Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Chapter 5

Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Chapter 5

p. 355CHAP. V. Of the Divisions of the Roman Church.

The great pretence of Vnity in the Church of Rome considered. The Popes Authority the fountain of that Vnity; what that Authority is which is challenged by the Popes over the Christian World; the disturbances which have happened therein on the account of it. The first revolt of Rome from the Empire caused by the Popes; Baronius his Arguments answered. Rebellion the foundation of the greatness of that Church. The cause of the strict League between the Popes and the posterity of Charles Martel. The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire: Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Emperour and other Christian Princes, upon the pretence of the Popes Authority. More disturbances on that account in Christendome, than any other matter of Religion. Of the Schisms which have happened in the Roman Church: particularly those after the time of Formosus, wherein his Ordinations were nulled by his successours, p. 356the Popes opposition to each other in that Age: the miserable state of that Church then described. Of the Schisms of latter times, by the Italick and Gallick factions, the long continuance of them. The mischief of those Schisms on their own principles. Of the divisions in that Church about matters of Order and Government. The differences between the Bishops and the Monastick Orders about exemptions and priviledges; the history of that Controversie and the bad success the Popes had in attempting to compose it. Of the quarrel between the Regulars and Seculars in England. The continuance of that Controversie here and in France. The Jesuits enmity to the Episcopal Order and jurisdiction: the hard case of the Bishop of Angelopolis in America. The Popes still favour the Regulars, as much as they dare. The Jesuits way of converting the Chinese discovered by that Bishop. Of the differences in matters of Doctrine in that Church. They have no better way to compose them than we. The Popes Authority never truly ended one Controversie among them. Their wayes to evade the decisions of Popes and Councils. Their dissensions are about matters of faith. The wayes taken to excuse their own differences will make none between them and us, manifested by Sancta Clara's exposition of p. 357the 39 Articles. Their disputes not confined to their Schools, proved, by a particular instance about the immaculate conception; the infinite scandals, confessed by their own Authors, to have been in their Church about it. From all which it appears that the Church of Rome can have no advantage in point of Vnity above ours.

2. §. 1. THE other thing objected,Of the great pretence of Unity in the Church of Rome. as flowing from the promiscuous reading the Scriptures, is, the number of our Sects, and the disturbances which have been among us upon their account: whereas among them the Government of the Church is so ordered as to keep all in peace and Vnity. This makes it necessary to examine that admirable Vnity they boast so much of; and either they mean by it, that there hath been less disturbance in the world before the Reformation, or no Schisms among themselves, or no differences in the matters of Religion. But I shall now prove: 1. That there have never been greater disturbances in the World than upon the account of that Authority of the Pope, which they look on as the Foundation of their Vnity. 2. That there have happened great and scandalous Schisms among themselves on the same account. 3. That their differences in Religion both as to matter of Order and Doctrine have been p. 358as great and managed with as much animosity as any among us.

1. The disturbances in the World upon the account of the Popes Authority: I meddle not barely with his usurpations, (which work is lately and largely done,)History of Romish Usurpations by Hen. Foulis. but the effects of them in these Western Churches. For which we are to consider what authority that is, which the Pope challenges, and what disturbances hath been given to the peace of Christendome by it. The Authority claimed by the Pope, is that of being Vniversal Pastor over the Catholick Church, by vertue of which not only spiritual direction in matters of faith, but an actual jurisdiction over all the members of it doth belong unto him. For otherwise they say the Government of the Church is imperfect and insufficient for its end; because Princes may easily overthrow the Unity of the Church by favouring Hereticks, if they be not in subjection to the Pope as to their temporal concernments, because it may happen that they have a regard to no other but these; if it were not therefore in the Popes power to depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleagiance, when they oppose the Vnity of the Church, his power, say they, is an insignificant title, and cannot reach the end it was designed for. Besides they urge, that all Princes coming p. 359into the Church are to be supposed to submit their Scepters to Christ, so as to lose them in case they act contrary to the Catholick Church, of which they are made members: for whosoever doth not hate Father and Mother, &c. cannot be my Disciple. And what officer is there so fit to take all Escheats and Forfeitures of Power as Christs own Vicar upon Earth? But to adde more strength, Bellarmin very prettily proves it out of Pasce oves, Bell. de Pontif. R. l. 5. c. 7.for every Pastor must have a threefold power to defend his flock, a power over wolves to keep them from destroying the Sheep, a power over the Rams that they do not hurt them, and a power over the Sheep to give them convenient food; now, saith he, very subtilly, if a Prince of a sheep should turn a Ram or a Wolf, must not he have power to drive him away, and to keep the people from following him? This is then the only current doctrine concerning the Popes Authority in the Court of Rome, although some mince the matter more than others do, and talk only of an indirect power, yet they all mean the same thing, and ascribe such power to the Pope, whereby he may depose Princes and absolve subjects from the duty they owe to them. And how much in request this Doctrine continues at Rome appears by the Counsel given by Michael Lonigo, p. 360Master of the Palace, to Pope Greg. 15.Consilium Greg. 15. exhibitum per Mich. Lonigum. A. D. 1623. Printed A. D. 1623. about perswading the Duke of Bavaria then newly made Elector to receive a confirmation of his title from the Pope; to which end, he saith, some skilful person ought to be imployed to acquaint him, that the power of the Empire was the meer issue of the Church, and did spring from it as a Child from the Mother, and that it was a great sin for any Christian to call this into Question; and consequently the Popes power and authority to determine concerning the State and affairs of the Empire, and this he attempts to prove by no fewer than nineteen arguments, all of them drawn from the former Usurpations of the Popes and encroachments upon the Empire: from whence he concludes that the Electorship could not be lawfully taken away from one and given to another, without the Popes consent and authority, and that such a disposal of it was in it self null, and of no force. The same year came forth a Book of Aphorisms concerning the restoring the state of the Church,Aphorismi de statu ecclesiae rest aurando per Mich. Lonigum. by the decree and approbation of the Colledge of Cardinals, collected by the same person and by him presented to the Pope; wherein the same power of the Pope is asserted, and that it belongs to him to transferr the Electoral dignity from one p. 361to another; and that it ought to be taken away from the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg for opposing his Authority, and that to allow the Emperour authority in these things was to rob the Apostolick See of its due rights. By which we may understand what that Authority over the Church is, which is challenged by the Pope as supream Pastour in order to the preserving the Unity of it.

§. 2. We now consider what the blessed effects of this pretended power hath been in the Christian World;Of the disturbances of the Christian World under the pretence of the Popes Authority. and I doubt not to make it appear that this very thing hath caused more warrs and bloodshed, more confusions and disorders, more revolts and rebellions in Christendome, than all other causes put together have done, since the time it was first challenged; and this I shall prove from their own Authors, and such whose credit is the greatest among them. The revolt of Rome and the adjacent parts from the subjection due to the Roman Emperour, then resident at Constantinople, was wholly caused by the Pope. The first Pope saith Onuphrius, Onuphr. An…ot. in Platin. vit. Constant.that ever durst openly resist the Emperour was Constantine 1. who opposed Philippicus in the matter of Images, which the Emperour commanded to be pulled down because they were abused to Idolatry, and the Pope utterly refused to obey; and not only so, but set up p. 362more in opposition to him in the Pertico of St. Peter, and forbad the use of the Emperours name and title in any publick Writings or Coines. The same command was not long after renewed by Leo 3. upon which, saith Onuphrius, Gregory 2. then Pope took away the small remainder of the Roman Empire from him in Italy: Sigonius de regno Italiae. l. 3. A. D. 726.and Sigonius more expresly, that he not only excommunicated the Emperour, but absolved all the people of Italy from their Alleagiance, and forbad the payment of any Tribute to him; Naucler. Chro…o…. Gen. 25.Gen 25whereupon the inhabitants of Rome, Campania, Ravenna, and Pentapolis, i.e. the Region about Ancona, immediately rebelled, and rose up in opposition to their Magistrates whom they destroyed. At Ravenna, Paulus the Emperours Lieutenant or Exarch was killed; at Rome, Peter the Governour had his eyes put out, in Campania, Exhilaratus and his Son Hadrian were both Murdered by the people of Rome, and not content with this, he writ a Letter to the Emperour full of the greatest reproaches imaginable. Baron. Annales Eccles. A. 726. ton. 9.Baronius is here very hard put to it, to Vindicate the Pope, for he confesses the Rebellion of the people was occasioned by the Popes opposing the Emperour, and commends their zeal for Religion in it, and acknowledgeth that the Emperour laid all the blame on the Pope, and that the Greek Historians, Theophanes, and Zonaras do so too; but all this he p. 363saith proceeded only from their spight against the Roman Church and their ignorance of affairs in it; but if we believe him, the Pope rather endeavoured to keep them in obedience to the Emperour, and when they would have chosen another he opposed it: which he proves from Paulus Diaconus and Anastasius. But what is that to the business? the question is not, whether the Pope did not hinder the choosing another Emperour, but whether he did not draw the people off from their obedience to the Emperour that then was? And this is not only affirmed by the Greek historians; but by those of the Roman Church.Chronicon. Sigeberti ad A. 728. Sigebert saith, that Gregory 2. finding the Emperour incorrigible, he made Rome,Otto Frising. l. 5. c. 18. Italy and all the West to revolt from him, and forbad his Tributes: the same is affirmed by Otto Frisingensis, Urspergens. Chron. ad A. 718.Conradus Vrspergensis, Hieronymus Rubeus and others, who cannot be suspected of any enmity to the Roman Church. Hier. Rubei histor. Raven. l. 4. p. 190.As for the making a new Emperour, therein the Pope had another game to play, he was not willing the Souldiery should make another Emperour; Hadr. Vales. Rerum Francic. lib. 25. tom. 3. p. 520.for as Hadrianus Valesius well observes the Pope durst not so affront the Emperour, if he had not held a private correspondency with Charles Martel at that time, whose honour and armes were the greatest in these Western parts. Having thereby strengthened his interest against p. 364both the Emperour his known enemy and the Lombards that were at best but unfaithful friends, he makes what advantage he can of the places that owed subjection to the Emperour to make up the Patrimony of the Church: as Valesius observes particularly of Sutrium, Sigon. de regno Ital. l. 3. ad A. D. 727.but Sigonius saith, the people not only cast off the Emperour, but did swear to be faithful to the Pope, (no wonder then he was not willing to have a new Emperour chosen) so that at this time Rome, and the Roman Dutchy came into the hands of the Pope, the Cities of which are enumerated by Sigonius; Papir. Massonus de Episcop. urbis. l. 3. p. 126.and therefore Papirius Massonus deservedly makes this Pope, the founder of the greatness of the Roman Church: which we see was laid in down-right rebellion: and can be no otherwise justified than by making the Pope absolute Governour of the World. Not long after the Pope begins saith Valesius, Vales. tom. 3. p. 525.a warr with the Lombards who watched any occasion to take away some part of his newly gotten Patrimony, he therefore sends away Anastasius and Sergius into France to Charles Martel, with the Keyes of St. Peters Sepulchre, in token of their owning him as their Protector. Which Embassie being acceptable to Charles, Platina in Gregor. 3.he procures a peace to be concluded between the Lombards and the Romans: which was contrary to the Popes desire, who sent several Letters and Messengers p. 365to him to come into Italy to revenge St. Peters quarrel against the Lombards with Fire and Sword; and as he loved St. Peter he would come with all Speed into Italy; as appears by the letters still extant and published by Sirmondus. Sirmondi Concil. Gallic. Tom. 1. p. 526.But he soon after dying, his Son Pepin succeeding in all his power, and growing weary of having so much as the name of a King above him, sends to Pope Zachary to know whether it were not fitter for him to bear the name who did all the business of a King, who very well understood his meaning and readily assented to it, upon which Chilperick was deposed and put into a Monastery, Otto Frising. Chron. l. 5. c. 22.and Pepin was afterwards absolved by the Pope from his Oath of fidelity,Papir. Masson. Annal. Franc. l. 2. p. 86. with all the Nobles and People. There being now so close a League between the Popes interest and Pepins, Sabellic. Enead. 8. l. 8the ones title to his Crown depending on the Popes authority, the others security upon his protection, no wonder to see them endeavour the promoting each others advantage.Blond. decad. 1. lib. 10. The Popes Territories being not long after molested by Aistulphus King of the Lombards, Stephen writes a very pittiful Letter of complaint to Pepin, and Charles and Charlemagne his Sons, wherein he saith that Aistulphus had almost broke his heart with grief, because he would not leave one foot of Land to St. Peter and the Holy Church; and p. 366therefore he conjures them by St. Peter who had anointed them Kings, that they would recover the lands again out of the Lombards hands, or otherwise they may think what a sad account they will give to St. Peter in the day of Judgement: These are the words of the Popes letter lately published by Delaland Sirmondus his Nephew in his Supplement of the Gallican Councils. Conci…or. Antiq. Galliae s…pplement. p. 78. A. D. 756.Upon this, Pepin comes to his assistance, and every peace addes still more to the Churches Revenew, by which it was now grown very considerable by the spoiles of the Empire, the Exarchat of Ravenna in Pope Stephens time being destroyed, which was the only remainder then left of the Empire in Italy: and the revenews of it were given by Pepin to the Church of Rome: as appears by an ancient inscription in Ravenna mentioned by Papirius Massonus. Papir. Masson. Annales Franc. l. 2. p. 87.Which the Pope solicited hard for, when he went himself into France on purpose to stirr up Pepin against the Lombards, Sigon de reg. Ital. l. 3. A. 754.and was much afraid lest the Exarchat should have been restored again to the Emperour; Sermond. Concil. Tom. 2. p. 12.but Pepin promising to give the Region of Pentapolis and Ravenna to the Roman See (assoon as he had taken them from the Lombards) the Pope went away well satisfied: and drew after him a mighty Army, whereby a great part of Italy was laid waste,Blond. decad. 2. l. 1. and the people miserably harrassed; for no other end, but to p. 367secure that to the Pope which did by all right belong to the Emperour. Platin. in Steph. 2.Who sent Ambassadours first to the Pope, and then to Pepin to desire the restitution of those places, to their true owner, but the Pope denyed, and Pepin urged the promise he had already made to the Pope, and that he could not go back from it; because he undertook that quarrel meerly for his souls,Adelmus in Franc. Annal. ad A. 755. and the Popes sake, without expecting any advantage to himself by it. Aistulphus being dead, Desiderius takes upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy, but he fearing Rachis the right heir,B…ondus ib. Platina in Stephan. 2. makes a League presently with the Pope, and by surrendring up some more Cities, makes him wholly of his party, and Rachis is fain to retire again to a Monastery: but after a while, Desiderius finds an occasion to quarrel with the Pope, and takes several cities into his hands which the Pope had gotten possession of, and threatens suddenly to besiege Rome, Pope Adrian finding himself in these straights dispatches away messengers with all speed to Charles the Son of Pepin, that he would imitate his Father and Grandfather in relieving the Church of Rome in this distress. Charles not willing to omit such an opportunity of inlarging his Dominions enters Italy with a great Army, and in a little time puts a period to the Kingdom of Lombardy, which had then lasted in Italy 206 years; and was magnificently p. 368received at Rome by Hadrian and the people, by whom he was chosen Protector of the Roman Church and state under the name of Patritius; and he being desired by Hadrian to confirm his Fathers Promises to the Church, not only doth that, but addes a considerable accession, the more firmly to oblige the Romans, and especially the Pope to him. Italy being thus reduced, nothing was now wanting to Charles but the Title of Emperour, having already so great a dominion in Italy, besides what he had in Germany and France. This had been often treated on between the Pope and him, but the seditions of Rome by the Emperours party frequently happening by the presence of some of his Officers there, as Platina confesseth,Platina in Stephan. 3. and his party being not inconsiderable in other parts, though not daring publickly to appear, and Charles by his Warrs being elsewhere employed, this was put off till Pope Leo 3. by the conspiracy of some of the chief Citizens of Rome was seized on and imprisoned, from whence making a difficult escape, he goes in haste to Charles, who coming into Italy and punishing the conspiratours, the Pope then, (some say, by his own Authority, of which number Bellarmin reckons thirty three Authors,De translat. Imp. Rom. l. 1. c. 4. others by the consent of the Senate and people) declares Charles to be Emperour of Rome, who solemnly performs the office of p. 369his Inauguration. Thus we have seen the Foundation laid of the Greatness of the Roman Church, which being begun in Rebellion was carryed on by continual warrs, and so great devastations of the Countrey,Platin. in Steph. 2. Blond. decad. 2. lib. 1. that Platina and Blondus both say, that the countrey about Rome, suffered more in that time than in all the invasions of the barbarous Nations for 344 years before. And was not the Church like to enjoy much happiness and peace under a Government founded in Rebellion and maintained by blood? for we see the Popes were the great instruments of casting off their lawful Prince, and taking his Territories to themselves and to maintain what they had unjustly gotten, never scrupled beginning quarrels, making warrs, calling in any forrain assistance that might the most serve to promote their designes.

