which the Church hath, from the begining, practised. and vindicated, as belonging to her independently, and notwith­standing any opposition, of the Secular Powers, These are some, if not the chief of them: * Namely, The entrance of these Mini­sters 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 Reli­gion; and publishing such their Determinations to all the Churches Subjects within any Princes Realms. * Making Ecclesiastical Laws for Government, and Discipline, as need requires. * Re­ceiving Accusations, examining Witnesses, correcting Offenders, a­gainst 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 Christi­ans, 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 Govern­ors, than to go to the trial of the Civil Law, and Secular Magi­strate.] * Declaring Heresie; Suspending criminous sinners from the Sacrament: Imposing Penances; Reconciling Penitents; and Excommunicating, and casting out of the Church the incorri­gible, 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 re­spective Superiors Calling, and appointing these Meetings in cer­tain 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 re­main questionable, and to be restrained by the same Temporal [Page 32]Authority, when, in any exceeding of such limits, found to trans­gress.

§. 23 All these things were practised by the Church in the Apo­stles 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 Con­stantine, 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 Autho­rity, when Princes, for the gaining of eternal Crowns, have sub­jected 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 Poten­tates could not justly deny, or withhold from her. For note here, That whatever Prerogative, or Priviledge, is challen­ged 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 Chri­stian Prince may lawfully restrain the Bishops, his Subjects, from meeting in Synods, from executing the Church-Canons, or pub­lishing 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 Hea­then, 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 Pri­mitive 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 ef­fective, and dreaded by many, for the present, than her Spiritual one) to force their Subjects, and hers, to a more ready obedi­ence 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 Autho­rity seems to have the stronger influence on Church-affairs; yet, so often as any such Prince, in Profession, Christian, but addict­ed to some Faction apart, withdraws such assistance from his true [Page 33]Mother, and leaves Her again, as the Heathen Princes did, de­stitute of his aid, or also restrained with his Interdicts; so often she is forced to renew the Churche's former behaviour in the Hea­then times; and goes on acting the same things singly by her self, armed only with that sword of Justice, which Christ hath put in­to 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 pow­er to ruine the Orthodox, and Catholick Religion within his Territories, as a Heathen Prince would then have had, to de­stroy 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 fore­mentioned, which were managed by the Church her self before the times of Constantine. Namely; a Power. To change the Subor­dinations of the Ecclesiastical Authority, established by the Church; to translate Patriarchs, or erect new ones, and to free the Pri­mates (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 transgres­sing 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 Territo­ries, and with his leave; To hinder their making any definitions, in spiritual matters, or, publishing them within his Dominions, without their being first evidenced to him, to be in nothing re­pugnant to Gods Word, (a thing he is to learn of them), and without his consent first obtained; whereby he assumes to him­self, in the Churches Consults, a negative voice. — * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territo­ries, so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws. — * Again, when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth; or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just [Page 34]liberty of his Subjects, I mean, as to spiritual matters, then ei­ther Himself, and Council of State, against all the Clergy; or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom, against a much major part; or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council; to make Reformations herein, as is by them thought fit. — * Lastly, To prohibit the en­trance of any Clergy, save such as is Arrian; into his Kingdom, under a Capital punishment; who sees not, that such an Arrian Prince, justified in the exercise of any such power, and, so the Church obliged to submit to it, must needs, within the circuit of his Command, overthrow the Catholick Religion; and that the necessary means of continuing, there, the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church, And the same it would be here, if the Clergy, within such a Dominion, should, upon any pretend­ed cause, declare themselves freed from obedience to their Eccle­siastical Superiors; or, by I know not what priviledge, translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince.

§. 25 Many of these Jurisdictions, vindicated by the Church, are so clearly due to her, for the subsistence of true Religion, as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Ca­tholicks in the defence of them, of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse. Mean while see that of D ^r. Field, quo­ted 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 Con­stitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors; or for possessing them­selves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities, or Jurisdictions, contrary to the Churches Canons.

§. 26 Now then, to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy, Persons, and Councils (so high as the Patriarchal), for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church; 1 First, No Introduction, or Ordination, of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation, or confirmati­on of the Superior. §. 27 ² The several Councils, were to be cal­led, when need required, and to be moderated, by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors, and matters of more general concern­ment, there, not to be passed by the Council, without his consent: nor by him, §. 28 without theirs, or the major part of them. ³ All differences about Doctrine, Manners, or Discipline, arising amongst inferior persons, or Councils, were to be decided [Page 35]by their Superiors, till we come to the highest of these, the Patri­archal Council. And, in the Intervals of Councils, the respe­ctive Prelates; and Presidents thereof, were to take care of the Execution of their Canons; as also, to receive and decide appeals in such matters, for which it was thought not so necessary to con­vene a Synod, amongst which, the differences with, or between, Primates, were to be decided by the Patriarch; those with, or be­tween, Patriarchs, by the Proto-Patriarch; assisted with such a Council, as might with convenience be procured. §. 29 ⁴ In clashing between any Inferior, and Superior, Authority, when these com­manded several things, the Subjects of both were to adhere, and submit, to the Judgment, and Sentence of the Superior. ⁵ All these things were to be transacted in the Church, concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical, and Spiritual, without the controul­ment of, or appeal to, any secular Judges, or Courts, under pe­nalty of excommunication to the Clergy, so appealing.

Now in such a well, and close-woven Series of depend­ence, what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers, §. 30 without incur­ring Schisme? Whether of I know not what, Independents, Fa­naticks, and Quakers, against Presbyters; or, of Presbyters a­gainst Bishops (Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored); or, of Bishops against the Metropolitan; and so up to the Prime Patriarch, the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ? And next: What degree of obedience can be devised less (I speak, as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine), than a non-contradicting of these Superiors? Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers, whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church, yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controver­sie in matters of Religion once defined: And, though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale; yet, in their forbearing Disputes, the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept qui­etly in her bosom, unassaulted, and so unswayed, with their new Tenents. And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity, when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers, and making themselves Captains of a Sect.

CHAP. III.

§. 31 THis (from §. 9.) said of all inferior Persons, and Councils, and their Presidents, so high as a Patriarchal: of their several Subordinations, and Obedience, in any dissent, due still to the su­perior Court, or Prelate. Now I come to the supreme Council, Oecumenical, or General; (the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former). Wherein the chief Considera­bles are; 1 The Composition; of what, or what number of per­sons it must necessarily consist: 2 The President-ship in it; and the Calling of it; to whom they belong.

§. 32 1st. Then, for the Composition, It is necessary, that it be such, either wherein all the Patriarchs, (or at least, so many of them as are Catholick) with many of their Bishops, do meet in person, or where, after All called to It, and the Bishops of so ma­ny Provinces, as can well be convened, sitting in Council, headed by the Prime Patriarch, or his Legates, Delegates are sent by the rest; or, at least, the Acts, and Decrees thereof, in their neces­sary absence, are accepted, and approved by them, and by the several Provinces under them; or, by the major part of those Provinces.

§. 33 For; a General, or Oecumenical, Council, such as doth con­sist of all the Bishops of the Catholick Universe, met together, there never hath been any; but, in those which are generally, by Protestants, as well as Catholicks, reputed, and admitted for such, sometimes we find a greater, sometimes a smaller number, accord­ing to the propinquity of the place, the peace of the times, the numerosity of Sects, &c. So the four first General Coun­cils, [Page 37]all held in the East, by reason of the Heresies, they opposed, chiefly reigning in that Coast, consisted mostly of Oriental Bi­shops. The first General Council, of Nice, had present in it only. 2. Presbyters (the Bishop of Rome's Legates), and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches. The 2 ^d General Council, of Con­stantinople, had in it no Occidental Bishop at all; but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and his Occidental Council as­sembled in Rome, not long after it. The 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 We­stern Bishops, assembled in several Provincial Synods, had com­municated their judgment to them, in the Controversie then agi­tated; and besides these, 2. Affrican Bishops, and one Sicilian. Where note; That the 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 Condemna­tion): 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 a­gainst the See of Rome. See Conc. Chalced. Act 4.

Yet all these Councils, whether the Bishops personally present, were fewer, or more, were accounted equally valid; §. 34 from the After-acceptation. and admittance of their Decrees by the Pre­lates absent; i. e. the acceptation of such persons, as, if present, had had a Vote in them. All which Prelates, were they personal­ly present in the Council, or the much major part of them, there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Ca­tholick, or, of any other Members thereof, to confirm its acts; nor are they any way capable thereof; because the remainder of the Church diffusive (I mean of those, who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs) must be concluded, in their Judgment, and Sentence, by this supposed much-major part thereof, that are personally present in the Council. But this wanting, the other compleatsits defect. And upon such Acceptation it is, that the 2 ^d. and the 5 ^th. of the Councils called General; held at Constan­tinople, without the Pope, or his Legat's presence therein, yet bear the name of General, because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus, and his Occidental Council, con­vened not long after it; and the latter, after some time, accepted by Vigilius, and his Successors, with the Western Bishops; as, [Page 38]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 Gene­rall: since, however the Churches Testimony is received; whe­ther conjunctly, De Concil. l. 2. c. 28. or by parts; yet — Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis. So Bellarmine observes, ancient Councils, less than General, very frequently to have determined matters of Faith. — Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum pau­corum Episcoporum (Euseb l. 7. c. 24.) nec alii, multò plures in toto mundo, conquesti sunt; sed ratum habuerunt: — Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum; in quo nullus fuit Lati­norum; Latini probaverunt. Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia; Milevitanum, & Carthaginense. — Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum, antequàm adessent Latini; Latini vo­luerunt cognoscere rem gestam, & cognitam approbaverunt. All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them. Neither did, or ought, such inferior Councils, when necessitated by contenti­ons, and disputes, define any such thing, hastily, or rashly; but as they well knew, before any such Resolution, the common Sen­timents of the Church Catholick herein. Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts.

§. 36 Next: Concerning the just quality, measure, and propor­tion, of this after-Acceptation, several things are to be well ob­served. 1. 1 ^st. That it is not to be extended, (in a Latitude of Christianity much greater), beyond the bounds of the Church Ca­tholick. Which Catholick Church is many times of a nar­rower compass, than the Christian Profession; all Heretical, and Schismatical Churches▪ I mean, such as have made a former discessi­on, in Doctrine▪ or external Communion, from their lawful Ec­clesiastical Superiors, and, being but a part, have separated from the former whole, standing contradistinct to it. So, after the Nicene Council, in Constantines time, the Arrians, and in S. Au­stins time, the Donatists, were esteemed, though Christians, yet no Catholicks; and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity, opposite to them. Of which thus S. Austin Contra Episc. Fu [...]d. c. 4. [Page 39]— Tenerme, justissimè, in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen, quod [nomen], non sine causâ, inter tam multas haereses, sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit. Therefore, upon the growth of many He­resies, after the Heathen persecutions ceased, instead of these words of the Apostles Creed, [ I believe the Holy Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints, (i.e.) in it] we read in this Creed, as explained by Councils, [I believe One, Holy, Catholick, and A­postolick Church:] 1. One, to distinguish it from many, varying, Sects, pretending also to be true Churches of Christ. 2. Holy; i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith, Man­ners, Sacraments, Government, Discipline, delivered by our Lord, and his Apostles; and, in particular, Holy, as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness; but not Holy; so as that some external Members thereof may not be, by their own default, inter­nally, unholy and unsanctified, and no true Members of Christ. 3. Apostolick; i. e, Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinati­ons; and preserving their Traditions, for Doctrine, Govern­ment, and Discipline, And therefore here the other Clause, [the Communion of Saints] is omitted, as sufficiently included in the former Explication; which is observed also by Dr. Hammond, (of Fundamentals, p. 69, & 83.) So, in the yet more enlar­ged, Athanasian Creed, we find the Catholick Faith used in a re­strained sence, opposed to all those Heresies, that are rejected by that Creed. And to this notion of Church Catholick, See, in Disc. 1. §. 37. & 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting.

§. 37 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 Ecclesiasti­cal, or Civil, no Laws can be promulgated, nor Unity preserved, if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part: and it hath been shewed at large, Disc. 2. §. 25. (which I desire the Reader to review, and consider well, because much weight is laid upon it) that the Decrees of the first. 4▪ General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation: the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule, and Warrant to posterity: Nor, otherwise, can any new Heresie, patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick, (as the most pernicious He­resies have ever been), he ever legally suppressed, so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest. See what hath been said of this in Disc. 1. §. 28, 38, 39. — & Disc. 3. §. 11, & 37. [Page 40]That strict condition therefore, which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize, and ratifie the Definitions, and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation, seems not reasonable; Name­ly, That after their promulgation [at least, if not before] they should be accepted by each Provincial Council, and acknowledged to a­gree with that Faith, which they had originally received (of Her. §. 6. n. 8, 12.). — Or, That such Conciliar Declarations should be uni­versally received by all Churches, (Her. §. 14. n. 4.): because such are (saith he) Christians, and Bishops, as well as the Bishop of Rome; and consequently their Negatives, as evident prejudices to, and as ut­terly unreconcileable with, an universal affirmative, as the Popes can be, &c. Like to which (§. 12. n. 6.) he argues thus, con­cerning the absence, or dissent, of any Bishops from a Council — That the promise, of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, can no way belong to a Council, unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council; [I add, or, when met, do consent] for if there be any left out, why may not the promise be good in them, though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council. And, §. 5. n. 3. — That, if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places, it is not qualified for our be­lief, as Catholick, in respect of place; because the Faith being one, and the same, and by all, and every of the Apostles, deposited in all their Plantations, what was ever really thus taught, by any of them, in any Church, will also be found to have been taught. and received, in all other Apostolical Churches. And, §. 10 n. 2, 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th. General Council not obliging; — because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council, that of Eliberis, [which is not true], yields (saith he) an irrefragable proof, that the Doctrine of the 2 ^d. Nicene Council, was not testified, by all the Churches, of all ages, to be of Tradition Apostolical. I say, such an universal acceptation as this, of every Church, or Pro­vince, seems upon any such pretence, unreasonably exacted.

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

2 ^ly. Because, if the Acts of General Councils were only such De­clarations of Apostolical Tradition, yet, it is possible, that some particular Church may, in time, depart from such a Tradition, entrusted unto them: (else how can any Church become Here­tical, against any such Tradition?) and so, when their acceptance [Page 41]is asked, may refuse to acknowledge, what all the rest justisie. And all this clearly appears in those Bishops, or Churches, that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Coun­cils; and in the opposition of S. Cyprian, and his Bishops, con­cerning Rebaptization.

§. 41 3 ^ly. For the manner of this Approbation of such major part; It is thought sufficient, if it be a tacit, and interpretative, Ap­probation only (and not positive, or express; 3. for who can shew this, to most allowed Councils?) Namely, when, such Decrees be­ing promulgated, they signifie no opposition thereto. Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ (System. fidei, c. 23. p. 262) — Ne (que) tamen dubitandum est, quin statim obligare incipiant actus Concilia­res, si non appareat Ecclesiarum (non dico hujus, vel illius, vel ali­quorum protervorum hominum) reclamatio; nam praesumendum est, omnes consensisse, si non constet oppositum: ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula, ubi post alia dicit — Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit, necessariò credendum est. And thus 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, ap­probation, and reception thereof, the no considerable contradiction gi­ven to it in the Church, is a competent evidence, that this is the judg­ment, and concordant Tradition of the whole Church, though no resolu­tion of Provincial Synods [which was used before some General Councils] hath preceded.— But if their Acts are contradicted, and pro­tested against, this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council. And Archbishop Lawd, §. 26. p. 195. saith, — It is a sufficient con­firmation to a General Council — if, after it is ended, the whole Church admit it, though never so tacitly. The whole Church admit it, saith he. And, the whole, say we, or, such a major part of the whole, as ought to conclude the rest. Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity, to such Decrees, in mens profession, and practice▪ For it is all reason, that where we cannot have, Quod creditum est ubi (que); ab omnibus; semper; by rea­son of some divisions in the Church, we hold to what is nearest it, quod creditum est in pluribus locis; & à pluribus; & diutius or antiquiùs; For the plures, pluribus locis, joined in one Communion with the Ec­clesiastical Head of the Church here on earth, are the securest Ex­positors to us, of quod antiquius; or, quod creditum semper. See Disc. 3. §. 11.

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 dis­claimed (as sometimes happens): Here also, 4. so far as a due Ac­ceptation is extended, so far is our Obligation; nor can any [Page 42]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 Pre­lates, or Churches (as frequently happens) its not invalidating a Council, 5. or its Decrees, must be said also of the absence of some Prelates from the Council, or of their non-concurrence, when sitting in it; their absence, 1. Either voluntary; as, of those, who, heterodox in opinion, and fewer in number, foresee, that probably they shall be over voted by the rest: (as the Arrian Pre­lates did absent themselves from the Council of Sardica; and so, might also have absented themselves from that of Nice; or again, the Eutychian Prelats, from Chalce [...]on) notwithstanding whose ab­sence, or non-concurrence, the Council will not cease to bear the just title of General (provided, that it consist of a major part of the Christian Churches, and have the concurrence of the Prime Patriarch; without whom nihil finiendum): Otherwise an Here­tical, or Schismatical, Church can secure themselves, as they please, from being condemned by any General Council; which, as long as they are absent, will be called not General, and so its force cannot extend to them. Nay; otherwise, after any defecti­on from the Orthodox Faith, or after any considerable Schism in the Church, now, there can never be any more Oecumenical Councils; because, forsooth, that party fallen away will give no meeting to the other, too prevalent; and thus General Councils cease to have any being, when there first begins to be any need of them. Of this thus a Learned Protestant Dr. Field, p. 651. with intention to make the 5 ^th. Council a General one without the presence of the Pope, and his Occidental Bishops. — The Presidence, and Presence (saith he) of the Bishop of Rome is not so necessary in General Councils; but that, in case of his wilsul refusal, a Council may proceed, and be holden for lawful, without his consenting to it. And,— As a Council may be holden in such a case [i.e. they refusing to come], without the presence, and concurrence of the Roman Bishop, and those that are subject to him; so, being present, if be refuse to concur in judgment with the rest, they may proceed without him, and their sentence may be of force, though he consent not to it. What, then, they presume to affirm, thus, of the Roman, they must not deny, of their own Bishops. This, that the voluntary absence of some Prelates doth not invalidate a Council, or its Acts. ². Neither yet doth the absence forced of some others; if such as being for­merly justly e [...]communicated, or anathematized, have now no right to any voting in such Councils, though perhaps, if admitted, [Page 43]these might equal the Orthodox in number, Thus Gelasius Bi­shop of Rome Epist. ad E­piscopos Dar­daniae. concerning the Eutychians (when very numerous in the East) and also of the Favourers of them, not to be admit­ted to a Council — Ecclesiastici moris non est, cuni his, qui pollutam habent communionem, 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 Constituti­on, or Composition of a General Council, §. 44 and Ratification of its Acts, must be said exactly, on the same ground, 6. concerning a Patriarchal or other inferior Council: that it is not necessary, that all the Bishops of such Patriarchy, be assembled; or, absent, do accept, and ratifie it, to make it Legal, or Obligatory.

§. 45 2. This said concerning the necessary Composition of a Ge­neral Council; come we next to the Presidency, and Moderatorship therein.

1. Where, 1 ^st. As it hath been already shewed, in all the o­ther Synods, §. 9, &c Protestants consenting §. 16., that the Presidentship in them, without any new election made by the Council, or yet by the secular power, belong [...] to him, who hath the prime place, and dignity; the presiding in the Provincial Council, to the Metropo­litan: in the National Council, where be may Metropolitans, to the Primate of them, &c. which President, also, had in these Councils a negative voice See, before, §. 10.: so it seems all reason, that, i [...] a General Council also, that Prelate should preside, who is the Bi­shop of the chief See; and, to whom, in all ages, all other Churches, and Prelates, have allowed the Primacy; i. e. the Bi­shop of Rome (See 2. Gen. Counc. c. 5.) All reason, I say, That the Primate of the Patriarchs Preside in a General Council, as the Primate of the Metropolitans, in a National. And, that, what other Priviledges these other Presidents enjoyed in those Councils, the same at least (though we set aside here his universal Pastorship) He should enjoy in This▪ agreeable to that ancient Canon, and Custom, in the universal Church, (mentioned by Socrates, l. 2. c. 13. — And Sozamen, l. 2. c. 13.—And, vindicated, by Pope Innocent, apud August. Epist. 91. — And, yet more anciently, by Pope Julius, against some Oriental Bishops, apud Athanas. Apol. 2.) — 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. [Page 44]General Councils: In 4. of which Councils, namely, the 4th. 6th. 7th▪ and 8th, the Protestant grant it without dispute. Next; For his Presidency in the 3d. General Council; it seems evident enough, l. 1. c. 4. & Conc. Eph. pars 2. Act. 1. from the testimony of Evagrius ‖, that Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was deputed by him to execute this Office; who saith, That the Bishops meeting in that Council— Cyrillo locum Celestini, Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis, obtinente, accersunt Nestori­um, &c. whose Deputy also Cyril was made before, for the ex­communication of Nestorius by the Authority of the Apostolical See; as appears in the Pope's Letter to Cyril Act. Concil. Eph. Tom. 1. — Nostrâ vice, & loco, cum potestate, usus, ejusmodi sententiam exequêris, &c.

