THREE SERMONS UPON THE SACRAMENT IN WHICH Transubstantiation is impartially considered, as to Reason, Scripture, and Tradition.  
To which is added a Sermon upon the Feast of S. George.  
By N. N. Preacher in Ordinary to their Majesties.  
LONDON. M.DC.LXXXVIII.   

A SERMON Preached before the KING AT WHITEHALL, June. 14. 1688.  
Quomodo fiet istud?  
How shall this be done?  Luke. 1.34. 
THe Enemies of Christ's Divinity abhor the Faith of it, as contrary to Sense, because all those who saw him, plainly saw he was a Man; and opposite to Reason, because it seems to them impossible, either for Immensity to be comprehended in the compass of a man, or for one Person to subsist in two Natures. The Enemies of Transubstantiation urge the same arguments against it. They say 'tis contrary to Sense, because all those who see it, plainly see 'tis bread; and opposite to Reason, because it seems to them impossible, either for Christ's body to be comprehended in so small a compass, or for one body to be at the same time in two places, Never was S. Paul's advice more seasonable than in this Age of ours. He tells us, that it is our Duty 
* 2. Cor. 10.5.  to cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. I must confess, 'tis natural enough to entertain a doubtful thought of what is far above the reach of Reason. When things are so extremely difficult, that no man can conceive the manner how they are performed, we presently are apt to think they are impossible; How shall this be done? But this is a proud thought that must be humbled; 'tis a rebellious imagination which (if S. Paul says true) must be cast down; it exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and must be brought into captivity. S. john Damascen in his Orthodox Faith, 
* 3. b. 14. ch.  proposes an illustrious example of our Duty, in a parallel betwixt the Incarnation & Eucharist; and by the Blessed Virgin's humble submission to that mystery, shows how we ought to captivate our understanding in believing this. Thus he discourses & compares both mysteries, How shall this be done, said the Blessed Virgin, seeing I know not a man? The Archangel Gabriel answered; The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, & the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. You also ask me the like Question; How can bread be made the body of Christ, & wine mixed with water become the blood of Christ? I also give you the same answer; The Holy Ghost descends, & effects such things as far exceed not only our expressions, but our understandings. The mysteries of Faith would be no longer mysteries, if Reason comprehended them, much less would they deserve that Name, if Sense discovered them. We commonly say, that Seeing is Believing; and amongst Men acquainted with the cheats of a deceitful world, we find the wisest are the slowest in believing what they do not see. But yet the word of God has so much credit with us, that we confidently trust him farther than we see him: and when we hear him say, This is my body, we believe it though we do not see it. Nor is it any wonder, that we boldly venture to believe such things as are beyond the reach of Sense; more than it is, that we believe such points as are above the reach of Reason. If Transubstantiation were either contrary to Sense or Reason; then indeed the clamours of our Adversaries would be something plausible: But if it be neither contrary to Sense, as I shall plainly show in my first part; nor contrary to Reason, as I shall endeavour to prove in my second; all their unreasonable clamours will be little valued; and all their noise, which is the last and weakest refuge of a baffed Cause, will signify just nothing. Permit me only, in the first place, to beg the assistance of my Saviour whose cause I plead, and to desire his Virgin Mother, with all the Angels & Saints in Heaven, to join their prayers with mine.  

FIRST PART.  