§. 3. It might now be imagined that the Popes having been so highly obliged by Charlemagne, The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire.they should in meer gratitude have done their utmost to preserve the Empire in peace under his posterity, but they are great strangers to the Court of Rome who look for any thing there, but what tends to their own advantage. For in the time of Ludovicus Pius son of Charles the great, his sons combining together against him in France, the Pope Gregory 4. going thither under a pretence of reconciling p. 370them joynes with the Sons in their Rebellion against their Father.Annales Eccles. ad A. D. 833. P. Aemilius in hist or Franc. p. 54. This Baronius would have to be a meer calumny, and endeavours to vindicate the Pope, because Paulus Aemilius saith, that the Pope abrogated the Decree, whereby Ludovicus was deprived of the Empire: But Baronius understood his business too well to make use of the Testimony of so late an Author, if he could have had any assistance from those who lived near the time.Nithard. hist. l. 1. à Petr P'thae. ed. in Annal. Franc. Nithardus who lived in the same age, and was nearly related to the Imperial Family, wrote a Book on purpose of the differences among the Sons of Ludov. Pius, and he expresly saith, that they drew the Pope into their Party; Vita Ludovici Pii à Pithaeo ib. p. 245.which is likewise affirmed by the Author of the life of the said Emperour, who lived at the same time, the Pope, he saith, indeed pretended to reconcile them, but the event shewed it to be otherwise; and the Emperour sent to him to know if he came to him, what made him stay so long before he came at him? and Vnderstanding that he came with a design to excommunicate all that would not joyne with the Sons against the Father, he said, that if he came to excommunicate others, he should go away excommunicated himself, Papir. Masson. in vit. Greg. 4.because he acted against the Canons. Papirius Massonus, upon the Testimony of Nithardus (whom he calls Vitaldus) makes Gregory guilty of the conspiracy of the Sons p. 371against their Father: and the reason he gives of it is, that Lotharius having the command of Italy might dispossess him of his seat if he opposed him; and more he saith, are ready to worship the rising than the setting Sun. A very worthy excuse for the head of the Church to encourage the Rebellion of Sons against their Father, and him too who had all his life shewed as much kindness to the Roman See as his Ancestors had done!Sigeberti Chron. A▪ D. 832. Sigebertus Gemblacensis saith, that Pope Gregory went into France being of the party of the Emperours Sons against himself. Hincmar. Rhemens. Epistol. p. 577. ed. Cord.And Hincmarus the famous Bishop of Rhemes, who lived in the time of Ludovicus his sons, in his Letter to Pope Hadrian 2. saith, that Gregory came into France with Lotharius against the Emperours will, and there was no peace in France after, as had been before; and that he returned with infamy to Rome. It would be too large a task to reckon up particularly all the quarrels, which the Popes after this did either begin with or foment among Christian Princes, I shall only at present single out some of the most remarkable of them, not managed by Beasts and Monsters as their own Writers call some of their Popes, but persons applauded for their Wisdome and Courage in maintaining the dignity of their See.

p. 372§. 4. Among these,Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Emperour and other Christian Princes. Gregory 7. deserves the first place; I meddle not with other things in this life, which Cardinal Benno hath writ, (and is very weakly suspected by Bellarmin to have been made by some Lutheran; it being first published by a zealous Papist) but that which I design, is to shew, that under a pretence of advancing his Authority he was the great Boutefeu of Christendome. Urspergens. Chronic. p. 226. marg.It is observed by some Historians that Henry 4. then Emperour sought sixty two pitched Battails (ten more than ever Iulius Caesar fought) and he may thank the Pope for so many opportunities to shew his courage. For he was no sooner well settled in his chaire, but he finds a pretence of quarrelling with the Emperour, and he had such a spirit of contradiction in him,Otto Frising. l. 6. c. 32. that it was enough for any thing to displease him, to hear it was liked by the Emperour and the Bishops, as Otto Frisingensis reports of him. While he was yet but Arch-deacon of Rome, Petrus Damiani who was a Brother Cardinal with him describes him as a person of the greatest pride and insolency imaginable in a letter to Pope Alexander 2. and Hildebrand his Arch-deacon, Petr. Damiani Epistol. l. 1. c…. 16.wherein he calls him, Sanctum Satanam, a holy Devil, and saith, that his venerable pride had plowed his back with such severe stripes that he was able to endure them no longer: and in another Letter to himself alone, p. 373he saith,L. 1. Epist. ad Card. Ep. 8. that he could not get so much as a good word from him, though he wishes he had served God and St. Peter as heartily as he had served him: and that he followed no other Canons but his Will: and his judgement did not follow his own thoughts but his. This had been very fair towards another man; but none of his fellow Bishops are matches for him, being Pope he cares for meddling with nothing under Crowns and Scepters, and those he takes upon him to dispose as freely as his predecessour did, when he said, All these things will I give thee, only fall down and worship me: For this was the indispensable condition with him. I shall give a brief account of the affairs of the Empire in his time, chiefly from Sigonius who cannot be suspected for an Henrician Heretick, Sigonius de regno Italico l. 9. in Hen. 3. A. D. 1074.(as some of the German Historians are called: only for asserting the just Authority of their Prince against the Popes Usurpations) the first thing Pope Hildebrand began with was the business of investitures; and at a Council in the Lateran he Decreed that in case any one received investiture from a Lay person, both he that gave and he that received it should be both excommunicated, to which he adjoyned a Decree against the Marriage of Clergy-men, which was no sooner published by his Legats in Germany, but all the Clergy were in an uproar, and p. 374charged the Pope with contradicting S. Paul, and that by this means he made way for all manner of uncleanness,Lambert. Schasnabu…g. histor. German. and that they would rather part with their places than submit to it;A. D. 1074. p. 201 Sigebert. Gembloc. Chron. A. 1074. and when the Arch-bishop of Mentz was prevailed with to publish this Decree at Erford, the Bishops were so enraged, that the Arch-bishop fearing his life dismissed the Assembly: the like opposition was made at Milan against Erlembaldus, Matt. Paris in Gul. 1. Aventin.who was there killed with Luitprandus the only person who submitted to him: the Pope highly incensed,Annal. Boior. l. 5. p. 564. excommunicates all the Bishops who sided with the Emperour, and forbids the people to communicate with any Clergy men who had Wives; but not satisfied with this, he summons the Emperour, very Magisterially, to appear before him; and in case of neglect, that he should be excommunicated. Henry instead of appearing calls a Council of Bishops who pronounce him an unlawful Pope, to which they all subscribed; which message was sent to the Pope before his Council could meet, but Hildebrand encouraged himself by the examples of his Predecessors, Gregory 2. & 3. (who took away the remainder of the Empire from Leo) and published a Bull wherein he deprived the Emperour of his Authority, and absolved all his Subjects from their Allegiance, and forbad any to own him for their Prince; upon p. 375which a Rebellion in the Empire followed, only they allowed him time to make his peace with the Pope, within the year, before they would choose a new Emperour. The poor Emperour finding so general a revolt is fain to go into Italy without money or retinue, till the Bishops of Milan and Ravenna and Lombardy, who held faithful to him furnished him with both. The Pope hearing that, stops his journey into Germany and returns to Canusium, a strong place belonging to his dear Mathildis, who out of great kindness never parted from him; thither came the German Bishops first, and beg their pardon barefoot; the Pope puts them severally into Cells and there feeds them with bread and water; but at last upon promise never to discourse with the Emperour before he had given him satisfaction, (unless it were to perswade him to it) they are dismissed. The Emperour now draws near to Canusium, and gets Mathildis and two more of greatest interest with the Pope to intercede for him; but all they could prevail with him for, was, that this servant of servants, this follower of St. Peter, even the humble minded Pope Hildebrand, admits him within the second wall of the Town, where casting off his Royal habit, he was, bare-footed in the midst of Winter to wait for the Popes answer, in which posture he continued p. 376three dayes together, on the fourth the Pope very graciously sends him word he might come into his presence. If Lucifer himself had sate in the Chair, he would not have denyed him so much courtesie as his Vicar shewed him; who after submission to his own terms, and at his feet begging absolution, he absolved him. But the mean carriage of the Emperour herein, extremely disobliged the Italians his friends, who began to slight and contemn him for it, and to say he was unworthy the Empire, and therefore would choose his Son in his room: Henry finding himself in this condition, returns to his old friends, who declared the terms null which the Pope had forced upon him; the Pope finding the Emperour resolved to defend his power; sends away two Legats into Germany who met the Princes at the Diet in Forcheim, Constitut. Imperial. Tom 1. p. 238.in which by the approbation of the Legats. Henry is deposed and Rodolphus of Suevia chosen Emperour. Baron. Annales Eccles. A. D. 1077. …. 40.Baronius charges Helmoldus and Albertus Stadensis with falshood in saying that Greg. 7. transferred the Crown to Rodolphus and sent it with the known verse upon it; but whatever becomes of the verse, it seems strange from Baronius his own story that any one should question the thing. For was not his excommunicating Henry the cause of the first defection from him? Did not he absolve the people p. 377from their allegiance? and after his absolution, when he found Henry resolved to maintain his power, did not he send his Legats on purpose into Germany with instructions to the Princes to take care of the Empire? Were not his Legats present at all the proceedings and approved them? How could then the Pope have no hand in it? unless it were that he did not put the Crown upon his head himself. But saith Baronius, Gregory … an Epistle of his calls Peter and Paul to witness that he did not know of their choosing Rodolphus: but he doth not deny that they proceeded to a new choice because Henry did not keep his terms with him; he had intimations enough given him who was likest to be the man, and therefore he need not care any more, than to have a new election; and in the instructions given to his Legats, wherein he pretended to Umpire the business between them (after Rodolphus had sent his Son as hostage for his fidelity to the Pope) he gave them express commands that which soever of them should not obey his will, that they should resist him to the death, and excommunicate all that adhered to him, because forsooth, it was the sin of Idolatry to contemn the Apostolick See: and concludes his Letter with that abominable hypocrisie, that herein he did not seek his own things, but the things of Iesus Christ. A way of p. 378abusing Scripture he had taught his friend Mathildis, when she used St. Pauls words in a Letter to the Pope to express her love to him,Baron. ad A. 1074. n. 10. that neither tribulation, nor distress nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakednes…, nor sword, nor death, nor life, nor principalities, &c. should be able to separate her from the love of St. Peter in Christ Iesus our Lord; whom she meant by St. Peter is very easie to understand, according to the constant dialect of this Pope, whose Bulls and Anathema's against Princes ran in St. Peters name. But we leave Baronius admiring the Providence of God, that when Princes and Bishops forsook the Church of Rome, he raised up Agnes the Emperours Mother, against her own Son, and Beatrix and Matilda, of near kindred to the Emperour, to support the Pope against him; and not long after we find him acknowledging that Rodolphus was confirmed by the P…pe, Ad A. D. 1080. n. 8. 14.and Henry again excommunicated by him; in the form of which excommunication extant in Baronius, he desires all the World to take notice that it is in the Popes power to take away Empires, Kingdomes, Principalities, Dutchies, Marquisates, Earldomes, and the possessions of all men from them, and give them to whom he shall think fit. But doth Baronius in the least go about to explain or mitigate this?N. 1…. no, but instead of it, he complains of the prosperity of the wicked, because p. 379Henry obtained after this a signal victory over Rodolphus in his fourth Battel, wherein he was wounded in his right hand,Helmoldi Chron. Slavorum l. 1. cap. 29. Abbas Ursperae. ad A. D. 1080. and (say the German Historians) acknowledged therein the just judgement of God being near his death, that being the hand wherewith he had sworn fidelity to the Emperour; and then told his friends (whatever the Pope did swear by St. Peter and St. Paul) that the Popes command made him break his Oath, and take that honour upon him which did not belong to him; and he wished they who had put him upon it would consider how they led men to their eternal damnation by such courses; which having said with great grief of mind, saith Helmoldus he dyed. And the Pope himself did not escape much better, for the Emperour marches into Italy with a great Army, takes in all the Towns which opposed him, deposes Hildebrand by the Bishops of his party, as the cause of all the Warr and Bloodshed, and sets up Gibert of Ravenna under the name of Clement 3. besieges Rome, Sigebert. Chron. ad A. D. 1085.and the Pope not trusting the Citizens who soon left him, secures himself in a Castle,Florent. Wigorn. ad A. 1084. from whence escaping to Salerno he not long after there dyes. The only good thing we read of him is that which Sigebert and Florentius Wigorniensis, Matt. Paris Histor. Anglic. A. 1087.and Matthew Paris report of him, from the testimony of the Bishop of Mentz, that he p. 380called, when he was dying, one of his Friends to him,Aventin. Annal. Boior. l. 5. p. 581. and confessed that it was through the instigation of the Devil that he had made so great a disturbance in the Christian world. Whether they who applaud and admire him in the Roman Church, as particularly Baronius, Sentent. Cardin. Baronii super excomun. Venet.(who recommended him as a pattern to Paul 5. and rejoyced, to see a man of his spirit to succeed him) will believe this or no, we matter not, since there is so apparent evidence for the truth of the thing. But we not only see, the whole Empire put into a flame under pretence of this authority of the Pope, and Italy laid wast by it to so great a degree saith Sigonius, Sigon. de regno Ital. l. 9. ad A. 1084.that Mothers devoured their Children for meer hunger; but we may find him as busie though not with equal success with other Princes of Christendome. He threatens the King of France to deprive him (if he did not submit to him) and that his Subjects should certainly revolt from him, Baron. Annal. ad A. D. 1073. n. 65.unless they would renounce their Christianity; which are the words of his Bull in Baronius: but finding no amendment the next year he sends another, wherein he tells him, that if according to his hard and impenitent heart,Id. ad A. 1074 n. 53. he did treasure up the wrath of God and St. Peter, by the help of God he would excommunicate him and all that should obey him: the same year he excommunicates in Italy Robert Duke of Apulia, Prince p. 381of the Normans, Id. ib. n. 32.and Gilulphus Prince of Saierno, and sends an army against them. He threatens Alphmsus King of Spain with the Sword of St. Peter;Id. ad. A. 1080. n. 48. Id. A. 1078. n. 15. he excommunicates Nicephorus Emperour of Constantinople; he not only deprived Boleslaus King of Poland of his Kingdom, but puts the whole Kingdom under an interdict,Mart. Cromer. de gestis Polon. l. 4. ad sin. and forbids the Bishops anointing any for King but whom he should appoint. Of all the Princes of Christendome I find none so much in his favour as our William the first of the Norman Race, for he coming into a Kingdom, where he found no interest but what his Sword made him, keeps a fair correspondency with the Pope, Baron. ad A. D. 1074. n. 5.receives his Decrees, refuses to enter into an alliance against him, which so pleased him whom all other Princes hated, that he sends to him in his distress to come to his assistance to divert the Emperour, Id. ad A. D. 1080. n. 45.and calls him the Iewel of Princes, and saith that he ought to be the rule of obedience to all other Princes; but yet William himself could not escape his threatnings, when he forbad the Bishops of his Kingdom to go to Rome, and utterly denyed taking any oath of fidelity to the Pope which he pressed upon him by his Legat; Id. A. 1079. n. 20.although Baronius make him to submit to the Pope upon the receipt of his letter, whereas the letters of Lanfranc and the King produced by himself, expresly contradict it. This p. 382we are sure of, that William all his time practised that right of investiture of Bishop by a staff and a ring, Eadvier. prefat. ad hist. Novorum.which had been the first cause of the quarrel between the Emperour and the Pope; and which he had … severely forbidden in several Councils a Rome, thereby to maintain his own authority by taking off the Bishops of several Kingdoms from any aknowledgement of dependence on their own Soveraign Princes; which was the truest cause of all the quarrels of Christendome raised and somented by this Hell-brand as the Centuriatours according to their Dialect call him.

