The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 8

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 8

p. 475CHAP. VIII. Of the Council of Trent.

The Illegality of it manifested, first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by, different from that of the first General Councils, and from the Popes Presidency in it. The matter of Right concerning it, discussed. In what Cases Superiours may be excepted against as Parties. The Pope justly excepted against as a Party, and therefore ought not to be Judge. The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome, acknowledged by Roman Catholicks. The matter of fact enquired into, as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils. Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council. Two Councils held at Constantinople, within two years; these strangely confounded. The mistake made evident. S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils. The justness of the Exception against the place, manifested; and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope. The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent. Protestants not condemned by General Councils. The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks. The exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated. A General Council in Antiquity not so called from the Popes General Summons. In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church. The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice, and that at Trent. The exception from the number of Italian Bishops, justified. How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants; with an account of the proceedings between them.

HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us,§. 1. and shewed at large the weakness▪ and insufficiency of them, we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task, but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church, viz. the Council of Trent must be examined, to see whether it be foreign, or no; whether it came from Heaven, or was only the contrivance of some cunning Artificers.Hist. Council of Trent. l. 1. p. 132. And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent, hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse. Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great, that it was made Divina Palladis arte, the Spirit of God being said to be present in it, and concurring with it, yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving, and deceit in the managing the one as the other. And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art, to bring this Similitude off, without reflecting on the honour of the Council; yet that Bishop, who in that Sermon pleaded so much, That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council, as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas, was himself in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said. For he spake as true in this, as if he had been High-Priest himself that year. But, as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine, That whatever spirit was within them, yet being met in Council, the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them, you set your self to a serious vindication p. 476of the proceedings of that Council; and not only so, but triumph in it, as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue. And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawfulness and freedom of that Council; but, to keep to the Bishops Metaphor, Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias; & crimine ab uno Disce omnes.

And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church, we shall have little reason to believe, that ever it fell from Heaven. His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils, for making some Laws which concern the whole Church; His Adversary thinks presently to give him a Choak-pear, P. 229.by telling him, That the Council of Trent was a General Council; and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours. This you call, Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree; that Tree, you mean, out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut: for the management of this dispute about the Council of Trent, will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause. But you do well to add, That his Lordship was not taken unprovided: P. 213.for he truly answered, That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal, nor a General Council. Both these we undertake to make good, in opposition to what you bring by way of answer to his Lordships Exceptions to them.

§. 2.That which we begin with, is, That it was not a Legal Council, which his Lordship proves: First, Because that Council maintained publickly, that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie, and make it to be de Fide, and so in your judgement fundamental, though it have not a written word for its warrant; nay, so much as a probable testimony from Scripture. The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this, that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them; because according to their own principles, those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture: And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils, is, to decree according to the Scriptures. Now to this you answer, That the meaning of the Council, or Catholick Authours, is not, that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith, P. 230.but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten; and this you confess, is defined by the Council of Trent, in these terms, that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture, but also on Tradition: which Doctrine (you say) is true, and that you have already proved it: And I may as well say, It is false, for I have already answered all your pretended proofs. But it is one thing, Whether the Doctrine be true or no; and another, Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle. For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true, because the Council hath defined it to be so: But if you will undertake to justifie the proceedings of the Council as legal, you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by, in defining any thing to be matter of Faith. But if this appear to be false; and that you cannot instance in any true General Council, which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon, then though the thing may, since that Decree, be believed as true, yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds. Name us therefore, What Council did ever offer to determine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition? In the four first General Councils it is well known, What authority was given to the Scripture p. 477in their definitions; and I hope you will not say, That any thing they defined, had no other ground but Tradition. But suppose you could prove this, it is not enough for your purpose, unless you can make it appear, that those Fathers in making such Decrees, did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them. For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition, yet all that you can inferr thence, is, That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds, when they had not. But still, if they made Scripture their Rule, and looked on nothing else as a Foundation for their definitions but the written word of God, then the Council of Trent did not proceed legally, in offering to define matters of Faith, on such grounds which were not acknowledged by the Primitive Church, to be sufficient Foundation for such Definitions. Cardinal Cusanus at large gives an account of the method of proceeding in the Ancient General Councils, and therein tells us,Causanus de Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 6. not only that the Word of God was placed in the middle among those who sate in Council, but gives this as the only Rule of their proceeding, quòd secundum testimonia Scripturarum decrevit Synodus; that they decreed according to the testimonies of Scripture. Now if another Council shall go according to a different Rule from what the Church hath esteemed the only true and adaequate Foundation for definition of Faith, that Council breaks the inviolable Laws of Councils, and therefore its proceedings cannot be legal. As for Instance; Supposing a Parliament not to have power to make new Laws, but to declare only what is Law, and what not (for that is all you pretend to, as to General Councils) and that all other former Parliaments have all along professed this to be their Rule, viz. that they search into the body of the Laws; and if any thing be controverted, Whether it be a Law or no, they make a diligent search into it, and examine all circumstances concerning it, for their own satisfaction, and according to the evidence they find of its being contained in this body of Laws, they declare themselves: but many things growing much in use among a prevailing party, which have no colour of being in the written Laws, but yet tend much to the Interest of that party; and these being opposed by such, who stand up for the ancient and known Laws, the other are forced to make use of as good an Expedient as they can, to preserve their interest and credit together. To which end they pack together a company of such, who are most concerned to maintain the things in Question, and among these, the great Innovator sits as President among them, and suffers none to come there, but such as are obliged by Oath to speak nothing against his Interest; and these, when met together, seeing how unable they are to manage their business according to former Precedents; the first thing they do, is to declare, That customs and usages have as much the force of Laws among them, as any contained in the body of them; and having established this their Rule, according to it they decree all the matters in difference, to be true and real Laws. Would any man say, That these men proceeded legally, who first make the Foundation they are to go on, contrary to all former Precedents, and then define according to that? Yet this, in all particulars, is exactly the case of the Council of Trent; but the last part is that we are now about; that they should, contrary to the proceedings of all General Councils in matters of Faith, first make their Rule, and then bind all men to all those Decrees which are made according to it. And therefore, though the Council of Trent may be thought to act wisely in advancing Traditions to an equality with Scripture in the first place, yet he must have a great deal of confidence p. 478and little judgement, who say's, that in decreeing matters of Faith from Tradition, it acted legally; i. e. according to the rules of the undoubted General Councils. I cannot therefore say, whether you have more of the one, or less of the other, when you tell us without offering to prove it, That the Council did not proceed in a different manner, from other lawful General Councils whil'st she grounded her definitions, partly on Scripture, partly on Tradition, even in matters not deducible by any particular or Logical Inference from Scripture. The absurdity of which Doctrine in it self, I have at large discovered already in our discourse of the Resolution of Faith, where it is shewed in what sense his Lordship say's, That Apostolical Tradition is the Word of God; But that this was a legal way of proceeding in the Council of Trent, to define matters of Faith by such Traditions as have no ground in Scripture, had need be better proved, than by your bare Affirmation. And if that be a Tradition too, I am sure it is one that is neither contained in, nor deducible from, the Scripture.

2. His Lordship justly excepts against the Council of Trent, from the Popes sitting as President in it. §. 3.For, saith he, Is that Council legal, where the Pope the chief person to be reformed shall sit President in it, and be chief Judge in his own cause against all Law, Divine, Natural, and Humane. To this you return an Answer,P. 230, 231. both to the matter of Right, and the matter of Fact. To the matter of Right, you say, That the Pope not being justly accusable of any crime, but such as must involve, not only the Council, but the whole Church as well as himself, the Protestants had no just cause to quarrel with the Popes presiding in it. Nay, that it is conformable to all Law, Divine, Natural, and Humane, that the Head should preside over the members: and to give Novellists liberty to decline the Popes judgement, or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiours upon pretence of their being parties, is in effect to exempt absolutely such people from all legal censure; and to grant there is no sufficient means effectually to govern the Church, or condemn Heresie, Schism, and other offences against Religion. But is it not unanswerable on the other side, that this plea of yours makes it impossible, that the errours and corruptions of a Church should be reformed, in case the Governours of the Church do abett and maintain them? If you say, That it is not possible the Governours of the Church should do so, we have nothing but your bare word for it, and reason and experience manifest the contrary. In case then there be a vehement presumption at least, in a considerable party of the Church, that the Church is much degenerated and needs reformation, but those who call themselves the lawful Superiours of the Church utterly oppose it; What is to be done in this case? must the Church continue as it did, meerly because the Superiours make themselves parties? Nay, suppose that which you would call Idolatry be in the Church, and the Pope and a Council of his packing declare for it; must there be no endeavours of a Reformation, but by them who pronounce all Hereticks who oppose them? But you say, The Head must preside over the members: an excellent Argument to defend all usurpations both in Church and State; for doubtless, they who are in power will call themselves the Heads of all others, if that will secure them from any danger. But this will exempt them from all legal censure: so will your principles, all Governours of the Church though guilty of Heresie, Blasphemy, Idolatry, or what crime soever. For still, I hope, the Head must be over the members; and you say, it will bring the Church to confusion, if any shall except against their Superiours as parties. You must therefore absolutely and roundly assert, that it is impossible that the Superiours in p. 479the Church may be guilty of any errour or corruption; or that, if they be, they must never be called to an account for it; or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties. And if in some cases, then the question comes to this, whether the present be some of those cases or no? and here if you make those Superiours Judges again, what you granted before comes to nothing. This will be more clear by a parallel case: Suppose the setting up the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been done without such an open separation as that of Jeroboam was, but that the people had sensibly declined from the worship of God at Hierusalem, and had agreed to assemble at those places, the High-Priest, and the Priests and Levites having deserted Hierusalem, and approving this alteration of Gods worship: But although this might continue for many years; yet some of the Inferiour Priests and others of the people reading the Book of the Law, they find the worship of God much altered from what it ought to be, which they publish and declare to others, and bring many of the people to be of their mind; but the High-Priest and his Clergy (foreseeing how much it will be to their prejudice to bring things into their due order) they resolutely oppose it. I pray tell me now, what were to be done in this case? Must the people stand wholly to the judgement of those Superiour Priests, who have declared themselves to be utterly averse from any Reformation? And if a Council be called, is it reasonable or just, that he should sit as President in it, because he pretends to be the Head over the members? and that if Superiours be once accused as parties, all order and peace is gone? Is there any way left or no, whereby the Church of Israel might be reformed? Yes, say you, by a General Council; but, Must it be such a General Council, wherein the High-Priest sits as President, and all who sit with him sworn to do nothing against him? Is this a Free and General Council likely to reform these things? And is it not all the Justice in the world, that such a Council should be truly Free and General, and those freely heard who complain of these as great corruptions? and that before the most equal and indifferent Judges; or, in case such cannot be assembled, that by the Assistance of the civil power, the Church may be reformed by its parts: so that still these parts be willing to give an account of what they do before any Free and General Council, where the main party accused sits not as President in it? But what then, may you say? will you allow all Inferiours to proceed to a Reformation, in case the Superiours do not presently consent? No: but men ought first to exhibit their complaints of abuses, and the reasons against them, to those who are actually the Superiours of the Church; and that with all due reverence to Authority; but if, notwithstanding this, they declare themselves willful and obstinate in defence of those things, by the concurrence of the Supream power they may lawfully and justly proceed to a Reformation.