For the 2 ^d. and 5 ^th. General Council, both held at Constan­tinople; as it is true, that the Pope presided not in them, because indeed neither He, nor his Legates were present in them; so it is true, that these Councils were not General, till they were, after their Session, accepted by him, and the other Western Churches. But yet both these Councils, apparently enough, yield the Presi­dency to him in general Councils: the 5 ^th. (which much courted his presence) in express terms, in Eutychi [...] the Patriarch of Con­stantinople his Letter to him ‖ — Petinius, Conc. Constan Collat. 1. presidente nobis vestrâ Be­atitudine, communi tractatu, eadem capitula in medio proponenda qua­ri, &c. And the 2 ^d. in that which infers his presidency, whilst the Bishop of Constantinople, who in the absence of him, and his Legates, presided in it, challengeth Primatus honorem only post Ro­manum Episcopum. Conc. Constant. c. 5. —And that Council, in their Epistle to Dama­sus the Roman Bishop, acknowledge their meeting in that Council by order of his Letters.— Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad ve­strae 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 bear­ing no title, save Bishop of Corduba, gives his Vote, and attests the Nicene Creed, before these Legates; which hath caused much dispute. Act. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 5. Gelazius Cyzicenus ‖ and some other Ancients, say; Ho­sius 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 Martyr­dom; [Page 45]* the Emperor's especial Favourite, sent by him formerly [...]o compose the differences in Egypt ‖; * a person, as Athanasius [...]aith of him, Apolog. 2. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes. Ob [...]tantos labores omni Reverentiâ dignus ‖: and now, Euscb. de vita Const. l. 2. c. 62. Socrat. l. 1. c. 4. [...] 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, fol­lows 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, p. 652. in the first Councils. were more irregular; and no such certain, and uni­form course kept in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops, as was af­terward; For, in this Council, the third Patriarch of Antioch sub­scribes 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 Bi­shop of Rome; All Antiquity (saith he p. 653:) 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 Sen­tence 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 do­ings also that are assembled in Council, and to conclude of matters af­ter 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, ei­ther against the whole, or major part of a General Council, is denied as well by modern Catholicks, as by Protestants, or Anti­quity.]

§. 47 3 ^ly. What of Presiding in, the same is to be said of the Calling of, General Councils. 1. Where, 1. 1st. It seems all rea­son; 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 neces­sity of which meetings the Clergy can best judge), All reason, I say, it seems, that the Calling of them should belong to the Cler­gy; 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, [Page 46]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 se­curely dispatched, as the Controversie about Easter was in the se­cond 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 al­lowed 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 re­sumed, in case the secular Princes, through whose Dominions the Catholick Church is dispersed, be many; of many several tempo­ral 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. 2. in all the inferior Synods, Protestants consenting, 1. That the Right of calling them, though the Prince be Christian, be­longs 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 Or­der, 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 con­sulting any other preparatory Synod, about calling such Synods: 3. And again, belongs to some of them (as the calling of Patri­archal Synods, to the Patriarch) when the Bishops, so called together by him, do live under many several secular Govern­ments; Yet— which Patriarchs (saith D ^r. Field p. 653.) 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 [Page 47]Catholick] they may exercise the same without their consent, and pri­vity, and subject them, that refuse to obey their Summons, to such pu­nishments, as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence. And the 8 ^th. General Council, ( Can. 17.) upon occasion of some Metropolitans, qui, ne secundum voca­tionem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant, à mundi Principibus se detineri, sine ratione, causantur, declares also thus against such Princes— Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat, impium esse, ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant, vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant: And all these things are justified, and allowed by Protestants: Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason, That the calling of a Gene­ral Council, i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs, and their Patriarchies, should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs, or Bishop of the chief See; though we suppose, that he claim no more, than a preeminency of order, as Primates do over Metro­politans.

§. 49 Of this matter therefore some Learned 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 a­ble to create, to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles: He ac­counting that Assembly ( Act. 1.) at the election of Matthias, a General Council; and again, that, Act. 15.

And then, thus B. Bramhal, concerning the Prime Patri­arch's calling such Council, Schism-guarded, p. 356.— If the Pope, (saith he) hath any right, either to convocate General Councils him­self, or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convoca­tion of them, either in respect of his beginning of 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 De Concil. l. 1. c. 12. confesseth that power which we acknowledge; that is, that, though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch, but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs, yet the Right to convocate General Coun­cils should pertain unto him. So B. Bramhal.

D ^r. Field speaks yet more distinctly, and copiously Of the Chur. p. 697.— The State of the Christian Church (saith he) being spiritual, is such, that it may stand, though not only forsaken, but grievously oppressed, by the great men of the world: and therefore it is by all resolved on; that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword: and that there is, in the Church, a power of convocating these [Page 48]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 Pa­stors, and Ministers — Hereupon we shall find, that the calling of Dio­cesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop; of Provincial, to the Metropoli­tan; of National, to the Primate; and of Patriarchal, to the Patri­arch. And of these he saith— That they neither are so depending, &c. quoted before. §. 48. Lastly, Concerning the Calling of General Councils— In times of persecution (saith he) and when there are no Christian Princes [ i. e. to assist the Church, as he saith afterward] — If there be any matter of Faith, or any thing con­cerning the whole State of the Christian Church, wherein a common de­liberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary, he that is in or­der the first among the Patriarchs, with the Synods of Bishops subject to him, may call the rest together, as being the principal part of the Church, whence all actions of this nature do take beginning. Instan­cing in Julius, and Damasus, Bishops of Rome, with their Coun­cils, practising this. So 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 p. 668.) the first Patriarch hath not power, singly, to call together the other Patriarchs, and their Bishops, because none of them is supe­rior to another in degree, as Bishops are to Presbyters, nor so, in Or­der, Honour, and Place, as Metropolitans are to Bishops; or Patri­archs, to Metropolitans. Now to the first of these, his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution, see what hath been said already ‖; and his own instances prove against it; for Julius, §. 47 and 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, Catho­lick. Emperors. Though, if this be allowed, that in any non-assistance of the secular powers (Heathen, or Christian, it mat­ters not) the Church hath power, when she judgeth it requisite, to assemble such Councils, more needs not be desired. Con­cerning his second Limitation; In the reason he gives for it, he omits one Superiority among the rest, which would have fitted the purpose; namely, the Superiority, that Primates have to the other Meropolitans, in their calling a National Synod, and that [Page 49]without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops, first consult­ed: I ask therefore, why not the Primate of the Patriarchs, do the like? 2 ^ly. If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs, neither hath he, joined with his Synod; his Synod having no more power over other Pa­triarchs, then himself. As for the Instances: Julius sent to the Orientals, singly, concerning a Council, to be joined of both the East and West. Damasus indeed sent, when a Western Coun­cil was sitting; but this called for other matters, and not for this, to give him a Commission for such a Summons, or to join with him in it; as if the first Patriarch cannot, when need requires, call a General Council without first Summoning, and convening a Pa­triarchal Council, to give their consent to the calling of this Ge­neral: A thing, to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary; and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council, a mat­ter of so great trouble, and delay, as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council, either for this, or for much other Church-business (as hearing Appeals of less account. &c.) which come to the Patriarchs hands. And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much; where he saith p. 513., — That in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intollerable, in coming together, and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied, and increased [which he confesseth before, to be just considerations] it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints, and Appeals, to Me­tropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited, and directed by Canons, and Imperial Laws, than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors, and Guides. Thus Dr. Field.— And the Protestant-Primates (saith Bi­shop Bramhal Vind. c. 1. p. 257.) use the same customs of judging Church-Causes, with­out calling Synods. Now what is, in this kind, conceded to Metro­politans, much more ought to be to Patriarchs; whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial; nor ever was a set time appointed for these, as for the other. This said, concern­ing the Calling of General Councils, its belonging, of right, to the Church; and, in it; to the Supremest Prelate.

§. 49 3 ^ly. It is not denied, but that the Emperor had, and, since the dissolution of the Empire, other Princes joined, 3. still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Pre­lates, as being their Subjects; of calling these, both in assistance to the Church in her necessities; and also in order to their own Civil affairs, when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church; Provided, this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent; consent, ei­ther before, or, at least after, the Indiction of them. Of which [Page 50]thus Bellarmine De Concil. l. 1. c. 12. — Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt; fic tainen, ut possit etiam alius, Pontifice consentiente, 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 effe­ctual promoters thereof, were prevailed with to call the first Gene­ral Councils, so this was not done, but either from the first Moti­on, or with the consent, of the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Head of the Church; as appears concerning all the first 6. Ge­neral Councils, in the acclamatory speech of the 6 ^th. Council, at the conclusion thereof, to the Emperor — Arius Divisor, &c. They naming 1 Sylvester, 2 Damasus, 3 Caelestinus, 4 Leo, 5 Vigilius, 6 A­gatho, Bishops of Rome, joined with the Emperor, in the promo­ting all these Councils. And, to come to some particulars, Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople; thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus, and to the Coun­cil assembled with him at Rome— Concurreramus Constantinopolim, ad vestrae Reverentiae [ i. e. of Damasus singly, this Council not then sitting, when the Orientals met first in Council, though it did, when they writ,] literas, missas Theodosio, summâ pietate Imperatori. Concerning the 3 ^d. Council thus Prosper (in Chronico) — Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ, & Coelestini authoritate. Concerning the 4 ^th. Thus the Emperor to Leo, (in the Epistles pertaining to that Council)— Superest, ut si pla­cuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire, &c. Synodum celebrare, hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur, nostris uti (que) desideriis vestra San­ctitas satisfaciet, & Sacrae Religioni, quae utilia sunt decernet. Si ve­r [...] 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 sanctissi­mi 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 eti­an nostro Domin pi [...]ssimo Imperatori placuit) in unani Civitatem ve­lociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire; & illic facto Con­cilio, [Page 51]de Catholicâ confessione, &c. te authore, decernant. And, * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, in the first Act of that Council— Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authori­tate Sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam factum est, nec fieri licuit; The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius. 2. to the Ori­ental Bishops, against John Bishop of Constantinople: And that of Gelasius, who lived about some 40. years after, in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae.— Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum [ i. e. the second Ephesin] non consentiendo, sola summovit; & authorita­te, ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret, sola decrevit. Lastly, If the ancient Canon, that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice ni­hil finiendum, stand good, the calling such Councils by Emperors, without the Mandate, or confent also of this Bishop, will be to no purpose; because nothing can be established therein, without his concurrence. Thus much of the power of Calling Ge­neral Councils.

CHAP. IV.

§. 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 re­quires,) I proceed to a more particular consideration of the [Page 52]first Head proposed before §. 8., concerning the Generality, and just Authority, of this Council, to oblige all the Churches Subjects; especially, those of the West.

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

For 1 ^st. It hath been formerly cleared, both by the Church-Canons See, before, §. 11, 12. &c., and the Concessions of Protestants §. 16. n. 4. &c.; That, as a Dio­cesan Synod is subject to that composed of many Diocesses, or to a Provincial, where the Metropolitan presides; and again a Provincial, or Metropolitan Synod, to a National, or that com­posed of many Provinces, wherein the Primate of the Metropo­litans presides; so again is this National Synod. (the Catholick Church, in many Nations, being but One) subject to that com­posed of several Nations, and their Primates, called, and presi­ded-in, by one of the principal Patriarchs. Neither, whatever Superiority such Patriarch, really, hath, needeth he, for the subjection of such Primates, and their respective Churches, to this Patriarchal Council, any other power over these Primates, save what these Primates are granted to have over the Metropolitans; whose Proyincial Synods, we see, are subjected to a National, or the Primate's Synod. Neither, if it could be proved, that the chief Patriarchs have over National Primates, no superiority of power; or at least, that some particular Provinces, as to Ordina­tions, or some other Jurisdictions, are utterly exempt from Patri­archal authority, may therefore such Provinces pretend freedom from any obedience to the Decrees of a Council Patriarchal, where­in some one of these Patriarchs presides; no more, than they can justly pretend freedom from a Council Oecumenical on the same account; in which Council Oecumenical, or General, though the same Primates should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical Person their Superior, yet could they not deny the Council to be so. Subject, then, are National Synods, and Churches, to Patriarchal; and to this end every Church, (as D ^r. Field observes, p. 513. cited be­fore, §. 16. n. 5.) is subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Chur­ches, 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, 2, which it is clear it did, before [Page 53] Tertullian's time See Tertulli­an Apol. & ad versus Judaeos c. 7.—Origen in Ezech. Hom. 4, — Bede Hist. Angl. l. 1. c. 4., never pretended subjection to any other Patri­arch, or his Council, than this of the West; to whom also it as­cribes its Conversion, without dispute, as for the Saxons, or En­glish; if not also, as for the Britains. And accordingly, both in ancient, and latter times, (if the mos antiquus obtineat, in the 6 ^th. Canon of Nice. be of any force) it hath always ranged it self, and appeared, in the Western Councils, as a Member of this Patriar­chy, and of the Latine Church; and, from time to time, concur­red in the passing of those Canons, which have established the Authority of the Roman Patriarch, and of these Patriarchal Councils.

§. 55 After several Christians suffering Martyrdom here, in Dio­clesian's time; In the Council at Arles in France, 10. years before that of Nice, assembled by Constantine, (who, being born in England, and his Mother an English woman, and a Christian, and, being after his Father's death, here also first declared Emperor by his Army, may be presumed to have had some particular respects for the Brittish Clergy,) we find the presence, and subscription of several Brittish Bishops acknowledged by Dr. Hammond Schism p. 110., and B. Bramhal Vindic. of the Church if England, p. 98., and of which thus Sir Henry Spelm. A. D▪ 314.— Aderant è Britanniâ celebriores (ut videtur) tres Episcopi [Surely, in dignity much preceding, and much ancienter than the Bishop of Caerleon], nempe Eboracensis, Londinensis, & de Civitate Coloniae Lodunensium (quae aliàs dicitur Camelodunum) una cum Sacerdote, Presbytero, & Diacono, qui & Canones assensu suo approbabant, &, in Britanniam redeuntes, secum deferebant observandos. The first Canon whereof setleth the matter of Easter to be kept, through all the Churches, on the same day; and the divulgation of this through all Churches, was committed to the Bishop of Rome, the Western, and Prime Patriarch, secundum consuetudinem, saith the Canon. Again, at the Council held at Ariminum, and be­fore this, in that of Sardica, assembled, A. D. 347. some 20. years after that of Nice, is found the presence of the Britain, a­mongst other Western, Bishops, witnessed by Athanasius, who was present there himself, in his second Apology: And, there­fore, may the Canons of that Council be presumed, among the rest, to be ratified by them; or, at least, being passed by the ma­jor part of that Occidental Council, to oblige them. Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop, how they allow and ratifie his supreme Decision of Appeals, &c. Protestants are not ignorant; and therefore; to evade it, make such exceptions as these B. Bramhal, Reply to S. W, p. 24. —1. That it doth not appear, That the British Bishops did assent to that Canon. But this matters not, the major part, in Coun­cils, [Page 54]concluding the rest; and neither doth it appear on the other side, but that they did approve it; which also is to be presumed, where appears no contradiction; 2 Again urged; That it was no General Council. But it sufficeth for the Britains, if it were, at least, a compleat Occidental Council. 3. Pleaded; That these Ca­nons of Sardica were never incorperated into the English Laws, and therefore did not bind English Subjects. But Church-Canons, and De­crees, in matters Ecclesiastical, do oblige all the Members of the Church, though Princes oppose; Oblige Princes also, if Christian, and so the Churches Subjects. And the Author that requireth this incorporation of Church Canons into the Princes Laws, ex­plains himself elsewhere Schism guar­ded, p. 160., to mean only, that Church-Decrees oblige not, as to the using any coactive power in his Realms for the execution of them, without the Princes leave, because (saith he) such external coactive Jurisdiction is originally Political; a thing granted him; so that, before such leave, or enrolment, the Chur­ches Decrees oblige both Prince, and People, if Christian, in foro Conscientiae, the disobedient justly incurring the Churches cen­sures; the thing we, here, contend for. Lastly, The 9 ^th. Ca­non of Chalced. [a subsequent General Council] is pretended to contradict these of Sardica, in giving the Supremacy in Appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople. But I need not tell him, that this Constantinople Supremacy is not for the West, but East, which is, for the Controversies of those Provinces there, subject to that Patriarch.

§. 56[And from the presence of the Britain Bishops in these ancient Councils (if I may make here a little digression) appears the ignorance of the Abbot of Bangor (if the Relation be true) in being such a stranger to the Popes Person, Authority, or Ti­tles, after A. D. 600. after all that power exercised by him, for so many Ages, in the Western Provinces, conceded by Prote­stants (see Dr. Field, of the Church, l. 5. from c. 32. to c. 40.); after so many missions, of several holy Bishops from the Pope of Rome, either to plant, and propagate, Christianity in these Islands of Britain, and Ireland; or, to reform it.—* Of Fugatius, and Damianus, very early sent by Pope Eleutherius, in King Lucius his days; which King, in the greater nearness of several Christian Bishops in France, yet addressed himself to the Pope, as the com­mon Father of the Western Church— Afterward, * Of S Germa­nus, about A. D. 430. sent by Pope Celestine (saith Prosper In Chronico. one who lived also in these times) accompanied with Lupus another French Bishop, who also consecrated Dubritius, that was the first Archbishop of Caer-Leon— * of Palladius, and Nenius, and Patri­cius, [Page 55]all made Bishops at Rome, and sent thence to the Picts, Scots, and Irish: (Concerning which, see the Church-History, in Bede, Baronius, Spelman) — And, besides this, * when the Irish Bishops yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time that the British are said to deny it; as appears, both for that they are said by Bede l. 3. c. 3. (the South- Irish at least) to have returned very ear­ly to a right observation of Easter, * ad admonitionem Apostolicae Se­dis Antistitis: and also, for that, about this time, they sent Let­ters to S. Gregory, then Bishop of Rome, to know, after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were con­verted from Nestorianisme, to whom he sends his Orders concerning it, directed — Quirino Episcopo, & caeteris Episcopis in Hiberniâ Ca­tholicis, (l. 9. Epist. 61.)

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

§. 58 Mean while, whatever independence can be shewed to have been challenged, or Unconformity practised, by the Abbot of Ban­gor, and others, within the Province of the Archbishop of Caer­le [...]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 Disci­ple of S. German, sent from Rome; and being consecrated Arch­bishop of this City by him, and Lupus, it is probable, was, for his time▪ conformable to the Customs of the Roman See; and con­trary to those owned in Austin's t me by these Britains: But how­ever; This of Caerleon was but an Archbishoprick of a late ere­ction: the 3 ^d. or 4 ^th. from which 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: [Page 56]* 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 persecu­tion in part ceased. Now there being no mention of any opposi­tion made, by any of these Bishops, or their Clergy (which, in eleven years space, could not all be deceased) to Austin; but only by the Welsh under Caerleon, what can be imagined here more reasonable, than, * That they conformed to the rest of the West in such submission to its Patriarch, as was due to him by the Ca­nons of those Councils, which their Predecessors had allowed; and as was rendered to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland, (see Greg. l. 9. Epist. 61.) as likewise. * That they celebrated Ea­ster according to those Conciliary Canons, and the Roman manner; and lastly, * That returning into some of those parts of Britain from whence they fled, they assisted Augustin in the conversion of the Saxons.