And although Onuphrius in his life confess that this Popes designs if they had taken effect would have quite overthrown the Majesty of the Empire, Of the quarrels of his Successours. Onuphrius in vit. Greg 7.and that he was the first Pope who ever attempted such things, yet he having now started so fair a game, though he dyed in the pursuit of it, his successours retrieved it and followed it with all their might and skill; thence we read that Vrban being made Pope by Hildebrands faction in opposition to the Emperour, Sicebrct. G…mblac ad A. D. 1088. Helmold. Chron. Slav. l. 1. c▪ 30. Urspergens. Cirron. p. 235.renews the sentence of excommunication against him, and in the Council at Piacenza not content barely to excommunicate him (in the presence of Agnes or Adelais the Emperours wife) he uttered saith Vrspergensis, very reproachful speeches against him: but he had been no fit successour for Hildebrand p. 383who could content himself with bare words,Baron. Annales ad A. D. 1088. n. 3. especially having declared his resolution to follow the steps of so worthy a predecessour, and so he did to purpose when he set up Conradus the Emperours Son in Rebellion against his Father. Aventin. Annal. Boior. l. 5. p. 590.This Baronius would fain shift off as not arising from the Popes instigation but some private discontents, Baron. A. D. 1093. n. 3.for which he quotes Dodechindus; but Sigonius who follows the same Author, saith expresly,Sigon. de regno Ital. l. 9. A. 1093. that he took upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy against his Father by the Authority of Urban himself: Bar. ad A. D. 1095. n. 8.and Bertholdus, whose testimony is afterwards produced by Baronius, mentions not only their meeting at Cremona, but that Conradus there took an oath of fidelity to the Pope, and the Pope in requital solemnly promised him to give him all the advice and assistance he could for the obtaining the Kingdom and Empire of his Father. What is somenting and encouraging Rebellion in the highest degree if this be not? And the sentence of deposition of Conrade in the Diet at Aken, A. D. 1096. expresly mentions, as the cause of it, his adhering to Pope Vrban against the Emperour his Father, and there his Son Henry declared his successour, and solemnly swears never to Rebell against his Father. Constitut. Imper. Tom. 1. p. 247.But notwithstanding this Oath, Conrad being dead, this Son is likewise prevailed upon by the Popes instruments to Rebell against his Father: for Pascal 2. p. 384succeeding Vrban, had again excommunicated Henry 4. and at a Council called by him in Rome he made all the Bishops present by particular subscription to Anathematize the Emperours heresie (as they were pleased to call it) and to promise obedience to Paschal and his Successours,Abbas Ursperg. Chron. p. 241. and to affirm what the Church affirmed, and condemn what she condemns. Having by this means secured the Bishops from adhering to the Emperours party, there wanted not Agents to solicit his Son to take away his Crown from him. And the first thing he did upon his rebellion was to Anathematize his Fathers heresie (which was keeping the Empire in spight of the Popes) and to promise obedience to the Pope as the Bishops had done at Rome: and in the Diet at Northausen, Ursperg. ib. Baron. ad A. D. 1105. n. 4.A. D. 1105. he calls God to witness that it was no desire of the Empire which made him take his Fathers Government from him; but if he would obey the Pope he would presently yield himself to him and become his Slave. And when the Son had in a perfidious manner seized on the Person of his Father, and he addressed himself to the Popes Legat for his safety,Avent. Annal…s Boior. l. 5. p. 597. he plainly told him, he must look for none unless he would publickly declare the justice of Hildebrand and his own unjust persecutions of the Roman See. But, which is the most evident testimony of all others in this case,Constitut. Imp…r. Tom. 3. p. 318. Henry 4. a little before his death A. D. 1106. at Liege (whither he was p. 385forced to retire by his Sons rebellion) sends an account of the whole quarrel to Philip of France; Baron ad A. 1106. n. 2. &c.wherein he declares, that he had offered all reasonable satisfaction to the Pope, only preserving the authority of the Empire; but this not being accepted, in a most unnatural manner, they had armed his most beloved Son, his Absolom against him, who by their instigation and council had most perfidiously dealt with him: but we need not so much proof of this since Baronius confesseth; that the Son had no greater cause of rebelling against his Father than that he was excommunicated by the Pope; Id ad A. D. 1105. n. 6.and afterwards very freely delivers his mind, that in case the Son did it sincerely,Id ad A. D. 1106 n. 14. as he pretended, i. e. out of obedience to the See of Rome, it was, saith he, an act of great piety in him to be thus cruel to his Father: and that his only offence was, that he did not bind him faster till he was brought to himself, i. e. to the Popes beck. O the admirable doctrine of obedience at Rome! What an excellent commentary is this upon the fifth Commandment, and the thirteent to the Romans! What mighty care hath the Church of Rome alwayes taken to preserve peace and unity in the Christian Church! Aventin. Annal Boior. l. 5. p. 562.The Historians who report the passages of this time, tell us, there was never known so dismal an age as that was, Siceberti Chronic. ad A. D. 1074.for Warres and Bloodshed, for Murthers and Parricides, for Rapines p. 386and Sacriledge, for Seditions and Conspiracies, for horrible Schisms and Scandals to Religion, the Priests opposing the Bishops, the People the Priests, and in some places not only robbing the Churches, burning the Tithes, but trampling under foot the holy Eucharist that was consecrated by such whom Pope Hildebrand had excommunicated. And must we after all this believe that the Roman See is the fountain of Vnity in the Catholick Church, that all Warrs and Rebellions arise from casting off such subjection to the Popes, who have been the great fomenters of Rebellion ever since Hildebrands time and the disturbers of the peace of Christendome? For we are not to imagine that this quarrel ended with Henry 4. for it was revived again in Henry the fifth's time between Pope Paschal and him, and the Pope grants him the priviledges which his Father contended for; but afterwards revoked his own grant (perjury being no sin at Rome in so holy a cause) and raised a Rebellion in the Empire against him, and notwithstanding several agreements made between him and the successive Popes, could enjoy no lasting peace in his time upon their account, and dyed at last without issue, going to suppress a new Rebellion. After his death, Conradus being to succeed as Sisters Son to Henry 5. Lotharius by the arts of the Court of Rome, was set p. 387up in opposition to him: he was fain to part with the rights of the Empire to satisfie the Pope, who made him receive the Imperial Crown at his feet. In the time of Conradus who succeeded Lotharius, the Pope encouraged Guelfo the Duke of Bavaria in a Rebellion against him (from whom the two loving factions of Guelphs and Gibellines had their beginning) It would be endless to relate the disturbances of the Christian world which arose from the contentions of several Popes, about their Authority with Frederick Barbarossa, Philippus Suevus, Otho 4. Frederick 2. Ludovicus Bavarus and other Emperours till such time as the Majesty of the Empire was lost in Carolus 4. or if we should give an account of all the Warrs, and Rebellions, and Seditions, and Quarrels which happened meerly upon pretence of the Papal Authority in our own Nation, or in France, or elsewhere. But these may, at present, suffice to give testimony, what an excellent instrument of Peace to the Christian world, the Authority challenged by the Bishop of Rome hath been: and that Authority still vindicated and asserted in the Court of Rome.

§. 6. 2. But although such civil disturbances have happened by the contentions about the Papal authority, Of the Schisms in the Roman Church.yet they may say, the Church hath had its unity still as long as they were united in the same Head: For p. 388this they look on as the great foundation of Vnity; for say they, the unity of the body consists in the conjunction of the members with the head, and then with one another: and although there may be many other sorts of Vnity in the Church, yet the essential Vnity of the Church, Bellarm. de rotis Eccles. l. 4 c. 10 De Eccles. mil…t. l 3 c. 5.Sir 50:4they tell us, lyes in conjunction of the members under one Head. But what becomes then of the Unity of the Roman Church, in the great number of Schisms, and some of long continuance among them? Were they all members united under one Head, when there were sometimes two, sometimes three several Heads? Bella…mine in his Chronologie, confesseth twenty six several Schisms in the Church of Rome, but Onuphrius a more diligent search…r into these things reckors up thirty, whereof some lasted ten years, some twenty, one fifty years. And it seems very strange to any one, that hears so many boasts of Unity in the Church of Rome above others, to find more Schisms in that Church than in any Patriarchal Church in the World. We should think, if the Bishop of Rome had been designed Head of the Church and the fountain of Vnity, that it was as necessary that Church should be freed from intestine divisions on that account, as to be secured from errours in faith if it had the promise of Infallibility; for errours are not more contrary to infallibility, than divisions p. 389are to Vnity: and the same Spirit can as easily prevent Schisms as Heresies. But as the errours of that Church are the clearest evidence against the pretence of infal…ibility, so are the Schisms of it against its being the fountain of Vnity; for how can that give it to the whole Church which so notoriously wanted it in it self? I shall not need to insist on the more ancient Schisms between Cornelius and Novatianus and their parties; between Liberius and Felix, between Damasus and Vrsicinus, between Bonifacius and Eulalius, between Symachus and Laurentius, between Bonifacius and Dioscorus, between Sylverius and Vigi…ius, and many others. I shall only mention those which were of the longest continuance in that Church, and do most apparently discover the divisions of it. I begin with that which first brake forth in the time of Formosus who was set up A. D. 821. against Sergius, whom the faction of the Marquesse of Tuscany would have made Pope; but the popular faction then prevailing, Sergius was forced to withdraw, and Formosus with continual opposition from the other party enjoyed the Papacy four years and six months, not without the blood of many of the chief Citizens of Rome slain by Arnulphus in the quarrel of Formosus. After his death Boniface 6. intruded, saith Baronius, into the Papal See, but was, after fifteen p. 390dayes dispossessed by Stephanus 7. who in a Council called for that purpose, nulled all the acts of Formosus, deprived all those of their orders who had been ordained by him, and made them be Re-ordained; and not content with this, he caused his body to be taken out of the Grave, and placed it in the Popes Chair with the Pontifical habits on; where after he had sufficiently reviled him, that could not revile again, he caused the three Fingers to be cut off, with which he used to give Benediction and Orders, and the body to be thrown into Tiber. This last part Onuphrius would have to be a fable,Onuphr. Annot in Plat. vit Formosi. Victorel add. ad cia…co…. de vit. Pontif. and Andreas Victorellus from him; but Baronius saith, they are mistaken who say so; for not only Luitprandus, who lived in that Age, expresly affirms it, (although, he attributes it to Sergius upon whose account,Baron. Annal. ad A. D. 897 n. 2, 3. the Schism begun:) but the acts of the Roman Council under Iohn 9. extant in Baronius make it evident: and Papirius Massonus cites other ancient Historians for it.Papir. Masson. de Episcop u. b. l. 3. p. 151. Upon this nulling the Ordinations of Formosus, a great dispute was raised in the Church, for many of the Bishops would not submit to re-ordination, and particularly Leo Bishop of Nola, to whom Auxilius writ his Book in defence of the Ordinations of Formosus, a short account whereof is published by Baronius from Papy…ius Masso; but the whole Book is now set forth from p. 391ancient Manuscript by Morinus; Morinus de Sacris Eccles. ordinat. par 2 p. 348.by which we understand the controversie of that time, much better, than we could before. Two things were chiefly objected against Formosus his Ordinations. 1. That against the Canons of the Church he was translated from one See to another; being Bishop of Porto before he was made Bishop of Rome. 2. That having been degraded by Iohn 8. (although restored by his successour Marinus, and absolved from his Oath) he was not capable of conferring Orders. Against the first of these Auxilius shews that translation from one See to another cannot null Ordination, from the testimony of Pope Anterus, the example of Greg. Nazianzen, Perigenes, Dositheus, Reverentius, Palladius, Alexander, Meletius, and many others. That the Nicene Canon against translations, was interpreted by the Council of Chalcedon so as not to extend to all cases, and it was so understood by Pope Leo and Gelasius; and however that only nulls the translation and not the ordination. Against the second he pleads, that supposing it not to be lawful to remove from one Episcopal See to another, yet the Ordination may be valid; for Formosus was not Consecrated again himself but only reconciled by Marinus, that the Popes Gregory and Leo had declared against Re-ordination as much as against Re-baptizing, that the Canons of the Apostles p. 392had forbidden it, that the Ordinations by Acacius were allowed by Anastasius, that the Bonosiaci though Hereticks had their Orders allowed them, that the Cathari were admitted to the Churches Communion by the Council of Nice only with imposition of hands, that though Liberius fell to the Arian Heresie, yet his Ordinations afterwards were not nulled; neither those of Vigilius although he stood excommunicated by Silverius, and added Homicide to it: that the nulling these Ordinations was to say in effect, that for twenty years together they had been without the Christian Religion in Italy: that none but Hereticks could assert these things; that if any Popes themselves speak or act against the Catholick faith or Religion, they are not to be followed in so doing. This is the substance of the first Book of Auxilius, which things are more largely insisted upon in the second. But by that Book it appears most evidently that the Barbarous usage of the body of Formosus was most true, it being expresly mentioned therein and justified by him in the Dialogue that pleads for Re-ordination. And now saith Baronius, Baron. Annal. ad A D. 897. n. 8, 9.began those most unhoppy times of the Roman Church which exceeded the persecutions of Heathens or Hereticks: but he out of his constant good will to civil Authority lays the fault altogether upon the power of the Marquesses p. 393of Tuscany, who had then too great power in Rome; but he strangely admires the providence of God in keeping the Heads of the Church from Heresie all that time. Alas for them! they did not trouble themselves about any matters of faith at all, but were wholly given over to all manner of wickedness as himself confesseth of them; when Theodora that Mother of the Church of Rome ruled in chief, and her daughter Marocia's Son by Pope Sergius came to be Pope himself;Platina in vit. Steph. 6. when as Platina saith it grew to be the custome of Popes to null all that their predecessours had done. Were not these goodly heads of the Church the mean time? and did not they keep the Church in great Vnity under their agreeable conduct? Methinks the providence of God, is as much concerned to preserve holiness and peace as faith in the world; and were not these excellent instruments for doing it! Baronius grants the acts of Stephanus to be such as the most barbarous Nations could not endure to hear of, and are too bad to be believed: and all the following Age he calls Iron for its rust and barrenness,Ad. A. D. 900. n. 1. and leaden for its badness and dulness; and confesseth that Monsters of impurity then raigned in the Apostolical See, that infinite evils sprung from thence, and horrible Tragoedies, and mischiefs not to be spoken of. And yet a very Catholick faith, and the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace must be supposed p. 394to be there infallibly all this while; but if all their faith and unity be of such a kind as was in the 10 Century in the Roman Church, I should think Baronius might have said more in admiration of the providence of God in preserving the Catholick faith and Vnity among the Devils in Hell! for the Scripture tells us they believe and tremble, and our Saviour saith, that the Devils Kingdom cannot stand if it be divided against it self; and these are clearer and stronger testimonies than can be brought of the faith and Vnity of the Roman Church, when such horrid wickedness is acknowledged to have had Dominion in it, and that Church was therein unlike the Devils Kingdom that it was divided against it self: In the very beginning of this Century Pope Stephen is cast into Prison, and there strangled,N. 6. as Baronius proves from his Epitaph; and now the Roman faction prevailing, they make one Romanus Pope, the first and only thing he did, was to condemn all that Stephen had done, as Platina, Onuphrius, and Ciacconius all agree; but he continued not much above four months; after him Theodorus who held out about twenty dayes and followed the steps of Romanus; to him succeeded Iohn 10. (as Platina calls him) of the same faction, who set all Formosus his Acts to rights again, condemning all that Stephen had done in a Council p. 395at Ravenna; whither he was driven by the prevalency of the faction at Rome against him; where in the presence of seventy four Bishops, the Acts of the Council under Stephen were burnt, in which the Ordinations of Formosus were nulled; and Sergius, Benedictus, and Marinus were Anathematized for being instruments in the Acts against Formosus. The next Pope Benedict escapes without any thing, but a dull Epitaph; but Leo his successour had not been above forty days in the place, but he is cast into Prison, by one of his servants, who is made Pope in his place, and seven months after he is served the same way by Sergius who now at last recovered the Popedome, and the greatest thing he did was to condemn Formosus again, and all who had appeared for him: so that now as Sigebert saith, nothing was talked of so much as ordinations and exordinations, and superordinations; by the contrary Acts of these Popes to one another. Baronius confesseth this Sergius to have been a man of a most infamous and dissolute life: Baron. A. 908. n. 3.after his death Theodora was not at rest till she had gotten her Gallant to be Pope under the name of Iohn 11. and what manner of Cardinals, A. D. 912. n. 14.saith Baronius, may we imagine such a Pope would make? But Marozia her daughter was not so well pleased with him, for by her order, his Brother was killed in his presence, and he put into prison and p. 396there smothered.A. D. 928. n. 2. After him, saith Luitprandus, her own Son by Pope Sergius is made Pope; Luitprand. hist. l. 3. cap. 12.who was cast into Prison by his Brother Albericus; who being not pleased with Stephen who followed him,Baron. ad A. 933. n. 1. he was set upon and so wounded and deformed thereby, that he durst not let his face be seen; and the seditions, saith Platina, continued so high in his time, that he could do no great thing. At last, Alberic's Son called Octavianus got possession of the See under the name of Iohn 13. (or 12. as o…hers besides Platina call him) who was such a Monster for all wickedness, that Otho the Emperour was called into Italy to displace him, who called a Council, wherein he was accused for ordaining a Deacon in a Stable, Baron. A. D. 963. n. 15.and making a Bishop of ten years of age; but these were small faults to his Adulteries, Sacriledge, Cruelties, drinking healths to the Devil; and at Dice calling upon the Devils for help. When these accusations were sent to him from the Council, he only threatned to excommunicate them all, if they chose another Pope against him: but they not regarding his threatning depose him, and choose Leo 8.N. 27, 28, &c. in his place. Here Baronius storms unreasonably, that a Council should take upon it to depose a Pope, though so abominably bad, as he confesseth this man to have been;N. 33. and makes them guilty of an intolerable Errour and Heresie in so doing, because p. 397it implyes their believing that the power of the Keys did depend on the worth of the person: and therefore he detests Leo as a Schismatical Pope. And to make sure of a Schisme after the infamous death of Iohn 13. being killed in the act of Adultery, the opposite faction in Rome chose Benedict 5. to succeed him, who was carried away prisoner by Otho into Germany; but before his death Iohn 13. called a Council, wherein he nulled all the Acts of the other Council, A. 964. n: 7.and pronounced them Schismaticks, and decreed that all that were ordained by them must be re-ordained. Is not here now a most admirable Vnity in the Roman Church? After Leo another Iohn is chosen by the Emperours party, but, as Platina saith it being now grown customary to depose Popes, they drive him away by seditions against him, being first imprisoned by Rotfredus and then expelled the City. But they suffered sufficiently for it, by the severity of Otho against them.—The next Pope, Benedict 6. was cast into Prison by the other faction, and there strangled or famished. Iohn 14. came to his end after the same manner, dying in Prison, by the faction of Ferrucius the Father of Boniface 7. who was driven away from Rome after his being made Pope; after whom Benedict 7. was set up, and Iohn succeeding him, Boniface's faction recovering again, he was for a few months restored p. 398to the Popedome. Against Greg. 5. the faction of Crescentius set up one Ioh. 17. who by the power of the Emperour was deprived of his eyes and the Popedome together, and a little after of his life.