We are all of us willing to believe our eyes; and truly we have reason to believe them, especially when all men's eyes agree, and in all times & places give the same information to our understandings. Not that I think it is impossible for the Almighty to deceive the eyes of all men by a constant miracle of his Omnipotence; but that I have good reason to suppose he uses methods more conformable to reasonable nature. One great occasion of men's thinking that their senses are imposed upon, is but a false persuasion, that when they see the Sacrament, they must believe the outward form, the surface, & the qualities, which we see, touch, & taste, to be the true Body & Blood of Christ. If this were so, they would have reason to be jealous of their senses being contradicted. But if these people would reflect, that all this outward form, the surface, and the qualities, which we observe, are really in all respects the very same as they are represented to our senses: that they are not believed by us to be the true Body and Blood of Christ, but only the coat which  it, the curtain which is drawn before it, the veil which shrouds it and hides it from our senses: that when we fall down on our knees to adore our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom we firmly believe to be really and substantially present by a miracle insensible and imperceptible to all our senses, we do not adore the coat which clothes him, nor the curtain which is drawn before him, nor the veil which shrouds & hides him from us: we only adore the God of our Salvation, who in the mystery of the Incarnation hide his Divinity in flesh, & in the mystery of Transubstantiation hides his flesh & blood under the forms of bread & wine: Verily, says the Prophet Isaiah, 
* c, 45. v. 15.  Thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. If people would but leisurely reflect, that all which they perceive by any of their senses is really and truly the same as they perceive it; that Faith does not oblige them to believe the contrary, but only to believe that under the superficies of these outward forms the Body and Blood of Christ are hid miraculously, & concealed from all their senses: Then they would easily conclude that Transubstantiation is not contrary to sense. My word alone perhaps has not sufficient credit with you: you may hear S. Anselm, in the end of the eleventh Century, after the condemnation of Berengarius. In the 1. ch. of his Tract de Sacramento Altaris, he plainly says, That similitude of bread which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes, considered in itself, is not the body of our Lord. No, no: you may believe your eyes, that all the exterior forms of bread are truly there; 'tis only necessary to believe that the body of our Lord is really contained & hidden under them. And thus the Council of Trent expressly declares in the 1. ch. of the 13. Session; not that the sensible things themselves are truly the Body of Christ, but that under them his Body is contained.  
'Tis written in the 1. of Samuel; 
* c. 16. v. 7.  Men look upon the outward appearances, but God looks upon the heart. In like manner, our Senses only perceive the outward appearances of their objects; but our Understanding, by which we are made to the image of God, is the only Faculty which can discern the inward substance. The naked notion of subsistent Being cannot be perceived by any sense, because it neither has dimension, motion, posture, figure, colour, nor any of those modifications which affect our senses. The qualities and modes of matter intercept our sight, no sense can penetrate the superficies of it, & discern the nakedness of substance through the  it wears; we neither see it, nor feel it, more than we see or feel the substance of the Soul which animates our Body.  
Now, I must needs acknowledge that, if when we receive the Sacrament, we saw it round, and yet believed it square; if we saw it white, & yet believed it black; if we felt it rough, & yet believed it smooth; if we felt it dry, & yet believed it moist; if we tasted sweetness in it, and yet believed it bitter; No man could then deny but that our Faith would teach things evidently contrary to what our Senses tell us. But, as the case stands with us in this article, I never yet could see how any thing, but ignorance, can possibly excuse all those who flap us o'er the mouth with the absurdity of contradicting all our senses. We really believe, the superficies or outward form is round and white, just as we see it; if we feel it rough and dry, we take it to be such; and when we taste it sweet, we do not question but it is so. We firmly, without any hesitation, believe all that our Senses represent unto us; we declare to all the world that we believe our Senses; we live & die in a persuasion that in this mystery our Senses tell us nothing but what's true; And yet some people have the face to tell us, that we contradict our senses. A strange world it is, we live in now, that makes no conscience of saying any thing!  