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

For 1 ^st. It is manifest, 1. that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein: manifest, both, from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles, which Coun­cil determined this matter; of whom Sir Henry Spelman saith A.D. 314., — Qui & Canones assensu suo approbabant; & in Britanniam redeuntes secum deferebant observandos. And also, from Constantine's Letter Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. to perswade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world in the observation of it; He naming there, among other Churches, particularly this of Britain; unless any will say; that, whilst the most eminent Provinces of Britain kept it after the Roman manner, yet the Welsh, and Scots, then kept it otherwise. But since S. German, and Lupus, who came hither two several times, and from whom Dubritius, their first Archbishop of Caerleon, re­ceived his education, solemnly kept their Easter here with the Bri­tain Clergy (See Bede, l. 1. c. 20.) it follows, either that their observation of Easter was then altogether Catholick; or, that if [Page 57]it was otherwise, yet, by reason that the difference happeneth not in every year, it was that year by these Bishops not taken notice of.

§. 60 2 ^ly. It is clear also, That as these Britains varied from the Roman Custom in this, so did they from the Easter Quartodecimans in Asia; and therefore, may not, for this, 2. be thought to have derived their Christianity from thence; The Britains keeping their Pasch constantly on the Lord's Day; only, when the Lord's Day happened on the 14 ^th. day of the Moon, they kept it with the Jews, and Quartodecimans, contrary to the Roman Custom, that observed it, in such year, on the Sunday following: for which, see Bede, l. 3. c. 4. & 25. 3. Lastly, Bede Hist. l. 2. c. 19. speaks of this Er­rour, in the Scotch Nation (and the same may be presumed, in the British) Nuperrimè, temporibus illis, hanc apud eos haeresin exortam; 3. & non totam corum gentem, sed quosdam ex iis, hâc fuisse implicitos. Which Honorius, and other Roman Bisheps with their Letters (Se Bede Ib.) endeavoured (as soon as might be) to suppress. And judge you, by these things, how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy, or Councils of that time, (mentioned by Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. p. 104.) were, in opposition to Austin the Monk: who only required of them in this thing to follow the Tradition of the Church; and objected against them.— Quòd in multis, Ro­manae consuetudini, immo Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae, contraria gererent; & quòd suas Traditiones universis, quae per orbem sibi invicem concor­dant, Ecclesiis praeferrent. All which was true; and the Propo­nent also confirmed this truth before them with a Miracle, resto­ring sight to a blind man. See Sir Hen. Spelman, A. D. 601.

Pardon this Digression, made to abate a little the Confi­dence of those, who would collect some extraordinary liberty of the Britannick Church from the superintendency of the Western Patriarch, from this Declaration of the Abbot of Bangor; and the different observation of Easter. Of which matter Mr. Thorndike, in maintaining the visible unity of the Church Catholick to consist in the resort of inferior Churches to superior; (the visible Heads of which Resort, he saith, were Rome, Alexandria, and Antio­chia) speaks thus, more moderately † —. They that would except Britain out of this Rule, Just weights, p. 40. [of subjection] upon the act of the Welsh Bishop's refusing Austin the Monk for their Head, should consider that S. Gregory, setting him over the Saxon Church, which he had founded, according to Rule, transgressed the Rule, in setting him over the Welsh Church.— Setting this case aside, the rest of that little re­membrance, that remains concerning the British Church, testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome: as appears, from the Chur­ches of Gaul, Spain, and Affrick, of which there is no cause to doubt, that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome.]

§. 61 To proceed; and from the Council of Arles, and Sardica, and Ariminum spoken of before §. 55., to come to later times; we find the English Bishops either concurring, and presenting them­selves as members, with the rest, in those Occidental Councils of a later Date, the several Lateran Councils, that of Constance, Ba­sil, and Florence; or, in absence, acquiessing in, and conforming to, the Votes, and Acts thereof; which Acts have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those Jurisdictions over the whole Church, (excepting the question of his Superiority to General Councils), or, at least, over the Western part thereof, which the present Reformation denies him. For which see the Council of Constance, (much urged by Protestants, as no Flatterer of the Pope, and wherein, the Council voting by Nations, the English were one of the 4.) Sess. 8. & 15. condemning, against Wickleff, and Hus, such Propositions as these, — Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Chri­sti, & Apostolorum— Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet Primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares — Petrus non fuit, ne (que) est, Caput Ecclesiae Sanctae Catholicae.— Papae Praefectio, & Institutio, à Caesaris potentiâ emanavit.— Papa non est manifestus, & verus Succes­sor, Apostolorum — Principis, Petri, si vivit moribus contrariis Pe­tro.— Non est scintilla apparentiae, quòd opporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam, quod [Caput] semper cum ipsâ mi­litanti Ecclesiâ conservetur, & conservatur. Now the contrary Propo­sitions to these, authorized by a Council supposed not General, but Patriarchal only, are obligatory at least to the members there­of; and consequently to their Posterity, until a Council of equal authority shall reverse them: As in Civil Governments, the same Laws which bind the Parents, bind the Children, without the Le­gislative power, de novo, asking their consent.

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

§. 62 3 ^ly. After the English, and before them, the British, Bi­shops, thus shewed §. 54. to have been subject to a Patriarchal Council; upon what pretence, 3. or new priviledge fince the Refor­mation, these Bishops should plead any exemption from submit­ting to the Decrees thereof when accepted by a much major part of the Church-Prelacy (an acceptation sufficient See before, §. 40.) I see not.

For 1 ^st. The Pope's calling it no way renders such a Coun­cil irregular; for it is granted by Protestants, 1. that the Calling of a Patriarchal Council (though not of a General) of right belong­eth to Him; neither may the Bishops of such Patriarchy justly disobey his Summons; or secular Prince hinder their journey See before, §. 16. n. 5, 2.

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 Prote­stant Bishops live (especially whenas no Heathen, 3. but himself also a Subject of the Church), opposing, or not-accepting such a Council's Decrees, free the Churche's Subjects in his Dominions from observation thereof; (I mean, if such Decrees be in a atters purely Ecclesiastical, and spiritual, and no way intrenching upon his Civil Rights, of which enough hath been said formerly.)

§. 63 Bishop Bramhal's Plea, That such Decrees oblige not any Prince's Subjects, till by him incorporated into his Laws, as if Christians were to obey no Church-Laws, unless first made the King's, hath been spoken to before §. 55.: Dr. Hammond's grand Plea, on which he lays the greatest weight for securing the Refor­mation (See his Treatise of Schism, c. 6, 7 p. 115, 132, 137, 138, 142.) viz. the Prince's power and right to translate Patriar­chies; to remove that of Rome to Canterbury; helps not, at least in this matter; (nor perhaps did he ever mean it should ex­tend so far, as to exempt any Western Nation from all subjection to a free Occidental Council). For 1st. He grants; That the Prince can do no such thing, so far as it thwarts the Canons of the Church: See Answ. to Schism Disarmed, p. 164. — A Power (saith he) Princes have to erect Metropoles, [and hence he collects, new Patriarchs]; but, if it be exercised so, as to thwart known Canons, and Customs of the Church, this certainly is an abuse. Which he hath the more reason to maintain in this particular, because he is in some doubt (as appears in his Answer to S.W Answ. to Schism Dis­armed, p. 174..) 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, [Page 60]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 be­ing a thing, which equally concerns them all; Nor can the Do­ctor 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; Do­ctor Heylin's Plea Reformation justified, p. 84. touching the English Clergy, in their Refor­mation, 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 autho­rity too for reforming Errors in matters of Religion, to a Lay per­son, 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 Reform­ed, 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 un­justly demanded: But not to stay here;

§. 65 2 ^ly. Our Obedience may, yet further, be rightly challen­ged to this Council, 2. 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 [Page 61]such, the same divine assistance, as to ampler formerly, may be presumed to be afforded to it, for such Controversies as are ne­cessary 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 Of the Church p. 557.— That the Decrees of Popes, made with the consent and joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops, do bind the Western Pro­vinces 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 Answ. to Ca­tholick Gent. p. 30. — That General Councils are now morally impossible to be had, the Christian world being 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 as­sembled. But mean while he saith Of Schism, c. 9. p. 163. — We acknowledge the due au­thority 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 Infe­riors 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-con­tradiction at least, and such, as Protestants contend for to their National Synods, to be due to a Patriarchal, or the highest, As­sembly of Church-Governors which the present, or future times, in the moral impossibility of having General Councils, are capa­ble of.

§. 66 3 ^ly. The absence in it of the Representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, and Churches, 3. (the thing principally urged) seems no just hinderance why this council of Trent may not be sti­led [Page 62] 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 See, before, §. 36, & 43.; either, 1. When these, called by a lawful Authority, by reason of poverty, and distance of place, 1. or persecution, &c. cannot come; and after­ward, acquainted with the Councils proceedings, express no dis­sent to the Acts thereof. See before, § 36. the four first Coun­cils, as convened for the suppressing of Heresies that chiefly affli­cted the Eastern parts, so mostly confisting of Oriental Bishops, scarce any of the West being present in some of them. Or 2. When in­vited, 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 re­pelled. For the Church Catholick may be much narrower than Christianity See before, § 39.: and Councils are General, and obligatory as such, if they consist of the Church Catholick, though it should be redu­ced only to one Patriarchate. 2. 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 Proces­sion of the H. Ghost, and become by this disenabled, and depri­ved, of a Vote in Councils, See before, §. 43. 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 invi­ted 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, 3. 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 Bi­shops, 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 Schism Guar­ded, p. 352.) 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 Chri­stendom in a General Council; it being so much against his own Inte­rest. But had there been peace; yet, in so great distance, and so great poverty of those Churches, their assistance, in any great num­ber, could not have been expected; neither is it probable, in the [Page 63]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, Soave, l. 7. p. 642. & 367. 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 conjun­ction of affairs, as was then, this would have discovered in them a plain tergiversation. But 4 ^ly. Since the Division, that cau­sed the convening of this Assembly, arose only in the West, 4. 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 apo­logy 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 a­gainst the Reformed, excepting a very few, 5. though not delivered in any Provincial Synods, then called for that purpose, which Sy­nods in such a desolation of that Church could then hardly be con­vened, yet is sufficiently manifested, both in their publick Litur­gies, 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 end­ed (I think, I may say, by God's special Providence) to the Wirem­berg 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 Acta Theol. Wirtemb. Epist. — 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. Respons. — 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 return­ed 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 [Page 64]new Reformation, thus repulsed by the Patriarch Jeremy; In la­ter 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 some­what 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 Cy­ril, by a violent death, removed out of the Chair, but his im­mediate Successor, Cyril ab Iberia, in the same year 1639, assem­bled such a Synod, as, in such a posture of things, could well be procured, at Constantinople; wherein were also present the Patri­arch of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, and 23. Bishops: and a­gain, 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 Lu­car; 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 justi­fied 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. See Leo Al­latius, de perpe­tuo consensu, l. 3.— Arhould's Ans. to Claud. l. 4. c. 7.. Again, by occasion of a late Controversie happening in France be­tween 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 De­crees of this Council, as to the Points, they had occasion to speak of, such as be those forenamed; to which may be added, Adorati­on of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, Evangelical Coun­cils, Monastick Vows, the Churches Hierarchy, &c. See a dili­gent 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 Anathemati­zing any such Doctrines, as were in those parts commonly received, [Page 65](Of which, see something besow, §. 186.,) or, of giving them a­ny occasion to protest against it. This said of the absence of the Greeks;*

§. 67 4 ^ly. Neither doth the absence of the Protestant-Clergy hin­der this of Trent from being a Lawful and obliging, Patriarchal, 4. 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. or vote there; if we may be suffered to model that of Trent accord­ing to former General, and approved, Councils. 2. 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 ab­sent; 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 suffici­ent 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 p. 651. 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 pre­sent in it, at least any considerable number of them; nor, in ab­sence, 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 Bi­shops, if hindered by some secular power, or also, if not admitted, 3. 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 par­ty might justly have been excluded upon this Title, see below, §. 198. Nay further; For those Bishops, who are not yet condemn­ed [Page 66]by any former Church-Decree; yet, if they be accused, or su­spected 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 Alex­andria, and his chief Adherents in the 4 ^th. General Council, Act. 1.

Yet, §. 86. n. 1. 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, proponen­di, loquendi, — Articulos quoslibet tam scripto, quam verbo liberè offe­rendi, cos (que) Scripturis Sacris, & Beatorum Patrum Sententiis, & ra­tionibus, 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, See Soave, p. 374, 375.. But behold, within three Weeks after their arrival there, the Pro­testant Princes, that had sent these to treat, here, an Ʋnion of Re­ligion, and the Peace of Christendom, appear in Arms; on a sud­den, 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 pos­sess themselves of the Alpes, to hinder the entrance of forreign Forces, struck the Council with such a terror, that they were ne­cessitated 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 Conc. Trid. Bulla cel brat. Co [...]e. Sess. 17., 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 Em­peror'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 pub­lished, like that under Julius, but not made use of.

But let us, now, suppose the Council undisturbed in the manner before related, §. 68. n. 2. 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 [Page 67]thing see the Caution premised by the Council Apud Binni­um, Conc. Trid. Sess. 15.; 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 de­ny 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 Scri­ptures, 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 consi­dered, 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, See Soave, p. 369. 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.

§. 69 5ly. Neither doth the Absence of many of the Roman Catho­lick 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), hin­der 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 rais­ed to this Council from the paucity of the number of Bishops in it (especially in some Sessions) in comparison of some former Ge­neral Councils.

§. 70 1. The first Consideration is, That, this Council, beyond any former, 1. having so many Points of Doctrine and Discipline to examine, wherein the Reformed contradicted the immediate-for­mer common tradition, and practice; and being drawn out for so long a time; beginning in 1545, and ending in in 1563; actu­ally 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 ex­pences; [Page 69]more, of the neglect of their several Churches; and af­ter 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, 2. 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 Em­peror'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 en­deavours and tumults, of the Calvinists in France, and of the Lu­therans 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 Sessi­on of the Council; but more Bishops from time to time were pro­mised 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 Spendan. A.D. 1545. n. 17.— Pallavic. l. 6. c. 1. n. 10. — l. 10. c. 7. n. 2. —c. 2. n. 6., And in the time of the Coun­cil'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 Pallav. l. 18. c. 17. n. 21..

2 As for the German Bishops; because in the beginning of the Council it was thought necessary, that they should be detain­ed at home, at least many of them, to defend the Roman-Catho­lick 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 Pallav. l. 5. c. 15. n. 5. l. 7. c. 13. —l. 20. c. 17. n. 7.— l. 23. c. 5. n. 4.. But mean while, these German Prelates, in their seve­ral 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 [Page 70] 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, espe­cially between the Pope, 3. 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 Coun­cil.

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 con­venience 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 ma­naging 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 Em­peror'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 re­solutions concerning Parma]: and the fear of such disturbance to the proceedings of the Council make him yield the controversie about Par­ma. 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 prote­station of the King, and absence of the French Bishops, the Imperialists ( saith Soave, p. 320.) esteemed a vanity: because the Act of the ma­jor part of the Ʋniversality is ever esteemed lawful, when the lesser, be­ing called either cannot, or will not be present. Yet, he saith, that the Parliament of Paris was of a contrary judgment, viz. that in Ecclesi­astical Assemblies, where the whole belongeth to all, and every one hath [Page 71]his part, the assent of every one is necessary; Et, prohibentis conditio potior, and the absent, not giving their voices, are not bound to re­ceive such a Council. In answer to whom, Pallavicino l. 11. c. 18. n. 7. 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 what­ever 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 Prin­ces, 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 Let­ters to him, and those Articles of Reformation of Princes; because so offensive, being no further proceeded in, the French Bishops with­drew not themselves; save some few, upon their private occasions; but continued in it, till the end of the Council Pallavic. l. 23 c. 1.— Soave, p. 783, 784, 798..

4. That in those Sessions, wherein there were but few Bi­shops, §. 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 prepa­ratory 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 Learn­ed men, rather than of others, to be reformed, their worth began to ap­pear. Likewise, beside these Bishops, and other Divines in Trent, there was also, in the time of the forenamed Sessions, a great num­ber of Cardinals, Bishops, and choice Divines, and Canonists, at Rome, assisting the Pope▪ and consulted by him, upon all new oc­casions of informing his Legates in Trent. So that, even in the meanest attendance of the Bishops in this place, it was not so con­temptible a Conventicle, as many would make believe. Nor are the persons, their Res [...]e [...]t, and acting in the Council, so much vili­fied 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 Bi­shops, should so easily define the most principal and important Points of Religion, never decided before.— Neither was there amongst those Pre­lates 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 num­ber Gentlemen, or Courtiers; and, for their Dignities, some only titu­lar; 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 shew­eth 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, Scot­land. 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 Coun­cil, 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 See Soave, p. 194. 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 [...], Ole­astro, Caterino, Castro, vega, &c.] It is true; that there were no Germans there: But what marvel, if these Prelates came not to the [Page 73]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 contu­macy 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 like­wise 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 p 164. 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 uni­versally 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 Ge­nerals of the Religious Orders and the Seven Abbots, being in­cluded) and amongst them, a Mission of Bishops from those Ca­tholick 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 autho­rity 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, [Page 74]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 au­thority 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 Soave, p. 434. — Pallav. l. 15. c. 1. n. 6.; and the French also partly, for maintaining the honour of the Pro­testation 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. Soave, p. 315, 321, 819.] After this [saith Soave. p. 813] the Secretary going into the midst did in­terrogate, 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, Pla­cet. So saith Soave. But Pallav. (l. 24. c. 8. n 8.) proves by se­veral [Page 75]veral testimonies, that the Votes were here given, as usually; one by one: One only, the Archbishop of Granata, a Spaniard, dis­senting, as holding the Acts of the Council valid without any fur­ther 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 ra­ther to fly, than run▪ to one only end, &c.

§. 76 Here then we see this numerous Body of Bishops (exceed­ing that, which hath been convened in several former Councils, confessedly General) 1 Rehearsing, 2 Subscribing-to, 3 Request­ing 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 See Mr. Stil. linfl. R [...]t. Acc. p. 496., 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 inconsider­ing persons, with whom speaking last serves for an Answer; since this Ratification clears that main Objection made by Protestants against the paucity of Bishops in some of the former Sessions; clears it, I say, by that common Rule owned also by Prote­stants themselves Stillingfl. p. 536. That in case, some Bishops be not present from some Churches, whether Eastern, or Western [at the making of the Decrees]; yet if, upon the publishing those Decrees, they be univer­sally accepted, that doth, 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 ru­ine the Reformation, though the rest of the Council, for the paucity of the Representatives, were cassated. Amongst these Decrees are, The lawfulness of communicating only in one kind; Coe­libacy of Priests; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of Images; Ce­lebration [Page 76]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 suffici­ently numerous; 6. because more than half of them were Italian Bishops; yet the full Acceptation of this Council afterward, by the Bishops of those Nations, who had sometimes none, and other times but few, Representatives in it, sufficiently repairs this de­fect also. See before, §. 36, 37. Now amongst all those Catho­lick Churches, the Acceptation of the French, is only that which can be doubted of. And, concerning this, you may observe.