But these factions in Rome did not end with this Century, for in the next, A. D. 1044 we find a new Schism breaking out on the account of them. We are contented to take the story as Baronius relates it in that year. Benedict 9. was made Pope by the faction of the Counts of Tusculum (Frascati) out of opposition to which and dislike of Benedict, the people of Rome deposed him and set up Sylvester 3. who got the Popedome by Simony, and enjoyed it but three months, when (the Tusculan faction again prevailing) Sylvester was deposed and Benedict restored, but finding himself hateful to the people he resigns to Iohn (called Greg. 6.) or as Platina saith, some affirm; sold it to him. Otto Frisingensis, saith, these three sat together in the City of Rome, and all of them led very bad lives, as he heard himself at Rome. But Baronius will not have Greg. 6. to be the same with Iohn one of the Schismatical Popes, but Gratian who by fair offers (not to be called Symony) perswading the other three to part with their places got the possession of the Popedome alone. Alphons. Ciacconus follows Onuphrius in saying that his name was p. 399Ioh. Gratianus, but not one of the three Anti-Popes sitting together; wherein neither Baronius nor he can sufficiently clear themselves. If he were distinct there must be five Popes at the same time; for this Greg. 6. was deprived with the rest by a Council called by the Emperour, Henry 3. at Sutrium. For Baronius is very much mistaken in saying that the other three Popes were all deprived two years before, for his own Author Hermannus asserts that the cause of the false Popes was there diligently discussed, and Greg. 6. deprived for Simony as Ciacconus expresly saith after other Authors, (however Baronius strives to vindicate him out of kindness to his name sake and Disciple Greg. 7.) and Clement 2. is there made Pope, who enjoyed it but a little time, being poisoned saith Platina by Damasus 2. who succeeded him; but after the death of both these Benedict 9. got into possession of the Papacy again, and the fifth time after the death of Leo 9. in whose time a great controversie arose again about Re-ordination, viz. of such who had been ordained by Simoniacal persons, and although Leo had determined in Council, that upon forty dayes pennance, they might perform the duties of their function, yet it appears by an Epistle of Petrus Damiani, extant in Baronius, Baron. An▪ ad A. D. 1052. n. 6.that this Controversie remained still, and they thought all actions p. 400done by such persons, no other than if they had been done by Lay-men; but we find nothing done in it to suppress this heresie as he calls it, although he earnestly desires the Pope to condemn it. We are now falle… into the times of Hildebrand, who caused Benedict 10. to be deprived of the Papacy, before he came to it himself; for he called together the discontented Cardinals at Siena, where they discarded Benedict and chose Nicolaus 2. The Schisme that happened in his own time, I have already spoken to, which I shall therefore pass by, as likewise the others that followed upon the opposition between the Popes and Emperours, although it is not to be imagined that there could be greater divisions among men than were upon the account of those two factions, especially after they came to be distinguished by the names of Guelphs and Gibellines, it being ordinary for them to murder each other whereever they met, for a mighty demonstration of the peace and unity of the Roman Church.

I shall only now enquire, whether all these Schisms and Factions happened among them only on the account of the differences between the Popes and Emperours; and we shall find, that the agreement among themselves was only from that external opposition, and when that ceased, new factions and Schisms brake forth among them. Of p. 401which Italy was so full, that the elections of Popes became the work of years, by reason of the heats which were among them; but I meddle not with these factions in elections, although they are no great indications of the presence of the Holy Ghost among them. But I shall only touch at the greatest Schism for continuance ever they had among them, (as their Historians reckon it) which lasted with great animosities for fifty years together, in which all the Princes of Christendome were concerned, and one party condemning the other with the greatest bitterness, and condemning all the acts done by the other; and pronouncing them null and void. This was begun upon the election of Vrban 6. at which the Cardinals, declaring a force by the Souldiers and people of Rome, when they were withdrawn from thence to a place of safety; chose another Pope, viz. Clem. 7. who sate in France, as Vrban and his Successours did in Rome, he made twenty seven Cardinals, and Petrus de Luna or Benedict 13. succeeded him; and notwithstanding all the endeavours could be used to suppress this Schism it still continued, and the means for that end did rather increase it, as the Council of Pisa, which instead of two Popes made three, setting up Alexander 5. besides Greg. 12. and Benedict. 13. and after him Iohn 23. was chosen at Bononia: and although afterwards the p. 402Council of Constance deprived Iohn 23. and Benedict 13. and chose Martin 5. yet Benedict never yielded; and after his death, the Cardinals that were with him chose Clem. 8. against Martin 5. who were so far from yielding him to be true Pope, that they rather chose to rot in Prison, as they did; and so saith Ciacconius This Schism was ended after fifty two years, A…hors. Ciaccoa. vit. Pontif in Clem. 7.which had given so great disturbance to the whole Christian World. One might have imagined now, when Councils were called for that purpose, that an end should thereby be put to these Schisms among them, but it was so far otherwise, that we find another Schisme begun in that Church not long after by the Authority of the Council of Basil which chose Felix 5. in opposition to Eugenius 4. where there was not only Pope against Pope, but Council against Council too, Eugenius sitting at that time with the Council of Florence. In the time of Iulius 2. we find Council against Council again, that at Pisa, and the Lateran at R…me, both called General Councils, and condemning each other. By which we see how far the Church of Rome is from being free from dangerous Schisms in it self; and therefore hath no cause to object them to others. The only thing pleaded in answer to this charge of their numerous Schisms, is, that these were most of them Controversies concerning elections of Popes, (which is all p. 403the salvo Molanus hath for it at the end of Onuphrius his Chronologie) but what is that to the purpose? since the Question was, which of them was the Head of the Church with whom the members were to be united? and all those who were not united with him whom they account the true Head, must be as much in Schism, as they who renounce all subjection to the Pope. For are not those as much in Rebellion who set up an Vsurper against their lawful Prince; as they who deny him to be their Prince, and to have any authority over them, because they look on themselves as a free State? There can be but one lawful Head of the Church by their own principles, and only they are truly united to the Church, who are in conjunction with the lawful Head, and therefore it follows, upon their own principles, that they must be in a State of Schisme, who are united with any other than the true Head. What then signifie the boasts of Vnity in the Roman Church, if they cannot prevent the falling of their members into such dangerous Schisms? To what purpose is it to tell us of one Head of the Church to whom all must submit, if there have been several pretenders to that Headship, and the Church hath been a long time divided, which of them was the true? Unless all their Vnity comes to this at last, that they have an excellent Vnity among p. 404them if they could all agree: And such an Vnity may be had any where. But if all were agreed, what need any means of agreement by one universal Head? or what can that universal Head signifie to making Vnity, when his title to his Headship becomes a cause of greater divisions? May not we say upon better grounds, that taking away the Popes authority would tend much more to the peace of the Church, since that hath been the cause of so great disturbances in the world and is to this day of one of the greatest differences between the several parts of the Catholick Church? For as things now stand in the Christian World, the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Fountain of Vnity, that he is much rather the Head of Contention and the great cause of the divisions of the Christian Church.

§. 7. 3. The differences have been as great in the Roman Church as out of it,Of the differences in the Roman Church about matters of Government. both as to matters of order and doctrine.

(1. For matters of Order and Government; Have not the controversies between the Regulars and Seculars among them even here in England been managed with as much heat and warmth, as to matter of Episcopal jurisdiction, as between those of the Church of England and the dissenters from it? Neither is this any lately started controversie among them, but hath continued ever since the prevalency of the Mendicant p. 405Fryers and their pretences of exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction, and encroaching upon the office of the Parochial Clergy. For no sooner did the Fryers begin publickly under pretence of priviledges to take upon them to Preach, without licence from the Bishops, where they pleased, and to take other offices of the Parochial Clergy out of their hands, but great opposition was made against them, by all the learned men who were friends to the Episcopal power, and the peace of the Church. Which being a matter of concernment for us to understand, I shall give a faithful account of it, from the best Writers of their own Church. Assoon as the Monastick orders were found to be very serviceable to the Interests of the Court of Rome, it was thought convenient to keep them in an immediate dependence upon the Pope in whatever Countrey they were. From hence came the great favour of Popes to them, and their willingness to grant them almost what priviledges they desired, because receiving them only from the plenitude of the Popes power, they were obliged to maintain and defend that from whence they derived them. At first, when they led a more properly Monastick life, the priviledges granted them seem to be nothing else but exempting them from some troubles which were inconsistent with it, either relating to their persons or the estates they p. 406enjoyed. After this, they began to complain of the numbers of people flocking to their Churches as inconsistent with their private and retired life; from hence we first read that publick Masses by the Bishop were forbid in Monasteries, Gregor. l. 4. Epist. 43.to prevent a concourse of people and especially of Women to them. But a long time after this they lived in subjection to the Bishops, and meddled no more in Ecclesiastical than in Secular matters. Carol…. M. Capitular. l. 5. n. 25.So Charles M. in his Capitular, commands them to keep within their Monasteries, to be subject to their Bishops, and to meddle in no Ecclesiastical matters without the express command of the Bishop. But as the Popes increased their authority, the Monks inlarged their priviledges, and procured exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction; which yet was not pleasing to those who valued the Churches peace above the priviledges of the Monastick orders. These exemptions are therefore highly condemned by St. Bernard, Bernard. Epist. 42 ad Hen. Senon.though a Monk himself, as tending to the dissolution of the Ecclesiastical Government, and by Ivo Carnotensis, who saith,De consider. l. 3. c. 4 he grew weary of his Episcopal Government by reason of them. Petrus Blesensis, hath an Epistle written to Pope Alexander 3. in the name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, Ivo Car…ot. Ep▪ 29. & 276. Petri Blesens. Ep. 68.against the Abbot of Malmsbury, who refused subjection to the Bishop of Salisbury, and being cited by the Archbishop p. 407to appear before him for his contempt; he declared he would be subject to none but the Pope, and said, they were pittiful Abbots who did not wholly exempt themselves from the Bishops power; when they might for an annual pension to the Pope obtain an absolute exemption. Therefore the Archbishop saith, it was time for them to complain, because this contagion did spread it self far, and the Abbots set themselves against their Bishops and Metropolitans: and the Popes by indulging these things, did command disobedience and Rebellion, and arm the Children against their Fathers; but these and many other complaints signified nothing in the Court of Rome as long as their profit and interest were advanced by it. And although we read of many affronts which the Monks put upon the Bishops, before the time of the Mendicant Fryers, yet their insolency grew the highest when they took upon them to Preach in Parochial Churches and hear Confessions without the Bishops leave. Thence the Vniversity of Paris, published the Book, De periculis novissimorum temporum, which although written by S. Amour, went abroad in the name of all the Divines there, as appears by the beginning of it: wherein a Character is given of those persons, who should make the last times so troublesome, De periculis noviss. temporum. p. 18.they should be lovers of themselves, not enduring reproof, covetous both of riches p. 408and applause, high-minded, because they would not be in subjection to the Bishops, Cap. 2.but be set before them: and therefore disobedient to their spiritual Fathers. And such as these are said to creep into houses, which the ordinary Gloss expounds of those who enter into the houses of those who are under anothers charge: these enter not by the door as the Rectors of Churches do, but steal into them like Thieves and Robbers, and leading captive silly women, is their setting them against the Bishops, and perswading them to a Monastick life. These are likewise false teachers, who though never so learned and holy, teach without being sent; and none are duly sent, but such as are chosen and authorised by the Church; such as Bishops and Presbyters are, the one succeeding the Apostles, the other the 72 Disciples, and afterwards they deny that the Pope himself can give any power to others to meddle in the charge of a Parish or in Preaching among them, but where they are invited to it; because Bishops themselves cannot otherwise act out of their own Dioceses; and that the Pope in this case doth injury by violating the rights of others: and if he should go about to destroy what the Prophets and Apostles have taught, he would erre in so doing. Besides, say they, if these p. 409Praedicant Fryers have a liberty to Preach where they please, they are all universal Bishops; and because maintenance is due to all who Preach, the people will be bound to pay procurations to them, which will be an unreasonable burden upon them. Many other Arguments they use against this new sort of Itinerant Preachers, and represent the dangers that came to the Church by them at large: wherein they describe them as a kind of hypocritical Sectaries, Cap. 3.that abused the people under a fair shew and pretence of Religion, having, as they say, a form of Godliness, but denying the power of it: and that the persecution of the Church by them would be equal, to what it was, by Tyrants and open Hereticks; because they are familiar enemies, and do mischief under a shew of kindness. And that one of the great dangers of the Church by them would be, their possessing Princes and people with prejudices against the Government of the Church by the Bishops, Cap. 4.which, having done, they can more easily lead them into errours both against faith and a good life. That their way of dealing is first with the women, Cap. 5.and by them seducing the men, as the Devil first tempted Eve and by her Adam; and when they have once seduced them, they tye them by oathes and vows, not to hearken to the counsel of their Bishops, or p. 410those who have the care of their souls▪ That the Bishops ought to suppress these, and call in the publick help to do it, and to purge their Dioceses of them:Cap. 9. and that if they do it not,Cap. 10. the blood of the people will be required of them, and destruction will come upon them for it: and though Princes and people had taken their part,Cap. 11. that ought not to discourage them: but their folly ought to be made manifest to all men.Cap. 12. After this, they lay down the means to be used for suppressing them, and the signes for their discovery; saying, that they are idle persons, busie bodies, Cap. 13.wandring beggars, against the Apostles express command,Cap. 14. who would have all such excluded the Church as disorderly livers: and therefore conclude with an earnest exhortation to all who have a care of the Church to rise up against them; as the pernicious enemies of its peace and welfare. All these things which are only summarily comprehended in that Book, are very largely insisted upon by Gul. de Sancto Amore in another Book entituled, Collections of Holy Scripture, which is wholly upon this subject. The Mendicant Fryers being thus assaulted, endeavoured to defend themselves as well as they could, and made choice of the best wits among them for their Champions, such as Bonaventure, and Aquinas then p. 411were, who undertook their cause; and were fain to shelter themselves under the plenitude of the Popes power; by which means they were sure to have the Pope on their side; but his Authority was here no means of Vnity, for the controversie continued long after, and was managed with great heat on both sides.