Well, (but you say), all this comes not to your case, §. 4.for the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime; for you deny not, P. 231.but that other Bishops in Council may proceed against the Pope himself, if the case do necessarily require it, as if he be a Heretick. If you will then grant, that in some cases, as in that of Heresie, the Pope may be excepted against as a Party, you destroy all that ever you say besides. For when the Pope is accused for Heresie in a Council, Who must sit as President in that Council? the Pope himself, or not? If the Pope must sit as President, (for the Head, you say still, must be over the members) Do you think he will ever be condemned for Heresie, if he hath the supream management of the Council? If he may not sit as President p. 480then, by the same reason he ought not to do it, when he is accused of errour or Vsurpation; but the other Bishops of the Church, met together by the Assistance of Christian Princes in a Free and General Council, ought to be Judges in that case, as well as the former. And this is no more then is agreeable to the Doctrine and practise of the Councils of Constance and Basil; for if they had suffered the Popes to have been Presidents in them, or have had that power over them, which the Popes had in the Council of Trent, Do you think they could have done so to the present Popes as they did? But the Popes were grown wiser afterwards; they had these examples fresh in their memory, and therefore they were resolved never to be ridden by General Councils more. And thence came that continual opposition to all proposals of the Emperour for a General Council, till necessity put the Pope upon yielding to it: thence came the resolution at Rome, not to venture any more Councils in Germany, for that place breathed too much freedome for the Popes interest, though this were most vehemently desired by, both the Emperour, and German Princes and Bishops: Thence, when a Council must be call'd, he summons it first at Mantua, then at Vicenza, and when none would come thither, at last he yields it should be at Trent, a most inconvenient place for the Germans to come to: when they were there, though all art possible was used to prevent the mention of any thing of Reformation, yet sometimes some free words breaking out, troubled the Legats, who dispatch notice of it to Rome, and receive instructions what to do; yet all could not prevent their fears and jealousies, lest something concerning the Popes Interest should be discussed; upon which to make all sure they translate the Council to Bononia, and leave the Emperour's bishops to blow their fingers at Trent. And when upon the Emperour and King of France's Protestations, the Pope saw a necessity of removing it back to Trent again, though any fair pretence would have been taken to have dissolved the Council; yet since that could not be, the greatest care must be used to spin out the time, in hopes of some occurrence happening, which might give a plausible pretext for breaking it up. But to be sure nothing must pass, but what was privately dispatched to Rome and approved there first, (a good sure way to prevent any mischief) and thence the Holy Ghost came in a Portmantue once or twice a week, as the common by-word was then. But when, notwithstanding all this, the grand points of the Residence and power of Bishops were so hotly debated by the Spanish Bishops, What arts were used to divert them? when that would not do, How they bait them in Council by the flouting Italians? what private Cabals were kept by the Legats, what dispatching and posting to Rome, what numbers of jolly Italians are made Bishops, and sent away to over-vote them? And when the French-Bishops were come, what Spies did they keep upon them, what bones were thrown to divide the French and Spanish Bishops, what caressing the Cardinal of Lorrain to bring him off by the Court of Rome? And when any others durst speak freely what checks, and frowns, and disgraces did they meet with? And all this to keep the Pope safe, who was still in bodily fear till the Council was ended to his mind; and then what rejoycing, that they had cheated the world so, that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome, had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it. This was truly the Head's presiding over the members: for all the life and motion they had, proceeded from the Influence of their Head, the Pope: Call you this Presiding in a Council? It is rather riding of it, that by the spurring some and bridling p. 481others, they may go just as the Pope would have them. And that this is a true account of it, appears, notwithstanding whatever your Cardinal Palavicino hath been able to object against the impartial history of it; whose two volumes pretended in Answer to it, consist of so many impertinencies, and hath so very little material in it, that a Roman Catholick himself hath declared to the world,Caesar Aquilinus de tribus historicis Concilii Trident. P. 49, 51. that he hath done more disservice to the Church of Rome by his Answer, then ever Father Paul did by his History: By whom, his two great Books are compared to those Night-birds that make a great shew, but are all Feathers and very little Flesh. This then being the way of management of things at Trent, judge you or any reasonable man, Whether the Protestants have not just cause to except against the Presidentship which the Pope had in that Council; and name you any General Council (that was truly accounted so) where ever he had any thing like it? The particulars you mention, will be considered afterwards.

But you say, All this was because the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime, but what must involve not only the Council, §. 5.Ibid.but the whole Church as much as himself. If so, there was the greater reason that he should leave it to the Church in a Free Council to have impartially debated things, without his acting and interposing so much as he did. But the Pope was wiser then to think so; he knew there were many things in the Court of Rome which many other Bishops struck at, as well as the Protestants; and that they desired a Reformation of Abuses as well as the other, especially the German, French, and Spanish Bishops. Nay, it is strange to see how much, interest or prejudice blinds men, that they will not acknowledge now that there was any such need of Reformation, when Pope Adrian 6, confessed at the Dyet at Norimberg, A.D. 1522. by Cheregatus his Legat, that the Popes themselves had been the fountain and cause of all those evils in the Church; In these remarkable words (part of which have been cited already on another occasion) Scimus in hâc sancta Sede, aliquot jam annis, multa abominanda fuisse, abusus in Spiritualibus, excessus in mandatis, & omnia deni que in perversum mutata. Nec mirum, si aegritudo à capite in membra, à summis Pontificibus in alios praelatos descenderit. Omnes nos (sc. praelati Ecclesiastici) declinavimus, unusquis que in vi…s suas, nec fuit jamdiu, qui faceret bonum, non fuit us que ad unum. Quamobrem necesse est, ut omnes demus gloriam Deo, & humiliemus animas nostras ei: videat unusquisque nostrûm unde exciderit, & se potius quilibet judicet, quàm à Deo in virga furoris sui judicari velit. Qua in re quod ad nos pertinet, polliceberis, Nos omnem operam adhibituros, ut primum Curia haec, unde forte omne hoc malum processit, reformetur: ut sicut inde corruptio in omnes inferiores emanavit, ita ab eadem sanitas & reformatio omnium emanet. Ad quod procurandum nos tanto arctius obligatos reputamus, quando universum mundum hujusmodi reformationem avidiùs desiderare videmus. Can you now for shame say, There was no need of Reformation at that time, and that the Popes were no more concerned then the whole Church? The whole Church was indeed concerned, to see the Court of Rome reformed, and we see the Pope confesseth, that all the world desired a Reformation. Doth not he ingenuously acknowledge, That many abominable things had been for many years in the Holy See (and very holy it was, the mean time) that all things were out of order. That the distemper had fallen from the Head to the members, from the Popes to other Prelates, that they had all gone out of the way, that for a long time there had been none that did good, no not one. That therefore it was necessary, that all p. 482should give glory to God, and humble their souls; and every one see whence he was fallen, and judge himself, rather then be judged by God in the rod of his fury. Wherefore (saith he to his Legat) thou shalt promise for us, that we will use our utmost endeavour, that this Court, from whence all the mischief hath proceeded, may be reformed; that as the corruption hath flowed from thence unto inferiours, so the health and reformation of all may come from thence too. And we look on our selves as the more obliged to procure this, because we see the whole world doth earnestly desire such a Reformation. Whom must we now believe, the Pope or you? the Pope ingenuously and Christianly bemoaning the corruptions that had been in Popes themselves, and from them had spread to others; or you, who basely and untruly flatter the Popes, as though they needed no Reformation, but what concerned the Council and Church, as well as them? And the Pope gives you the true reason of it, Because the corruptions had been so great at Rome, that from thence they had spread over all others. And can you think now, that the Pope was not justly accused of any crime, but that he might sit as President, and manage the affairs of the Council, as though there had been no need at all of any Reformation? But I remember an observation of Baronius, that the providence of God was so great in watching over the Roman Se…, that the Popes who were unfit to Govern it, seldom continued long in it; which he makes upon Siricius his favour to Ruffinus; and such a Pope was this Adrian accounted; this confession of his being very distastful at Rome, he continued not long after it. But yet I know you have another Answer ready at hand, That all this concerned only some abuses in manners and management of affairs, but nothing confessed to be amiss in Doctrine of Faith. However, since it belonged to the Council to reform those abuses, the Pope as an interessed person ought not to have presided there, had it not been his intention to have prevented any real Reformation. For all the Decrees of the Council to that purpose were meerly delusory and nothing of Reformation followed upon them; and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council. And if we gain this, that the Pope ought not to be Judge, where himself is concerned, as to the Reformation of abuses; your former assertion will make the other follow, viz. that in case of Heresie, other Bishops may in Council proceed against the Pope, and, by the same reason, when any errours in Faith are charged upon him, or those who joyn in Communion with him; that such ought to be debated in a full and free Council, where no one concerned may preside to over-aw the rest. But such Presidents should be appointed as were in former General Councils, to whom it belonged to manage the debates of the Council, without any such Power and Jurisdiction over them, as the Pope pretended to have, over all those assembled at Trent. And thus it appears, that what his Lordship said, was just and true, That it is contrary to all Law, Divine, Natural and Humane, that the Pope should be chief Judge in his own Cause. Your instances of Pope Leo at the Council of Chalcedon, and Alexander at the Council of Nice, will be considered in their due place.