1st. That the Council was approved by the whole Roman-Catholick Clergy of France, 1. as well those absent, as those present in the Council. See for this the many Petitions, made at several times, by the whole Clergy assembled, to the King, that he would receive it, like the rest of Catholick Princes; set down in Review of Council Trent, l. 1. c. 2. There, 1576. the Archbishop of Ly­ons, in a General Assembly of the States holden at Blois, doth, in the name of the State Ecclesiastical of France, speak thus unto the King; — They most humbly desire you, that, according to their more particular Requests▪ exhibited in their Remonstrances, you would authorize, and cause to be published the holy and sacred Council of Trent, which by the advice of so many Learned men, hath diligently sought out all that is necessary to restore the Church to her primitive splendor. Wherein (Sir) they hope and expect from you, as a most Christian Ring — the assistance of your authority, to put this Reforma­tion in execution. [where you see the Clergy approved the Articles of Reformation, as well as Doctrine.]: Again, 1579, in a like Assem­bly of the Clergy at Melun, the Bishop of Bazas in their name, speaks thus to the King. — The Clergy entreateth your Majesty, that it may be lawful for them by your authority to reduce Ecclesiastical Discipline, & reform themselves in good earnest. Amongst all the Rules of Reforma­tion & Discipline they have pitched upon those which were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and written by the Holy Council of Trent, in as much as they cannot find any more austere and rigorous, nor more proper for the present malady, and indisposition of all the members of the Body Eccle­siastical: but chiefly because they are tied and bound to all Laws so made by the Catholick Church, upon pain of being reputed Schismatical a­gainst the Catholick Apostolick Church of Rome, and of incurring the Curse of God, and eternal damnation. Wherefore the Clergy doth most humbly beseech, &c. A. D. 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges, Dolegate for the Clergy in this cause, spake at Fountain­ [...]leau, in this fort. The Council of Trent is received, kept, and [Page 77]observed by all Christian Catholick Kings and Potentates, this King­dom only excepted: which hath hitherto deferred the publication and receiving of it, to the the great scandal of the French Nation, and of the title of Most Christian, wherewith your Majesty and your Predecessors have been honoured. So that under colour of some Ar­ticles touching the liberty of the Gallican Church (which might be mildly allayed by the permission of our H. Father the Pope) the stain and reproach of the crime of schisme rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries. And this is the cause why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire, &c. A. D. 1585 the same request was re­newed in the name of the Clergy assembled in the Abbey of St. German, in Paris. Not the Gallican only, but the whole Church Catholick doth summon, intreat and pray you to receive it [the Council of Trent] No good Christian can or ought ever to make any que­stion, but that the H. Ghost did preside in that company, &c. There intervening the authority and command of the holy See, the consent of all Christian Princes, who sent their Ambassadours thither, who staid there till the very upshot, without the least dissenting from the Canons and Decrees there published: There being such a number of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and learned men from all parts; yea, not a sew Prelates of your own Kingdom, sent thither by the late King your Brother, who having delivered, consulted and spoken their opini­on freely, did consent and agree to what was there determined. And (since the writing of the Review) A. D. 1614. in a General Assembly of the States at Paris, Cardinal Perron, and Cardinal Richlieu, then Bishop of Lusson, prosecuted again the same re­quest: And though this without success; yet, of the solemn Ac­ceptation of this Council the next year after, at least by the Re­presentatives of the Clergy, thus Spondanus In A. D: 1615 n 7 — In Generali conventu Cleri Gallicani Lutetiae habito, quod ille nunquam hactenus a Regibus obtinere potuisset frequentissimis precibus, neque etiam in ultimis Comitiis [1614) quanivis & nobilitas vota sua junxisset, viz. 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 Eccle­siasticis, extitit, quantum in ipsis suit; dum scilicet unanimi [...] [...]mnium consensu illud recipientes, suis se functionibus observaturos promise­runt, ac jurarun [...]. After the same Author had said before in the vindication of his own Country A D 1546 n 4 — Non solum non in Decretis Fi­dei, ac doctrinae ab Haereticis controversae, ullum unquam fuisse ob­jectum dubium: Sed & ipsa Dicreta Reformationis, tam ab ecclesi­asticis susceptafuisse, quam etiam, paucis quibusdam exceptis [chiefly those Decrees hindering the gratifying Ministers of State with [Page 78]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 mat­ters of faith, 2. 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 do­ctrine; [For that point of the Popes superiority to a Council, op­posed 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 contro­v [...]rsie to rest undetermined, because of the dissent of the Cardi­nal of Lorraine, and the French Bishops] Here, then, the re­formed cannot plead any disobligation to the Council for these things, wherein the Council is generally accepted by so great a part of the Church, See. below, §. 147. 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, 3. set down by Soave, p. 769. which, upon his Embassadors complaint, occasioned the French Kings Protestation, Soave, p. 760. 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 Reforma­tion, 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 [Page 79] inferiour Magistrates (against whom was their chief complaint, for their infringing the Churches Immunities Pallav. l. 22. c. 6. n. 1.) 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, especi­ally 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, con­cerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in temporal matters, l. 12 c. 3. As for that particular, urged by Soave and others, Sess. 25. c. 19. de Reform. of the Coun­cils depriving those Princes of their States, who shall allow Duels; That clause in it [Quod ab Ecclesia obtinent.]— Jurisdicti­one, & Dominio civitatis, castri, aut loci, in quo, vel apud quem, duellum fieri permiserint quod ab ecclesia obtinent, priva­ti 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 cen­sured, and (to use Spalatensis De Repub. Eccles. l. 6. c. 10. n. his words concerning the third Capitulation in the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. which is al­so 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 reconcile­ment, promised with an oath to Pope Clement 8. to use all his en­deavour, [Page 80]that this Council might be in his Kingdom entirely re­ceived Sponda. A.D. 1595. n. 9. Pallavi [...]. 24. [...]. 10. n. 15. and Cardinal D'. Ossat, his great Councellor, and ma­nager of his affairs at Rome, often writ in behalf of the Coun­cil, 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 Bene­fices, 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. Re­gent of France had urged before this, to the Pope's Nuncio Pallavic. Ib. c. 11. n. 2.4. — 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 ^ly. THis said (from, §.66.) That there is no prejudice done this Council, 6. for its bearing the Title of Gene­ral, and its obliging as such, §. 80 from the absence of Bishops, Orien­tal, or Occidental, Protestant or Catholick; or also from the very small numbers of the Bishops present in some Sessions; consider­ing so plenary a post-acceptation of it, as hath been shew­ed.

Next; Neither seems this any just exception against it, that it was called by an Ecclesiastical Person, the Prime Patriarch, [Page 81]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, ha­ving had the consent (both as to the place, and time) of the Empe­rour, 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 con­trary vote of the rest; or I see not, since that Christianity is divi­ded 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 pa­tronage 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 mat­ters of Religion, (as Henry 8th was, then, obnoxious for his new assumed Title of Supreme in Spirituals; and the Protestant Prin­ces, 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 in­clinations; 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. Soave, p. 8. 12. All which con­sidered, and supposing that all other things stand right; That neither the necessity of such a Convention at this time can be de­nied; nor the place, we weighing a general convenience, justly excepted against: Nor, that any persons are called to this Coun­cil, save such, and also all such called to it, as have been the usual constitutive Members of all other former allowed General Coun­cils: nor any new rule, or way, proposed to be observed in this Council, but that which hath been formerly from the very begin­ning [Page 82]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 con­stituting 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 complain­ed of; I say, all these offences voided, and their circumstances ab­stracted 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 § 47. &c. 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, 7. from its being called by the Pope; especi­ally, when this done with the concurring consent of the much-major part of Christian Princes; sect. 82. 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 con­demning of this Council as illegal, and non-obliging.

For first, 1. 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 Nun­cio'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 See the Preface to the Acta Council. Ni, caen. (which Jesuit brought from thence the Arabian copy of the Nicene Canons, in number 80.) and Soave acknowlegeth, p 482. 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. [Page 83]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 acknow­ledged the Pope of Rome. Now here note one thing, which I shall have reason to apply to many other particulars, and shall of­ten 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 uni­versally 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 culpable­ness of their proceedings you please, for that may be right, that is not done rightly) under Paul and Julius. So that who so justi­fieth 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 consi­dered.

§. 83 1 ^st. That no place can be chosen any where so absolute­ly free, but that he, under whose temporal Dominion it is, 1. 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 re­medy for such (unavoidable) inconvenience, that, when such vio­lence 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 [Page 84]them not free, because of the nearer influence from Pope, though in all those Councils, there was something to be decided, where­in the Popes judgment stood not in aequilibrio, but was inclined more to one side, than another; and wherein one side might pre­tend 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, 3. 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. S [...] Soav [...] p. 77. 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, 4 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 fore­sight.

§ 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, 5. 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 ano­ther; 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 Con­stance, Wormers, &c. for the more convenience of the Dutch, Eng­lish, 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 [Page 85]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 suffi­cient.]

§. 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 promi­s 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 hin­der 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 po­werful than he; and, a place, which either the Emperours or Pro­testant Forces might at any time surprize with a much shorter march. And therefore was not the Pope free from fears, concern­ing 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, be­cause 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.

See Spondan. A. D. 1562. — Soave, p. 374. &c — Pallavicin. l. 13. c. 3. At this time several Embassadors from Protestant Princes came to Trent, desiring a safe-conduct for their Divines; being very serious in this business, as the Council supposed, who suspe­cted nothing of a War intended: of which safe-conducts, one, and a second drawn up (how full and punctual I desire you but to peruse it, as set down in Soave, p 370 or in Conc. Trid. Sess. 15.) yet pleased them not, because not containing also in it those con­ditions which they required to be observed in treating their con­troversies, one of which conditions was, that the holy Scriptures only should be judge. Yet upon this Conduct, about the middle of March, came some Protestant Divines to Trent: four from Wir­tenberg, and two from Argentina, who exhibited a Confession of their Faith, and then earnestly desired a conference with the Di­vines of the Council about those controversies; which conference was, for a little while, delayed, by reason of the sickness of the Popes Legat (of which sickness he died within a few weeks) and, for that the Council had not as yet determined the manner, and form, of their treating with them. Now this being the only ap­pearance, that ever the Protestants made in the Council By this (saith Soave, p. 362) both the Emperour, and the Electors, were assu­red, that Maurice the Duke of Saxony, though there were great levies made of Souldiers, did not attempt any thing of war. But, whilst this was acting at Trent, the Protestant Princes, having se­cretly made a League with the French King, were preparing a suddain invasion upon the Emperour secure, and suspecting no­thing; and when the time came to play their mine — The Saxon Embassadors (saith Soave, p. 374.) went secretly out of Trent, and returned home divers waies: but when their Divines departed, he mentions not.

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

Now from the coming of the Protestant Divines, which was about the middle of March, till the Protestants appearing in arms, and besieging Ausburg which was on the first of April, and so putting the Council in a fright, was not above a fortnight; and yet see what a complaint Soare (p. 375.) makes.— How these [Page 87]Protestant Divines were delayed from time to time, not admitted to dispute, not to be heard, glad to divulge printed copies of their Confes­sion, because the Legate concealed it. By this you may see, how un­free this place was to the Protestants, and how secure for the Ca­tholicks, by vertue of the Popes great power there. See again in Soave, p. 779 the fears of the Council. A. D. 1563. upon the Emperours being sick; as from whom they had their Protection, and whose safe cond [...]ct expired with his life.

§. 91 6. Lastly: The Councils opposing the Pope so constant­ly, in some (though not Protestant) points; 6. and their great una­nimity in their condemning most of the Protestant tenets, shew the place sufficiently free; for, where there is compulsion used there would appear some reluctance.

§. 92 3 ^ly. For the Safe conduct▪ It was granted, when de­sired, to the Protestants, for the security of their persons, as full, as could be demanded. 3. The clause put in the first Safe-Conduct (which you may see in the Council, Trid. Sess. 13.) [quantum ad ipsam sanctam Synodum spectat,] is excepted against, in Soave p. 344. as if not involving the Pope; but, besides that the Protestants might have had the Popes Safe-conduct if they pleased, but they omitted, and probably disdained, to ask any such thing: besides this, I say, this Safe-conduct was subscribed by his Legat in his stead; and what could the Protestants fear, when the Pope had there no secular Power, and when the Council, for any other spiritual power of his, should side with them (according to the ob­ligation of the Safe-conduct) against him? But yet to give con­tent, this clause, in the two following Safe-conducts (which see in Council of Trent, Sess. 15. under Julius, and again, Sess. 18. under Pius) was omitted.

§. 93 But after all this, 1 ^st. The doctrine, said to be com­mon in the Church of Rome, that fides non est servanda Haereticis; and 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 Con­stance it is urged as a Constitution (in Soave, p. 368 and elsewhere) — That saith, or Safe-conduct, given by the Emperour, Kings or others, to Hereticks, or persons suspected, ought not to be observed, and if the Emperour's not to be observed, we may also infer, not the Council's.

§. 94 But here first, The doctrine of those learned men in the Church of Rome, who have written of this subject, is much wronged, or mistaken. This question; Whether saith given, be to be kept, to Hereticks; as also, Whether to Infidels, and Heathens, to Enemies, to Subjects in 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 Gen­tium, unviolable, as without which no peace, nor society, could be maintained in the world; and by no person whatever, not the Pope himself, to be dispensible, or relax [...]ble.

[ Nullum scio Theologum, (saith Molanus sometime Divinity. Professor at [...]ovain De sid. Hae­ret. servand. l 3 c. 10) neque etiam clari n [...]minis Jurisconsultum qu [...]n conformiter d [...]ceant, fidem pullicam Haeretico servandam esse. Fa­teor 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 pri­vat men the [...]ngagement of any such faith to such publick Ene­mies, being a thing contra publicum bon [...]m, or, contra salutem ani­marum, declared by such Super [...]ours. El [...]e, the publick faith (sup­pose, of a General Council, cedentis de suo jure, and enga [...]ing ex­emption, and impunity, to some Heretick in a matter belonging to its Jurisdiction) or also private Faith, where is not such prohibi­tion, once given to a publick Enemy, are affirmed to remain, afterward inviolable] P Layman Theol. Moral l. 2. tract. 3. c. 12. — Faedera publica Gen [...]um jure intr [...]ducta sunct — Idq, prop­ter 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, speranti­bus 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 parti­c [...]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 ve­nien [...]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 [Page 89]by the Council of Basil, and the Emperour, in their Safe-conduct to the Bohemians, securing them not only from the hand of vio­lence, but also, of justice; whose words, in the close of it, are these.— Promittimus sine fraude, & quolibet dolo, quod nolumus, ne­que debemus, quacunque occasione praetensa, uti authoritate, vel po­tentia, jure, statuto, vel privilegio legum, vel Canonum, & quorum (que) Conciliorum specialiter Constantiensis, & Senensis, quacun (que) forma verborum expressa, in aliquod praejudicium salvo Conductui per nos con­cesso. [What more clear than this for the lawfulness, and undis­pensableness, of such publick faith, though given in the largest form, and most derogatory to the Engagers rights?]

§. 95 Only some Cases there are, wherein (all judicious Pro­testants, I suppose, consenting) Faith given may not be kept to any person whatsoever; and so neither to Hereticks; such as these. 1 ^st. If the faith be given not absolutely, but conditionally, the Condition wanting, or failing, the faith, or promise, given with, and limited by, it, is voided. 2. So also, if the matter of the faith, oath, or promise, be a thing unlawful to be done, neither, here, may such faith either lawfully be given; or, given, be ob­served. If the matter be unlawful, I say; either by the divine law, if, and though, it be the publick faith given by a suprem Authori­ty: or also, by any humane law, if it be a faith given by Inferiors, and Subjects to such laws. Among which unlawful things, and that jure divino, is to be numbred, if Faith be given, either by Prince or Subject, in any thing, which invades anothers right, or assumes to our selves, what only is in anothers lawful disposal; and so involves doing wrong to a third person, which it is never lawful to do; (though cedere de nostro jure is a thing very law­ful) So, for Example, in the particular matter of Hereticks. If the supreme Temporal Magistrate should pass his faith to one suspected of Heresie, to free him from any Trial thereof by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal; or to free him, found guilty thereof, from the sentence of Excommunication, a right belonging to the Church, and independent of secular Powers; or to introduce, or continue, him, excommunicated, in the Catholick Church-As­semblies, such faith, as it is unlawfully given, so neither, given, can it lawfully be observed. Again, when the law of a Prince, or State, restrains to professed Hereticks the publick Exercise of their Religion, or imposeth some mulct upon them, and this law is here supposed just, if a Subordinate Officer, or private person, engage his faith to some Hereticks to the contrary, such faith to them is not to be kept, as promising a thing not in his, but rather anothers, lawful power, and disposal; And the same it were in a [Page 90]privat mans faith given to conceal an Heretick, or a Robber, or the like, where the law of the State obligeth all persons to detect them.

Mean while, where none of the forenamed cases happen; where the matter of the pact is no sin (and no sin it is, that offends against no law) nor only conditional, Faith given to whomsoever, by what person soever, is affirmed no way dispensable, or remittible, (unless the party, to whom it is given, relax it) neither upon the plea of Fear in making it (I say, no superior law voiding such pacts) nor upon any damage, temporal, or spiritual, coming by it. For some spiritual damage to be sustained thereby, affords no suf­ficient ground to pretend an action unlawful. Since the damage, both spiritual, and temporal, to the world would be far the grea­ter, when none, by reason of these, and the like Exceptions, could have any security of anothers faith: since such Pacts, and Oaths, most what, are made, from some temporal necessity constrain­ing men thereto, and frequently do infer some spiritual, or tem­poral damage; or do some otherwayes hinder some publick, or private good.

§ 96[To this purpose; Molanus saith l. 3. c. 14. concerning the publick faith, when given to another, where the matter of it is not unlawful; That it is undispensable, or unrelaxable, by any, even the Pope himself; arguing thus, from the ill Consequences thereof.— Si Romanus Pontifex, semel, in fidei publicae transgressi­one dispensaret, haec non foret legitima dispensatio, sed potius dissipa­tio; quia deinceps nemo posset securus esse, habito a rege, aut alteri­us Tituli Principe, salvo Conductu, solenni juramento, eo quod semper periculum foret, ne Regia Potestas id, via dispensationis [à Pontifice] extorqueat, quod semel concessum esse novit. Where he urgeth, Heb. 6 16.— [Omnis Controversiae eorum finis, ad confirmationem est juramentum] and Soto; who faith De Jure l. 8. q. 1. c. 9. — Pontificem non posse relaxare juramentum cum praejudicio ejus, cujus interest. And thus Layman on the same subject l. 2. Tract. 3. [...].12. — Si a Christiano, v. g. Rege cum Infideli­bus (and the same he repeateth afterward, cum Haereticis; and before, cum Subditis Rebellantibus] publicum soedus fiat, nulla un­quam ratione, seu directe, seu indirecte, Summus Pontifex relaxare po­test. Ratio est; Quia cederet in maximum detrimentum, ac con­temptum ipsiusmet etiam Ecclesiae.— Quamobrem, si quando foedus, a Catholico Rege cum Infidelibus legitimâ potestate constitutum, cedere postea videatur in Ecclesia 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 [Page 91]habeaut, qui causa cognita, ipsis jus dicat. * Nor— Quod soedus, pub­lica authoritate initum, Principi, aut Reipublicae paciscenti, pernicie­sum esse appareat. Nor—* Quodcunque incommodum, sen detrimen­tum 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 con­cerning 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 mode­rate 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 Con­tract, 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 con­tract, 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 re­mit 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 ta­cit 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 engage­ments should be transacted with such a reserve of capability of re­laxation by the Superior, where, otherwise, either by the difficul­ty 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 [Page 92]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 Catho­licks 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 mat­ters.

§. 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 plea­sure 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 Eccle­siastical 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 pro­mise, 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 al­so, any use of the Secular Sword, whether in matters Temporal or Spiritual, the Church claims no Superiority herein. The Se­cular and Ecclesiastical Magistrate have their distinct and inde­pendent Rights and Jurisdictions, freely confessed, by Cardinal Bellarmine, to be, both held from Christ, and nor from one ano­ther — Ex Scripturis (saith he De Rom. Pontis. l. 5. c. 3. 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) Impera­tores habent, dicit Nicolaus, a Christo eos habere. Peto igitur; rel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus, & Imperatoribus hoc, tan­quam 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 po­wer the Primitive Church, though most grievously oppressed by Secular States, yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals, per­fect and entire, as to all things essentially necessary thereto. Their proper and distinct Rights, then, both these supremes have. And [Page 93]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. Theol. Moral. l. 2. Tract. 3. c. 12.— Dico 4 ^to — Si Catholici cum Haereticis publicum foedus ineant, non potest per autho­ritatem Pontificiam solvi, aut relaxari; where he quotes also Mola­nus, saying, De fid. Haeret, servand. l. 5. c. 14.— 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 pro­missis, aeque nos obligant, sive apud Catholicos, sive apud Haereticos, versemur: Nusquam enim licet mentiri; nusquam jus alterius viola­re, nusquam injustitiam committere nunquam perjurum esse.— Quando fidel [...] paciscuntur cum Gentilibus, & Idolatris, debent issi servare fi­dem 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 ta­ken 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 Stillingfl. Rational Ac­count. pt. 2. c. 3. p. 352. & 350.—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.— Si­manca 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 Conclusi­on, as well as Catholicks; for Protestants also grant the two pre­misses. 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, concern­ing 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 Di­vinum.t [Page 94]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 arbitre­ment, who doubtless is the suprem Judge of his own Secular strength. And whom soever he cannot master as to force, how­ever legally his Subject, neither may he reckon him under his Go­vernment, as to coaction to his duty; in such a case then tolerati­on of Heresie is not contra jus Dirinum. And, there is the same ground of keeping faith with such, as there is, with a forraine Ene­my; 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 ser­vanda 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 Con­stance.

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 con­tra eos debite procedere, eosdem▪ punire, quantum justitia sua­debit, &c. [ i. e. so far as their jurisdiction extends.] Nec sic promit­tentem [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 con­clusion 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; whe­ther 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. Mo­lanus, with many other Catholick Writers, with great probablli­ty, 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 afore­named Author l. 2. c, 3. quotes Mynsinger, Obs. 82.— Quando datur ali­cui 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 de­sired 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 justi­tiae complementum, ad quod a violentia (justitiâ semper salvâ) omnem salvum conductum nostrum, quantum in nobis est, & fides exigit or­thodoxa, 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 ima­gine [Page 96](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 ga­thered 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 men­tioned, 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 afore­mentioned decree passed in September following.