§. 8. Upon the great complaint of the priviledges and exemptions which the Monastick orders had obtained from the Popes, Of the insufficiency of the Popes authority for ending this Controversie.Clement 5. promised to have this business discussed in the Council of Vienna; and to that end gave order to several learned men to write about it, among whom particularly Durandus Mimatensis writ a large discourse (not mentioned by Possevin) but Printed A. D. 1545. wherein he perswades the Pope to revoke all such exemptions, because they were contrary to the ancient Canons of the Church, whereby from the Apostles times, all places and persons whatsoever were immediately under the jurisdiction of the Bishops; and that the Pope neither ought, nor could change this order of the Church. Because the order of Bishops being appointed to prevent Schisms in the Church, it could not attain its end, if any persons were exempted from their jurisdiction. And if it were in the Popes power to grant such exemptions, it were by no means expedient p. 412to do it; because the order of the Church would be destroyed by it, the Bishops contemned, and the Church divided; and if the Monastick Orders paid no obedience to the Bishops, the people would soon learn by their example to disobey them too. And supposing it had been expedient before, it could not be so then, because though the Monastick orders were founded in a state of poverty, yet now those who were in them were arrived at such a height of intolerable pride and arrogance, that not only their Abbots and Priors, but the Fryers thought themselves equal to Bishops, and fit to be preferred before other Ecclesiastical persons. Thus far Durandus: and Aegidius Romanus at the same time writ a Book against the Exemptions of Fryers; Against both of them Iacobus the Abbot of the Cistercians writt a defence of Exemptions, which was published in Vienna in the time of the Council. This matter was hotly debated in that Council, but the Pope would not yield to the revocation of them: but renews a Bull of Boniface 8. for qualifying and composing the differences that had happened to the great scandal of the Church about them:Clementin. l. 3. c. 2. wherein he takes notice of several Bulls before, which had taken no effect (so excellent an instrument of peace is the Popes Authority) and that of a p. 413long time a most grievous and dangerous discord had been between the Bishops and Parochial Clergy on one part, and the Preaching Fryers on the other. Therefore the Pope very wisely considering, how full of danger, how prejudicial to the Church, how displeasing to God so great a discord was; and resolving wholly to remove it for the future, by his Apostolical authority doth appoint and command, that the Fryers should have liberty to Preach in all Churches, Places, and publick Streets at any other hour but that wherein the Bishops did Preach, or did command others to Preach, without a particular license to Preach then: A greater instance of the discords which have been in the Roman Church, nor of the insufficiency of the Popes Authority for the cure of them can hardly be produced than this is. The Popes were forced to say and unsay, and retract their own grants, to mitigate and qualifie them and all to no purpose, for the differences continued as great notwithstanding them. The first Pope who interposed in this quarrel was Gregory 9. who upon complaint made by the Fryers of the Bishops exercising their jurisdiction over them in several things mentioned as grievances by them,Gregor. decret. Epistol. l 5. n. 31. c. 16, 17. he publishes two Bulls or decretal Epistles to forbid the Bishops doing it for the future: upon this p. 414the Fryers openly contemn the Bishops, and Preach where they please, and hear confessions, and bury the dead in spight of them; and the Parochial Clergy. Innocent 4. finding how necessary their help was to him in the Controversies between him and the Emperour, Matth. Paris. A. D. 1235. p. 419.confirms the same priviledges to them: by which they grew so insolent, that they called the Parish Priests, as Matthew Paris relates, Ideots, Dunces, Drunkards, Blind guids; and would make the people believe that all knowledge and sanctity was only among them:Petrus de Vineis epistol. lib. 1. ep. 37. insomuch that in Petrus de Vineis who lived in that Age and was Chancellour to the Emperour, we read a miserable complaint of the Parochial Clergy against the Fryers, viz. that by these means they were brought under the greatest contempt to the general scandal of Religion; they expressing the most bitter hatred against them imaginable, reproaching their lives, and lessening their dues so as they were brought to nothing by it; and they were made a laughing stock to all people; that they took away the main of their imployment from them, and drew away the People from the Churches to the Convents, teling them the word of God was to be heard only among them. That they had nothing now left to do but to pull down their Churches; in which they had scarce any thing left besides a Bell and an old resty Image, but these holy Fryers, p. 415while they had nothing, possessed all things, and professing poverty were extreamly rich. But Innocent 4. a little before his death being wearied by the complaints of the Bishops and Clergy, revoked the priviledges which he had so largely granted to the Fryers, and confined them within certain limits, forbidding them to draw away the people from their Parish Churches upon Sundayes and Holy-dayes, or admitting any to pennance who had not first confessed to their Parish-priest: Seculum quintum Universit. Paris. p. 271.but the Fryers were as far from being pacified by this, as the Clergy were by the former; for therein the Pope upbraids them with violating the rights of others, with blaspheaming Religion by such actions, displeasing God, and drawing the souls of the faithful to perdition: but he dying assoon as they had notice of this Bull, they said, it was a just judgement of God upon him for revoking their priviledges. And Alexander 4. was no sooner settled in his Chair but they procured another Bull from him to call in that of Innocent 4. and immediately to suspend all execution of it; but this did not satisfie them, for they boasted they had killed Pope Innocent by their Prayers, and that the V. Mary, every time they invocated her name; turned to her Son and said, Son hear them: upon which Innocent was presently struck with a Palsie and dyed; from whence arose p. 416a saying in the Court of Rome, from the Fryers Letanies good Lord deliver us. This is related as true by Bzovius, ad A. D. 1254. but is looked on as a fable of the Fryers, by D'attichy, D'attichy hist. Cardinal. Tom 1. vit. nibaldi. Rainald. ad A. D. 1254. n. 73.Raynaldus, du Boulay and others of any judgement among them. But this Bull of Alexander, nor all the rest he made for their sakes could make the Bishops and the Clergy give up their rights; for in the time of Martin 4. the Fryers procured another Bull for hearing Confessions without license from the Bishops, Boulay. histor. universit. Paris. tom. 3. p. 176.upon which the contention increased between the Bishops and the Fryers; insomuch, that not waiting the Popes revocation of his grant which he was inclined to by the perswasions of the Bishop of Amiens, Id. p. 462.they called a Synod of the Gallican Church at Paris, A. D. 1284. wherein the Archbishop of Bourges being president, declared to them, that being Pastors of the flock, they ought to lay down their lives for their sheep, and not to suffer the encroachments were made upon them by the Fryers; by whom all things were brought to confusion in the Church: that they had used all fair wayes of prevailing with them by the intreaties of the King and Nobles, to forbear such intrusions into their offices as they were continually guilty of; but all to no purpose, they still defending themselves by Papal p. 417priviledges; whereas there had been contrary Bulls to another granted at Rome. And it was then agreed among them, that they should maintain their own office against the Fryers incroachments, by which the contention increased to so great a height, that many invectives, Meyer. Annales Flandr. l. 10. ad A. D. 1285.Apologies, and libels were published one against another, to the great disgrace (saith Meyerus) of the whole Ecclesiastical Order. Upon which Pope Martin endeavoured an accommodation by another Bull wherein he required, that all Parishioners should Confess to their own Parish Priest at least once a year. But this was as far from making peace as any before; therefore from Boniface 8. the Fryers procured a new Bull of priviledges, which absolutely nulls all the former Bulls of restriction and limitation, and by the fulness of his Apostolical power doth exempt them from all manner of power or jurisdiction of the Bishops, or any other Ecclesiastical persons, and decrees that they were immediately subject to the Pope and to none else. And yet this Pope himself not many years after, retracted this Bull, and set forth that, which Clement 5. renewed in order to the composing this difference, which had now to the great demonstration of their Vnity and the Popes Authority continued with great violence above fifty years: and was far from being ended by p. 418this Bull; for Benedict 11. in another published on the same occasion,Extravagant. commun. l. 5. tit. 7. c. 1. saith, that instead of peace troubles arose by it, instead of unity and concord, greater divisions and disturbances: and by cutting off one head of the Hydra, seven more came into its room. Are not the Popes great Peace-makers the mean while! Therefore he resolves to try what the other way would do, and again inlarges the priviledges of the Fryers, which being sound as unsuccessful as ever; Clement 5. resumes the Constitution of Boniface which this Pope condemned, and to as little purpose as the other had done before. And now let us soberly consider whether there hath not alwayes been an admirable Vnity in the Roman Church, or if divisions have arose, a ready means to suppress them? Here we have the Popes interposing, by Bull after Bull, and so far from ending the differences that occasioned them, that they begot more, which made the Popes contradict one another, nay the same Pope to contradict himself, and so the differences became greater than they were at first. And after all these Bulls we find the very same Controversie at as great a height in England and Ireland as ever it had been in France or Germany; Wadding. Annal. Minorum ad A. D. 1357.Wadding saith, it went so high that the Bishops and Clergy here would not suffer the Fryers to enjoy any of the priviledges granted them by the Popes: p. 419which caused an appeal to the Pope made by the Fryers, to whom in behalf of the Clergy was sent Richard Fitz-Ralph the learned Bishop of Armagh, best known by the name of Armachanus, who there with great smartness opposed the Fryers to the Popes face in a long and set discourse still extant;Rich. Armach. Defensio Curat. wherein he gives an account that coming to London about some business of his See, he found great disputes about the priviledges of the Fryers; and being desired to Preach, he made seven or eight Sermons wherein he declared his mind against them, both as to their Order and Priviledges; in which he followed the doctrine of the Divines at Paris, above an hundred years before delivered by them upon the like occasion, asserting it not to be in the Popes power to grant such priviledges which destroy the rights of the Parochial Clergy, or the jurisdiction of the Bishops. Bulae. hist. universit. Paris tom 4. p. 337.The Fryers charge him with Heresie, as they are wont to do those who are wiser than themselves, saith Boulay: Armachanus dyed at Avignon, but so did not the Controversie with him; although the Fryers seem to have had the better there, they being the Popes Ianisaries and ready in all places to serve his turn:Walsingham hist. Angl. in Adv. 3. p. 173. yet Walsingham saith, it was not without corrupting the Popes Court by great bribes given by the Fryers, that they obtained the confirmation of their p. 420priviledges; yet seven years after, Harpsfield saith, this Controversie was referred to the Parliament to be determined. Very strange! that a Parliament in England should be thought a more likely means for Vnity in the Church than the Authority of so many Popes, who had interposed in it for putting an issue to this difference. After Armachanus, Wickliffe undertook this quarrel against the Fryers, and made use of the same arguments against them, which those who defended the Clergy had done before.Ioh. Wickliffe against the Orders of Fryers. c. 10. p. 28. For in his Book against the Orders of Fryers, he particularly insists upon this, That they for pride and covetise had drawen fro Curats there Office and Sacraments, in which lyen winning or worship, and so maken dissention betwixt Curats and there Ghostlié Childer. Which are his own words. But Wickliffe and his Disciples carrying the Controversies much farther to points of doctrine and other practices in the Roman Church, made the other parties more quiet out of opposition to these whom they looked on as their common enemies. It may be therefore they will say, that although the Popes Pastoral power may not alwayes cure their divisions, yet the opposition of Hereticks makes them run together like a flock of sheep; if this were true, it seems they are more beholding to Hereticks for their Vnity, than to the Popes Authority: but we shall find p. 421that neither one nor the other of these, nor both together, can keep them from divisions, and those managed with as great animosity as we have ever found in the most differing Sects.

§. 9. Witness the proceedings between the Iesuits and the Secular Priests begun in Wisbich Castle in the latter end of Q. Elizabeths Reign; Of the differences between the regulars and seculars in England.when it came to a separation from each other, about the authority of the Arch-Priest. And they mutually charged each other with being guilty of a horrible Schism, Watsons Reply to Parsons his Libel. p. 2.maintained saith Watson, by the Iesuits and Arch Priest, with infinite violence, much infamy for the time, and innumerable particular wrongs thereupon not unknown to the meanest Catholick in England. The secular Priests finding themselves unjustly accused, as they said, to the Pope, published a Book in Latin which they Dedicated to his Holiness, called declaratio motuum & turbarum, which saith Parsons in his answer called, A manifestation of the great folly and bad spirit of certain in England calling themselves secular Priests, is made up only of invectives, and passionate words, injurious, and manifest false slanders; they in their Reply charge Parsons with follie and madness, and the highest degree of impudencie. If any one hath a mind to furnish himself with all the terms and phrases of scolding reproach p. 422and infamy, he may find them in the Books they then writ against each other; or if he thinks that too great a trouble, he may meet with a goodly parcel of them put together out of Fa. Parsons his own writings by Watson at the end of the Reply to Parsons's Libell. The short account of the breach among them was this; all the loud talk they made abroad concerning their cruel persecution, could not hinder ambition, and envy from having its effects among them; from these first arose misunderstandings, and then quarrels between the secular Priests and the Iesuits: from thence the Priests proceed to the framing a sodality, (as they called it) among themselves, the better to strengthen themselves against the Iesuits; which they understanding prevail with one of the number of the associated Priests to betray their Councils, him they send to Rome, who in the name of all the Priests in England desired for the preventing differences for the future, and the curing those that were already, that there might be a Government and subordination settled among them. Fa. Parsons being then at Rome follows the matter close, and represents to the Pope the necessity of it, because of the great discords which were among them in England. Whereupon the Pope according to Fa. Parsons desire, referrs the whole business to Cardinal Cajetan p. 423their Protector. Who being governed by the Iesuits pitched upon a person wholly at their devotion (as the seculars thought) which was Blackwell a man swayed altogether by Garnet Provincial of the Iesuits; (well known for his zeal in the Catholick cause by suffering as one of their Martyrs in the Gunpowder Treason) and one of the Arch-Priests instructions was, in all matters of moment to be advised by the Provincial of the Iesuits. The Secular Priests finding themselves thus over-reached by the cunning of the Iesuits, and that they designed hereby wholly to govern their affairs, make many demurrs to his Authority, both concerning the manner and the substance of it: and desire a Breve from the Pope, and then promise to submit. Parsons procures one to their purpose, and an appearance of peace was for a little time among them, and they mutually promised not to charge the Schism upon each other; but within a month or six weeks, the flame brake out with greater fury than ever; the Arch-Priest sending his directions into all parts, that none of the Seculars should be admitted to the Sacraments without acknowledging themselves Schismaticks. So that the Popes Breve was so far from ending the difference, that it encreased it; Fa. Parsons charging them, (and the Seculars not denying it) that after it they were farther from obeying p. 424the Arch-Priest than they were before. So unhappy have the Popes been, when they have gone about to use their Authority for composing differences, among those who are in their own Church?

But we leave this and come to a later controversie among them, about the same matters of Order and Government. Richard Smith titular Bishop of Chalcedon was invested with the Authority of Ordinary over their English Clergy by Vrban 8. Febr. 4. A. D. 1625. not long after he comes into England, and was received with so great kindness by their party here, as made the Iesuits (who are friends to none but themselves) soon to become his enemies, especially when he began to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction here in laying restraints upon the Regulars; which the Iesuits with other Regulars grew so impatient of, that they soon revived the old quarrel concerning the authority and jurisdiction of Bishops, and managed it with so great heat and fierceness, that the titular Bishop was fain to leave the field and withdraw into France. The bottom of the quarrel was, they found the kindness of their party to them abated since the Bishops coming, who before had sway'd all, and lived in great plenty and bravery, when the poor Seculars got scarce bread to p. 425eate, as Watson very sadly laments in his answer to Parsons; but now the necessary support of the dignity of a Bishop, made the charity of their party run in another channel, which the Provincial of the Iesuits complains of in a Letter to the Bishop of Chalcedon. Therefore they endeavour all they can to make a party against him, among the people too; which they did so effectually, as amounted to his withdrawing, (a more civil word for his exile.) And now both parties being sufficiently heated, the battel begins, in which not only England and Ireland, but France and Flanders were deeply engaged. The first who appeared was Dr. Kellison, Professour of Doway, in a Book in Vindication of the Bishops Authority, to whom Knot then Vice-Provincial of the Iesuits returned his Modest and brief discussion, &c. under the name of Nicholas Smith a Iesuite then dead. Soon after came out another written to the same purpose under the name of Daniel of Iesu, whose true name was Iohn Fluide (which the other, writing Ioanes for Iohn, was the Anagram of,) he was a Iesuit too, and Professour at St. Omars: which Books were first censured by the Arch-bishop of Paris, then by the Sorbonne, and at last by the Bishops of France in an Assembly of them at Paris: but the Iesuits were so far from giving over by this, that they new set forth p. 426their Books in Latin with large approbations of them; and publish a Remonstrance against the Bishop of Chalcedon, in the name of the Catholick party in England, which was disowned by the greatest number of them, and cast wholly upon the Iesuits: the same year, 1631. three Books were published by the secular Clergy here in opposition to the Iesuits. Who were so far from quitting the Field by the number of their enemies, that they begin a fresh charge against both the Sorbonne Doctors and the French Clergy, under the fained name of Hermannus Loemelius, whose chief Author was the fore-named Iesuite Lloyd with the assistance of his Brethren, as the diversity of the style shews: and another Book came out against the Faculty of Paris in Vindication of Knot or Nicholas Smith, with many approbations of Bishops, Vniversities, and private Doctors: and in Vindication of the Propositions of Ireland (likewise censured at Paris) another Book came forth, under the name of Edmundus Vrsulanus, whose true name was Mac-mahone, Prior of the Franciscan Convent in Lovain About the same time the Iesuits published their Censure of the Apostolical Creed in imitation of the censures at Paris against their Doctrine (as though their Doctrines were as certain as that, and themselves as infallible as the Apostles:) wherein they charge the Bishops p. 427their enemies with reviving old Heresies and broaching new ones. The Iesuits having now done such great things, triumph unreasonably in all places, as having utterly overthrown their enemies, and beaten them out of the field: when in a little time after Hallier and le Maistre two Doctors of the Sorbonne undertake the quarrel against them; but none was so highly magnified and infinitely applauded by the French Clergy as a person under the disguised name of Petrus Aurelius, whose atchievements in this kind they celebrate next to those of the Pucelle d' Orleans, and Printed all his Works together at their own charge: and writ a high Elogium of him which is prefixed before them. And the secular Clergy of England sent him a letter of Congratulation for his Triumphs, subscribed by Iohn Colleton Dean of the Chapter, and Edmond Dutton Secretary, wherein they sadly lament the discords that have been among them here, and the Heresies broached by their Adversaries by occasion of them. The main of-this Controversie did concern the dignity, necessity, and jurisdiction of the Episcopal Order, as appears by the Censures of the Bishops of France, and by Aurelius, Petri Aurelii opera tom. 1. p. 62.who saith, that although the Dispute began upon occasion of the Bishop of Chalcedon, and the English Clergy, yet it was now carried farther, whether p. 428the Episcopal Order was necessary to the Being of a particular Church? Whether it was by divine right or no? Whether confirmation might be given without Bishops? Whether the Episcopal Order was more perfect than the Monastical? Whether the Regulars were under the jurisdiction of Bishops? And therefore the Iesuits are charged by their Adversaries with a design to extirpate and ruine the whole Order of Episcopacy. Have not these men now great reason to insult over us, that some of these questions have caused great differences among us, when the Iesuits in England had laid the foundation of them by their quarrels of the same kind but a little before, and furnished the enemies to Episcopacy and the Church of England with so many arguments to their hands to manage their bad cause with? But what becomes of the Court of Rome all this while? do the Pope and Cardinals only stand still to see what the issue of the Battel will be, without ever offering to compose the difference between the two parties? No. The Iesuits finding how hard they were put to it, make their address to Rome as their greatest Sanctuary, and A. D. 1633. obtained a Decree of the Sacred Congregation for suppressing the Books on both sides, without judging any thing at all of the merits of the cause, or giving any p. 429censure of the authority on either side? And is not now the Popes authority an excellent remedy for all divisions in the Church? When in so great a heat as this was, the Pope durst not interpose at all in the main business, for fear of losing either side; which is a plain argument that they themselves look on his Authority as so precarious a thing, that they must by no means expose it, where it is like to be called in Question. Were not here Controversies fit to be determined? To what purpose is that authority, that dare not be exercised when there is most need of it? and when could there be greater need than in such a time when the Church was in a flame by these contentions? And yet so timerous a Decree as this was, could find no acceptance. For at Paris immediately comes out a disquisition upon it, shewing the unreasonableness of it in suppressing Books without enquiring into the merits of the cause, in a matter of so great consequence as that was, that this would give great occasion of triumph to the Hereticks, when such scandalous and seditious Books as those of the Jesuits are, meet with the same favour at Rome with the censure of the Bishops of France: that their profane and Atheistical Censure of the Apostles Creed must have no mark of disgrace put upon it: nor such sayings of theirs p. 430wherein they call the Bishops and Divines of France by most contumelious names, and say they are the enemies of the truth and piety. The Iesuits instead of defending themselves against Aurelius, write a pittiful defence of this Decree of suppressing the Books on both sides; and so all the means which the Court of Rome durst use to extinguish this flame proved, but an occasion of adding to it. And whether this Controversie be yet at an end among them, let all the heats in France and England of late years concerning the Iesuits give testimony.