I know very well, you'll readily object, that after consecration we see the Substance of bread, and we believe the Substance is not there: is not this, contradicting of our Senses? I grant, that after consecration we see the substance as plainly as we did before; but this I flatly deny, that any man ever saw the substance of bread either before or after. 'Tis true; most men, who do not understand Philosophy, are apt to think that when they see bread lie before them, they see the substance of it: They never imagine that there is as much difference betwixt seeing bread, & seeing the substance of bread, as there is betwixt seeing substance with all its  on, and seeing of it naked. When they see the length, breadth, depth, the figure, texture, colour, of the parts of bread, they think they see the substance; and 'tis no wonder, that they are mistaken, because they do not understand what substance is. But if they would go to school to Aristotle or Cartesius, the two chief Masters of the old & new Philosophy, the First would reach them, that when they think they see or feel the substance of any body, they only see & feel the accidents, the quantity & qualities that cover it; The second would easily inform them, and let them know they only see & feel the superficies & modes of matter, which may remain the same, to all intents & purposes, and make the same impression upon our senses, although the entity of matter be entirely changed. If any of you are so curious, you may read Cartesius himself upon this subject, in the end of his Meditations, pag. 137 of the 5. edition, printed at Amsterdam, in the year 1670. 
* Notandum denique per supersiciem panis aut vini alteriusve corporis, non hic intelligi partem ullam substantiae nec quantitatis.... fed tantummodo terminum illum qui medius esse concipitur inter singulas ejus particulas & corpora ipsas ambientia, quique nullam planè entitatem habeat nisi modalem. 
jam verò cum in solo termino contactus fiat, & nihil nisi per contactum sentiatur, manifestum est ex hoc uno quod dicantur panis & vini substantiae in alicujus alterius rei substantiam Ita mutari, ut haec nova substantia sub eisdem planè terminis contineatur sub quibus aliae ..... jam existerent si adessent; sequi necessatiò illam novam substantiam eodem planè modo sensus omnes nostros afficere debere, quo panis & vinum illos afficerent si nulla transubstantiatio facta esset. loc. cit. Praeterea nihil est incomprehensibile aut difficile in eo quod Deus Creator omnium possit unam substantiam in aliam mutare, quodque haec posterior substantia sub eâdem planè superficie remaneat sub quâ prior continebatur. Nec etiam quidquam rationi magis consentancum dici potest, nec vulgo apud Philosophos magis receptum, quàm non modo omnem sensum sed omnem corporis in corpus actionem fieti per contactum, huncque contactum in solâ superficie esse posse; Vnde sequitur evidenter eandem superficiem, quantumvis substantia quae sub eâ est mutetur, eodem semper modo agere ac pati debere. Quapropter ausim sperare ventutum tempus aliquando, quo illa opinio quae ponit accidentia realia,.... explodetur, & mea ut certa & indubitata in ejus locum recipietur, ibid. pag. 139.    
Some of my Auditory may perhaps be a little surprised to hear so much Philosophy delivered in a pulpit, whence they usually expect the Law of God & Christian Doctrine. If without Philosophy we cannot find the way to Heaven, what will become of all those Christians who never found the way to school? Pray give me leave: There are a great many Christians (let them be as ignorant as you please, especially in matters of Philosophy) who never the less think they are wise enough to judge the greatest mysteries and secrets of it: And when they hear the Catholic Church affirm, that, in the Eucharist, the interior substances of bread & wine are changed into the body & blood of Christ, nothing remaining (but the outward forms) of bread & wine; in stead of receiving humbly the Christian Doctrine which the Church proposes, they immediately take upon them to condemn it as an error, & cry it down as a ridiculous absurdity which contradicts our senses. All this while they never consider how little it becomes them to pretend to judge of things, they do not understand. Tell them that in the principles both of the old & new Philosophy, we never see the nakedness of any substance whatsoever, but only the outward forms which hid it from us; and therefore, if the Almighty have a mind to change the substance only, not the accidents, we may watch him as narrowly as we please, & never discover any alteration, because all that our senses can perceive, remains the same; and as, before the substance was miraculously changed, we could not see it; so, after 'tis miraculously changed, we cannot miss it. Talk to them of these notions in the plainest terms you can, they'll ask you what you mean. & wonder what you would be at. They neither know the nature of the substance nor the accidents; they know not whether Transubstantiation be contrary to sense or no; and yet they still will tell a man, it contradicts their senses. 'Tis very hard, in such a case as this, if they who do not understand Philosophy, may tell us, we deny our senses; and they who understand it, may not be allowed to tell them fairly, they are very much mistaken. Mistakes in matters of religion are dangerous: And certainly so much Philosophy as is needful to set us right, cannot but be allowable when such mistakes as these proceed from want of understanding it.  