§. 103 But be these things how they will, of which several flouri­shes, 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 er­rour 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 [Page 97]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 Con­stance, in which, for that which is related here out of the Story, I must refer you to,— Molanus de Fide Haeret, servand. l. 3.— Sponda­nus, 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, p. 344. 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 Chri­sti 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. Syno­dus concedit, quod causae controversae, secundum sacram Scripturam, & Apostolorum traditiones, probata Concilia, Catholicae Ecclesiae con­sensum, & Sanctorum Patrum authoritates, in praedicto Concilio Tri­dentino, tractentur, where we see both the Conducts do agree in [ praxis, or Traditio Apostolorum] in [ Concilia, and Doctores, or Pa­tres] only the later omits the clause [fundantes se veraciter in Scrip­tura.] 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. [Page 98]contrary to the intention of the Council of Basil) of such a false Glosse (namely, if it be thus understood; that when any Autho­rity 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 Fa­thers is urged, answering; Ostende, quod illa Conciliae, &c. se ve­raciter 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 unquestion­ed. Thus much from §. 82. that no deficiency in the Summons, place, or Safe-conduct, hath rendred this Council illegal, or non­obliging.

CHAP. VII.

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

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

§. 107 2 ^ly. That some such stipulation of obedience and fidelity to Ecclesiastical Superiours, 2. is required by the Reformed themselves: and every Bishop in the Church of England, at his Consecration, takes an oath to perform all due reverence and obedience to his Archbishop; and the Metropolitan Church, and their Successors. And, though, in a thing, so far as it is granted lawful, it matters not, how new is the practice; yet such an oath particularly to this Prime Patriarch, especially for the Bishops subjected to his Patri­archy, hath been also anciently used [See the order in Conce Tol [...]t. 11. can. 10.— Omnes Pontifices, Rectores (que) Ecclesiarum, tem­pore, quo ordinandi sunt, sub cautione promittant, ut fidem Catholi­cam custodiant— at (que) obsequii reverentiam praeeminenti sibi depen­dant: [where why, omnes Pontifices, praeeminenti sibi, may not as lawfully be extended to the pre-eminency of the Patriarch, as of the Metropolitan, I see nothing to hinder.] And see apud Ba­ron A. D. 722. the form of the oath of fidelity to the Pope taken by Winfrid our Countrey-man, and other Bishops of those times, at their Ordination— Promitto Ego N. Episcopus tibi, B. Petre Apostolorum Princeps, vicario (que) tuo B. Gregorio Papae, & successori ejus— me omnem fidem & puritatem Sanctae fidei Catholieae exhibe­re, & in unitate ejusdem fidei persistere. Again,— Fidem, & puri­tatem 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, promit­to 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, See Stil­linsl. p. 490. yet the word, promitto sancti Pe­tri Apostolorum Principis vicario, me in Communione Romani Pontificis, per omnia, permansurum (in this; as also, me fidem atque concursum tibi & utilitatibus Ecclesiae tuae per omnia exhibiturum [...], in the prece­dent Form) include a fidelity, and subjection to St. Peter's Chair; and that the Bishops, in those ancient dayes, sware no less, to con­tinue in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome, than in the unity of the Catholick Church; Indeed these two were then conceived inseparable; and therefore, in the same Form, it is called unitas sedis Apostolicae; and those, who desert it, are said to depart à radice unitatis. Now, this Oath being taken lawfully in such a case; why may it not be so, at another time? And if this Council of [Page 101] Trent, by reason of such modern Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope, may not be thought Free to proceed against any dis­orders in this See; neither may any of those Councils which have been celebrated since the use of the like Oaths, since that Toletan Council, since Gregories, or Winfrids, times, be thought so

§. 108 3 ^ly. Such Oath only obligeth to Canonical Obedience; only, to yield such obedience to the Bishop of Rome, 3. as the Canons of former Councils do require,— Donec Pontifex est; & dum ju­bet ea, quae secundum Deum; & sacros Canones jubere potest; sed non jurant, se non dicturos, quod sentiunt, in Concilio; vel, se non depositu­ros eum, si haereticum esse couvincant, as Bellarmin † answered long since to this scruple: only they swear to defend, and promote, all, De Concil. l. 1. c. 21. not to be in any action, or plot against, any of, his legal, and Ca­nonical (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 Ca­nonical 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 pri­viledges, what not; leaves them liberty, to question his Suprema­cy, 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 main­tain 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 pre­vented 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 there­to.

§. 109 4 ^ly. Bishops, not sworn, yet still remain obliged to the obser­vance of all such Canons; so that such Oath is not the addition of a new, but the confirmation of a former obligation, which, 4. 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 Coun­cil; but that they, with the present Popes consent, 5. may then al­tor, and change those Canons; and so, their obligation to them: [Page 102]No more than a Princes, or his Subjects swearing to the observance 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 consecrati­on of the Reformed Bishops in England, the Oath, imposed upon them, of obedience to the Archbishop, is conceived to be un­prejudicial to the liberty of their Synods.

§. 111 6 ^ly. If in this Oath any thing was sworn that was unlawful, the Bishops, 6. 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, 7. 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, Transubstantia­tion, 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 pro­mote Truth upon whatever resistance) they have no cause to pre­sume his Judgment in such points (especially after their Consulta­tions) 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 inva­lid, 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: 9. As, for instance, the controver­sies that were to be decided being between these two parties, Pro­testants 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 [Page 103]in their doctrine, and in their discipline, yet that this Council was made up of the Bishops of those Churches which were thus accu­sed: Again; one controversie being against the superiority of the Order of Bishops to the Presbytery, that therefore in this the Bi­shops were clearly a party: Another controversie being against the Popes Supremacy, and particularly against his authority of cal­ling and presiding in Councils, that therefore in this the Pope was a party: Besides, that his stiling the Protestants hereticks be­fore 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 Catho­lick Church, as are necessary to the constitution of a General Coun­cil, or of so many Bishops of the Western Churches, as are necessa­ry 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. as the Re­formed 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 Ne­storians, 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 disci­pline: 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 Constanti­nople, on the one side, and Celestine Bishop of Rome, and Cyril of Alexandria on the other side, counter-accuse one another of He­r [...]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-Euty­chians; proceeding so far, that Dioscorus with his party presumed to excommunicate Leo; yet was he and his party judged, and condemned by the Anti-Eutychian party, being a major part in the 4th. G. Council; the same Leo presiding there by his Legats, and Dioscorus, though the 2d. Patriarch, being not permitted to sit, or [Page 104]vote in the Council. And these Judgments approved by the Pro­testants. Arius, an Alexandrian Presbyter, and Alexander the Bi­shop, there had much controversie between them, and accused one another, before the Council of Nice; yet Alexander, in that Coun­cil, sate as Arius his Judge amongst the rest, and gave his defini­tive vote against him. And doubtless, had Arius been a Bishop, and the major part of that Council Arian, Arius should have judged Alexander in the same manner. Allowed examples in this kind might be alledged, infinite.

2 ^ly. Now to shew, §. 125. n. 1. that such judgments are lawful and obli­gatory, notwithstanding that the Judges are a Party, 2. formerly ac­cusing and accused by, the other, of corruptions, errours, usur­pations, &c. I beg these three things to be granted me, having elsewhere sufficiently secured them. 1 That the Church is dele­gated; by Christ, as the supream Judge on earth for all [...]heological, and Spiritual matters, secure for ever not to erre in necessaries; and that as a Guide. 2 ^ly. That the judgment of the Bishops, and chief Pastors of the Church, as being, at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution, and common practice of former Councils (as ap­pears by the subscriptions to them) established the Representative thereof, is to be taken for that of the Church; or else, the judge­ment of all former Councils, even of the four first, may be que­stioned. 3 ^ly. That the vote of the major part, where all con­sent not in the same judgment, must conclude the whole; both, for those Bishops sitting in the Council, and those Bishops absent, that accept it.

Which Judge, §. 115. n. 2. that hath been, of all former ages, by whom Christians have been settled in truth against all former Heresies, Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, &c. if any, because he finds it not to suit with the late Reformation, will now reject; let him tell us what other Judge he can put in their place? For if this ancient and former Judge must be supposed (contrary to our Lords Pro­mise) deficient in necessaries, and incident into Heresie, Blasphe­my, Idolatry: and then, if a few of these ecclesiastical Gover­nours (surmising this) against many, a few Interiors against many their Superiors, only after they have first made their complaints to them, and propounded their reasons, and been rejected, may then apply themselves to procure the assistance, and power, of the temporal Magistrate (one, who may be seduced also, and assist in a wrong cause;) and so may, first, sit down in the Chair, and judge of the wilfulness, and obstinacy, of these others in defence of their supposed errors and crimes: and then, may proceed to a reform­ing of the Church, or some part thereof, against them; (things [Page 105]which a late opposer of this Council Mr. Stil­lings. p. 478.479. is necessitated to main­tain) will not thus, the revolution of judging and governing in ecclesiastical affairs, proceed in infinitum; and necessarily bring in a confusion of Religion's, (as some Countreys have had late ex­perience?) For, This second Judge, and Reformer, and this Se­cular Magistrate are liable also to Heresies, Blasphemies, Idola­tries: And then, how is there any remedy of these crimes and er­rours, unless there may be also a third Judge allowed to reform against them? and then, may not the Superiors, and major part, again, take their turn, to reform these Reformers? And, where will be an end of this Controversie, who shall last decide Contro­versies? Every Judge, that we can set up, being also a party, and so to leave his Chair, after that there appears another to question his judgment? But, if we are to stay in some judgment, to avoid such confusion, where, more reasonably can we rest, than in the three former Proposals?

§. 116 And from them it will follow. 1. That those who are no Bishops, must be content not to be Judges, or to have de­finitive votes, in Councils, and if any such have a controversie with, or against, Bishops, must be content, after their best infor­mations preferr'd to the Order, to be judged by the same Bishops; who, 'tis probable, upon some new evidence, may alter their for­mer sentences. But yet, suppose the Inferior Clergy admitted to have Definitive votes, I see not, what the Protestants can advan­tage themselves thereby, as long as, if any inferior Clergy, all, must have so; and the greater number, give law to the fewer: For the inferior Catholick-Clergy, in the time of the Council of Trent, far out-numbred the Reformed.

§. 117 2. Again, from them it follows. That, if the Bishops are appointed the sole Judges of such matters and causes, they do not cease to be so upon any, either interest, or siding, which they may be shewed to have in the cause. And indeed, if we consi­der, * their former common Tenents, and practises in those things, which, upon some opposition, they meet afterward to judge; * to what side of a controversie the major part of them hath formerly inclined, or also declared for it, something of what they judge tending to their Honour, another to their Profit, another to their Peace, in some sence they may almost alwaies be said to judge in their own cause; or, on their own side. So, when ever they are divided into two opinions, or parties, who ever of them judgeth here, and none may judge beside them, judgeth in his own cause. And so it is, when any one opposeth the Church in any of her Traditions, or Doctrines, formerly owned by her: [Page 106]For instance, when one opposeth the Order of Bishops; the just obligation of the Churches Decrees; questioneth, * whether the Church-Governours, succeeding the Apostles, hold such or such their authority immediatly from Christ, independent on secular Princes? * Whether the receiving of Holy Orders be necessary for administring the Sacraments? * Whether Tithes be due, jure divino? In all these we must say, that the Church is appointed by God Judge in her own cause. Or if, in some of these things, not the Clergy, but the Laity, be the right Judge; yet so we still make him, who judgeth, to judge in his own cause, and in a matter, wherein he is interessed; whilst he so much againeth in those things; as the other loseth. Of this matter, thus Mr. Chellingw. p. 60. — In controversies of Religion, it is in a manner impossible to be avoided, but the Judge must be a party. For this must be the first [Controversie] whether he be a Judge or no: and, in that he must be a party.

§. 118 But now, suppose judging in their own cause must by no means be allowed to any; and so, the Church, about any diffe­rence, being divided into two Parties, and Communions, neither must judge, as both being parties; and these perhaps very un­equal, I ask what course is left to end such difference? 1. Shall ei­ther 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 plead­ing their cause before them, cast the judgment and decision there­of 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 Lay­man? 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, exclu­sion 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 be­tween a Prince and his Subjects, part of his people adhering to him, part divided from him, when a part of his Kingdom rebel­leth against him, opposeth some part of his Royal Prerogatives, or the equity and justice of some of his Laws. Here, 1. Ei­ther such offence must not be judged; 2. Or, the supreme Ma­gistrate, 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 re­ceiving new informations, may change his former judgment, so may the Prince, (hearing the cause himself, and being better in­formed) 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 Re­bels; 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 con­cession 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 ma­jor part of them.

§. 120 It follows then, from what is here said, that, in these Eccle­siastical 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 justi­fication of their cause, is nothing else, than the alledging, that [Page 108]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 out­numbers theirs, to request or caution, this General Council may be composed of an equal number of both sides, is, in effect, to ap­peale from it, and to desire that the Council should not be Ge­neral.

§. 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 there­fore 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, 2. 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. which he hath done often in former allowed Councils, when also he was a Person accused by a Party. See §. 114. 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 incorri­gible Crime — Ib. c. 9. §. Quarta causa; (where also the Cardinal urgeth the 21. Canon of the 8th General Council. — Debent Gene­ralia 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 [Page 109]to be suffered in this Ecclesiastical Supreme (as the like misdemea­nours 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 sta­ted; yet as to our present business of Trent, neither did the Pope, out of any such private guilt of Heresie, or other Crime, forbear to call this Council; nor, when it was assembled, and the Prote­stants complaints against the Pope well known, did this supreme Court find any ground, or cause of such extraordinary proceed­ings against him. For 1 ^st. For his Presidentship in the Coun­cil, which was excepted against, how could the Council deprive him of this right, which was no new tyranny, or device, but that office, which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils, which the Church ever had: Of which, see what is said before, §. 46. &c. And, as for any false doctrines, crimes, or corruptions, charged on Him, this Council found none valid, as to his own person, either, for removal of Him from such Presidentship, or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical.

§. 124 Many corruptions indeed, and great need of Reformation of several things, both in the Church, and in the Court of Rome, as the Protestants complain'd of, so the Council, and also the Pope him­self, acknowledged. And, in the remedying of these, the Coun­cil spent the longer part of their Acts; which have been not meerly delusory, as a late Writer would blast them Stillingf. Rat. Ac­count. p 482. (who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority:) but very effective, as to the having produced a vigorous, and during Reformation in the Roman Church; and that, of the chiefest disorders complain'd of; as is shewed more particularly below, §. 203. &c. And this real effect it was, which with an holy envy, the Clergy of France, discovered in other Catholick Countries, and which made them so importu­nate with the King, and State of France, to give them there the like force; and, that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit. See §. 77. &c. And so much were these severe Decrees resented, and dreaded in the Court of Rome, that Soave p. 8, 6. re­ports — That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court, representing their losses, and prejudices, and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness, and of the Apostolick See, and diminution of his Revenues. Of which, see much more below, §. 204. This, in the second place, that the Council, who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church (if any so be) and of these matters, found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person, as might justly abridge any of his priviledges [Page 110]therein: nor, that any Reformation, in the Church, or Court, was obstructed by his Authority.

§. 125 3. Lastly. Neither doth the Popes calling, or declaring the Lutherans, 3. Hereticks, before the sitting of this Council, ren­der him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it: For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council; and other Popes, as the fore-mentioned Cele­stine and Leo, having formerly declared against the errors of Nesto­rius and Dioseorus, yet afterward, approvedly, presided in Coun­cils; and there again condemned them. But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans, Hereticks, without shew of wrong, if so be that their tenents, or some of them, had been determined against, and condemned, in former lawful Councils: as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were: For, if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie, those who own it, without a new process, may be pronounced Hereticks. Now tis clear, that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned, in the 2d. Ni­cene, in the 8. G. Council, in the Lateran, under Innocent 3. in that of Florence, in that of Constance See below §. 198. Add to this, * that Leo the 10th, who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther, and his followers, to be proceeded against as Hereticks, was deceased be­fore this Council, and presided not in it; * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council, did not formerly pass any formal sen­tence against the Lutherans, or Hereticks; but only, in his Bull con­cerning Reformation of the Court of Rome, Obiter named them so, which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree; yet, in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent, forbears also to name them so: * That Pius the 4th, who renewed the Council, and concluded it, was absolutely free from giving them this offence, therefore the Acts, at least under him (enough to condemn them) are not, upon this pretence, to be invalidated. But here it must not be forgotten; that not only the Pope, but the Emperour, the King of France, and, sometime, the King of England, Henry the 8th, before the Council, pronounced them Hereticks; published Edicts, and denounced heavy punishments, against them; and yet, afterward they did not, for this, utterly decline these Princes judgments, as hoping that such proceedings might be, upon better informations and second considerations, reversible.

§. 126 To the question, asked here, Mr. Stil [...]ingf. R [...]t. Account. p. 492.— If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before, by General Councils, why was the Council of▪ Trent at all summoned? It is easily answered, [Page 111]1 ^st. That though many of the Protestant tenents had been consi­dered, and condemned in former Councils, yet not all, because some of them not then appearing. 2 ^ly. Had all been so: yet, that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical, and Civil Courts, to reiterate their sentence; and by new Declarations (and perhaps new reasons too) to enforce their former Laws, and Decrees, so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say, and disobey, them; whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world, that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors, and in their Resolution, for the maintainance there­of. So Arianism, after the Nicen, was condemned again, by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality, by the Council of Sardica; and Berengarius, and his party being con­demned by five several Councils, before the great Lateran, and that of Florence, yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condem­nation, so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie.

CHAP. VIII.

§. 127 THus much from §. 53. of the first General Head I pro­posed (§. 8.) concerning the sufficient generality of this Council, to render it obligatory. Now I pass to the second; con­cerning the novelty, canonical invalidity; and probably, in­effectiveness (as to their carrying the cause) of such a General Council, as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent, and as should be regulated with all their Conditions.

Luther, the first Parent of this new Sect, being questioned for his Doctrines, and upon this cited to Rome, first made Friends to have his cause tried in Germany; having been heard and condem­ned in Germany (by Cardinal Cajetan, for one, a moderat and learned Prelat) he now appeal'd to Rome, and to the Pope. But well perceiving, that his Doctrine would also be most certainly condemned there, as it was: he suddainly intercepted this Appeal [Page 112]with another, See Adam vitae Lutheri. made from the Pope to a Council; having some ground to imagine, that such a Body would never be conven'd to hear his cause, nor the Pope call them together, from whom was expected a severe Reformation of Him, and his Court. But after­ward; seeing that in good earnest such a Council there would be (for a Bull was published for one to be held at Vicenza, in 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 Apo­stles, Act. c. 15. Some of his Invectives I have set down al­ready, in Disc. 3. §. 78. n. 3. and so here forbear to repeat them. Upon this therefore his last Appeale was from Councils to the Holy Scriptures (defending himself with a — Si Angelus de Coelo, Gal. 18.— Attendite à falsis Prophetis Matt. 17.15. — Oves meae vocem meam audi­unt. Jo. 10. — Omnia probantes, 1 Teess. 5.21. &c.) And here he knew himself safe (as any Heresie, though never so absurd, would be) in chusing that to be the Judge, or decider of the Controversie, which could ne­ver deliver any new sentence on any side; and where the meaning of its former Sentence deliver'd already, which all will stand to were it known, is the controversie to be decided.