§. 6.Which that we may come to, we must examine the matter of fact, as to the Popes presidency in General Councils. His Lordship denying, that the Pope did preside in the Council of Nice, either by himself or Legats, because Hosius was the President of it; You Answer, That Hosius did preside in that Council, Ibid.and so did likewise Vitus and Vincentius Priests of Rome, but (you say) they all presided as the Popes Legats and not otherwise. This (you say) appears by their subscribing the Conciliary Decrees in the first p. 483place of which no other account can be given; and because Cedrenus and Photius confess that the Pope gave authority to this Council by his Legats; and in the old preface to the Council of Sardica, it is said expresly, that Hosius was the Popes Legat, and the same acknowledged by Hincmarus, and Gelasius Cyzicenus, whom you prove that Photius had read. These being then all the Evidences you produce for the Popes Presidency at the Nicene Council, we are obliged to afford them a particular consideration.

Your first argument, which Bellarmin and Baronius likewise insist on, is the order of subscription, because the name of Hosius is set first; but, if we mark it, this argument supposeth that which it should prove. For thus it proceeds, Hosius subscribed first, and therefore he was the Roman Legat; Hosius was the Roman Legat, and therefore he subscribed first: For it supposeth that the first Subscription did of right belong only to the Roman Legat; which we may as well deny, by an argument just like it, Vitus and Vincentius did not subscribe first, and therefore the Roman Legats did not subscribe first. But you ask, Why then did Hosius subscribe before the Patriarchs, and other Bishops, of greater dignity than himself. I answer, Because Hosius was President of the Council, and not they. But if you ask, Why they chose him President before others, the Nicene Fathers must answer you, and not I. But you say, Cedrenus and Photius confess, That the Pope gave Authority to the Nicene Council by his Legats; but, How comes that to prove, that Hosius was one of those Legats? Photius I am sure in his Book of the seven Synods (first published in Greek by Justellus out of the Sedan Library) sayes no such thing, but only mentions the two Presbyters who were there the Roman-Bishops Legats. And Cedrenus only mentions the Roman Legats amongst those who were chief in that Council, reckoning up the several Patriarchs. Your old preface to the Sardican Synod (supposed of Dionysius Exiguus) is no competent testimony, being of a later Author, and a Roman too: And Hincmarus is much younger than he, and therefore neither of their testimonies hath any force against the ancient Writers; neither hath that of Gelasius Cyzicenus, who lived under Basiliscus A. D. 476. And that you may not think I do you wrong, to deprive you of his testimony, you may see,Baron. A. D. 305. sect. 6. How freely Baronius passeth his censure upon those Acts under the name of Nicene Council. Sed, ut liberè dicam, somnia puto haec omnia; that I may speak freely, I account them no better than dreams: And gives this very good reason for it; because ever since the time of that Council, all persons have been so extremely desirous of the Acts of that Council, and yet could never obtain them. But that which comes in the rear, transcends all the rest, which is, That Photius, though a Schismatical Greek, and bitter enemy of the Roman Church, witnesseth he had read this Book of Gelasius, and in it the above-cited testimony. And, I pray, What follows from thence? I hope Photius had read many other Books in that excellent collection of his Bibliotheca besides this; and, Will you say, that Photius believed all that he there saith he had read? No, but you say, That thereupon he confesses that the said Hosius was Legat for the Bishop of Rome, at the Council of Nice. But you would have done well to have told us, Where this Confession is extant: for you seem to insinuate, as though it were in the same place where he mentions the reading this Book of Gelasius: but he only saith, That Gelasius affirms it, Photius in Biblioth. Cod. 88. p. 21.adding nothing at all of his own judgement; and in his Book of the seven Synods, where he declares his own mind, he only mentions Vitus and Vincentius, Phot. de 7. Synod. &c. p. 163as the Legats of the Roman See: And brings in Hosius afterwards, not joyning p. 484him with Vitus and Vincentius, but with Alexander of Constantinople, and Sylvester and Julius of Rome, and Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, whom he makes the Chief in the Council. For if Photius had intended to have made Hosius one of the Popes Legats; there was all the reason in the world he should have set him before Vitus and Vincentius, who were only Presbyters. And that the Pope had no other Legats there but these two Presbyters, we have the consent of all the ancient Ecclesiastical Historians; Eusebius mentioning the absence of the Roman Bishop, because of his Age adds,Euseb. de vit … Const. l. 3. c. 7. Theod. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 6.Sir 50:1 foreign, His Presbyters being present, supplied his place; so Theodoret the Bishop of Rome could not be present, foreign, but he sent two Presbyters with power to give his assent; not to preside over the Council. To the same purpose Sozomen, Sozom. l. 1. c. 16. Nicephor. l. 8. c. 14.Nicephorus, Zonaras speak. And it is very strange not one of all these Historians should mention this, if Hosius had presided there as Legat of the Bishop of Rome; and much more, that Hosius should not subscribe first in that capacity, but only as Bishop of Corduba; for the Popes Legats do not use to be so forgetful of their place and honour. It seems then very plain, that the Pope had no manner of Presidency at the Council ef Nice: We come therefore to following Councils.

You grant, That in the second General Council, Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was President, §. 7.P. 232.and not the Pope or his Legats. But the reason (you say) was, because Pope Damasus having first summoned that Council to be held at Constantinople, and the Bishops of the Oriental Provinces being accordingly there met, the Pope, for some reasons, altered his mind, and would have had them come to Rome, to joyn with the Bishops he had there assembled: which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner, alledged such arguments as the Pope remained satisfied with them. So the Council (you say) was upon the matter held in two places, at Rome, and Constantinople. So that while the Pope presided in the Council at Rome, and gave allowance to their proceedings at Constantinople, and that by reason of their entercourse, they were looked on but as one Council in effect, and the Pope to have presided therein. In all this you discover, How much you take up things upon trust, and utter them with great confidence, when they seem for your purpose, although they are built upon notorious mistakes in Ecclesiastical History; as I shall make it plain to you this Answer of yours is. For neither was the General Council at Constantinople ever in the least summoned by the Pope, neither did it …it at the same time that the Council at Rome under Damasus did; neither were any Letters sent from that Council to the Pope; and therefore certainly Pope Damasus could not in any sense be said to preside there. These things, I know, make you wonder at first; but I shall undertake to make it appear, How much your great Masters (I need not name them to you) have abused your credulity in this story. We are to know then, that the Emperour Theodosius having been newly admitted into a share of the Empire by Gratian, and the Eastern parts of it being allotted to him, he considering what a deplorable condition the Churches of those parts were in, by reason of the factions and heresies which were among them, judges it the best expedient to call a Council at Constantinople; to see if there were any hopes to bring the Church to any peace. For this purpose 150. Bishops meet from the several Provinces at Constantinople, who condemn Macedonius, publish a new Creed, make several Canons, accept of Gregory Nazianzen's resignation of the See of Constantinople, chuse Nectarius in his room, and on the death of p. 485Meletius at Antioch, elect Flavianus to succeed him, make a Synodical Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius, giving him an account of their proceedings, and so dissolve. This is the short of the narration of it in Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen. Theodoret. Eccles. hist. l. 5., c. 8. 9. Socrat. l. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen. l. 7. c. 12.But as soon as the report of their actions was come into the Western parts, great discontents are taken at their proceedings, especially at the election of Flavianus to the See at Antioch; because the Church of Rome had declared it self in favour of Paulinus at Antioch, during the life of Meletius, and therefore by no means would they now yield to the succession of Flavianus. Upon this, Damasus sollicits the Emperour Gratian for a General Council, that the cause might be heard; and, that the Eastern Bishops might meet too, he sends other Letters to Theodosius to the same purpose; upon the intimation of which, the Eastern Bishops, who either were detained at Constantinople by several occurrences there, or were sent again out of their Provinces thither, assemble together, and write a Synodical Epistle to Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerian, &c. wherein they give an account, Why they could not come to Rome, because the Eastern Churches could not, in so divided and busie a time, be left destitute of their Bishops, and therefore they desire to be excused; but however, they had sent Cyriacus, Eusebius, and Priscianus, as their Legats thither. This excuse the Emperour Theodosius accepted of, and Damasus and his Council were fain to rest satisfied with it; only some of Paulinus his party met him there, as Epiphanius and S. Hierom (although S. Hierom being no Bishop, could only shew his good will, and take that opportunity of returning to Rome.) What this Council did under Damasus, we are to seek; for both Baronius and Binius confess, that the Acts of that Council, are wholly lost; only Baronius thinks,Baron. Ann. 382. sect. 17. that the condemnation of Apollinaris and Timotheus (which Theodoret mentions) to have been done before; and that Paulinus was restored to the See of Antioch by this Council: which seems the more probable, in that Paulinus the next year returns to Antioch; and because the Bishops of Rome afterward took his part, and defended his successour against Flavianus in the See of Antioch. This being the true account of those proceedings, let now any indifferent person judge, Whether you were not much put to it, when you are fain to confound two Councils held at several times on several occasions, on purpose to blind the Reader, and to make him believe that Pope Damasus had somewhat to do, in calling and presiding in the General Council at Constantinople; because he requested the meeting of the Bishops again the year after the General Council. And the truth of this, is so plain, that Baronius and Binius confess the difference of these two Councils, Annal. Ann. 381. sect. 17.both as to the times and occasions of them. Baronius placeth the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople A. D. 381. Eucherius and Syagrius being COSS. in May: A. D. 382. sect. 4, &c.but the other Council at Constantinople, he placeth the year after, A. D. 382. Syagrius and Antonius COSS. at which time likewise the Council at Rome sate. And so Binius reckons this Council as a second Council at Constantinople under Damasus, and, in all things concerning the times of this and the former,Tom. 1. Concil. p. 686. follows Baronius exactly. So much are the two great Cardinals, Bellarmin and Perron mistaken,Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c 5. when they would have the Council at Constantinople called Oecumenical on this account, because there was a Council at Rome sitting under Damasus, Perrons R…ply. l. 1. cap. 34.at the same time approving what was done at Constantinople. Whereas the occasion of the Council at Rome was given by some of the last Acts of the Oecumenical Council, viz. the election of Flavianus. But that this could not be, that those two Councils at Rome, p. 486and Constantinople, should sit together at the same time, and on the same account,Bin. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 665. Theod. hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 9.Sir 50:5 appears by the Synodical Epistle of the Council the year following sent to Damasus, which is exemplified both in Binius and Baronius, and is originally extant in Theodoret. Although Binius placeth it at the end of the Oecumenical Council, but Baronius much more fairly in the next year, as being the Act of the second Council. A D. 382. sect. 9.Now there are two things in that Synodical Epistle by which I shall prove it impossible, that either the Letters of Pope Damasus did concern the calling of the Oecumenical Council, or that the sitting of the Council at Rome, and the General one at Constantinople, could be at the same time. The first is from the date of those Letters, which is thus expressed there: that they met together at Constantinople, having received the Letters which were sent the year before from them to the Emperour Theodosius, foreign, after the Synod at Aquileia. Ann. 381. sect. 80.Now the Synod at Aquileia by Baronius his computation, was held the same year A. D. 381. in which the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople was held, and much later in the year too, for this was held in the Nones of September, Tom. 1. Concil. p. 682.and the other in May; and so much is likewise confessed by Binius in his notes on that Council. Now let me demand of you, Whether is it impossible that Damasus should, by his Letters, summon the Oecumenical Council, when the date of those Letters to Theodosius, is so long after the sitting of it? But besides this, these Eastern Bishops in that Council, which sate after these Letters of Damasus, clearly distinguished themselves from the Oecumenical Council of the year foregoing: for, after they had given a brief account of their Faith, they referr the Pope and Western Council to that declaration of Faith which had been made the year before by the Oecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople, foreign· Is it possible then any thing should be more evident, than that this Council assembled upon the Letters of Damasus to Theodosius, and sitting with the Council at Rome, is clearly distinct from the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople? And thus I hope I have dispelled those mists which you would cast before the Readers eyes, by confounding these two Councils, and thereby offering to prove that the Pope had some kind of very remote Presidency in the second General Council. Which is so far from being true, that there is not any intimation in any of the ancient Historians, Theodoret, Socrates, or Sozomen, that the Pope, or any of the Western Bishops, had any thing at all to do in it. But you will ask, How comes it then to be accounted an Oecumenical Council? For this indeed Baronius would fain find out some hand that Damasus had in it, or else he cannot conceive how it should become Oecumenical; but all the proof he produceth, is, Because in the Acts of the sixth Council it is said, that Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonius: and so I hope he might do by declaring his consent to the Doctrine decreed in this Council; not that thereby his approbation made it Oecumenical. And, as that Doctrine was received, and that Confession of Faith embraced all over the world, so that Council became Oecumenical. For I cannot see but that if Damasus had stood up for Macedonius, if the Decrees against him had been received by the Catholick Church, it had been never the less Oecumenical in the sense of Antiquity: That testimony which Baronius brings out of his own Library, and a Copy of the Vatican, expressing that Damasus did summon the Council at Constantinople, is not to be taken against the consent of the ancient Church-Historians; it being well known what Interess those Roman Copies have a long time driven on. I deny not therefore but that p. 487the Council of Constantinople was assented to by Damasus, and the Western Bishops, in the matters of Faith there decided, but I utterly deny that Damasus had any thing to do in the Presidency over that Council. So that we find a Council alwaies acknowledged to be Oecumenical, in which the Pope had no Presidency at all; and this very Instance sufficiently refutes your Hypothesis, viz. that the Popes Presidency is necessary to a General Council.