§. 10. I shall not now insist any longer upon them,Of the Jesuits particular opposition to Bishops and their Authority. but only produce some late passages of things (which though they happened at a greater distance, are yet sufficiently attested) to shew what spight the Iesuitical Order bears to the Authority of Bishops, what arts they have used to enervate it, what power to affront their persons, and expose them to all the contempt that may be when they go about to stop their proceedings, or exercise any jurisdiction over them. The great occasion of the Controversie between the Bishops and them was, that the Iesuits took upon them to Preach, and hear Confessions, &c. without any permission from the Bishop of the Diocese. So they did in the Philippine Islands, whereupon the Arch-bishop of Manille, Don Hernando Guerrero called a Synod, p. 431wherein it was resolved that the Archbishop ought to bring the Iesuits to account for what they did, which he did,Moral practice of the Jesuits. p. 328. and all the satisfaction he could get from them was, that they had priviledges; the Arch-bishop not satisfied with this, proceeds against them; they name a Conservator an enemy of the Arch-bishops, (For the Popes to keep the Bishops in awe, have allowed them by a Bull for that purpose,Bull. Rom. Tom. 2. p. 361. Bull. 1. Greg. 13. liberty in case of difference between the Bishops and them to choose a Conservator to defend their priviledges against them) this Conservator proceeds against the Arch-bishop, and the Iesuits procure the Governour to joyne with him, who without giving leave to him to make his Defence resolve to banish him. The Arch-bishop understanding their resolution to send him away, goes with the Clergy about him into his Chappel, and there to secure himself from the insolency of the Souldiers in his Pontifical habit, holds the Eucharist in his hand: notwithstanding which they came and dragged out all the Fryers who took the Arch-bishops part, and afterwards the old Arch-bishop himself, who fell down in the crowd with the Pix in his hand and wounded himself in the face. Such exorbitances made that impression on one of the Souldiers that he drew his Sword, and falling upon it said, He had rather dye by his own hands than see such enormities p. 432among Christians. At last the Arch-bishop was forced to let go his Pix, and was presently carryed away out of the City, and put into a little pittiful Barque unprovided of all things, without permitting any food to be given him or any of his servants to accompany him; and was conveyed by five Souldiers into a Desart Island, where he had not so much as a Cabin for shelter; and there he was kept till he yielded to their terms. O the admirable unity, peace, and submission to Bishops in the Roman Church! But we have yet a more remarkable instance of this kind, in the notorious case of the difference between the Bishop of Angelopolis in America, and the Iesuits; which was heard at Rome, and several Bulls published by Innocent 10. in it. I shall give an account of it from the Popes Bulls, and from the letter which the Bishop himself sent to the Pope about it, A. D. 1649. which is extant in the Collection of the end of Mr. S. Amours Iournal, Collection of Tract. p. 11.which he had from Cosimo Ricciardi Sub-librarykeeper of the Vatican, who received it immediately from the Bishops Agent. The controversie began there upon the very same grounds, which it had done in the Philippine Islands, for the Iesuits would acknowledge no subjection at all to the Bishop, but would Preach and hear Confessions without any license from the Bishop, p. 433which difference grew so high, that the Iesuits chose Conservators against the Bishops authority; as the Popes Bull granted, May 14. A. D. 1648. doth declare; and not only so, but these Conservators very fairly excommunicated the Bishop and his Vicar General: upon this the Bishop sends an Agent to Rome, and the Iesuits appear in behalf of their Society; the Pope commits the cause to a particular Congregation of Cardinals and Bishops, who upon the hearing of both sides give sentence in favour of the Bishop, Apr. 16. A. D. 1648. But the Iesuits (as appears by the Bishops letter bearing date, Ian. 8. A. D. 1649.) were resolved not to wait for the Popes resolution, but finding that the people contemned their censures and adhered to the Bishop, were so enraged at it, that they resolved to imprison him: to that end they bribe the King of Spains Vice-roy, the Bishops particular enemy, with a great summ of money; and by that means clapt up most of his Friends, and threatned them with worse, if they would not obey the Conservators; the Bishop himself they had appointed Souldiers to seize upon on Corpus Christi day, (the better day, the better deed) who understanding their minds, sent commissioners to treat with them to prevent the tumults and disorders were like to follow on these differences; but they used them with p. 434contempt and would hear of no terms, unless the Bishop would submit himself and his jurisdiction to them and their Conservators, but instead of peace they proceed to more open acts of hostility, by imprisoning his Vicar General, and using all manner of insolencies among the People, who joyned with the Bishop to defend him against them. The good Bishop seeing things in so bad a posture, thought it his greatest prudence to withdraw to the mountains, thinking himself safer among the Serpents and Scorpions there, than in the City among the Iesuits. There he continues for twenty dayes, almost famished, and afterwards for four months lay hid in a pittiful Cottage, the Iesuits in the mean time offering great summs of money to those who should bring him alive or dead. But not finding him, they bring the excommunicated Conservators with great pomp into the City, and erect a Tribunal or, in the language of the late times, a High…Court of Iustice among them, where according to their pleasure they fine, banish, imprison as many as they thought their enemies; and there solemnly declare what mighty injury the Bishop had done the Iesuits, in forbidding them to Preach without licenses from him, or till such time as they produced those which they had from his predecessours: then they declare the Bishops See p. 435to be vacant; and caused it to be published in the Churches, that the Iesuits did not need any license from the Bishop, they null all censures against them, recall all Orders published by the Bishop for the good Government of his Diocese. The Bishop in the mean time privately sends monitory letters to the people, to bear the present persecution with patience, but by no means to associate with, or to hear those excommunicated persons, who had offered such affronts to his authority and jurisdiction; by which means, the people not being prevailed upon, they with a great summ of money procure some secular Iudges to forme a judicial process against the Bishop for Sedition, to which end they suborn witnesses against him, but could make evidence of nothing tending to sedition but forbidding the Iesuits to Preach. This not taking, they attempt another way to expose him to contempt, upon the Sacred day of their holy Father Ignatius, they put their Scholars in Mascarade, and so personating the Bishop and his Clergy, they make a procession through the Town in the middle of the day, and sung the Pater noster and Ave Maria as they went, with horrible blasphemies perverting both of them to the abuse of the Bishop and his party, instead of saying libera nos à malo, they said libera nos à Palafox, which was the name of the Bishop: p. 436and others had the Episcopal staffe hanging at a Horses taile, and the Miter on their stirrups, to let them see how much they had it under their feet: others sung Lampoons against the Bishop, others did such things which are not fit to be repeated: Which were parts of this glorious triumph of the Iesuits over the Bishop and his Authority. But in the midst of this excessive jollity, the King of Spains Navy arrived, wherein the Kings commands were brought for removing the Vice-Roy, who was the great Friend of the Iesuits; the news of this, abated their heat, and the Bishop secretly conveys himself into his Palace, which the people hearing of, ran with incredible numbers to embrace him, for several dayes together; upon which the Iesuits complain to the old Vice-Roy of a sedition, and obtained from him a command to the Chapter not to yield to the Bishops jurisdiction; which caused a great division among them, one part adhering to the Bishop, and another to the Iesuits; The Bishop therefore seeing the differences to rise higher, and the Schism to be greater, and the miserable condition the Church was in among them; was fain to submit and promise to innovate nothing, but to wait the Popes decision. Not long after, another Ship arrived from Spain, with an Express from the King, wherein the Vice-Roy was commanded immediately p. 437to surrender his Government, and was severely rebuked for assisting the Iesuits against the Bishop, and all the acts in that matter were nulled by the Kings authority; but the Iesuits according to their usual integrity, gave out just the contrary to the Orders received, and framed letters on purpose which they dispersed among the people. But these arts never holding long, when the Vice-Roy's Successour was established, the truth brake forth; and the Bishop returned to the exercise of his former Authority.

But notwithstanding the Kings declaration, and the Popes Breve was now published among them, the Iesuits persisted still in their obstinate disobedience; and although excommunicated by the Bishop, yet continued to Preach and act as before. And hereby we have a plain discovery what a mighty regard the Iesuits have to the Papal See, if it once oppose their designes; and what an effectual instrument of Peace and Vnity the Popes Authority is; for they presently found wayes enough to decline the force of the Popes Bull. For, (1.) They said, it could have no force there, because it was not received by the Council of the Indies, it seems, pasce oves, and dabo tibi claves, &c. signifie nothing in the Indies, unless the Kings Council pleases, or rather, unless the Iesuits please to let it p. 438do so. (2.) They pleaded bravely for themselves, that the priviledges granted them by the Popes were in consideration of their merits, and so were of the nature of contracts and Covenants; and therefore could not be revoked by the Pope. (3.) That the Popes constitutions in this matter were not received by the Church, and Laws which are not received are no Laws: But as the Bishop well urges against them, if these wayes of interpreting the Popes Bulls be allowed, his Authority will signifie nothing, and all his Constitutions shall have no more force than those against whom they are directed be pleased to yield to them; and it will be impossible to preserve peace in the Church, if it shall be in the power of offenders to declare whether the Laws against them are to be received for Laws or no. But this, saith he, is the inspiration and illumination of the Iesuits, and their method of interpreting the Papal constitutions; which he heard very often from their own mouths in the frequent conferences he had with them about these matters; But they had another way to decline the Kings Authority, for the King and his Council being all Lay-men, they had nothing to do in Ecclesiastical matters. By which means (as the Bishop saith,) they make themselves superiour both to King and Pope, and free from all jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal. p. 439And I dare appeal to the most indifferent person, whether any Doctrine broached by the greatest Fanaticks among us, ever tended more to the dissolution of Government, the countenancing sedition, the perpetuating Schisms in the Church, than these of the Iesuits do? And therefore the Bishop saith, that he had rather lay down his life, than by yielding up his jurisdiction expose his Authority to Contempt, and the Church to the continual danger of Schisms; and by many weighty arguments perswades the Pope, if he truly designed the peace and flourishing of the Church, speedily and effectually to reform the whole Order of the Iesuits; without which, he saith, it is impossible, especially in those remoter parts, for the Bishops to preserve any Authority. And besides other corruptions among them, he tells strange stories of their wayes of propagating Christian Religion in China, and other neighbour Nations; which they boast so much of at this distance; but, he saith, they who are so much nearer and understand those things better, have cause to lament the infinite scandals which they give to the Christian Religion in doing it. The account which he gives of these things, this Bishop protests he sends to the Pope, only to clear his own Conscience, that he might not be condemned at the day of judgement for concealing that p. 440which he so certainly knew to be true by those who were eye-witnesses of it. Their first work is, to hinder all persons of any other Order whatsoever from coming among them; and if they do come by one means or other, they are sure to procure their banishment and persecution; to this end, they assist and counsel the Infidels themselves in it, and make use of their hands to whip and imprison them, and so to make them weary of being there. When they are left alone, they have the liberty of telling their own stories, and no one can disprove them; but they were not so watchful, but some of the other Orders were sent as Spyes upon them, and although they knew, they hazarded their lives in it, yet they made full discovery of the Iesuits way of converting Infidels. And they discovered such horrible things in the Catechisms they gave to their new Converts, that they complained to the Pope of them, but, as appears by the event, to very little purpose…; for although the Iesuits could not d…ny the things they were charged with, and the Congregation, de pr…pagandâ fide, at Rome, S…pt. 12. A.D. 1645 in seventeen Decrees condemned them, yet the Rector of the Iesuits Colledge in the Philippines in a Book of 300 pages, opposed those Decrees, which was in the hands of the Bishop of Angelopolis, p. 441and he gave it to a Dominican to answer, who had been in those parts himself, who fully proved the matter of fact, and answered the Iesuits arguments, both which the Bishop saith, were in his custody. The short of their instructions to their Converts was this, to speak little of Christ Crucified, but to conceal that part of Christian Doctrine as much as may be, to use all the same customes that the Idolaters did, only directing all their worship to Christ and the Saints; not to trouble themselves about Fasting, Penance, Confession, and participation of the Eucharist, or the severity of Repentance and Mortification. They designed to recommend, as easie a Religion to them as may be, the better to invite them to embrace it; and therefore as the Bishop observes, we read of no Martyrs among them: the poor Dominicans and Franciscans are whipt, and imprisoned, and banished; but the Iesuits who Preach only a glorious Christ, without his passion and crosse, have far better and easier entertainment among them. But these things the Bishop there gives a larger account of: I return to the Controversie between the Bishop and them: An Agent was sent to Rome by the Bishop with this letter to negotiate his business there against the Iesuits, a man intelligent, S. Amours Iournal. p. 5. ch. 15.vigorous and undaunted, saith Mr. S. Amour of him; who followed his p. 442business so close, that after long solicitation and address, he obtains another Decree against the Iesuits, which is extant at large in the Lyons Edition of the Bullarium: but which ought to be observed, is since prohibited by the Index Expurgatorius of Alexander 7.Index Alex. A.D. 1658. by whose means that was procured is easie to conjecture, when we consider with what difficulty the Decree was obtained; and for above a year after the passing it, the coming of it forth was hindred by Cardinal Spada under-hand, who was a great Friend to the Iesuits. And when it did come forth, the Iesuits bought up all the Copies of it they could,S. Amours Iournal. p. 7. ch. 5. on purpose to abolish the memory of it: which made them obtain the prohibition of the Bullarium, till that part were purged out of it. But if the Popes had any real kindness for the Authority of Bishops, they would never suffer such encroachments to be made upon them, as they do, nor shew so much favour to the contemners of it. But this is one of the grand Intrigues of the Roman Court, to keep the Bishops down by the priviledges of the Regulars who are immediate dependents on the Popes; only at some times when they cannot help it, they must seem to curb them, but yet so as to keep them in heart enough to bait the Bishops, when they begin to exercise their Authority as they ought to do in the reformation p. 443of abuses and disorders. But by these heats and controversies among them about matters of Government and Order, it appears that they have no cause to upbraid us with our dissensions about them: And that they have no more effectual means to suppress them than We.