But his followers, rather than utterly to decline a Council, which they had formerly, to avoid the standing Church-authorities, often called for, thought sit to change the ancient form thereof, and to clog it with such Conditions, as, if accepted, should perfectly secure them from any danger from it. Now the Conditions, as they are most fully set down in Soave, p. 642. though often mentioned else­where, See Soave, p. 18, 65, 80. 1. —2 —3. are these. 1. That it should not be called by the Pope. 2. That it should be celebrated in Germany, according to the Canon, ut illic lites terminentur, ubi, exortae sunt. 3. That the Pope should not preside in, but only be part of, the Council, and subject to the determinations thereof. 4 4. That the Bishops should be free from their Oath given to the Pope, that so they may freely, and with­out 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 ex­clade, amongst other things, Apostolorum traditiones, Concilia, & [Page 113]authoritates S. Patrum: Which, together with the Holy Scrip­tures (as necessary to know the true meaning of them, where it is disputed) was the Rule that the Council entertained, to decide present controversies by. Of which see Soave, l. 4. p. 344. and 323. where he saith; the Council prescribed this Rule to the Di­vines, in their disputations about the Articles proposed to them, That they ought to confirm their opinions with the Holy Scriptures, Traditions of the Apostles, sacred and approved Councils, and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the Holy Fathers; to avoid super­fluous and unprofitable questions, and perverse contentions. Which rule to judge controversies by, was also mentioned in the Safe-conduct.— Quod causae controversae secundum Scripturam, & Apo­stolorum traditiones, probata Concilia, Catholicae Ecclesiae consensum, & S. Patrum authoritates tractentur in praedicto Concilio: and which also long before this, was mentioned, in the beginning of the Council, Sess. 4. where a Decree was made.— Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia; ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei, &c. scripturam sacram interpretari audeat contra eum sensum, quem te­nuit, & tenet, sancta mater ecclesia, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum. And such an advice and rule as this, we find given, not long after the second General Council, to Theodosius the Emperour in a time much over-run with divers Heresies: which Emperour thinking, that all Sects might easily be united in the Truth, by convocating them all together, and permitting a free Disputation; Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, with others, rather perswaded him to take this course.— Ʋt fugeret [to give you it in Sozomen's words Sozom. l. 7. c 12. Socrat. l. 5. c. 10.] institutas cum sectariis disputationes, ut­pote rixarum at (que) pugnarum fomites: Sed ex ipsis quaereret, reciperent ne eos, qui, ante ecclesiae distractionem, interpretes, ac Doctores fu­issent Scripturae sacrae? Etenim, si borum Testimonia rejecerint, à suis ipsorum consortibus explodentur, sin autem sufficere eos ad contro­versias decidendas arbitrabuntur, produci oportet eorum libros, &c. By which books they would soon be convinced of their errour; which advice the Pious Emperour commending, and proposing this way of ending Controversie to the Heads of the Sectaries, they soon discovered to him their Tergiversation; and He there upon authorizing only the Catholick Religion, vigorously undertook the suppression of the rest. Suitable to this; among those General Proposals, made by the Pope's Nuncio's in Germany, and elsewhere, before the sitting of this Council, this was the first. Pallavic. l. 3. c. 13. n. 2. [...] — Soave p. 64. — That the Council might be free, and be celebrated in the manner used by the Church, even from the beginning of the first Gene­ral Councils, and the second. That all those, who met in the Council, [Page 114]should engage to submit to the Decrees thereof. Things to which the Protestants would no way consent. The clause contained in the Safe-conduct of deciding controversies, per probata Concilia, &c. they excepted against (see Soave. p. 344, and 372, and before, §. 104.) and they refused also to stand to any Council, that should proceed as the use had been for 800 years before. Soave, p. 18. Here, then, at that time thus the case stood, The Pope, and the Tridentine Fathers were for admitting; the Protestants for excluding, the Form a of Council agreeable with the former: and again, the one for admitting; the other for excluding, a trial in this Council, as formerly, by Church-Tradition, Councils, and Fathers, interpreting Scriptures controverted. But, now the Learned amongst the Re­formed, perhaps like the ancient Sectarists, but now mentioned, ne à suis ipsorum consortibus explodantur, think fit to take ano­ther 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-Fa­thers mainly declined that Authority, which clearly established their opinions; and, on the otherside, the Roman Catholicks, toge­ther 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; 7. i. e. those opinions, which were regulated by the word of God. 8. 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 Pro­testants, were, A toleration of all sects; that every one might fol­low 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 conditi­on, is this. Of the Fifth, that Protestants shall vote in the Coun­cil definitively together with the Catholicks; but this, the Prote­stants must needs see, by the Catholicks over-numbring them, would signifie little: Therefore the seventh condition caution­eth; 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 Suf­frages, shall be preferred. But again, this they saw was very un­likely; either that the others, who voted against their opinion, [Page 115]should judge it the more sound; or, themselves only judging it more sound, that the others upon this should prefer it. There­fore 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, 9. and of the Bishops his adherents; and it being unjust, that either the Plaintiff, or the De­fendent, should be the judge, therefore that, the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their tenets, there might be Judges in­differently 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 in­tends criminal matters, where witnesses are necessary; not mat­ters of faith. The controversie arising in Antioch was judged at Jerusalem; Arianism arising in Alexandria, judged at Nice in Bi­thynia.

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 seve­ral controversies, that were hotly agitated in the Council between the Popes, and a contrary, party, about Episcopal Jurisdicti­on, &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 [Page 116]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 liti­gants, for what is either said in the Scriptures, or necessarily de­duced from them, stand to the judgment and the expositions of the former Fathers and Councils of the Church: and he, that dis­claims 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 interpre­tation of Scripture (saith King Charles 3d. Paper. 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 pre­vented —and again. 4th Paper.— 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 Catho­licks. 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, be­cause 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 [Page 117]try their doctrines by, yet by it could they not, then, accord the diffe­rences amongst themselves; how then might they hope by it solely to decide the differences between them, and the Roman Catho­licks? 2. Again; * It is yet more unreasonable and unjust; so to bind over the Council, or the Church, to the test of Scrip­ture, as that all their Constitutions, or Injunctions, shall be cassa­ted, and rejected, if not shewed to be commanded also in Scrip­ture. 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, To 7. 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, To 8. 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 examin­ed 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, To 9. 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 Ger­many, 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 Con­ferences and Diets, in several places, for composing the differences in Religion.

A. D. 1530. Was held a Diet at Ausburg; Diet, 1530. where the Pro­testants exhibited the Confession of their faith, called the Au­gustan 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 composi­tion: 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 be­longing to some rites, were agreed on; yet, in conclusion, it was per­ceived, 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, Diet, 1541. three Catholick, and three Protestant Divines were chosen to determine and compose the differences; and Cal­vin was present at it, though not yet much noted: 22. Articles were drawn up by some Catholicks, and proposed by the Empe­rour, 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 Reformati­on: 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 con­troverted, 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 pecca­to. De justificatione hominis. De paenitentia post lapsum, &c. were by both parties afterward diversly expounded, and equally com­plained of, as perplexed and ambiguous, and not clearly expressing the Truth; and particularly, by the Catholick party; as chang­ing the former Church-language; and also stating such evident matters, as were no way formerly controverted amongst the learn­ed. (See Responsum Principum Protestantium, penn'd by P. Melanthon —and Responsum Principum, qui Rom. Pontificem agnoscunt.) And [Page 119]so this meeting ended without effecting a peace. See Soave, l. 1. p 95.

§. 138 These meetings were before the Council of Trent. Af­terward, in the time of the Council, Diet, 1546. 1546. was another Collo­quy 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 be­cause 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 A. D. 1546. n. 10. and the Authors he cites, charging the fault on the Protestant side, deserting the Colloquy, recalled by the Princes that sent them.

After this, §. 139.1. A. D. 1547. upon the Emperours great victo­ry obtained over the Protestants, Diet, 1547. 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 Empe­rour, 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 Pro­fession, Spondan. A. D. 1558. n. 4. to compose or peruse a new moderated form of Religion, commonly called the Interim, which was afterwards also review­ed, and changed by many others, some of the principal Ministers of the Protestants being also called, that they might approve it, Soave, p. 288. amongst whom, Bucer. It contained 25. heads, besides other heads of Reformation; prescribing what men were to be­lieve, 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 inter­pret to his own liking. Whence the three supervisers of it gave in this relation; that, rightly understood, it did in nothing oppose the Catho­lick doctrines, excepting that Marriage of Priests, and the Communi­on 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, §. 139. n. 2. both what Union and Peace, a Confession of Faith, composed in general, and ambiguous terms for men of contrary per­swasions, was able to produce: And what satisfaction a Tolera­tion of the Cup, and of Priests marriage, might give to the Pro­testants, [Page 120]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 Ar­ticles (which see collected by Soave, p. 289.) and Protestants, more: who also pleaded Soave, p. 306.—That it was a matter concerning their Con­science, 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 p. 295.) there was, as it were, a whole Squadron of Writers against it: Catho­licks and Protestants [amongst whom Calvin] And that did follow, which doth ordinarily happen to him, that will reconcile contrary Opi­nions, that he maketh them both agree to oppugn his; and every one more obstinate in defending his own. And the Composers thereof (saith Spondanus A.D. 1548. n. 5.) Illud suis commixtionibus ac palpationibus assecuti sunt, ut ne (que) Protestantibus, Lutheranis, ne (que) ullis aliis Haereticis, neq, Ca­tholicis probatum fuerit ipsorum opus. Only from this Interim the [...]e arose two Sects amongst the Protestants; one (being more under Ce­sar's power) embracing, and so justifying the use of some old Ce­remonies 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-compositi­on of Religion had been for three or four years, §. 139. n 3. impatiently born by both parties; As, upon the Emperours victory over the Prote­stants, 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 Empe­rours former prosperous fortune, from this very time of his set­ting up the Interim, more and more declining, some stick not to impute it to this his usurping, being a Laick, such a supreme Ar­bitration in matters of Religion.

§. 140 So, A. D. 1552, was an agreement made, after the Empe­rour's ill success, of a mutual Toleration in the States of the Ger­man 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 [Page 121] General Council (for the sitting of that of Trent was now broken up) Or, 2. A National: or, 3. a Colloquy: or, 4. an Ʋni­versal Diet of the Empire.

§. 141 There followed after this, A. D 1555. during the Suspen­sion of the Council of Trent, a renewed Attempt, 1555. in another Diet at Ausburg, to put some of the forementioned waies for ac­commodating matters of Religion in execution. But (saith Soave p. 393. 389.) two proposals being made: One, to treat of the means of Re­forming Religion: the other, to leave every one to his Liberty, not knowing, how to root out the evil humors, which did still move, all in­clined 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, 1557. 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: Spondan. A. D. 1557. n. 15. The Catholicks, besides the Scriptures, requiring, for Decision of Controversies, the Inter­pretation 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 Pro­testant 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-diffe­rences 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: 1561. 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 Eu­charist [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 them­selves) 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 re­fuse, or accept, the Synod [that under Pius 4. now ready to be open­ed.] 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 num­ber, 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 compo­sed in the manner alwaies formerly used, there is no hope of set­tling Divinity controversies by Arbitrators. For men will sub­mit to nothing against their private, reasons, or judgment; i. e. a­gainst [Page 123]their Conscience, as many call it; unless it be, when such persons have detided such a point, whose authority they are obli­ged, 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 conditi­ons 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 Pontifi­cem, quia istis subsunt omnes alii Episcopi (but to this Bellarmin adds some limitations) 4. Ʋt saltem ex majori parte Christianarum Pro­vinciarum 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 dis­pensableness 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 pro­cured, as things now are, can there be any debate about this Con­dition.

CHAP. IX.

§. 147 THus much from (§. 127) of the second Head proposed; the Conditions of a General Council, which the Protestants re­quired. Now let us consider the third, concerning the legal pro­ceedings 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 there­fore 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 re­puted 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 Ca­non, 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 uni­versally agreed on by East and West, because the 27th. Canon forementioned, touching another matter, was refused to be rati­fied by the Pope, and Western Bishops. Or Dioscorus Patriarch of [Page 125] 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, pre­tended 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, sup­pose 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 refer­red to the Pope's pleasure [namely, those Fathers refusing this re­ference, 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 incul­cateth; That it was the Custom in in this Council, to mould and change the Articles, and matter of their Decrees, till there was no­thing 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 omit­ted, as that every one might be contented; In every congregation ob­served 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 Pro­ponents did not force the Council to their propositions, but fitted their propositions to the mind of the Council: and then I ask, [Page 126]what violence or indirect means needed here to be used, to over­bear 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 Prote­stant may Judge, the Councils greatest fault was in making so many decisions; not, in making no more: and see Soave else­where 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 de­cided, 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 Coun­cil 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 gene­ral 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 contra­dictings of Soto and Vega, p. 216. — and of Soto and Catharinus, p. 229. both perhaps faultily endeavouring to make the determina­tion 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, 3. wherein the Protestants opposed the Roman Church no violence or tyranny, used, either by the Pope [Page 127]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 resi­sted 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 (except­ing 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 neces­sity of confession to the Priest of mortal sins committed after Bap­tism, See Soave, p. 348. where no opposition at all was made a­mongst them, to the 6, 7, and 8, Canons of the 14th Session. Concerning Transubstantiation and Adoration of Christ in the Eu­charist, 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 com­municating only in one kind: and, that, under every kind, and every part of it separated, all Christ is contained, See Soave, p. 324, 325. — Ʋpon the 8th [Article] (saith he) all made use of long dis­courses, though all to the same purpose, Their principal reasons to condemn it were, &c.— That as much is not contained under one species [by concomitancy] as under both, was thought to be heretical. and p. 519. — They all agreed, that there was no necessity, or precept, of the Cup. Though, this was not so unanimously agreed upon, and therefore left undecided, whether some greater measure of grace was not received by communicating in both, than in one, kind. See Pall. l. 12. c. 2. — and l. 17. c. 7. n. 10. Again, Concerning the permission of the use of the Cup, when as the Pope and his Legats, upon the earnest sollicitation of the Emperour, and many other Princes, were all inclined to a discreet indulging thereof, yet the major part of the Council went against them for the negative. See Soave, p. 459, 519, 567. And chiefly the Bishops of those Countries, where were no Protestants, because all the Council having agreed, that the cup was not necessary, all Christ be­ing [Page 128]in both the kinds, they imagined, that diversities of rites in several. Nations, especially in the most principal ceremonies, which end in schisme and hatred ( Soave, p. 459.) And with much ado was it procured at last, that the judgment of this permission should be remitted to the Pope; but this, without any recommen­dation to him at all (though by some desired) of such a permission; and this remitting it to the Pope not conceded by all, or most, but only by so many, as made the major part: and therefore saith Soave ( p. 576.) this concession was put amongst the Articles of Refor­mation. Concerning the being of a Purgatory, the lawfulness of the Invocation of Saints, and veneration of Images. Soave, p. 799. In matter of Saints, they easily agreed to condemn particularly all the opinions contrary to the uses of the Roman Church, and p. 803.— The Legats held a congregation the next morning, in which the decrees of Purgatory and of the Saints, were read, and afterward the Refor­mation of Friars read, and all approved with very great brevity, and little contradiction. See the same in Pall. l. 24. c. 5. n. 5. Con­cerning the Holy Scriptures, or the Divine service not to be used in the vulgar tongue, I find nothing decreed in the Council, save only concerning one part of the service, the Mass: and of it only this.— Visum est Patribus, non expedire, ut vulgari passim linguâ Missa, celebraretur. Quamobrem retento antiquo, & probato ritu, &c and Can. 9.— Si quis dixerit, linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere, &c. Anathema sit. [where you may observe that Soave (I am afraid) to make these decrees of the Council the more odious; or to have something more to say against them, in rela­ting the one Canon, leaves out passim: and in the other leaves out tantum, p. 573, 574.] And to these all unanimously consent­ed (Ibid.) The Fathers (saith he) assented to the decrees; except only to that particular, that Christ did offer himself. Concerning Priests non-marriage, and the universal capability of the gift of cha­stity, and lawfulness of the vow of continency, the 9th Canon of the 24th Session, the words of which are these Si quis dixerit, Cle­ricos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel Regulares, castitatem solemni­ter professos, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractum (que) validum osse, nono bstante lege Ecclesiasticavel voto;— posse (que) omnes contrahere matri­monium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiamsi eam voverint, habere donum, Anathema sit; cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.] This Canon, I say, was generally assented to by all the Council. See Soave, p. 783. The doctrine and the anathematismes of Matrimony were read, to which all consented, and p. 747— The Article of the promotion of of married persons to Holy Orders being proposed, the Fathers did [Page 129]uniformly, and without difficulty, agree on the negative. See like­wise, p. 678, 679. Concerning Episcopacy: Any thing therein opposit to Lutheranisme, as the Superiority of Bishops to Priests, &c Sess. 23. c. 7. was unanimously defined. See Soave, p. 599 and 738.

Thus, you see, I have run through the chief differences; §. 151. n. 1. to add more is easie, but needless; giving you in the close the ge­neral observation of Soave, p. 230. That, which hath been related (saith he) in this particular [the Controversie concerning the cer­tainty of Grace] and perhaps did happen in many matters [ i. e. the members of the Council to differ in their judgment] occurred not in condemning the Luther an opinions; where all did agree with an exquisit unity. To which words may be added what Archbishop Lawd confesseth, §. 27. n. 1.— That none had suffrage in the Council, but such as were professed enemies to all, that called for re­formation. Therefore no Bishops, that were present in that Coun­cil (for all such had suffrages) but were enemies to all, that called for reformation. And, this being so, surely there needed to be used no tyranny over such persons for so much as concerned the Protestant controversies. What will be said here, I know not. shall we pretend, that this unanimity of the Council against the Lutheran tenents, rose out of ignorance of the grounds of their doctrine? But they read their works, and diligently collected out of these what doctrines were fit to be condemned; which they could not do, without seeing also in them the reasons and foundati­ons of such doctrines. Or arose it out of fear, which some of the Council, well inclined, had of the rest? The Archbishop (§. 29. n. 4.) seems to say some such thing.— For ought A. C. knows, ma­ny might agree with the Protestants in heart, that in such a Council durst not open themselves. But so, in the Council of Nice, for ought we know, many might agree with the Arrians. How can we have any judgment or sentence from Councils, if we appeale from their mouths to their hearts, inscrutable by us? But, if the Arch­bishops many were an inconsiderable part of the Council, then still it is confest, that the main body of the Council were against the Protestants; which we were here to demonstrate: If his ma­ny were a great and considerable part of the Council, so as the act of the rest without them would have been invalid, then why they should so fear, as not to open their mouth, I see not. Or lastly arose it out of that fear, which all the Council had of the Pope? But then why did they, in matters which more nearly concerned the Pope, so freely vote against what he, and what his Legats ap­proved, even some of the Italians with the rest? See below §. 153, 168. For if the [Page 130]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, §. 151." n. 2. 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 Eu­charist; 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 mul­titude 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, Invoca­tion 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, benefi­cial, &c. All practice lawful being grounded on some specula­tive 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 vio­lence, so far, as that any thing favourable or advantageous to the Pope was at any time passed in the Council, when any small num­ber 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 Refor­mation, these three—1. 1 Whether residency of Bishops at their Bi­shopricks, was jure divino? which, if established, it was con­ceived, 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. that which was de­termined (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 [...] [...] [Page 132]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: Pall. l. 24. c. 14.— Soave p. 496, 623. 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, be­cause taking in those, who referred to the Pope, almost an equal part (as Soave, but Pallavi. l. 16. c. 4. [...]. 21. correcting him, saith, a major part) drew the contrary [...]way; and to what else was stated about resi­dence ( 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, p. 737—& Pallav. l. 21. c. 11. n. 4. 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 Ec­clesiâ Catholic â non esse Hierarchiant divinâ ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, §. 154 Presbyteris, & Ministris, Anathema sit; where the Spanish Bishops would have had, 2. Divinâ Ordinatione, changed into, per institutionem Christ.] The great dispute in the Council was not whether the Order or Bishops, as superior to Priests, and as including the power of ordination and confirmation, but whe­ther the Jurisdiction of all Bishops, especially as to some points thereof, was jure divino, [ viz. as to the just extent, and subject mat­ter, of such Jurisdiction, and the exterior and forensick exercise thereof, wherein some Bishops enjoy a much larger power, and compass; which extent of power seems to depend on superiors (as doth also the exercise of Absolution in Priests) and is liable to be suspended, taken away, transferr'd, diminished: and this necessa­ry, for avoiding confusion. See Soave, p. 623, 734.] And here, as nothing was de­termined against the Pope, in this matter, so nothing for him. And, that no more in it should be decided, than was decided, all the Council consented in the Session; and in the Congregation, held before it, all save the Spanish Bishops, and therefore more con­sented to this, than only the Italians, and the Popes party: see what Soave saith, p. 737, 738, 725, 735. where he relates, — That the Cardinal of Lorraine, and the other French Prelats did not hold the [...]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 [Page 133]their votes, yet could he not over-aw the rest, thus, to vote for him, who having much more dependence, for their Estates, on their▪ Temporal, than their Spiritual, Supream, and backed by their Princes, and their Embassadours, in the Council (these also gene­rally much more favouring the Bishops than the Popes, rights) were secure enough against his power; even the Italian Prelats also, except that much smaller part of them, whose preferments lay in the Popes Dominions.