In the third General Council held at Ephesus A. D. 431. it is agreed on both sides, that S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, was the President of it:§. 8. but the Question is, In what capacity he sate there, whether in his own, or as Legat of Celestine Bishop of Rome? All the proof you produce for the latter, is, That it appears by a Letter written to him by the Pope, long before he sent any other Legats to that Council: P. 232.in which Letter he gives S. Cyril charge to supply his place, as is testified by Evag…ius, Prosper, Photius, and divers other Authours. But here again you offer to confound two things, which are of a distinct nature: for you would have your Reader believe, that this Letter was sent by Coelestine to Cyril, in order to his Presidentship in the Council, whereas this Letter was sent the year before, without any relation to the Council; as appears by the series of the story: which is briefly this; the differences in the Eastern Churches increasing about the Opinions broached by Nestorius, S. Cyril of Alexandria chiefly appearing in opposition to them they both write (much about the same time) to Pope Coelestine, impeaching each other of Heresie. But before Coelestine had read the Letters from Nestorius in vindication of himself, Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria comes with several dispatches from S. Cyril, wherein a large account is given of the heresie and actions of Nestorius; upon which the Pope calls a Council at Rome, and therein examines the allegations on both sides, which being done, the Council condemns Nestorius, and passeth this sentence on him, That ten daies should be allowed him (after notice given) for his repentance; and, in case of obstinacy, he should be declared excommunicate. And for executing this sentence, Coelestine commits his power to Cyril; not as though it belonged to the Pope only to do it, but that by this means there might appear the Consent of the Western with the Eastern Bishops, in putting Nestorius out of the communion of the Catholick Church. S. Cyril having received these Letters by the return of Possidonius, Ann. 430. sect. 23, 24.dated the third of the Ides of August, as appears by the Letters extant in Baronius, calls a Council at Alexandria, in which four Legats are decreed to be sent to Constantinople in pursuance of the sentence against Nestorius, they deliver the Letters of Coelestine and Cyril to him, he returns them no answer at all, but addresses himself to the Emperour Theodosius, and complains of the persecutions of Cyril, which occasioned a very sharp Letter of the Emperour to him, charging him with disturbing the Churches Peace. But this was not all; for Cyril having with the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Alexandria, sent twelve Anathematisms to be subscribed by Nestorius, he was so far from it, that he charges Cyril with the heresie of Apollinaris in them, and sends them to Johannes Antiochenus, who (with the Syrian Bishops of his Diocese) joyn with Nestorius in the impeachment of Cyril. So that by this means the sentence against Nestorius could not be put in execution, because of the dissent of the Eastern Bishops, and that S. Cyril stood charged with Heresie as well as the other. Things being grown to this height, Theodosius calls a General Council at Ephesus, to be held the ensuing year, writes to all the Metropolitans to appear there at the time appointed, and bring such Bishops with them, as they thought convenient; p. 488but what contentions happened there between the two parties, is not here our business to relate; but the Emperour foreseeing what disturbance was like to be there, sent the Count Candidianus for better management of the affairs of the Council. Now S. Cyril and his party having the advantage of the other, both in number and forwardness of being there, Cyril sits as President among them. The Question now is, Whether he sate there by virtue of that Legantine Power he had for the excommunicating Nestorius the year before, or not? or only as Patriarch of Alexandria, and chief of that party? But by what authority he should challenge to be President of the Council, because he had been deputed by Coelestine to act his part in the excommunicating Nestorius, I think is somewhat hard to understand. Neither doth any thing appear in the Council which gives any ground for it; for Cyril subscribes to it meerly as Patriarch of Alexandria, the Council on all occasions call him, and Memnon of Ephesus their foreign, and when they speak of Coelestine, after his Legats came, they say, He did only foreign, assist together with them in Council: But, Why should Coelestine send other Legats afterwards, viz. Arcadius, Philippus, and Projectus, if S. Cyril supplied the Popes place there already? Yet, although we should grant, that before the Legats came, Cyril did supply the place of Coelestine, yet it doth not follow, that he sate President of the Council on that account: but only to shew the concurrence of Coelestine with the Council in matter of Doctrine; and this there was good reason for, because Coelestine had fully declared himself to Cyril concerning that already. And this was usual in the Councils, as appears in this very Council by Flavianus Bishop of Philippi; subscribing likewise in the place of Rufus of Thessalonica. So that if we grant Cyril to sit in the Council as Legat of Coelestine, yet it doth not follow, that he was President of the Council in that capacity; for the other was only to testifie his consent, this required a particular Commission to that purpose. So that he might give a vote in the Council for Coelestine, and yet sit (as he did) President of the Council as Patriarch of Alexandria. Thus it being manifested, that in the three first General Councils, the Pope sate not either by himself or his Legats as President, it is sufficiently proved thereby, that his Presidency is no necessary condition to a General Council; and if not, then we say, It is unjust and unreasonable he should challenge it, when he is the person mainly accused. But in the mean while it is not at all necessary, that we should deny that ever he sate as President in any other General Council; for being the Bishop of the chief See, Why should he in a case of general concernment to the Church, as that of Chalcedon, not be allowed by his Legats to have the prime place: But there wants sufficient evidence too, that these were properly the Presidents of that Council. In the next at Constantinople you grant, that Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople sate President; but you say, That he acknowledged this priviledge to be due to Pope Vigilius. But, How came it to pass then, that he would not sit there, though then at Constantinople? It appears by the many frivolous excuses he made, that he durst not trust himself in the Council, for fear that authority should not be given him which he expected. For that hath alwaies been the subtilty of the Popes in those elder times, when they began to encroach, not to venture themselves in presence in a General Council, for fear of opposition, but by their absence they reserved to themselves a liberty to declare their dissent, when any Acts passed which did not please them. As Leo did in the case of the Council of Chalcedon. But however, this is evident from the fifth p. 489General Council, that the Popes Presidency was not then thought at all necessary. What was done in following Councils, is not material to our purpose, because it doth already sufficiently appear, that the Popes Presidency is not necessary to a General Council, and therefore you conclude with a notorious falsity, in saying with Bellarmin, That the Pope hath been possest full 1500 years of the right of presiding in General Councils.