§. 11. 2. As to matters of doctrine. Of their differences in matters of doctrine.The least thing any one could imagine by all the boasts of Vnity among them, and upbraiding others with their dissensions, is, that they are all of one mind in matters of doctrine; but he must believe against common sense and experience that can believe this. For we know their divisions well enough, and that it is as easie a matter to compose all the differences among us as among them. We may assoon perswade the Quakers to Vniformity, as reconcile the Dominicans and the Iesuits; and all our Sects will agree assoon as the factions of the Thomists and Scotists; the Presbyterians and Independents will yield to Episcopal jurisdiction, assoon as the Monastick Orders will quit their priviledges; the Arminians and Calvinists will be all of a mind when the Iansenists and Molinists are: and we are apt to think that our Controversies about Ceremonies are not altogether of so great importance as theirs about infallibility. But it is a very pleasant thing to see by what arts they go about to perswade credudulous p. 444people, that what would be called divisions any where else, is an admirable Vnion among them; they might assoon perswade them that the seven Hills of Rome are the bottomless pit; or that contradictions may be true. For either the Pope is infallible or he is not, either the supream Government of the Church is committed to him alone as S. Peters Successor, or to the representative Church in a Council, either he hath a temporal power to command Princes, or he hath not; either the V. Mary was conceived with Original sin, or she was not; either there is a Pre-determination, or there is not; either Souls may be delivered out of Purgatory, or they may not: Dare any of them say they are all of a mind in the Church of Rome about these points? I am sure they dare not. But what then? do they not differ from one another? do they not write, and Preach, and rail against each other as much as any Sectaries can do? are there not factions of long continuance among them upon these differences? where then lyes their Vnity they boast off? Alas! we speak like Ignorant persons, and do not consider what artificial men we have to deal with; who with some pretty tricks and slights of hand make all that which seems to us shattered and broken in pieces to appear sound and entire without p. 445the least crack or flaw in it. It will be worth the while to find out these arts, for I do not question but by a discreet managing them, they may serve us as well as them, and our Church will have, (though not so much splendour) yet as much Vnity as theirs. They tell us therefore that it is true they are not all of a mind, and it is not necessary to the Unity of the Church that they should be: but, they have the only way of composing differences; and they do not differ in matters of faith from each other; and their differences lye only in their Schools, and do not disturb the peace of the Church. This is the utmost I can find their best wits plead for the Vnity of the Roman Church; and if these be sufficient, I believe they and we will be proved to be as much at Unity, as they are among themselves.

1. They say the Vnity of the Church doth not lye in actual Agreement of the members of it in matters of Doctrine; but in having the best means to compose differences and to preserve consent; which is, submission to the Popes Authority. Greg. de Valent. Analys. fid…i l. 6. c. 4. 9.So Gregory de Valentiâ explains the Vnity of their Church; for actual consent, he grants, may be in other Churches as much as theirs, and there is nothing singular or peculiar attributed to their Church, supposing they were all of a mind, which it is plain they are not; but therein, saith he, lyes the Vnity of their Church, that p. 446they all acknowledge one Head in whose judgement they acquiesce: and therefore they have no more to do but to know what the Pope determines. If this be all their Unity, we have greater than they, for we have a more certain way of ending Controversies than they have: which I prove by an argument like to one in great request among them, when they go about to perswade weak persons to their Religion, viz. that it must needs be safer to be in that Religion wherein both parties agree, a man may be saved; than in that where one side denies a possibility of salvation; so say I here, that must be a safer way for Unity which both parties agree in to be infallible, than that which one side absolutely denyes to be so; but both parties agree the Scriptures to be infallible, and all Protestants deny the Pope to be infallible; therefore ours is the more certain way for Vnity. But this is not all, for it is far from being agreed among themselves that the Pope is infallible; it being utterly denyed by some among them, and the asserting it accounted Heresie: as is evident in some late Books written to that purpose in France and England: What excellent means of Vnity then is this among them; which it is accounted by some no less than Heresie to assert?

p. 447§. 13. But supposing they should yield the Pope that submission which they deny to be due to him, yet is his definition so much more certain way of ending Controversies than the Scriptures? The insufficiency of the Popes Authority for ending these differences.Let them name one Controversie that hath been ended in their Church meerly by the Popes Decrees; so as the opposite party hath declared, that they believed contrary to what they believed before on the account of the Popes definition. We have many instances to the contrary, wherein controversies have been heightened and increased by their interposing, but none concluded by them. Do they say the Scripture can be no means of Vnity, because of the various senses which have been put upon it? and have they no wayes to evade the Popes definitions? Yes, so many, that his Authority in truth signifies nothing, any farther than they agree that the upholding it tends to their common interest. But when onces he comes to cross the interest of any party, if they do not in plain terms defie him, yet they find out more civil wayes of making his Definitions of no force. Either they say the Decree was procured by fraud, and the Pope made it by mis-information, which is the common way, or he did not define it as a matter of faith sitting in Cathedrâ, or the sense of his definition is quite otherwise than their Adversaries understand it; or supposing p. 448that be the sense, the Pope is never to be supposed to define any thing contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers and ancient Canons: Of all which it were no difficult task to give late and particular instances; but no one who is acquainted with the history of that Church can be ignorant of them, and the late proceedings in the point of the five Propositions are a sufficient evidence of these things to any one who reads them. For when was there a Fairer occasion given to the Pope to shew his Authority for preservation of the Churches unity, than at that time when the matter of the five Propositions was under debate at Rome: The same controversie was now revived which had disturbed their Church so often and so much before. In the time of Clement 8. the heats were so great between the Iesuits and Dominicans, that the Pope thought it necessary for the peace of the Church to put an end to them, to that end he appointed Congregations for several years to discuss those points, that he might come to a resolution in them. This Pope at first was strangely prepossest by the arts of the Iesuits against the Dominicans, but sending for the General of the Dominicans, he told him what sad apprehensions he had concerning the peace of the Church, by reason of the disputes between the Iesuits and them; and therefore charges him that those p. 449of his Order should no longer molest the Iesuits about these things; to whom he replyed, that he assured him with as great Protestation as he was able, that it was no meer Scholastical dispute between them, S. Amours Iournal p. 3. ch. 10.but it was the cause of faith that was concerned; which he discoursed largely upon to the Pope, and made such impressions upon him, that the Dominicans verily believe,Iournal p. 6. ch. 26.—P. 3. ch. 8. that had that Pope lived to the Vespers of Pentecost that year he dyed in March, he had published a Bull against the Iesuits in presence of the Colledge of Cardinals, and created F. Lemos Cardinal. After his death the congregations were continued in the time of Paul 5. but at last were broken up without any decision at all. If the Popes determination be such an absolute Instrument of peace in the Church, it is the strangest thing in the world, it should be made so little use of in such cases where they all acknowledge it would be of infinite advantage to their Church, to have an issue put to such troublesome controversies as these were. But they know well enough, that the Popes Authority is the more esteemed the less it is used, and that it hath alwayes been very hazardous to determine where there have been considerable parties, on both sides; for fear the condemned party should renounce his Authority, or speak plainer truths than they are willing to hear. And therefore it was p. 450well observed by Mons. S. Amour, Iournal p. 1. ch. 9.that they are very jealeus at Rome of maintaining the Authority of the decrees which issue from thence, and that this consideration obliges the maker of them to look very well to the compliance and facility that may be expected in their execution before they pass any at all. Which is a most certain argument they dare not trust the Popes infallibility, nor all the promises they pretend Christ hath made to their Church; but govern their affaires wholly by the rules of humane Policy. And on this account when the heats brake forth in France about Iansenism; and both parties made application to the Court of Rome, the Pope could never be prevailed with to suffer the main controversies to be touched, or any decree to pass about them, but at last condemned some ambiguous Propositions as taken out of Iansenius his book; which both parties condemned according to their different senses, and they were left to dispute it out, which sense it was the Pope meant them in. And therefore the Iansenists Advocate who was well versed in the practices of the Court of Rome, gave them the truest account of the intentions of that Court in their affaire,Iournal p. 6. ch 3. which was, to delude both the one side and the other; and that Cardinal Ginetti had told him that either nothing would be done, … 6. ch… …or if any thing that which would doe neither good not hurt. And p. 451therefore in stead of ending the controversies, the Popes definition only produced more, viz. whether the Propositions condemned were in Iansenius or no? whether the Pope might not erre in matter of fact? the Iansenists affirming this, the Iesuits denying it and charging each other with no less than Heresie about it. For upon the Iesuits asserting Octob. 12. A.D. 1661. that the Pope hath the same infallibility that Iesus Christ hath, not only in Questions of right but in matters of fact, and that thence those of their Church are bound to believe with a divine faith, that the 5. condemned Propositions are in Iansenius: the Iansenists publish a charge of heresie against the Iesuits and such as was never broached in the Church before: being not only a solitary error or simple heresie, but a whole source of errors, or rather an universal heresie which overthrows all Religion. Which they goe about at large to prove by shewing, that this builds mens faith on the word of man and not on the word of God, because it concerns a thing neither revealed nor attested by God, as to know whether Propositions are really an Authors of this last Age; and (as he goes on) to make the Popes word equal with the word of God, is not only heresie but horrid impiety and a species of Idolatry: for this is giving to man the honour due only to p. 452God: because such an entire submission of our mind and of all our intellectuals comprehended in the act of our faith is that Adoration which we pay to the prime verity it self. And I dare now leave any one to Judge, whether upon so late an experiment of the Constitutions of two Popes Innocent 10. and Alexander 7. in order to the ending so great a Controversie as this was, it be not apparent, that the Popes Authority signifies no more to the ending Controversies, than the parties who are concerned are willing that it should i. e. as far as they doe consent to obey them and no farther?

§. 14. But it may be said,The insufficiency of Councils to end Controversies. that it is true there are differences among them about the Popes power and infallibility, and therefore he may not be so fit to end Controversies, but there is no dispute among them, about Pope and Council together, therefore in that case they are all agreed, that they ought to submit. These are fine things to be said, and appeare plausibly to those who doe not search into them; but those that doe, will easily find this as ineffectual a remedy as the other. For if we examine but the ways used by the several parties among them to avoid the decisions of some Councils against their particular opinions, we may see how little the decrees of Councils can bind those who have no mind to be tyed up by them. Either p. 453they say the decision depended on a matter of fact, which the Council was not sufficiently informed in, and they believe a Council may erre in a matter of fact, or else it did not proceed after the way of a Council, or it was not general, or its decrees were not received by the Catholick Church, or though some were received yet not all, or however, the infallibility of a Council is not absolute; but supposing that it proceeds according to the constant tradition of the Church, which unavoidably leaves the matter as much under debate as if the Council had never meddled with it.

But if they doe in earnest believe, that the Pope and Council can put an end to all Controversies among them when they please, I would fain know why they have not done this hitherto? Is not unity desirable among them? if not, why doe they boast of it? if it be, why have they not obtained it, since they can so easily doe it? what made them so extremely cautious in the Council of Trent of meddling with any thing that was in Controversie among themselves? or was it, that they were all so much of a mind that they had nothing to doe, but to condemn their enemies? which was so far from being true, that there were very few things which came into bebate, that they were agreed in, and therefore they were put sometimes to strange shifts p. 454to find out general and ambiguous terms which might not displease the dissenters, and yet leave the disputes as great as ever. They could not agree so much as about the Title of the Council, History of the Council of Trent. l. 2. p. 138.many of the Bishops were for adding to the Title of the most holy Council, Representing the Church Vniversal, which was eagerly opposed by the Italians, and with much adoe avoided by the Legats; being no small controversie about words, but of very great consequence about the power and authority of Pope and Council, if they had been suffered to goe on in it. But the Pope hearing of this dispute at the beginning, sent word to the Legats, not to broach any new difficulties in matter of faith, P. 149.nor to determine any of the things controversed among Catholicks, and to proceed slowly in the Reformation. Excellent instructions for the advancement of Peace and Holiness! Whoever will for that end peruse that incomparable history of the Council, will find how high the Controversies among themselves were between the Bishops and the Regulars about priviledges, between the Dominicans and Francise…ins in many weighty points, between the Italian Bishops and others about Residence and the extent of Episcopal power, between the Divines in most of the matters of doctrine, as might easily be shewed at large, if I loved the pains of transcribing; but I had rather referre the Reader to that p. 455excellent history it self. But I only renew my demand, why must no controversies among Catholicks be ended in the Council? could they be better decided any where else? if so, then the Council is not the best means of Vnity; if not, then it seems there is no necessity of ending controversies among them, but they have Vnity enough without it. And in truth, it is Interest and not Vnity they look after, all such who hold opinions contrary to their Interest must be proceeded against and condemned; but for others, let them quarrel and dispute as long as they will, they let them alone if they touch not the Popes Authority, nor any of the gainful opinions and practices which are allowed among them. And supposing their Interest be kept up, which the Inquisition is designed for, the Court of Rome is as great a Friend to toleration as may be, only what others call different perswasions, they call School points, and what others call divisions, they call disputes; the case is the same with their Church and others, only they have softer names for the differences among themselves, and think none bad enough for those who cast off the Popes Authority and plead for a Reformation. Here then lyes the profound mystrey of their Vnity, that they are all agreed against us, though not among themselves; and are not we so against them too? May not we plead for the Vnity, that they p. 456have on the same grounds? We are all agreed against Popery, as much as they are against Protestants; only we have some Scholastick disputes among us about indifferent things, and the Episcopal Authority, as they have; we have some zealous Dominicans, and busie and factious men such as the Iesuits among them are; but setting aside these disputes we are admirably well agreed, just as they are in the Roman Church.