§. 155 3. Concerning the Popes Supremacy in the Church, or Su­periority to Councils, though the Spaniards, 3. and all the rest of the Council consented, in as full terms, as the Council of Florence had expressed it, to decree, and insert, it in this Council also; and though only the French Bishops, who were not above the tenth part of the Council, resisted, yet the Pope, for peace sake, because there was not a full accord, ceased to prosecute the determination thereof; and the Article, drawn, was laid aside. See these things more fully related in Pallavic. History, l. 19. and l. 24. c. 14. n. 12 and see there l. 19. c. 15. n. 3. the contents of Carlo Borrhomeo's Letters to this purpose. But the same thing, of the Spanish consenting with the Italians, for declaring the Popes authority according to the form of the Council ef Florence, appears in Soave, p. 737, 738. (though he much more compendious than Pallavicin in this part of the Hi­story perhaps for want of intelligence; of which he complains in the beginning of his seventh book, p. 583) And the same Au­thor saith elsewhere, p. 732.— That an order came from the Em­perour to his Embassadors, to use all means, that the authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council, because he saw the major part was inclin'd to enlarge it. Yet, we see, the Pope did not prose­cute such advantage. Neither doth that phrase accidentally used in Sess. 25. Reform. 1. cap.—[ Sed & ad S. Romanae Ecclesiae Cardi­nales pertinere decernit, quorum consilio apud Sanctum Romanum Pontificem cum universalis Ecclesiae administratio nitatur, &c. which the French Embassador Ferrieres so highly aggravated, that it yielded to the Pope superiority over Councils Sorve p. 818.] truly prove any such thing; neither passed it from the Council as any Decree; neither, in the reading (in the Congregation) of this, 1 cap. of Reform wherein were some things corrected, did the French Bi­shops except at this, Soave p. 803. which certainly they would have done, had they apprehended such danger in it. For also the French were not such opposites to the Popes pre-eminency of authority, but that their Leader, the Cardinal of Lorraine proposed in the Coun­cil this Article for it ( Pallav. l. 19. c. 6.) condemning any that should say;— That Peter, by the institution of Christ, was not the Prime [Page 134]amongst the Apostles, and his supreme Vicar.— Or that it was not ne­cessary, that there should be in the Church a chief Bishop. Peters Suc­cessor, and equal to him, in the authority of Government,— and that his lawful Successors in the See of Rome have not the right of Primacy in the Church. And the French Bishops, though they disallowed this form, —[ Datam esse à Concilio Pontifici Romano potestatem pascendi, & regendi universalem] because Ecclesia universalis here, if taken collectively, would prejudice the French Churches opinion of the Councils superiority to the Pope, Pall. l. 19. c. 13. n. 6. — c. 12. n. 11. —l. 21. c. 14. n. 12. Soave, p. 657. yet they yielded to this form,—[ potestatem regendi omnes fideles, & omnes Ecclesias,—or, pascendi omnes Christi oves,] if omnes be not taken conjunctionl. And for that Supremacy of the Pope over the Church, that is deni­ed by Protestants, Soave, giving reasons, why Henry the 8th pru­dently declined a Council, thus secures this Supremacy Papal from any censure of the Bishops, saying, §. [...] 70.— That it was impossible, that a Council, composed of Ecclesiastical Persons, should not main­tain this his power, which is the main pillar of their Order: Because this Order (saith he) by the Papacy, is above all Kings, and the Empe­rour: but, without it, is subject to them, there being no Ecclesiastical Person that hath superiority, but the Pope. Thus he, usually ex­stracting the Original of all mens actions not out of Conscience, but Policy. Yet in these points we see the Popes supposed ma­jor party in the Council carried nothing for his advantage. But, how much the former bounds of the Episcopal Authority were enlarged by several Decrees of this Council that were confirmed, and ratified by the Pope, wherein at least they are substituted his perpetual and standing Delegats for transacting many things of great consequence, formerly dispatched by Himself, and his Of­ficers, See below, 205, 211. &c.

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

§. 156 But, in the next place, let us now suppose, that, the Coun­cil un-oppressed, the contrary party there had carried all these points against the Pope, there could have followed, that I discern, no such great advantage to Protestantisme thereby, as some boast of. You may see the consequences, endamaging the Pope, set down by Soave, p. 609, 645. some of which are of no great moment, and others not truly consequent. Certainly the Bishops, who con­tended for their Jurisdiction, jure divino, intended no such thing, as to equal, every one himself with the Pope in the Government of the Church; or to overthrow thereby, * the former Church-discipline; * the pre-eminent authority of Primats, and Patriarchs, conceded by former Councils; and * all the jus Ecclesiasticum. This may be seen in their argumentations; wherein some pleaded a Jurisdiction belonging to all Bishops, jure divino, and received immediatly from Christ, but this not equal with the Popes; others, their Jurisdiction received jure divino, but the use,, application, and matter thereof received from the Pope ( Soave, p. 597, 607. 618. 637.— Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 3.) The French allowing from Christ the Popes superiority, as was shewed but now; §. 155. only confining his authority within the Canons ( Soave, p. 640.) and the Spaniards, who most stickled for Episcopal Jurisdiction, jure divino, yet willingly conceding to the Pope all the power, that was acknowledged by the Council of Florence, and desiring that both these might be established together, as hath been shewed above; insomuch, as Pall. l. 19. c. 6. n. 6. saith,— It seemed to some, that the contention was reduced to meer words; whilst the one would have the Jurisdiction of Bishops to be immediatly from the Pope; the others, from Christ; yet so that the use and matter of such Jurisdiction depended on the Pope. And therefore I see no weight in those words of B. Bramh. ( schis. guarded, 10. Sect. p. 474.) who to S. Ws. asking, whether, if the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces had been present in the Council to counterpoise the Italians, he would pretend, that they would have voted against their Fellow-Catholicks in behalf of Luther, and Calvin, answer­eth thus,— I see clearly, that if the Bishops of other Countreys had been proportioned to those of Italy, they had carried the debate about Residence [yet is not Residence even amongst Protestants voted, jure divino.] the divine Right of Episcopacy; and that had done the business of the Western Church, and undone the Court of Rome. Done the business of the Western Church? what meaneth he? So, as the Pope would have ceased to have had any Supremacy over them? why, those also allow and submit to it, who still hold Episcopal Jurisdiction, jure divino; as none in the Roman Church are obliged [Page 136]to hold the contrary. But suppose the Pope disarmed of Su­premacy, are thus all the other main differences in points of faith, between Protestants, and these Western Bishops, stated on the Protestant side? Or will the Reformed now declare them con­troversies of small moment (as Bishop Bramh. in a vehement assaulting of the Court of Rome, seems to relax other quarrels with that Church) and yield them to their Adversaries? But had any the art first to accord these speculative points of difference, which the Protestants have with the Western Churches, he need not fear, that the Popes supremacy could put any bar between the two Religions. Which supremacy those Catholick Bishops, or Churches, that do most abridge, and have their free liberty to maintain, what in the Council they would have voted, concerning this matter, do yet continue in the other points as violent, and 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 Reforma­tion, 5. wherein he is so much accused to have made unjust ob­structions. Pallavicino, in vindication of Pius the 4th. in whose times these Reformations were most agitated, and proceeded in, hath these words) l. 24. c. 12, n. 13.)— Pius the 4th frequently enjoyned his Legats, that a Reformation should be made of his Court, and of his Tribunals [and especially of the Cardinals, which re­formation he attempting first at Rome in vain, remitted it the more earnestly to the Council, as may be seen in C. Borrom. letters. Pall. l. 22. c. 1. n. 5.— l. 21. c. 6. n. 6, 7.] without any acquainting him first with it; frequently grieved and complained that it was not done; commended whatever was determined in the Sessions concerning it, though unlooked for, contrary to his expectation, and most damageful to his treasury, and to his Court. Which words of his are verified, both by the frequent Letters to this purpose written to the Council by Carlo Borrhomeo, according to the Popes order, Apud Pal­lav. l. 20. c. 5. n. 5.— l. 21. c. 6. n. 1, 2, 6, 7.— l. 22. c. 1. n. 5, 12, 13. which you may read at your leasure: and by the testimony of Lorraine, and others, in the Council. And indeed how could this be other­wise? since Carlo Borromeo, that holy man, was his chief Adviser, and chief Minister, to the Council in this, and all other affairs, who was himself one of the severest Reformers (yet not besides the Canons) that ever the Church of Christ hath known, as the histo­ry of his life, written by Giussano, sheweth.

§. 158 And, that actually, by this Council, a great and severe re­formation was decreed, the Court of Rome much rectified, the Popes Revenue much diminished, the Jurisdiction of Bishops (whe­ther [Page 137]held immediatly, or mediatly, from Christ, here it matters not) much enlarged, Residency of Bishops (whether it be jure divino, or Ecclesiastico) strictly enjoyned; former dispensations and appeals much restrained, I refer you to what the Articles themselves espe­cially in the five last Sessions under Pius, make appear; and to what is said below in the five Head † concerning them; §. 207. &c. and * to the testimony of the French Bishops, set down above, §. 77. with whom it was a chief motive, to request of the King the accepting this Council, because the French Church stood in so much need of the reformations established therein; than which (say they) they could find none more austere and rigorous; nor more proper for the present malady, and indisposition of all the members of the body Ecclesiastical: and * to the testimony of Soave himself reci­ted above, §. 124. and below, §. 204. touching the heavy com­plaint of the Roman Court, concerning this reformation, and their endeavours with the Pope to hinder, for this cause, the confirma­tion of the Council. If its laws are not, since, every where so well observed, I desire that the Council, or the then Pope may not be indicted for this fault. Neither are we (for trying the benefit of that Council) so much to examine, whether there be not still some distempers left unprovided therein of a cure; as, whether many, which were before, are not remedied thereby; and whether the times preceding this Council were not much more depraved, than the present. Which I think you will not doubt of, if you read, both in the narrations of Catholicks and Protestants, the gross corruptions of those dayes. So that I may say, the unhappy re­formation from that Church occasioned a happy one in it; and a schisme, by divine providence bringing good out of evil, served much to purifie the Catholick Religion. But of this Reformati­on; as to the particulars; I shall speak more fully in the fifth Head, §. 203. &c.

CHAP. X.

§. 169 6. NEither seem those things, which are so frequently ob­jected, * to infer any violence, or make any trespass, as they were used, 6. upon the liberty of the Council, as to the defi­ning any thing therein contrary to its general Approbation; or, 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 Coun­cil of such a multitude of Italian Bishops; 3 and the voting there not according to the plurality of Nations, but of their Repre­sentatives present in the Council. 4. The Popes giving monthly pensions to several Bishops. 4 5. Admitting titular ones in the Council. 5 6. The prohibition of Bishops proxies to give definitive votes. 6

To the first: To 1. The Popes Legats proposing the things to be handled there. §. 160 1. For the lawfulness, and necessity, of certain persons to direct, what things shall be handled, what order in them observed, &c. in such great. Assemblies, I desire you to read Soave's discourse, p. 135. where speaking of Councils, he goes on thus,— After a certain time, passions of men and charity being mingled together, and there being a necessity to govern them with some order, the chiefest man, amongst those that were assembled in the Coun­cil, either for learning, or for greatness of the City, or Church, whereof he was, &c. took upon him the charge to propose, and guide the action, and collect the voices.— After that it pleased God to give peace to Christians, &c. the action was guided by those Princes which did call them together; proposing, and governing the treaty and decreeing, interlocutorily, the occurring differences; but leaving the decision of the principal point, for which the Council was congrega­ted, to the common opinion of the assembly [as also it cannot be de­nied the Legats did, themselves giving their vote last. Soave, p. 138.] This was done * in the first Council of Ephesus before the Earl Candidianus sent President by the Emperour; and more clearly * in that of Chalcedon before Marcianus, and the Judges by him appointed; * in that of [Page 139]Constantinople in Trullo, before Constantine Pogonatus; where the Prince, or Magistrate that was President, commanded what should be handled, what order observed, who should speak, and who be silent [so much not practised in the Council of Trent,] and so did decide, and accommodate the differences in these things. Yet closer, p. 330. — The judgment of the Church, saith he (as was necessary in every multitude) was fit, that it should be conducted by one, who should pre­side and guide the actions, propose the matters, and collect the points to be consulted on. This care, due to the most principal, and worthy person, was alwaies committed to the Bishop [and then by consequence in a multitude of Prelats, to the most Principal Bishop among them.] Thus Soave. In this matter therefore you see the same things were done in former Councils, as in Trent; and when this done by a Bishop, the doing justified; can the same practice, then, in both leave those Councils free, and render this inslaved?

§. 161 2. After this of Soave, see the Popes defence, in his Let­ters written to the Emperour, and King of Spain, upon their complaint of it, Apud Pallav. l. 20. c. 8, n. 4.—and c. 10. n. 17. — That the words [proponentibus Legatis] were composed by the Synod it self without his knowledge; approved first unanimously in a ge­neral congregation; and afterward in the first Session Sess. 17. De­cret. de Cele­brand. Conc. [ i. e. under Pius, which is the 17.th Session of the Council] with the opposition of two only [ Soave saith of four; two more desiring a qualification of it.] That, since Princes desired the Councils freedom from this, he was content it should be so: though he well foresaw the unbridled licentiousness that would come thereof. See the Legats defence likewise, in answer to the King of Spain: Pall. l. 16. c. 6. n. 5.—and Pallavicino's, in an­swer to Soave— l. 23. c. 12. n. 7. Lastly, if you desire more satis­faction, see the unanimous explication of this clause, proponenti­bus legatis, both by the Legats, and Council (importun'd thereto by the King of Spains Letters, to whom the Proposals of Princes to the Council, as well as of other Prelats in it, seemed by this clause to receive some obstruction) Sess. 24. c. 21. de Reform. — S. Synodum explicando declarare, mentis suae non fuisse, ut in prae­dictis verbis solita ratio tractandi negocia in Generalibus Conciliis ullâ ex parte immutaretur; ne (que) novi quidquam, praeter id, quod sacris canonibus, vel generalium Synodorum formâ hactenus statutum est, cui­quam adderetur, vel detraheretur. By which Declaration (saith Soave p. 781.) that difficulty, so much agitated, received an end, with sa­tisfaction of all And a Comment on this Decree may be the free practise of the Fathers of this Council, and also of the Agents of Princes, not less after it, than before it.

§. 162 3. Again. Though the proposal of matters to be consider­ed in the Council were necessary for order-sake to be committed to the care, and super-intendence of some particular members; and of whom rather, than the more dignified; yet it may be observed, through Soaves whole relation of the actions of this Council; that no matter, whereof the proposal was desired, or prosecuted by the major, or a considerable, part of the Bishops (unless, perhaps, the Councils proceeding in the reformation of Secular Princes, the Articles whereof are set down in Soave, p. 760 which, though advanced by the Clergy, all the Embassadours, and Orators una­nimously opposed See Soave, p. 760, 766, 769.) was stopped by the Legats power (though I grant, several times diverted, or dissuaded, by their advice,) and that proposals also were not unusually made in the Council by others (if we may believe Soave) proposals both most contrary to the Popes interest, and most displeasing to his Legats. To name some: Such were, * those concerning the two great questions about the Institution, and residency of Bishops; whether jure divi­no. * Articles of Reformation to be joyned, in their consul­tations, with those of Doctrine and Religion. * The abroga­ting, or moderating, of the priviledges, and exemptions, of Regu­lars, from the Episcopal power; * the abrogation, or moderating of Commendams, Dispensations, Union of Benefices,—Of pen­sions, and reservations of profits, out of Ecclesiastical Benefices. * Ordination of Titular Bishops.— Appeales to the Pope. * The Councils representing the universal Church. All which, and ma­ny more were agitated in the Council, the Legats (as Soave re­presents them) relucting: yet, not offering to infringe the liberty of the Council, where they saw the inclinations of a considerable part bent that way.

[So, concerning residency, and exemptions Soave tells us (the truth of the History frequently constraining him to contra­dict those maximes, which are elsewhere laid down by him, to in­fer the slavery of the Council.)— That the Legats were inforced to consent that both should be considered of, and that every one speak his opinion of them, and that some Fathers should be deputed to frame the Decree, that it might be examined. Concerning the Articles hand­ling Reformation, p. 144, 145. he saith: The number contending for them was so great, that the Legats were confounded. And that they yielded to their desire, being constrained thereunto by meer necessity. Concerning abrogating the exemption of Regulars, p. 761, and 167, 170. he saith. It was a thing moved by the Bishops: — and that the Pope, and Legats desired to maintain the Regulars Priviledges. Con­cerning admission of the Protestant Divines to disputation, p. 365. [Page 141]he saith,— That, this opinion being embraced frist by the Germans, then by the Spanish Prelats, and at last somewhat coldly by the Italian, the Legat remained immoveable; and shewed plainly, that he stood quiet, being forced by necessity. And concerning the reformation of Princes, p. 769. he saith.— That the Legats gave forth this Ar­ticle being forced thereunto by the mutiny of the Prelats. If you would see more instances in Soave of the Councils bridling, and over-ruling the Legats, I refer you to Quorlius, l. 2. first and se­cond Chapters, a diligent Collector of them. So, p. 656. con­cerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Em­perour, and by the French, Soave, p. 513, 652. which were thought to intrench too much upon the Popes priviledges, Soave brings him in giving such instructions to his Legats.— That they should defer to speak of them, as long as was possible,— That, when there was necessity to peruse them, they should begin with those that were least prejudicial, &c.— That, in case they were forced to propose them, imparting their objections to the Prelats their adherents, they should put them in dis­cussion, and controversie. So, very frequently in his History, you shall find him (as if he had forgot himself, concerning what he affirms elsewhere of the domineering, and tyranny of the Pope, and his party) revealing the distractions, the fears, the complaints, and, upon this, the subtile Artifices, of the Pope, and of his Le­gats (probably, such as his own wit could contrive, who with his fancy presumes to enter into all their secrets, and speaks, as if he had the Art of discerning thoughts and intentions as clearly, as others do actions and Records,) and many times, as you have seen, after all these, he represents the Legats yielding, and going along with the stream, because they could with no Art withstand it. But if indeed the proponentibus Legatis, was intended, or executed in such a manner, as Protestants affirm, so as that nothing could be moved in the Council, but what they pleased, though a major part desiring it; nor any thing pleased them, that it should be mo­ved, which was prejudicial to the Popes interest, or Grandeur; this surely would have remedied, and prevented all these fears, and jealousies of the Pope, and Court of Rome; supposing his Le­gats, as Soave alwaies represents them, still true, and faithful to him.] But I ask, what matter of moment was there, how much soever distastful to the Pope, or Court of Rome, that, being presented once in Trent, was strangled, before it came to be propo­sed, and agitated in the Council. The Articles of Reformation, that were exhibited by the Imperial and French Embassadors, were, after some delay, taken into consideration in the 24. and 25. Sessions Soave, p. 751, 759. And here, when some Embassadors proposed, that De­puties [Page 142]might be elected for each Nation, to take care in the Coun­cil, of the special interest of it.— The Cardinal of Lorraine, and the other Embassadors, both the French and Emperours, contradicted it (saith Soave) alledging that every one [ i. e. in the Council] might speak his opinion concerning the Articles proposed; and propose others, if there were cause; so that there was no need to give this distast to the Pope, and the Legats. Such a Liberty, then, de facto there was used in the Council: But, I say not, whether alwaies with that dis­cretion that was needful; or, whether not with some Contradicti­on of some persons of a sounder judgment, than the rest. Or, whether the Legats did not well, in putting such bounds to this liberty, as they well could, either by using perswasions to the con­trary, or by interposing delaies, till the first fervour was a little cooled, as to many points which they saw unprofitable, difficult, and apt to divide the Council into parties, and not tending to those end, for which this Council was chiefly assembled: Espe­cially, whilst they endeavoured to win the relucting party, though this were not very numerous, with reason and treating, rather than force, or overvoting them in Council.

§. 163 4 ^ly. Such a sole priviledge of proposal, to be appropriated to the Legats of the Apostolick See, further than for order sake, seems needless to be contended for: For if (as Soave often saith) the major part of the Council, being Italians, were at the Popes devotion for deciding all matters, what mattered it, who, or what was, proposed?

5 ^ly. You may observe: That no such prescription, as pro­ponentibus legatis, was made to the Councils proceedings, till Pius his time; and yet that all things, there, run in the same course before, as after, it: Neither do any Protestants esteem the Coun­cil more free, or equitable, unto them, under Paul's, or Julius's, than under Pius's, conduct.