His Lordships third exception against the Council of Trent, is,§. 9. That the place was not free, but either in, or too near the Popes dominions. To this you Answer, That certainly Trent is not within the Popes dominion: Ibid.but it is well enough known, that Trent was under the sole jurisdiction of the Bishop, and the Bishop to be sure was under the Popes dominion, having been particularly obliged too, by receiving a Cardinal's Hat. And therefore it was not without just reason that the place was protested against, not only by the German Protestants, as being out of Germany where the States of the Empire had often promised the Council should be; at the Diet at Norimberg 1524, at Auspurg 1526. Spire 1529. Ratisbone 1532, 1541. again at Norimberg 1543. and last of all at Spire 1544. but as a most inconvenient place for them to come to; being a weeks journey (as they say) from the borders of Germany, seated in a barren and almost inaccessible place, having no freedom of passage almost amidst the Alps; This place, I say, was not only protested against by them, as being contrary to the promises made to them; but the German Bishops made it their earnest request, that the Council might be held in Germany; for at Trent, they said they could neither be present themselves, nor send any Legats thither: and particularly instance in the unpassableness of the Alps between them and Trent; and that it was rather in the borders of Italy then Germany. And the Pope himself in his Answer to the German Bishops, and the Emperours Protestation upon the removal of the Council from Trent to Bononia, insists upon the inconvenience of Trent for the long residence of the Bishops there. And in behalf of the Protestants declaring against this place in regard of the unsafeness of it, the places about being all under the Popes authority: du Ranchin tells you, That it is an exception allowable by the Doctors of the Canon Law, who all agree, Review of the Council of Trent. l. 1. c. 7.that an exception against the safety of the place is pertinent, and ought to be admitted; that it is good, both by the Civil Law and the Law of Nature, that a man summon'd to a place where any danger threatens him, is not bound to appear, nor to send his Proctour, and that a Judge is bound to assign the parties a place of safety for the hearing of their cause, otherwise there is just cause of appeal. That the Council of Pisa excepted against appearing at Rome on the same accounts, and if they durst not venture to Rome upon the offer of safe-conduct, much less reason had the Protestants to do it, to such a place as Trent, a City, by reason of the neighbouring woods very subject to treacheries and ambushments; that the very designing such a place yielded ground of fear and suspicion, especially to such as had not forgotten the late examples of John Husse, and Hierom of Prague at the Council of Constance. That the States of Germany in the diet at Francford A. D. 1338. pleaded the nullity of the Popes excommunication of Lewis 5, because he was cited to Avignon where the Pope was Lord of the place; and the place being not free for him to appear at, the summons were not Canonical, but void and invalid in Law. This and many other instances are there brought by the same learned Authour to justifie the Protestants in not appearing at Trent, because the place was not free nor safe; although the Authour seems not to have been one p. 490himself. All these things being considered, he must have been an Infidel indeed, who would pronounce Trent to have been the most indifferent place for both parties to meet at. For what you say, That it might have been as unsafe for the Pope and his party, if it had been in Germany: there is no reason at all for it, because of the Emperours openly owning that Interest; but if you plead the warrs of Germany which then broke out, I hope that may serve as a further plea for the Protestants, who were in a good condition to go to a free Council about matters of Religion, when a war was already begun upon them upon the account of Religion, as most evidently appears, not only by the supplies sent by the Pope, but by the transactions afterwards between the Pope and the Emperour, in some of which it is expresly confessed.

But supposing the place had been never so free, there is another great Exception remaining still,§. 10. viz. That none had suffrage, but such as were sworn to the Pope and Church of Rome, and professed enemies to all that call'd for Reformation or a free Council. To this you Answer, 1. That it is no new thing for Bishops to take an oath of Canonical obedience to the Pope; P. 233.for St. Gregory mentions it as an ancient custome in his time; and therefore this objection would serve as much against ancient General Councils as this of Trent. 2. That the Bishops oath doth not deprive them of the liberty of their suffrage; nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself, if they see just cause; but only that they will be obedient to him, so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church. But what falshood and fraud lies in both these Answers, it will not take up much time to discover. Could you without blushing offer to say, That no other oath was taken by the Bishops at the Council of Trent then what was taken in ancient General Councils? for so much your words imply, when you say, That the same objection would have held as well against them as this of Trent. Why do you not produce some instance of any oath taken to the Pope in any of the first General Councils? I dare challenge you to bring any footsteps of any such thing in any ancient Council; and you must needs have exceedingly hardened your forehead that durst let fall any thing tending that way. It was in much later times before that oath of Canonical obedience from Bishops to their Metropolitan came up; and when it did, no more took any such oath to the Bishop of Rome, then such as were under his Metropolitical jurisdiction. In your citation of Gregory, you would let us see how far you can out-go Bellarmin himself in these things.De Concil. l. 1. c. 22. For Bellarmin only proves, that it is not new for Bishops to take an oath of Canonical obedience to the Pope; but you say, That Gregory mentions it as an ancient custom in his time, which is egregiously false. For there is not one word in all that Epistle implying any thing of former custome, neither doth it contain an oath of Canonical obedience made by every Bishop at his consecration,Greg. ep. l. 10. c. 31. but only a Form of renunciation of Heresie by any Bishop who comes off from it to the Catholick Church, and so the title of it is, Promissio cujusdam Episcopi haeresin suam anathematizantis; and what is this, I pray, to the oath taken by every Bishop at his consecration? wherein he swears, to defend and retain the Roman Papacy, and the Royalties of St. Peter (so their new Pontifical hath it, whereas in the old one it was regulas Sanctorum Patrum) against all men. And was this no more then a bare oath of Canonical obedience? The first mention we meet with of any oath of Canonical obedience taken by men in Orders, is in the eleventh Council of Toledo cap. 10. held, saith Loaysa, A. D. 675. and p. 491therein indeed they say it is expedibile, a matter they judge expedient, That those in orders should, Promissionis suae vota sub cautione spondere, bind themselves by promise to observe the Catholick Faith, and obey their Superiours: but here is nothing at all concerning any oath to be taken by all Bishops to the Pope, though Bellarmin produce it to that purpose. For that was much later then the time of this Council, it beginning at the time of the contests between the Popes and Princes about Investitures; then the Pope to secure as many as he could to himself, binds them in oath of Fealty and Allegiance, rather then Canonical obedience to himself: by which, as Spalatensis truly saith, he makes the Bishops his slaves and vassals. And therefore in another place, he justly wonders,De Repub. Eccles. Tom. 1. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 52. Tom. 2. l. 6. c. 7. n. 102. that any Christian Princes will suffer any Bishops to make that Homage by this oath to the Pope, which is only due to themselves. For, saith he, That oath which was only of Canonical obedience before, they have turned it into absolute homage to the Pope, so that none can be consecrated Bishops without it. But yet you would perswade us, that notwithstanding this oath they may proceed and vote against the Pope himself. Surely, Pope Pius 2 was of another mind, who (as the Appendix to Vrspergensis tells us) in an Epistle to the Chapter at Mentz, saith, That to speak truth against the Pope, is to break their oath. But all this will more evidently appear, if we produce the form of the Oath it self, I mean not that in the old Roman Pontifical, but that which was taken in Julius the third's time, which was in the time of the sitting of the Council of Trent. In which, besides in the first place a promise of obedience to the Pope and his Successours, and a promise of concealment of all his Councils, there are these express words, Jura, honores, privilegia, Protestatio adversus Concil. Trident. p. 22. A.D. 1563.& authoritatem Romanae Ecclesiae, Domini nostri Papae & successorum praedictorum conservare, defendere, augere, & promovere curabo. I will take care to preserve, defend, increase, and promote the rights, honours, priviledges, and authority of the Roman Church, and of our Lord the Pope and his Successours aforesaid; but lest this should not be full enough, there follows another clause, Nec ero in Concilio, in facto, seu tractatu, in quibus contra Dominum nostrum, vel Romanam Ecclesiam, aliqua sinistra sive praejudicialia personarum, juris, honoris, statûs, & potestatis eorum, machinentur. Et, si talia à quibusdam tractari cognovero, aut procurari, impediam hoc pro posse; & quantocyus potero commodè significabo eidem Domino nostro, vel alteri per quem ad ipsius notitiam possit pervenire. I will not be in any Council, action, or debate, in which they shall plot or contrive any thing to the prejudice of our Lord the Pope, or the Roman Church, or of any persons, right, honour, state or power, belonging to them. Was not this now a fit Oath to send Bishops to a free Council with? where the main thing to have been debated had been the usurped power of the Pope and Church of Rome. He that can believe a Council made up of such persons (who judge this Oath lawful) to be Free, may think those men free to rebell against their Soveraign, who had but just taken an Oath of Allegiance to him. Not that the Pope had any right or power to impose it, or that the Oath is in it self lawful; but that those who judged both these things true, could not possibly be more obliged, not to act in any measure against the Pope then they were. And therefore the Pope knew what he did, when he utterly denied to absolve the Bishops of this Oath, which the States of the Empire pressed him to, as necessary in order to the Freedom of the Council: No, said he, I do not mean to have my hands bound up so. He knew well enough, how much his Interest lay at stake, if the Bishops were released of this Oath, and therefore p. 492he was resolved to hold them fast enough to himself by it. What restrictions or limitations can you now find out in this Oath, whereby these Bishops might freely debate the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome? They that swear, not to be in any Council or debate against the Pope, are not like to make any Free Council about the matters then in dispute. And, Do you think now the Protestants had no cause to except against this Council, where all the Bishops were swore before-hand to maintain and defend that which they most complained of. And, Were there nothing else but this Oath, so unheard of a thing in all ancient Councils, so contrary to the ends of a Free Council; this were enough to keep them from ever submitting to the judgement of such a Council as that of Trent was.

And yet this is not all neither: for his Lordship adds, That the Pope himself, to shew his charity, had declared and pronounced the appellants Hereticks, before they were condemned by the Council. I hope, saith he, an Assembly of enemies are no lawful Council; and I think that the Decrees of such a one are, omni jure nulla, and carry their nullity with them through all Law. All the Answer you give to this,Ibid. is, That the Pope did nothing therein but in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do, and of the Decrees of General Councils, which had already condemned their Opinions for Heresie. You mend the matter well: for it seems the Pope not only did so, but was bound to do so. For shame then never talk of a Free and General Council, to debate those things which you say were already condemned for Heresies by General Councils. One may now see, What the Safe-conduct had been for the Protestants, if they had come to Trent; for it seems they were condemned for Hereticks before they came there, and nothing then was wanting but execution. But if the Protestants Opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils, Why was the Council of Trent at all summoned? Why was the world so deceived with the promises of a Free and General Council? Why did they proceed to make new Decrees in these matters? In what ancient General Councils will you shew us the Popes Supremacy, the Infallibility of the Church of Rome decreed, that those who held the contrary should be accounted Hereticks? Speak them out, that we may find our selves therein condemned. Give us a Catalogue of the rest of your Tridentine Articles, and name us the General Councils in which they were decreed as they are there? But this is not a work for you to meddle in. However, What folly and madness would it be to account that a Free Council, in which the things to be debated are looked on as condemned Heresies already, and no liberty allowed to any persons to debate them?