§. 15. 2. They say,Their differences are in matters of faith. they doe not differ in matters of faith. But this is as true as the other; for are they agreed in matters of faith who charge one another with heresie? as we have already seen that they doe. But if they mean that they doe not differ in matters of faith, because those only are matters of faith which they are agreed in; they were as good say, they are agreed in the things they doe not differ about: for the parties which differ doe believe the things in difference to be matters of faith; and therefore they think they differ from one another in matter of faith. But they are not agreed what it is which makes a thing to be a matter of faith; and therefore no one can pronounce that their differences are not about matters of faith; for what one may think not to be de fide, others may believe that it is; we see the Popes personal infallibility is become a Catholick doctrine among the Iesuits, and declared to be plain p. 457heresie by their Adversaries. The deliverance of souls from Purgatory by the prayers of the living is generally accounted a matter of faith in the Roman Church; but we know those in it who deny it, and say it was a novel opinion introduced by Gregory 1. against the consent of Antiquity. It is a matter of faith, say the Dominicans and Iansenists to attribute to God alone the praise of converting grace, and that grace efficacious by it self, was the doctrine of Fathers and Councils and the Catholick Church; and is it not then a matter of faith in their opinion, wherein the Iesuits and they differ from each other? To which purpose it was well said by the author of a Book printed at Paris A. D. 1651. containing essayes and reflections on the state of Religion, that because of the Controversies between the Iansenists and the Iesuits, it might with more reason be affirmed now than in the time of Arrianism it self, that the whole Church seems to become heretical. For admitting, saith he, what is most certain that the Church hath decreed Calvinism, Pelagianism and Semipelagianism to be heresies, and that the Doctors are those who sit in the Chair to be consulted withall upon points of Religion, all Catholicks are reduced to a most strange perplexity. For if a man shall address himself to those of the Iansenian p. 458party, they will tell him that those who are termed Molinists are Pelagians or at least Semi-pelagians, and on the other side the Molinists will bear him down that their Adversaries are Calvinists or else Novatians. Now all the Doctors of the Catholick Church (a very few excepted) are either of the one or the other party. I leave you then to consider to what prodigious streights mens minds are reduced, since this is held as a general Maxime, that whosoever fails in one point of faith, fails in all. It is a matter of faith, say the Dominicans, that all persons, Christ only excepted, were born in sin; and therefore the contenders for the immaculate conception must in their judgment differ in a point of faith from them. But if this distinction should be allowed to preserve the unity of their Church, why shall it not as well cure the divisions of ours. The most considerable in all respects of the dissenters from the Church of England, declare that they agree with us in all the articles of doctrine required by our Church; will this be enough in their opinion to make us at unity with each other? if not, let them not plead the same thing for themselves which they will not allow to us. I cannot understand that the controversies about Ceremonies (considered in themselves) among us, are of any greater weight, than the disputes among p. 459the Fryars concerning their habits have been; and yet this controversie only about the size of their hoods lasted in one Order almost an Age together, and was managed with as great a heat and animosity, as ever these have been among us, and was with very much adoe laid asleep for a time by the endeavours of 4. Popes successively. But if this signifies nothing to unity, to say, that the matters are not great about which the Controversies are, if the disturbances be great which are caused by them, that will reflect more sharply on their Church than on ours, which hath so many differences which they account not to be about any matters of faith. But if these differences in point of doctrine among them prove to be none in matters of faith, it would be no difficult task upon the same grounds to shew that they have no reason to quarrel with us for breaking the unity of their Church, because then we may differ from them as little in matters of faith, as they doe from one another. This I need not take upon me to shew at large, because I find it already done to my hand by F. Davenport, al. Sancta Clara in his paraphrastical exposition of the 39. articles of our Church: about half of them he acknowledges to be Catholick, as they are without any further explication. The first he meets with difficulty in is that, about the number of Canonical p. 460books point blank against the Council of Trent, but he acknowledges that Cajetan and Franciscus Mirandula fully agree with our Church in it, who quote Hierom, Ruffinus, Antoninus, and Lyra of the same opinion, as they might have done many others; but because our Church doth not cast them wholly out of the Canon, he dares not say it is guilty of heresie simply; and the rather because Waldensis and Driedo do hold that it is only in the power of the whole Church successively from the Apostles, to declare what books are Canonical and what not. For the 11. article about justification, he saith the Controversie is only about words, because we are agreed that God alone is the efficient cause of Justification, and that Christ and his passion are the meritorious cause of it; and the only question is about the formal cause, which our Church doth not attribute to the act of faith as he proves by the book of Homilies. but only makes it a condition of our being justified, and they believe that by faith we obtain our righteousness by Christ; so that he can find no difference between them and us in that point. He saith, the Controversie about merit may be soon ended according to the doctrine of our Church, for they deny as well as we article 1. 3. that any works done before p. 461the Grace of Christ, and Inspiration of his Spirit, can merit any thing, and when we say, article 12. that good works which follow justification, are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ; if by that we mean, that they are accepted by Christ in order to a reward, by vertue of the promise of God through Christ, that is all the sense of merit, which he or the school of Scotus contends for. For works of supererogation article 14. he saith our Church condemns them upon that ground, that men are said to do more by them than of duty they are bounden to do, which being generally understood they condemn, he saith, as well as we; because we can doe no good works which upon the account of our natural obligation we are not bound to perform, though by particular precept we are not bound to them. In the 19 article where our Church saith, that the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith; he distinguisheth the particular Church of Rome from the Catholick Church, which is frequently understood by that name, and he saith it is only a matter of faith to believe, that the Catholick Church hath not erred, and not that the particular Church of Rome hath not. In the 20. article our Church declares, that the Church ought p. 462neither to decree any thing against holy writ, so besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed of necessity to salvation; this he interprets of what is neither actually nor potentially in the Scriptures, neither in terms nor by consequence; and so he thinks it orthodox, and not against traditions. Article 21. wherein our Church determins expresly against the infalibility of general Councils, he understands it only of things, that are not necessary to faith or manners; which he saith is the common opinion among them. The hardest article one would think to bring us off in, was the 22. viz. that the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing, vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture. But we need not despaire as long as one bred up in the Schools of Scotus designes our rescue; he confesses it to be a difficult adventure, but what will not subtilty and kindness doe together? He observes very cunningly, that these doctrines are not condemned absolutely and in themselves, but only the Romish doctrine about them; and therein we are not to consider what the Church of Rome doth teach, but what we apprehend they teach, or what we p. 463judge of their doctrine, i. e. that they invocate Saints as they doe God himself, that Purgatory destroys the cross of Christ, and warms the Popes Kitchin; that Pardons are the Popes bills of Exchange, whereby he discharges the debts of what sinners he pleases; that they give proper divine worship to images and reliques; all which, he saith, are impious doctrines, and we doe well to condemn them. So that it is not want of faith, but want of wit, this good man condemns us for; which if we attain to any competent measure of whereby to understand their doctrine, there is nothing but absolute peace and harmony between us. This grand difficulty being thus happily removed, all the rest is done with a wet finger: for what though our Church, Art. 24. saith, that it is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custome of the primitive Church to have publick prayer in the Church, or to Minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people. Yet what can hinder a Scotist from understanding by the Scripture, not the doctrine or command of it, but the delivery of it, viz. that the Scripture was written in a known tongue? nay he proves that our Church is for praying in Latin by this Article, because that either is a known tongue or ought to be so, it being publickly p. 464lickly taught every where: and if it be not understood, he saith, it is not per se but per accidens that it is so; I suppose he means the Latin Tongue is not to blame that the people do not understand it; but they that they learned their lessons no better at School. But what is to be said, for Women who do not think themselves bound to go to School to learn Latin? He answers very plainly, that S. Paul never meant them, for he speaks of those who were to say Amen at the Prayers, but both S. Paul. and the Canon Law, he tells us, forbid women to speak in the Church. The case is then clear, S. Paul. never regarded what language the Women used; and it was no great matter whether they understood their Prayers or not. But what is to be said to the Council of Trent, which pronounces an Anathema to those who say, that Prayers are to be said only in a known Tongue? This doth not touch our Church at all he thinks, because in some Colledges the Prayers are said in Latin: but although that be a known tongue there, it is no matter, as long as the Council of Trent hath put in the word only, that clears our Church sufficiently. Besides the Council of Trent speaks expresly of the Masse, which our Article doth not mention, but only publick Prayers: and the Council of Trent p. 465speaks of those who condemns it as contrary to the institution of Christ, but our Church only condemns it as contrary to the institution of the Apostle; but all the commands of the Apostles are not the commands of Christ, therefore our Church declares nothing against faith in this Article. Are not we infinitely obliged to a man that uses so much subtlety to defend our Church from errrour in faith? But that which is most considerable is, what he cites from Canus, that it is no Heresie to condemn a custome or Law of the Church, if it be not of something necessary to salvation; especially if it be a custome introduced since the Apostles times, as most certainly this was. For the five Sacraments rejected by our Church, Art. 25. he saith, they are not absolutely rejected as Sacraments, but as Sacraments of the same Nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper, which they yield to. For Transubstantiation, which is utterly denyed by our Church, Art. 28. he very subtilly interprets it of a carnal presence of Christs Body, which he grants to be repugnant to Scripture, and to destroy the nature of a Sacrament, but they do believe Christs Body to be present after the manner of a Spirit; and so our Church doth not condemn theirs. As to communion in both kinds, asserted by p. 466our Church, Art. 30. he saith, it is not condemned by the Council of Trent therein, which only Anathematizes those who make it necessary to Salvation, which our Church mentions not: and however we condemn communion in one kind, Canus proves him not to be guilty of Heresie, who should say that the Church hath erred therein. The 31 Article condemns the Sacrifice of the Masse, i.e. saith he, independently on the Sacrifice of the Crosse, which is propitiatory of it self, and the other only by vertue of it. The 32. of the lawfulness of Priests Marriage, he understands of the Law of God; in respect of which it is the most common opinion among them, he saith, that it is lawful. The 34. about Traditions, he interprets of those which are not Doctrinal. The Book of Homilies approved Art. 35. he understands as they do Books approved by their Church, not of every sentence contained therein, but the substance of the Doctrine; and he grants there are many good things contained therein. For the 36. of consecration of Bishops and Ministers, he proves from Vasquez, Conink, Arcudius, and Innocent 4. that our Church hath all the essentials of Ordination required in Scripture: and if the difference of form of words did null our Ordinations, it would p. 467do those of the Greek Church too. The last Article he examins is, Art. 37. Of the Civil Magistrates power in opposition to the Popes Authority; and he grants, that the King may be allowed a Supermacy, i.e. such as may not be taken away by any one as his Superiour: and that by custome, a sufficient right accrues to him over all Ecclesiastical causes: and that by divine and natural right he hath jurisdiction over all Ecclesiastical persons, so far as the publick good is concerned. And withall he grants that we yield no spiritual jurisdiction to the King, and no more than is contended for by the French, and the Parliament of Paris. That part which denyes the Popes jurisdiction in England, he saith, may be understood of the Popes challenging England to be a Fee of the Roman See; but if it be otherwise understood, he makes use of many Scholastick distinctions of actus signatus & exercitus, &c. the sense of which is, that it is in some cases lawful for a temporal Prince to withdraw his obedience from the Pope; but leaves it to be discussed whether he had sufficient reason for doing it. But there can be no Heresie in matter of fact: it remains then according to the sense put upon our Articles by him with the help of his Scholastick subtleties, we differ no more from them in points of p. 468faith, than they do from one another. For such kind of distinctions and senses are they forced to use, and put upon each others opinions, to excuse them from disagreeing in articles of faith; and there is no reason that we should not enjoy the benefit of them as well as they: so that either they must be guilty of differing in matters of faith, or we are not.

§. 16. 3. They plead,Their differences not confined to their Schools. that their differences are only confined to their Schools, and do not disturb the peace of the Church. But there is as little truth in this, as there is Vnity in their Church: as plainly appears by what hath been said already. Was the Controversie about the Popes temporal power confined to the Schools? did not that make for several Ages as great disturbances in the Church, as were ever known in it upon any quarrel of Religion? Were the Controversies between the Bishops and the Monks confined to their Schools, about the extent of the Episcopal jurisdiction in former times, or in the renewing of this Hierarchical Warr (as one of the Iansenists calls it) in France? But these things are at large discovered already; I shall only adde one thing more, which seems more like a dispute of the Schools between the several Orders among them about the immaculate conception; and it will easily appear that whereever that dispute began, it did p. 469not rest in the Schools, if we consider the tumults and disturbances which have been made only on the account of it. This Controversie began in the Schools about the beginning of the 14 Century, when Scotus set up for a new Sect in opposition to Thomas Aquinas, and among other points of Controversie, he made choice of this to distinguish his followers by; but proposed it himself very timerously, as appears by his resolution of it in his Book on the Sentences; Scot. in 3. lib. sent. dist. 3. q. 1. n. 10.however his followers boast, that in this blessed quarrel he was sent for from Oxford to Paris, Apolog. p…o vitâ & morte. Ioh. D…ns Scoti.from Paris to Cologne to overthrow all Adversaries, and that he did great wonders every where. But however this were, there were some not long after him, who boldly asserted what he doubtfully proposed, of whom Franciscus Mayronis is accounted the first; after him Petrus Aureolus, Occam and the whole order of Franciscans. But the great strength of this opinion lay not in the wit and subtilty of the defenders of it, nor in any arguments from Scripture or Antiquity, but in that which they called the Piety of it, i. e. that it tended to advance the honour of the B. Virgin. For after the worship of her came to be so publick and solemn in their Church, I do not in the least wonder, that they were willing to believe her to be without sin. I much rather admire p. 470they do not believe all their Canonized Saints to have been so too; and I am sure the same reasons will hold for them all. But this Opinion by degrees obtaining among the people, it grew scandalous for any man to oppose it. So Walsingham saith towards the latter end of this Century,Walsin…ham hist. circa A. D. 1389. the Dominicans Preaching the contrary opinion against the command, first of the Bishops in France, and then of the King and Nobles; they were out-lawed by the King, and absolutely forbid to go out of their own Convents for fear of seducing the people: and not only so, but to receive any one more into their Order, Sext. Seculum Universit. Paris. p. 618.that so the whole Order might in a little time be extinguished. The occasion of this persecution arose from a disturbance which happened in Paris upon this Controversie, one Ioh. de Montesono publickly read against the immaculate conception, at which so great offence was taken, that he was convented before the Faculty of Sorbonne, but he declared that he had done nothing but by advice of the chief of his Order, and that he would defend what he had said to death. His propositions were condemned by the Faculty and the Bishop of Paris, upon which he appeals to the Pope, and goes to Avignon to Clem. 7. where the whole Order of Dominicans appears for him, and the Vniversity against him by their Deputies of whom Pet. p. 471de Alliaco was the chief. The assertions which he was condemned for, relating to this matter were these following, as they are written in a Manuscript of Petr. de Alliaco from which they are published by the late author of the History of the Vniversity of Paris.

1. To assert any thing to be true which is against Scripture, is most expresly contrary to faith. This is condemned as false and injurious to the Saints and Doctors.

2. That all persons, Christ only excepted, have not derived Original sin from Adam, is expresly against faith. This is condemned as false, scandalous, presumptuous, and offensive to pious ears. Which he affirms particularly of the B. Virgin, and is in the same terms condemned.

3. It is as much against Scripture to exempt any one person from Original sin, besides Christ, as to exempt ten.

4. It is more against Scripture, that the B.V. was not conceived in Original sin, than to say that she was both in Heaven and on Earth from the first Instant of her Conception or Sanctification.

5. That no exception ought to be allowed in explication of Scripture, but what the Scripture it self makes. All which are condemned as the former.

Against these Censures he appeals to the Pope, because therein the doctrine of St. Thomas p. 472which is approved by the Church is condemned, and that it was only in the Popes power to determine any thing in these points. Upon this the Vniversity publishes an Apologetical Epistle, wherein they declare that they will rather suffer any thing, than endure Heresie to spring up among them, and vindicate their own authority in their Censures; and earnestly beg the assistance of all the Bishops and Clergy in their cause, and their care to suppress such dangerous doctrines; this was dated Febr. 14. A. D. 1387. But being cited to Avignon, thither they send the Deputies of the Vniversity, where this cause was debated with great zeal and earnestness about a years time; and at last the Vniversities Censure was confirmed, and Ioh. de Montesono fled privately into Spain. But the Dominicans did not for all this give over Preaching the same doctrine, upon which a grievous perfecution was raised against them as appears not only by the testimony of Walsingham, V. Mey…r. A…al. Fla…dr. l. 14. A. 1388.but of the continuer of Martinus Polonus, who saith, that insurrection were every where made against them, and many of them were imprisoned, and the people denyed them Alms and Oblations, and they were forbidden to Preach, or read Lectures, or bear Confessions, in so much that they were made, he saith, the scorn and contempt of the people: and this storm lasted many years, p. 473and there was none to help them: because their enemies believed in persecuting them, they did honour to the B. Virgin. Nay the Kings Confessour the Bishop of Eureux was forced to recant for holding with the Dominicans, and to declare that their opinions were false and against faith; and they made him upon his knees beg the King that he would write to the King of Arragon and the Pope, that they would cause Ioh. de Montesono to be sent prisoner to Paris, there to receive condigne punishment. The next year, A. D. 1389. they made Adam de Soissons, Prior of a Dominican Convent publickly recant the same Doctrine before the Vniversity; and Stephen Gontier was sent Prisoner to Paris by the Bishop of Auxerre as suspected of Heresie, because he joyned with his Brethren in the appeal to the Pope: and another called Iohannes Ade was forced to recant four times for saying that he favoured the opinions of Ioh. de Montesono. But these troubles were not confined only to France, for not long after,Cavelli Rosar. B. Mariae test. 14. s…cul. A. D. 1394. Iohn King of Arragon published a Proclamation that no one under pain of Banishment should Preach or Dispute against the immaculate Conception: Wadding. Legatio de Concept.and in Valenci… one Moses Monerus was banished by Ferdinand on that account,Sect. 3. tract. 12. S. 1. because the tumults could not be appeased without it. Lucas Waddingus in p. 474his History of the Embassy about the immaculate Conception, gives a short account of the Scandals that have happened by the tumults which have risen in Spain and elsewhere on this Controversie, which he dares not relate at large, he saith, because of the greatness of them: such as happened in the Kingdom of Valencia, A. D. 1344. in the Kingdom of Aragon, A. D. 1398. in Barcelona, A. D. 1408. and 1435. and 1437. In Catalonia, A. D. 1451. and 1461. In all which drawn from the publick Records, he saith, the Princes were forced to use their utmost power to repress them for the present, and prevent them for the future: So in the Kingdom of Murcia, A. D. 1507. in Boetica or Andaluzia, A. D. 1503. in Castile, A. D. 1480. The like scandals he mentions in Germany and Italy on the same account, and withall he saith, that these continued notwithstanding all the endeavours of Popes, Princes, Bishops and Vniversities; but the tumults, he saith, that happened of later years in Spain, were incredibly turbulent and scandalous, and drawn from the authentick Registers which were sent by the several Cities to the King, and by the King to the Pope, which were so great, that those alone were enough to move the Pope to make a Definition in this Controversie. Especially considering that the same scandals had continued for 300 years among them, and did p. 475continue still, notwithstanding Paul 5. Constitution. Which is no wonder at all, considering what the Bishop of Malaga reports, that the Iesuits perswade the people to defend the immaculate conception with sword and fire, Moral practice of the Jesuits. pag. 383.and with their blood. And I now only desire to know whether these be meer disputes of the Schools among them o… no, and whether they have not produced as great disorders and tumults among the people, as controversies about points of faith are wont to do? So that upon the whole matter, whether we respect the peace of the world, or factious disputes in Religion, I see no advantage at all the Church of Rome hath above others; and therefore reading the Scriptures can be no cause of divisions among us; since they have been so many and great among those, who have most prudentially dispensed, or rather forbidden it: Which was the thing I intended to prove.