6. Lastly, which must be often said: as to the most, or all the Protestant Controversies concerning doctrine, the Legats pro­posal could be no disadvantage; in condemning which doctrines the whole Council hath been shewed † to be so unanimous. §. 150

§. 164 To the 2d. The Consultation in every thing made with the Pope. 1 ^st. Whereas it is usually urged by Protestants, out of Soave, Seep. 481▪ 507. That as none could propose any thing in the Council save the Legats, so the Legats might propose nothing, till they had received a Commission from Rome.— That nothing was resolved by the Fathers, but all in Rome; and the Council guided by the Holy [Page 143]Ghost, sent thither from time to time in a Cloak-bag from Rome, p. 497. much more is charged, than is true. For a proposal of the mat­ter [...], from time to time to be discussed in Council, was made, and digested in Trent by a general agreement of the Fathers, unknown to the Pope, as appears throughout this History. After which resolved, 1 ^st. some Congregations of Divines disputed the point, and considered the matters proposed, at which any of the Fathers, that would, might be present. 2. After this arguing, follow­ed the Congregations of the Prelats, for framing the heads of Doctrine, and Reformation, according to the most common opini­on. 3. Then a General Congregation of the same Prelats, for giving their votes concerning them; and, 4 lastly the Session; when they were voted again, and so published (See Soave, p. 167.) Now all or most part of these, saving the last (the Session) were usually passed without the Popes knowledge, or concurrence; and the Legats themselves are sometimes found differing from one ano­ther in their votes (as they were in that of residence, Sav. p. 518. and, 496) at which time also some other Bishops gave their vote, with reservation to consulting of the Pope: which shews the Popes mind (though in a matter so much concerning the Apostolick See) was not then known. But after these General Congregations was usually no­tice of such Decree, as was passed therein, sent to Rome, before its being voted again, and published in the General Session: And of this a charge is also given to his Legats by Pope Paul the Third, in Soave, p. 164. though I find not, that Pius required it: Nay, if we may believe this Historian, he seemeth in some pla­ces to decline it (as appears in the quotations here following:) The Decree, thus sent to Rome, was there also by the Popes Council examined; and his judgment returned to the Legats, con­cerning it: which, when differing from that of the Council (which thing seldom happened, except in the questions between the Episcopal and Papal, Rights) the Legats endeavoured to pro­cure by common consent either some alterations, or at least, an omission of such Decree, in the following Session; but this with all freedom of the Council still observed (a good part of whom was also still animated against the Popes interests by the Embassa­dors of Secular Princes) nothing being done against the satisfacti­on of any considerable part of the Council; the uttermost of the Legats attempts, then, extended to procure an omission of that, to which the Pope would not consent; not any determining of what he approved, when thereby was feared the alienating of some Nation from the Roman Faith; and if, thus, something was hindred, by their intermise, from being passed by the Council, which other­wise [Page 144]would have been so, yet nothing was advanced to be passed, which otherwise would not have been: and so the Conciliary Acts have suffered no prejudice by it. Nor any hurt done, save that thus men are left to their former Liberty still in some points, wherein the Council would have restrained it; a thing, I hope, the Reformed will not complain of; you may at your leisure par­ticularly view in Soave the liberty the Council took to examine the Popes proposals in the Institution of Bishops, p 657. & 723. and Papal Suprema­cy; and the alterations, which were made in them.

§. 165 2. In the next place, I will give you the Pope's plea for him­self, against those, 2. who accused him for thus abridging the free­dom of the Council. To this matter, then, friendlily complained of by the Emperor in a letter to him, thus answered Pius the 4th in another (See Pall. l. 20. c. 8. n. 7.) — That he never gave any such command, as that nothing should be decreed in the Council, without consulting him first. That in things more difficult, the Delegats de­manded his advice; nor could, or ought, he to deny it them. That it crossed not their liberty, was not undecent, or unusual, that the Council it self should desire the judgment of the Apostolick See. — Nor was it unfitting, that the Pope, being to give Counsel to his Legats, should first take it with the Cardinals, men of great judgment, and learning; especially be not intending, that his advices should impose any necessity on the Council to follow them. Thus Pius; me thinks, with much reason. And it is manifest, that the Council in many things did not follow them. And though little was decreed by the Council against that which came from Rome; yet both all, that came from Rome, was not decreed; and much decreed, that came not from Rome; the Pope often desiring them, especially for reformations, to proceed without consulting him: and (in Soave, p. 503.)— com­plaining to his Cardinals, of those [in the Council] who referred themselves unto him; because (saith he) the Council was assembled, that every one may deliver his own opinion, and not lay the things of difficulty upon the back of another [ i. e. the Pope] that themselves might avoid hatred, and envy. As also the same Author p. 723. relates; That, his Legats sending to Rome the Articles, that were drawn up in the Council, of the Institution, and residence of Bishops, the Pope reprehended the Legats for sending them.— Because he knew, that the major part in the Council were good Catholicks, and devoted to the Church of Rome, and in confidence hereof he was con­tent, that the proposition, and resolution should be determined in Trent without his knowledge. The same Author p. 684. makes him fur­ther, in defence of his Instruction, from time to time, sent to his Legats, and to the Council, answering the same letter of the [Page 145]Emperour on this manner: plausibly enough, though, as Pallavi­cino taxeth him, misrelating in several things the contents of the letter. l. 20. c. 8. n. 9.— That no Council was ever celebrated in absence of the Pope, but that he hath sent instructions; which the Fathers have also followed: That the Instructions do still remain, which Pope Cele­stine sent to the Ephesin Council; Pope Leo, to that of Chalcedon; Pope Agatho, to that in Trullo, Pope Adrian the first, to the second of Nice; Pope Adrian the second, to the eighth General Council of Constantinople. And, thus also he makes him to plead his cause at Rome before the Cardinals. p. 503. — That he could not chuse but be troubled with that which was spoken concerning the liberty of the Council; and that to consult of the matters at Rome, was to violate it; saying, that it was a strange thing, that he, who was head of the Church, and the Cardinals, who were principal members, and the other Prelats in Rome, who have voice in the Council, should be account­ed strangers, and might not be informed of what is handled therein, and speak their opinion; when as those, who have no lawful part in it, hold it lawful to intermedle, and that in an ill sort. That it is plain, that the Prelats went to Trent with commission from their Princes, according to which they proceed; and that the Embassadors by letters, and perswasions, do compel them to follow the interest of their Ma­sters; and yet for all this, no man saith (which should be said) that the Council is not free. Thus Pius in the Consistory. And indeed, had not only the Pope, but also all the absent Bishops in the world assembled a Council of their Clergy, and sent their judgment from time to time to Trent (so long as the Council was not obliged to follow it) this would have brought no subjection, or dishonour, but have added more reverence, to its Decrees, enacted after they had first been sifted by so many several Examinations. Nor do I see, how the Popes, Paul, or Pius, their Consultations with their Council of Bishops at Rome before every Session of Trent concer­ning the points to be determined therein; and upon it, declaring their judgment to the Legats, or to the Council (provided they use no unlawful practises for the corrupting of any ones judgment) should be more thought to prescribe to, or to diminish, the free­dom thereof, than the precedent consultations used anciently in Provincial Councils, concerning some point afterward to be defi­ned in a General, was held prejudicial to it: or than Pope Cele­stines, or Leo's, precedent Letters to the third and fourth General Council, declaring their judgment concerning what was to be dis­cu [...]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 [Page 146]Orators in the Council acquainted him not continually with the actions thereof, and accordingly received new instructions for their negotiations?

§. 166 To what hath been said, I have one thing more to add: That as such a frequent reconsulting the Apostolick See was unusual in many former Councils, so there was not thereof, in them, the same necessity: because such Councils being assembled for the de­termining some one, or a few, points of Controversie, the Popes Legats received full Instructions concerning the faith of the Ro­man See therein, before their first coming: but in so many con­troversies of all sorts, as here came to be agitated, it was impos­sible for that Bishop, either fully to pre-inform his Missioners, or to foresee the questions: As Canus, who was one of this Council, long since observed, in Com. loci, l. 5. c. 5. And if it be said, that the Popes presence in the Council might have prevented all such trouble, and offence, his absence seems rather eligible for this, that so he might do all things with more mature advice, and less precipitancy, on whose judgment the affairs of the Council did chiefly depend; to which may be added, what himself urgeth to the Emperour: Pallav. l. 2. c. 8. n. 4. that his personal presence there then would have seemed to tend much more to the overawing and oppressing of the Councils liberty.

§. 167 To the 3d. 1 The great number of Italian Bishops: and, To 3. 2 the not voting by Nations. Of the first of these, the thing being confessed, these things may be said; * That such a thing, without the Popes particular design, would have happen­ed; these Bishops being much nearer, than those of Spain and France, and not having the like impediments, of Lutheranisme, and National Colloquies, as the Germans; * that, suppose the Pope had sent them all, the charitable may clearly see another cause thereof, than only their driving there of the Popes interest: namely, the sometimes great scarcity of Bishops in the Council; especially, at the first opening of it. * That, if other Bishops were hindered to be present, the frequency of the Italians, how numerous soever, if of such as had lawful Suffrages, cannot be blamed, though the absence of others be excused. That as the Pope was diligent to send in these, so was he very solicitous, by writing to their Princes; to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations: as appears frequently in the History; and so al­so was the Council it self (and the Italians therein) which Council also had proceeded to lay heavy mulcts upon the Absents, had not [Page 147]the Embassadors interceded, and in part excused them. Of which see before, §. 71. * That, though the Italian Bishops in ge­neral are confessed to be inclined more than others, to maintain the Popes honour, and greatness; yet so many of them, as were not beneficed in the Popes state, and subject to his temporal Dominion (which was very inconsiderable in respect of the rest of Italy) if we may believe Soave, were addicted much more to their own Princes, in things wherein their Embassadors craved their assistance, than to the Pope; as on which Princes they had a greater dependance in respect of their Estates, their Parentage, &c. than on the Pope. Therefore we find not only those of the Im­perial, or Spanish States of Italy, but the Venetians, and Floren­tines in several things to have divided from those of the Papacy. See Soave, p. 504. 559, 558. * That nothing could be passed in the Council, as to matters of doctrine, if a considerable part con­tradicted, though a major part favoured it; and that the non-Ita­lians were never but accounted (in respect of the Nations repre­sented by them) a considerable part; so that, to hinder something from being voted, such a number of Italians was, or might be, made use of; but to vote any thing they alone were esteemed un­effective; and the omissions of the Council may be sometimes charged upon them, but not the Acts. * That, whether the Pope had the Suffrages of the Italian Bishops at his beck, or no, he had no need of any such assistance for the Protestant-Controversies: in condemning of which, Soave confesseth the votes of the whole Council to concur; as hath been shewed before as to many parti­culars, §. 150, and see Soave, p. 182, 183. saying. That as to those points, like a City beleagred, the factions among them ceased, and all joyned against the common enemy.

§. 168 Lastly, as to those Controversies, wherein the Council was more divided, and the Popes single interests were more nearly concerned; * That, de facto, he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops; nor the major part of the Council at his command, to vote what he pleased. This also fre­quently appears from Soave's own relations. In these he makes often mention of the Bishops of Naples, and Lombardy (the great­est part of Italy) their conforming to the Emperor, their Sove­raigns, inclinations, and their being steered by his Embassador; and speaks several times of the Imperial Italian Bishops their op­posing 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, [Page 148]and not the Emperour (after the Kingdom of Spain, and the Em­pire disunited) belonged these Dominions in Italy; See Soare, p. 694. and there­fore 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: See p. 559. 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 Embassa­dors 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; See Soave, p. 231.468. 496, 551, 559. 609, 711. as likewise concerning the non-remitting of Reformations to his Holiness. 254, 144, 145. The Permission of the Cup, carried negatively a­gainst the Legats, p. 559, 567. and several other matters; p. 699, 769. 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 Pre­lats opposing him, since these were the major part of the Coun­cil. So (p. 660.) He brings in the French Embassadors complaining of the Secretary of the Council, as not faithfully set­ting 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 Coun­cil, sometimes, to secure himself by Armes; p. 551. often solliciting the secular Princes to move their Bishops in his behalf, p. 504. some­times relying on the help of some eminent persons in the Council; as on the Cardinal of Lorraine, Soave, p. 766. 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 [Page 149]unmask himself, would profess to be on his side, either for fear of great­er 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 re­presents, — The Court of Rome exclaiming, that a Schisme was plot­ted in the Council, and an Apostacy from the Apostolick See; and Pius the 4th complaining both of the Prelats, and of his own Le­gats; that all were united against him, &c. Yet this, after that the same Soave had related p. 504. the Popes sending so many pensio­ners 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 dissol­ved. * ( 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 Ora­tors, 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 Coun­try, or Pensions, or Promises, or Fears. Now the proponentibus legatis strikes all the Council speechless, as to the matters Funda­mental, 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 [Page 150]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 inconveni­ence 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 Coun­cil 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 ex­pedient, for curing a Schism. Mean while, see in Spondanus, A.D. 1415. n. 14 & 16. ta­ken 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 Angli­canâ 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 Nationi­bus, 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 [Page 151]out of Patricius, in the beginning of the Council of Basil A. D. 1431. 11. 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 toge­ther, 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 Gene­ral 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 Con­gregation all things are passed by personal votes: (which proceed­ing 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 Depu­ties 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 emulati­ons, and factions between Nations (to the rending of the Chur­ches 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 [Page 152]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 ab­sents, 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 uncon­sulted, 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 no­thing 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 con­cluded no Article of faith; as in stating which Articles they guided themselves by former evident Tradition, or most clear Con­sequences thereof.

§. 170 To the 4.th The Popes giving Pensions. The thing is con­fessed, but hath two handles, To 4. by which, as it is taken, it is ren­dred 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 justi­fied, 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 mainte­nance of their charges, threatening to depart: as Soavo himself [Page 153]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 atten­dance, 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 allow­ances 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, To 5. but they are justifi­ed, 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 A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their com­mendation: 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 §. 167. of the Italians in general: * That the Pope found but little assistance from them, where he most needed them; nor was any advantagi­ous 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 Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 4. de Deform. —Sesss. 14. c. 2 them (when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council, some of them would [Page 154]have spoken, there, in their own defence) especially, that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bi­shop 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: To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations, and had, in them, a vote with the rest, but were not admitted to have a defi­nitive vote in the Council for this reason: least so, whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence, these their Substi­tutes, 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 See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8.— l. 21. c. 1. n. 3.. 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 Bi­shops, 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, sup­pose 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, esta­blished; which is enough to overthrow the Reformation.

CHAP. XI.

§. 173 THus much (from, §. 147.) touching the third Head; the le­gal proceedings of this Council. Now we come to the [Page 156]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 Christi­ans, so many new Articles of Faith; and Pius his Bull, that fol­lowed 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. for holding something against matter of Faith, but for other misde­meanours, 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 contra­dicting her common Doctrines, of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be; or spreadeth abroad propositions schismati­cal, and scandalous, and apt to corrupt good manners, or, be made ill use of by the simple, though the matter of them be not proper­ly 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 main­taining, and divulging them abroad: The Church being very vigi­lant (contrary to Sects) to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith; which are observed by the Apostle to be of the na­ture of a Cancer, 1 Tim. 2.17. 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 Anathe­ma, in these, eye so much the greatness, and malignity of the er­ror, as the pertinacy, and obstinacy of its Abettor, refusing submit­tance 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, Mat. 18, 17. 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, Considera­tions on the Church of Engl. Pre­face.— We acknowledge, that he who shall pertinaciously, and turbulent­ly 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. Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27.— 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 De Concil. l. 2. c. 10. of Pro­vincial 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 adhe­rence of such persons to their own fancies, against their Superi­ors, yet it is never inflicted meerly for this; but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent, if spread abroad to others; the re­medy of which danger of infecting others, seems chiefly to be in­tended 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, 2. and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith, could they proceed in infini­tum, are also, when known, the matter or objects, or Articles, of our faith, as well as the more chief, necessary, points thereof; (un­less we may dis-believe something, that we grant to be God's Word:) [Page 158]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 con­sequence; 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 man­ner.

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 in­joyned, nor prohibited by God; in all which sort of things Di­vine 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. Last­ly, 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 command­ed, in such her judgment, to be submitted to; and, in such her Pre­cepts, 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 com­municating only in one kind: Of which thus the Council of [Page 159] Trent, Sess. 21. c. 1.— Si quis dixerit, ex Dei praecepto, vel neces­sitate salutis, omnes, singulos & Christo fideles utram (que) speciem sanctissi­mi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere, Anathema sit. Such the Du­ty of communicating once a year, Sess. 13. c. [...]9.— Si quis nega­verit, omnes, & singulos Christi Fideles utriusque sexus, cum ad an­nos discretionis pervenerint, teneri, singulis annis, saltem Paschate, ad communicandum, juxta praeceptum Sancta matris Ecclesiae; Anathe­ma 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 Coun­cil (Act. 7.)— Si quis Traditiones Ecclesiae, sive scriptas, sive consue­tudine valentes, non curaverit; Anathema sit.

§. 177 3. That all Councils to the worlds end, and not only the four, or three, first, 3. before the passing of the Ephesin Canon Conc. E­phes. c. 7. (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 assert­ing of Truth, not only in gross, and in some general, and prin­cipal 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, hurt­ful; 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 in­debted, 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, [Page 160]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 Judge­ment, 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 Apo­stles 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 er­rors 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 be­l [...]eve and hold the Affirmative: Neither is it possible, that the Church, in such points, can make any fence to keep out her ene­mies, 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 for­bid 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 autho­rity 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-applica­tion.

1. It is meet, that I first set you down the words thereof, with what immediatly precedes them.— Sermocinatio ejusdem San­cti 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 [Page 161]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 includ­ed] cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt. Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre, volentibus converti ad agnitionem veri­tatis 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 detestatio­ne, & execratione percellantur. This being the Canon.

To (α) I say. 1 ^st. That, § 179. n. 2. R. To α. 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, R. To α. that the Ephesin Council prohibited only, that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing, or con­trary in any thing to, the doctrine of the Nicene Creed (as Theo­dorus 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; See Conc. Florent. 7. Sess. being first mention­ed, and found in the Creed, in the fourth Toletan Council, a­bout, 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 per­swade, it did) but the addition thereto, or alteration in expressi­on, 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 ma­king 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 Defi­nitions also, as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice, they con­demn [Page 162]themselves in the first place; who though they added not to the Creed, yet defined [Maria [...]] 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 Chalce­don; who made another new definition, or Creed, against Euty­ches; 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 li­cere proferre, sive conscribere, aut exponere, vel sentire. Sed eos, qui audent vel componere, vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se con­vertere, &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 Coun­cil; that being only twenty years before this) understood it in the sence of the Latines, and urged the necessity of additions; as ap­pears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Empe­ror. See below §, 183. n. 1. 6 ^ly. Taken in such a sence, as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed, but also the de­fining, 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 defi­nitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council, as it did before, and also in, it.

§. 180 To β. To [...] If the Grecians meant [imperfection] in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith, then both the au­thority 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 neces­sary to be explicitly known, its granted; that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect; yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice.

§. 181 To γ. To γ. The Latines joyn [contrary] also to it, when they name [different,] and mean only such difference, as is also con­trary: 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 nei­ther shall any other new definitions of Councils be so?

§. 182 To δ. To δ. Celestines words, which are spoken of the Apostles Creed, either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions; or do condemn Nice for it. But see this testimony ex­plained 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: §. 183. n. 1. see the defence, which the Fa­thers of the fourth General Council, following the Ephesin, made to Marcianus the Emperor, in the Conclusion of that Synod, Allocut. ad Marcianum con­cerning 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 Innova­tions 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 no­bis 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 Inno­vation, &c, shew, that Councils may define not only express Tradi­tionals in matters of faith, but any new conclusions, extracted from such Traditionals.

Neither seems it to be much material. 183. n. 2. 1. Whether the Definitions of latter Councils, when inserted into former Creeds, be called explanations and Declarations of, or Additions to, the for­mer 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 [...] or, Dei Genetrix: inti­mating 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 [...] which, the Greeks urged in the Council of Florence, Sess. 5. 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 ex­press 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 Orthodox­orum. Sancta Maria [...] scribatur— In Symbolo sic addatur. Sess. 5. 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 tempora­ry; and, malos, post purgationem malorum, regna Dei, luci (que) restitu­endos Austin de Hares. 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 [Page 165]in the prime Copies thereof; at least, not in those anciently used in the Roman Church, [as Descendit ad inferos] and [vitam aeter­nam.] See the Authorities quoted by Archbishop Ʋsher, De Sym­bolo 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 enlar­ging the Articles of the former Catholick Faith. Now to pro­ceed.