The last Exception you say of his Lordship, is, against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council; §. 11.and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes (say you) to have been unjustly excluded. Ibid.To this you say, 1. The Pope called all who had right to come: (you should say, all whom he would judge to have right to come.) 2. The Greeks, by reason of their notorious Schism, had excluded themselves: And, Might not the Greeks (if they were in condition) every whit as well hold a General Council among themselves. and say, The Latins had excluded themselves by their notorious Schism. You say, It is confessed that no known Heretick or Schismatick, hath right to sit in Council: but still you make your own selves Judges, Who are Orthodox, and who Hereticks and Schismaticks; and, Might not the Greeks again say the very same of you? and for all that I know, with much more truth and reason. It was then very like to be a Genegeneral p. 493Council, when the Pope and his party must sit as Judges, Who were to be admitted, and who not: Might not the Donatists in Africa have call'd their Council of seventy Bishops an Oecumenical Council upon the same grounds, because they accounted none to belong to the Church, but such as were of their own party? And if they did not belong to the Church, they could have no right to sit in Council. It seems, the more uncharitable you are, the freer your Councils are; For the Pope may, by pronouncing men Hereticks and Schismaticks, keep them from coming to Councils, and appearing against him there: and the Council be never the less General for all that. If the Greeks be not called to the Council, they may thank themselves, they are notorious Schismaticks, and, if we believe you, Hereticks too; If the Protestants be not admitted, it is their own fault they are condemned Hereticks; if none appear from any other more remote Churches, still the same plea will serve to exclude them all. For my part I much approve the saying of Eugenius in the Council of Florence, when they spake of the paucity of Bishops for a General Council, That where he and the Emperour, and the Patriarch of Constantinople were present, there was a General Council, though there were no more. And Pope Pius the fourth might have saved a great deal of mony in his purse, with which he maintained his Bishops Errant at that Council, had he been of the same mind. But the scene of things was altered in Europe; there were such clamours made for a General Council, that something must be done to satisfie the world: and, as long as the Pope knew how to manage the business, there would be nothing could breed so great danger in it. He therefore barely summons a Council, without acquainting any of the Eastern Patriarchs with it (as was the custom in the ancient General Councils) among whom it was debated after the Emperours indicting of it; these summoned by the Emperours order their Metropolitans, the Metropolitans the Bishops; the Bishops they agreed among themselves, who should go to the Council, who on that account might be said to represent those Churches from whence they came. What was there like this in the Council of Trent? What messages were there sent to the Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexanandria? What Metropolitans came thence? What Bishops by the consent of those Churches? And, if there were nothing of all this, What boldness is it to call this a General Council? Just by the same figure that your Church is called the Catholick Church; which is▪ by an insufferable Catachresis. And must six fugitive Greek-Bishops give vote here for all the Eastern Churches; and two fugitive English-Bishops for all the Church of England? I do not then at all wonder, How easily this might be a General Council, though there were so very few persons in most of the Sessions of it. But you say, There was no need of any particular sending from the Greeks, as the case then stood, and still continues; P. 234.'tis sufficient they were called by the Pope. Sufficient indeed for your purpose; but not at all for a General Council; For if the Greek Churches had been in condition to have sent an equal number of Eastern to Western Bishops, the Popes would rather have lost all, than stood to the judgement of such a Council. And this you know well enough, for all your saying, That the Greek Church condemns the Protestants: You dread the Greek Churches meeting you in a Free General Council; and therefore to prevent that, they must be called Schismaticks, and excluded as such, though you would never permit the debate of the Schism in a Free Council. As the case then stood, and still continues, there was no need of sending. And, Why so? Is it because those Churches were p. 494then under persecutions, and are still, and therefore there is no hopes that the Bishops should come to a General Council? But all that thence follows, is, that as things stood then, and do still, there can be no truly General Council; and that is a just inference: but I suppose you rather mean, because those Churches were then in Schism, and are still, which still discovers what a wonderful good opinion you have of your selves, and how uncharitable you are to all others. And so great is the excellency of your Bishops, that one of them may represent a whole Nation; and so about fifty will be more than sufficient for the whole world. And therefore I rather wonder there were so many Bishops at Trent; for, if the Pope pleased, as he made Patriarchs, Primats, and Arch-Bishops of such places where they never durst go (which he knew well enough) it had been but appointing such to stand for such a Nation, and such for another, and a small number might have served turn, without putting any to the trouble of coming from any forein Countries at all. For otherwise, if we go about to examine the numbers of Bishops, by their proportions to the Churches they come from, as it ought to be in General Councils, we shall find a most pitiful account in the Council of Trent.

For as his Lordship saith, Is it to be accounted a General Council, that in many Sessions had scarce ten Arch-Bishops, §. 12.or forty or fifty Bishops present? In all the Sessions under Paul 3. but two Frenchmen, P. 215.and sometimes none; as in the sixth, under Julius 3. when Henry 2. of France protested against that Council. And from England but one or two (by your own confession) and those not sent by Authority. And the French (he saith) held off till the Cardinal of Lorrain was got to Rome. As for the Spaniards, they laboured for many things upon good grounds, but were most unworthily over-born. Now to this you have a double Answer ready, 1. That mission or deputation, is not of absolute necessity, Ibid.but only of Canonical provision, when time or state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent, will permit; in other cases, it sufficeth they be called by the Pope. 2. For those who were absent, the impediment was not on the Councils part; and in the latter Sessions (wherein all that had been formerly desined by the Council, was de Novo confirmed and ratified by the unanimous consent of all the Prelates) 'tis manifest, the Council was so full, that in the number of Bishops it exceeded some of the first four General Councils. I begin with your first Answer, which necessarily implies, that a General Council is not so called by representation of the whole Church, but by relation to the Popes Summons. So that if the Pope make a General Summons, that must be called a General Council, though none be present but such whom the Pope shall think fit to call thither. But, Where do you find any such account of a General Council in all Antiquity? I have given you instances already of General Councils, in which the Popes had nothing at all to do with the summoning of them; nay, all the four General Councils were called by the Emperour, and not by the Pope, as any one may see, that doth not wilfully blind himself. The Pope sometimes did beseech and intreat the Emperour to call a Council, but never presumed to do it himself in those daies. And this is evident, not only from the Historians, but from the authentick Acts of the Councils themselves; and Cardinal Perron's distinction of the temporal and spiritual call of Councils, is as ill grounded as the Popes temporal and spiritual power; there being no foundation at all in Anquity, nor any reason in the thing, for two such several Calls, the one by the Emperour, and the other by the Pope. But this is a meer evasion, the evidence being so clear, as to the Emperours calling those Councils, the Nicene p. 495by Constantine, the Constantinopolitan by Theodosius, the Ephesine by the Junior Theodosius, the Chalcedonian by Martian and Valentinian: And this is so clear, that Bellarmine in his Recognitions confesseth his mistake about the Constantinopolitan Council being called by the Letters of Pope Damasus; and acknowledges that to be true,Recogniti. p. 46. which I at large proved before, That the Synodical Epistle was not sent by the General Council, but by another the year after. If then the calling of Councils belongs not of right to the Pope, it is not his summoning which can make a General Council, without mission and deputation from those Churches whom they are to represent. And any other sense of a General Council is contrary to the sense of Antiquity, and is forced, and unreasonable in it self. For it must be either absolutely general, or by representation; none ever imagined yet an absolutely General Council, and therefore it must be so called as it doth represent; if so, then there is a necessity of such a deputation. But here a Question might arise, Whether those Deputies of Churches have power by their own votes to oblige the Churches they are sent from, by conveying in a General Council; or else only as they carry with them the sense of those Churches whom they represent: and this latter seems more agreeable to the nature of a truly General Council, whose acts must oblige the whole Church. For that can only be said to be the act of the whole Church, which is done by the Bishops delivering the sense of all particular Churches; and it is not easie to understand, How the Vniversal Church can be obliged any other way; unless it be proved, that General Councils are instituted by some positive Law of Christ; so that what is done by the Bishops in them, must oblige the Catholick Church; and then we must find out not only the Institution it self, but the way and manner how General Councils should be called, of which the Scripture is wholly silent. And therefore there is no reason that there should be any other General Council imagined, but by such a representation; and in order to this, the consent of all those Churches must be known by the particular Bishops, before they can concurr with others, so as to make a General Council. The most suitable way then to a General Council, is, that the Summons of them being published by the consent of Christian Princes, every Prince may call together a National Synod, in which the matters to be debated in the Council, are to be discussed, and the sense of that Synod fully declared, which those Bishops who are appointed by it to go to the General Council, are to carry with them, and there to declare the sense of their particular Church, and what all these Bishops so assembled do all agree in, as the sense of the whole Church, may be called the decree of a General Council. Or in case some great impediment happen, that such Bishops cannot assemble from all Churches, but a very considerable number appearing and declaring themselves, which upon the first notice of it, is universally received by all particular Churches, that may ex post-facto be called a General Council; as it was with the first four Oecumenical Councils. And yet that in them there was such a deputation as this is, appears by that expression in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Constantinople before mentioned; for in that they give this account, Why they could not do what the Western Bishops desired, because they brought not with them the consent of the Bishops, who remained at home to that purpose. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 667.foreign. And concerning this only Council, viz. at Constantinople, have we brought the consent of those Bishops which remain in the Provinces. So that they looked on the consent of the other Bishops to be necessary p. 496as well as their own. But now, if we examine your Council of Trent by this Rule, How far is it from any appearance of a General Council? What Bishops were there sent from the most of Christian Churches? Those that did appear, What equality and proportion was there among them? For Voices in General Councils ought not to go by the number of Bishops, but by the number of Churches; so that if six were sent from the Church of England, or France, delivering the sense of that Church they come from, they have equal Votes with the greatest number of Italian Bishops. But here lay the great imposture of that Council; first, that the Councils being general, depended upon the Popes general Summons, though never so few Bishops appeared; next that the Decrees of the Council were to be carried by most Voices, and the Bishops to give their bare placet; these things being thus laid, when there was any fear that businesses would not go right, it was but the Legats using some art in delaying it, and sending intelligence to Rome, and forty Bishops are made together, and posted to Trent, to help out the number of voices; and thus it was in the case of the Institution and Residence of Bishops: And this is that you call, a General Council. 2. To your other, That what was wanting in number at first, was made up at last when all former Decrees were confirmed by a full number of Bishops; it is soon replied, That this is, as all the rest of the proceedings of that Council was,Hist. Council of Trent. l. 8. p. 804. but a meer Artifice. For it appears by the History of that Council, that in the last Session under Pius 4. a Proposition was made, that all the Decrees under Paul and Julius should be approved; which was opposed, because they said it would be a derogation to the Authority of the Council of those times, if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers, and would shew, that this and that was not all one, because none can confirm his own things. But upon the French Bishops earnest insisting upon it, it was determined simply to read them, and no more. And, Do you call this a confirming and ratifying them de novo? So that, for all appears by this last Session, the Authority of those Decrees, must, as far as concerns the Council, depend upon the number of the Bishops then present, which was but very small certainly for a General Council, there being not so many in most of the Sessions, as were in the Donatists Council in Africa; so far were they from the number of the ancient General Councils.

But here comes your grand Objection in the way, That nothing is pretended by us against the Council of Trent,§. 13. Ibid. n. 4.which might not have been in effect as justly objected by the Arrians against the Council of Nice. But, Is not there easily discernable a vast disparity between these two, which way soever we conceive them? The one called by the Emperour, who in person sate in the Council, to prevent all disorders and clancular actions; the other by the Pope, who presided in it by his Legats, and ordered all things by his directions. In that of Nice, the Arrian Bishops were as freely admitted to debate, as any of the other; but it was far from being so at the Council of Trent. In the Nicene Council, though Alexander was no further a party as to the Doctrine than the other Bishops (no more was Leo at the Council of Chalcedon, P. 230. n. 2.or Cyril at Ephesus, though those are the three you instance in before) yet he sate not as President of the Council, but the Emperour had the chief Inspection for the right management of it, and for the Conciliar actions Hosius was President: Would the Pope have been contented with such a Council in his case, wherein the Emperour should have sate in chief, and some other person besides the Pope to have presided? If not, p. 497never go about to parallel these two Councils with each other. Again, in the Council of Nice, all the Bishops came free, without any praeengagement to maintain the party of Alexander; but the Bishops at Trent were all sworn to defend the Papal Interest. At Nice, the Bishops themselves debated the matters in Controversie; at Trent, the Divines dispute, the Bishops in their formalities give their Placet. At Nice, every one was freely heard, none died for grief of checks being given them for their too free speaking, as there did at Trent. And these, I hope, shew, there was much greater reason for the Protestants to except against the Council of Trent, than for the Arrians against the Council of Nice. And yet, besides all these grounds of disparity, those two remain good still, which his Lordship instanceth in, viz. That the Council of Nice proceeded wholly by the Scripture, and that the sentence of it hath been universally received by the Church, P. 216.both before and after it; neither of which can be said of the Council of Trent. But to these two you offer something by way of Answer. To the first, That both these Councils had the Scripture for their Rule, but not their only Rule; P. 235.for, you say, Theodoret expresly sayes, Hist. l. 1. c. 8.that in condemning the Arrian Heresie, the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition. But Theodoret sayes no such thing; only out of an Epistle of Athanasius, he sayes, When the Arrians objected that they used words not contained in Scripture, they gave them this Answer, that so did they too; but the words which they used, were such as their Fathers had used before them; and, Do you call this the grounding the condemnation of them upon Tradition? Yet, to do you right, I must suppose that either you took this upon trust, without searching Theodoret; or, if you did, you looked no further than Christophorsons Translation, which in things concerning the Papal Controversies, doth notoriously trip (to say no worse of it, as it were easie to manifest from several examples) but we need no more than this present. For whereas the words in Greek run thus, foreign. Which Sirmondus faithfully renders, Nam cùm ipsi ex verbis non-scriptis impietatem suam adstruxerint: nusquam enim scriptum reperias Ex non extantibus; aut, Erat quando non erat; accusant quod per voces non-scriptas, piè tamen excogitatas, condemnati sint, i. e. Though the Arrians made use of unwritten words themselves; yet they accused their adversaries for condemning them by unwritten words; meaning the foreign. But Christophorson translates foreign, afferunt, and there ends the sentence, and then makes a new sentence. Quapropter ex non-scriptis vocibus, piè tamen excogitatis, condemnati sunt. By this wee see, What necessity there is of searching your Citations in Antiquity, which you deliver with so much confidence, as though none had ever looked into the Fathers but your selves. But I find you so often tripping in your quotations, that where Bellarmine hath been used by the Latin Interpreter, you very securely follow him in it; as in another place mentioned in this Chapter, where Christophorson renders foreign, mandato literarum, which Bellarmine confidently cites, as importing Damasus his power to summon the Council of Constantinople, than which nothing can be further from the meaning of those words. Thus you see, how vain your attempt is, of proving that the Council of Nice grounded her definition on Tradition, as the Council of Trent did, which is directly contrary to the advice of Constantine, and the Proceedings of the Council, as his Lordship truly told you. To the second concerning the consent of the Church, you answer, That the like consent of the Church both is, and was, when Protestans p. 498first began. But, Will this reach to a Parity, if it were granted? for his Lordship speaks of the Consent of the Church in all ages, from the Primitive and Apostolical times. I pray, prove your Mass, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Purgatory, &c. by such a Consent as this, and then you may say, There is no such disparity between them: As to what you further add of the Council of Nice, condemning the Quartodecimani for Hereticks, I know not where you will find it, I am sure Constantine is far from saying so in his Epistle perswading to union as to that matter. Cannot the Council of Nice appoint time to celebrate Easter? or determine, that those who come from Hereticks, shall not be rebaptized, but they must presently condemn all who do otherwise, for Hereticks? But you must be pardoned; you are proving a Parity between the Council of Nice and Trent, and you know you could not do that sufficiently, unless they condemned all dissenters in any punctilio, for Hereticks.

§. 14.His Lordship further proves, That Trent could be no indifferent Council to the Church, P. 218.the Pope having made himself a strong party in it; because there were more Italian Bishops there, than of all Christendom besides; yea more than double. For where the number of Prelates is expressed that had suffrage and vote in that Council, the Italians are set down to be a hundred eighty seven, and all the rest make but eighty three, so that there were more Italian Bishops by a hundred and four, than of all the rest of Christendom; sure (saith he) the Pope did not mean to be over-reached in this Council. And whatsoever became of his Infallibility otherwise, he might this way be sure to be Infallible in whatsoever he would have determined. And this without all doubt is all the Infallibility he hath. P. 236.To this you answer, That the Popes making a party, is disproved by the very argument he brings to assert it, viz. the multitude of Italian Prelates; for, Who knows not, that the Italians are more divided in point of Interest and Dependence, than in any other Nation of Christendom, by reason of the many Soveraign Principalities and States, into which Italy is divided? But, What is this to the purpose, unless you could prove that the Italian Prelates were so divided in point of Interest and dependence? Since therefore they have all their dependence on the Pope, and not on those Principalities in which they live; this evasion, though very sleight, is yet the best your cause would bear. And the greater you say, the number of Bishopricks is in Italy, the more friends, I hope, the Pope must make by disposing them; and, Could they do the Pope better service, than to help him in this grand business at Trent, wherein they sought to outvy each other by promoting the Popes Interest. But not only the Protestants complained of this, but the Emperour and other Princes, and all impartial men in Germany, France; nay, and in some part of Italy too. But here his Lordship encounters an Objection of Bellarmine, P. 220.viz. that in the Council of Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present, as were of the East at Trent, and manifestly shews the great disparity between the the two Councils. 1. Because it is not a meer disparity in number which he insists on, but with it the Popes carriage, to be sure of a major part; but neither the Greek Church in general, nor any Patriarch of the East, had any private interest to look to, in the Council at Nice. 2. It was not so much a disparity between the Eastern and Western Bishops, but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes Power, than of all Germany, France, Spain, and of all other parts of the West besides. 3. Even in the comparison of those two Councils, as to Eastern and Western Bishops, there is this remarkable difference, that Pope Sylvester with 275. Bishops confirmed the Council at Nice, p. 499but the Council at Trent was never confirmed by any Council of Eastern Bishops. To the two first of these you Answer with your best property, silence. Only you would fain perswade some silly people (if there be any so weak in the world that enquire into such things) That the Pope had no private interest at Trent, but what was common to him with other Bishops. You should have done well to have commended the excellency of an implicite Faith, before you had uttered a thing so contrary to the sense of the whole Christian World. To the third you confess, It is some disparity, but nothing to the purpose, because if the Pope himself had ratified them, P. 237.the Council would have had as much Authority as by that accessory Assembly. The more to blame was the Pope a great deal, for putting so many Bishops to so needless a trouble. But you say further, This Council was not held just at the same time. But Binius tells you, it was held assoon as might be, after the notice of what was done at Nice;Tom. 1. Conc. p. 449. shew us the like of the Eastern Bishops at any time, and we will not quarrel with you, because it was not at the same time: Though these Answers may pass for want of better, they come not near your last, which is a prodigious one, the sense of it being, That the Doctrine of Faith defined by the Council of Trent was more universally received in the Church, then that of the Council of Nice. For that of Trent, you say, was universally received by the whole Catholick Church, and hath been more constantly held ever since; whereas many Provinces, Ibid.either in whole or in part, deserted the Faith defined at Nice, and embraced the Arrian Heresie. It seems then, the twelve good Articles of Trent have been more generally received by the Catholick Church, then the eternal existence of the Son of God; and consequently, that you are more bound to believe the Doctrine of Purgatory, or Transubstantiation, then that the Son is of the same substance with the Father: For your grounds of Faith being resolved into the Churches Infallibility, you cannot believe that which hath been so much questioned in the Church, so firmly as that which hath been universally believed and constantly held. But the universal reception of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent by the whole Catholick Church, is so intolerable a falshood, that you would scarce have vented it, unless it were your design to write for the Whetstone.

To A. C's objection, That neither French, nor Spanish, nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with the Protestants in those points which were defined by the Council, his Lordship Answers, That there can be no certainty, who did agree, and who not, P. 222.(or who might have agreed before the Council ended) because they were not admitted to a fair and free dispute. And it may be too, some Decrees would have been more favourable to them, had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer. Here you complain, of his Lordships falling again to his Surmizes, of the Bishops being over-awed by the Popes Authority in the Council; which you call an empty and injurious suspicion, an unworthy accusation, and arguing the want of Christian charity. But usually when you storm the most, you are the most guilty.Ibid. n. 8. For if you call this an empty suspicion, &c. you charge many more with it besides his Lordship, and those, the greatest of your own Communion; what meant else, the frequent Protestations of the French and Spanish Ambassadours, in which they often declared, that as things were managed, the Council was not Free? What meant those words of the Emperour Ferdinand, in his Letters to the Legats and the Pope? Hist. Council of Trent. l. 7. p. 683.That the Liberty of the Council was impeached chiefly by three causes: one, because every thing was first consulted of at Rome: another, because the Legats had assumed to themselves only the liberty of proposing, p. 500which ought to be common to all: the third, because of the practises which some Prelats interested in the Greatness of the Court of Rome did make. The French Ambassadour, Monsieur de Lansac writ to the King his Master, That the Pope was so much Master of this Council, that his Pensioners, whatsoever the Emperours or we do remonstrate to them, will do but what they list. Several of the like nature might easily be produced, so that it is not his Lordship only is guilty of this want of charity (as you call it) but all impartial persons, who were most acquainted with the Affairs of that Council. Whose judgement is certainly much more to be taken then such who have sworn to defend it. But you have an excellent Argument to prove the Council Free, because the Bishops of the Council continued in the Faith and Doctrine of it as long as they lived. And had they not good reason so to do, when they were sworn before hand to defend the Pope, and having secured him from danger of reformation by the Council, and subscribed the Decrees of it, they were as much bound to defend their own acts. And although it is well enough known what practises were used to bring off the French and Spanish Bishops; yet when they were brought off, what a shame would it have been for them to have revolted from their own Subscriptions? But what is this to that General freedom which was desired by the Roman Catholick Princes for Reformation of the Court of Rome, and by Protestants both of the Court and Church? Was the Council any thing the more free, because that party which met there continued in what they had done? Just, as if a part of a Common-Council should suffer only such persons to come there whom they thought fit, and suffer nothing to be debated, but what two or three of the leading men should propound, and yet this be call'd a free Common-Council, because they who were of it, did after they had done, persist in it? And this is all you have to plead for the Freedom of the Council of Trent.

§. 15.Touching the Greek Church and the writings of the Patriarch Hieremias, it is to little purpose, to say, That they differ from us in several things, unless you could prove, that they did agree with you in all. And if (as you say) they do condemn Protestantism, you cannot but know they do much more condemn Popery; and that in some of the main Articles of it. And therefore we have reason to believe, that you more dread a Free Council, wherein the Greek Churches may be admitted to equal votes with the Latin, then the Protestants do the judgement of the Greek Church. For it is sufficiently known, how much the Greeks agree with us in the opposition to the great points of the Popes Supremacy, and the Infallibility of the Church of Rome; how far they are from the belief of Purgatory in your sense, and several other things which are contained in the Decrees of the Council of Trent: If the Patriarch Hieremias did not in all things agree with the Lutheran Divines, doth it thence follow, that he would subscribe to the Council of Trent? But because you pretend to give us a full account of the proceedings, between the Patriarch Hieremias, and the Lutheran Divines, we must a little further enquire into them. You tell us then, That about the end of the last Century, some eminent Protestants of the Lutheran party, endeavoured to feel the pulse of the Greek Church, P. 238.to see if they could there find any Symptoms of their own disease. The design was (you say) to close with the Greeks, for the better making out the pretended perpetual succession of their Church; which Project they so hotly pursued, though formerly in vain attempted, that they would not desist till the Patriarch being settled in his Throne, they had sent him the sum of their reformed belief, drawn up according to the Augustan p. 501Confession. After a long entercourse of letters, answers, and replies mutually continued for some years, and all Arguments used that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his communion, he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their Doctrine: but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church, which those Lutherans endeavoured to overthrow. In so much, that the Patriarch tyred with their importunity, gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, and desired them not to trouble him any more with their writings. A very formal story! One would expect the next news should have been, that the Patriarch had come to kiss his Holiness's feet, or at least subscribed to the Council of Trent. But all your stories out of the East have not so much truth as formality in them: witness one for all, that solemn legation from Gabriel Patriarch of Alexandria, to Pope Clement 8, wherein an acknowledgement was made of the Popes Supremacy as Head of the Church; upon which, such joy was conceived at Rome, that Baronius unmeasurably triumphs upon it, and sayes, it tends as much to the joy of Catholicks, as to the confusion of Hereticks: and therefore hath very solemnly published the Legation it self; at the end of the sixth Tome of his Annals; but upon a further examination of it, it was all found to be a meer fiction and imposture of one Barton, as both Thuanus and Thomas à Jesu confess. But we must suppose no such danger in this story,Thuan. hist: l. 114. ad A. 1595. Thom. à Jesu de Convers. omn. gent. l. 7. c. 6. p. 364. for you tell us, You have it from Spondanus, and he out of the writings of those Protestants themselves: but I much rather believe by the circumstances of your story, that either you, or Spondanus, had it from Socolovius their virulent adversary, who having clancularly procured a Copy of the Patriarchs Answer, he publishes it in Latin with the title of Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae, and gives much the same account as you do here. In which there are two grand mistakes, first, as to the design, which you say, was to be admitted into Communion with the Greek Church: The second, as to the event which you say was, That the Patriarch did not shew the least approbation of their Doctrine, but did in all his Answers confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church. Both which, how notoriously false they are, will presently appear by a full account of the circumstances of this affair. We must know then, that the news of the Lutherans appearing in Germany against the Pope being spread at Constantinople, great enquiry was made what their doctrine was, and they were represented (by whose arts one may easily guess) as men holding strange opinions, denying the Divinity of Christ, &c. as appears by a letter lately published of a Divine about that time resident in Constantinople; and withall,Hottinger. Archaiolog. Orie…t. cap. 3. p. 69. that they were defamed generally as persons of no Religion at all, and of wicked and flagitious lives: upon this, those German Divines send by Stephanus Gerlachius Chaplain to the Emperours Embassadour, a Greek copy of the Augustan Confession, Martinus Crusius having before sent a letter only of respect to the Patriarch Hieremias; who by the means of Cantacuzenus was made Patriarch in the room of Metrophanes, who was then deposed. Gerlachius, as appears by a letter of his dated May 24▪ A. 1575. carries the copy of the Augustan Confession to the Patriarch, who then had his Council about him, which with great joy and delight, he saith, he read in the presence of them, and delivered it to be read to the Priests and Calogeri; but five points he selected out of it to be further discussed, and when afterwards he waited on the Patriarch to know his judgement concerning it, Johannes Zygomalas, who was then the Rhetor Patriarchicus a kind of Chancellour to him, p. 502told him, that having read it almost all over, they approved almost all, except that about procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and unleavened bread; but he particularly desired the Patriarch to return an Answer to the Divines, who sent it with his judgement upon it: and having spoken with the Metropolitan of Nice and others, they seemed very much pleased with that Confession. With the Patriarchs letter Johannes Zygomalas writes to Martin Crusius, and therein tells him, that though in all things the Patriarch did not assent to them; yet it might be evident to all foreign, that they did agree in the most important Articles of Christian Faith; Apud Chytrae. de statu Eccl. Orient. p. 122.and that in other things they might easily agree, if they left the new and strange customs and adhered to the Catholick Church with them, and there was the greater hopes of it foreign, Since neither part did agree with the Bishop of old Rome, or the Church which joynes with him, but both oppose the evil customs and abuses which come by him: which bears the same date with the Patriarchs first Answer to the Tubing Divines May 15. 1576. And the Patriarch in his letter heartily wishes an union and conjunction between them. From hence we may easily gather, how true both those things were, viz. That the intent of their writing was, to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church, and that the Patriarch did not in the least approve their Doctrine, but confirmed the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church. But we must look further into the writings themselves, to see how far they agreed, and wherein they differed. It appears then, that the Patriarch did profess his consent with them in these things, besides the Articles of the Creed, and the satisfaction of Christ, Primum Patriar. Resp. p. 1.9.and other more general points, viz. That the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds, that the use of marriage was not to be absolutely forbidden the Clergy, though their custom is, that they must be married before they take Orders; besides the grand Articles of the Popes Supremacy, and the Roman Churches Infallibility; Doth he that joyns with them in these things not in the least approve their Doctrine, but confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church? But withall, it must be confessed, that besides that common Article of the Procession of the Spirit, wherein he disputes most earnestly; there are five others, in which they dissented from each other, about Free will, justification by Faith, the number of Sacraments, Invocation of Saints, and Monastick life, and about these the remaining disputes were. In some of which it is easie to discern how far the right state of the question was from being apprehended, which the Lutheran Divines perceiving sent him a larger and fuller explication of their mind in a body of Divinity in Greek; but the Patriarchs troubles coming on, Cantacuzenus deposing him too, and other businesses taking him off upon his restauration, he breaks off the Conference between them. But although he differed from them in these things, yet he was far enough from rebuking them for departing from the Roman Church, although he was desirous they should have joyned with them in the approbation of such things as were in use among themselves. And in those things in which he seems to plead for some practises in use in the Roman Church, yet there are many considerable circumstances about them, wherein they differ from the Church of Rome, as hath been manifested by many others. As in the Article of Invocation of Saints, the Patriarch saith, They do not properly Invocate Saints but God, for neither Peter nor Paul do hear us, upon which ground it is impossible to maintain the Romish Doctrine of Invocation of p. 503Saints. And in most of the other, the main difference lies in the want of a true State of the Questions between them. But is this any such great matter of admiration, that the Patriarch upon the first sight of their confession should declare his dissent from them in these things? It is well enough known, how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks, the means of Instruction being taken from them, and it being very rare at that time to have any Sermons at all, in so much, that one of your Calogeri being more learned then the rest, and preaching there in Lent, was thereby under great suspicion, and at last was by the Patriarch himself sent out of the way. It is therefore more to be wondered they should preserve so much of the Doctrine of Faith entire as they have done, then that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them. The most then, which you can make of the judgement of the Patriarch Hieremias, is, that in some things he was opposite to the Protestants, as in others to the Church of Rome. But what would you have said, if any Patriarch of Constantinople had declared his consent so fully with the Church of Rome, as the Patriarch Cyril did afterwards with the Protestants? who on that account suffered so much by the practises of the Jesuits, of whom he complains in his Epistle to Vtenbogard. Epist. Remons…. p. 412.And although a Faction was raised against him by Parthenius who succeeded him, yet another Parthenius succeeding him stood up in vindication of him. Since therefore such different opinions have been among them about the present Controversies of the Christian world, and there being no declared Confession of their Faith which is owned by the whole Greek Church, as to these things; there can be no confident pronouncing what their judgement is, as to all our differences, till they have further declared themselves.

p. 505PART III. Of Particular Controversies.