I shall conclude this part of my discourse, with showing, in as easy terms as the matter will bear, that 'tis impossible for any of our senses to give evidence against our faith of Transubstantiation. If we believed that Transubstantiation were a sensible change, a change of any thing that is sensible in the bread & wine; then indeed, our senses being judges of sensible things might easily give evidence against our faith: They might depose, that nothing sensible is changed, but that all things sensible remain the same as formerly they were; and no man could deny but that our Faith would contradict our Senses. But, on the contrary, if we do not believe that Transubstantiation is a sensible change; if we believe no change of any thing which is sensible; then, truly, our senses, not being judges of insensible things, cannot give evidence against us; they cannot depose that no insensible thing is changed, because insensible matters fall not within their cognizance; and therefore, whether they are changed or not, is more than they can tell. If there should happen a dispute concerning difference of colours, whether they are changed or not? Would you remit it to the arbitration of five blind men? Since therefore the dispute betwixt us, is about the insensible difference of substance, whether it be changed or not, How can our senses give their sentiment one way or other, either for it, or against it?  
This argument is so convincing, that it will not bear the least appearance of a solid Answer; and withal so plain, that any man without Philosophy may clearly understand it. To which I shall only add a word or two more, to put a stop to all the cavils which may possibly arise from the diversity of schoolmen's fancies.  
'tis evident that the Catholic Church, by the substance which is believed to be changed in the Sacrament, does not understand any thing that is sensible in bread & wine. The Council of Trent in the 2. Canon of the 13. Session, supposes as a certain & undoubted truth, that all things sensible remain the same; manentibus speciebus panis & vini: And, in the 1. ch. of the same Session, tells us, that the body & blood of Christ are contained under them, sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium. 'tis true, the Council does not offer to define what substance is; it does not tell us what it understands by substance; it meddles not with definitions of Philosophy but only definitions of Faith, determining what Truths were first delivered to the Church by Christ & his Apostles. But, though we know not in particular what 'twas the Council meant by substance, This we know for certain, that it meant not any of those sensible things, but only that insensible subsistent Being which is hidden under them: And this is enough to silence all disputes about the Evidence of Sense. Let, who will, tell us that the substances of bread & wine are sensible, we always shall have this to say, That if by substance they mean something which is sensible, the Council does not mean the same; They mean one sort of substance, The Council means another; & therefore all their arguments from evidence of sense are every one misplaced; they are levelled against a chimerical Transubstantiation of their own invention, and not against that which the Council has defined. In a word, if any Transubstantiation be contrary to sense, Let them look to't; we are not at all concerned in the matter; such a Transubstantiation is not ours but theirs. I humbly recommend this to your serious thoughts, & undertake to prove, that Transubstantiation is not contrary to Reason, in the second part of my Discourse.   

SECOND PART.  
The Oracles of Holy Scripture, in the book of job, assure us, 
* 36.26.  God is great, and we know him not. As we do not know him, so we do not know his power; and therefore it is written in the following chapter; 
* 37.5.  He does great things which we cannot comprehend. His works are great; we cannot comprehend them: But hence it does not follow that they are impossible, because He can do great things which we cannot comprehend. We all of us agree that mysteries of Faith are far above the reach of Reason, but 'tis our great misfortune, and one of the worst effects of our original Corruption, That though we thus agree in generals, yet in the examen of particulars we easily confound their being above Reason with their being contrary, and presently conclude them contrary because they are above it. All this proceeds from nothing but a secret pride or vanity, which make us willing to suppose that we are wiser than we are; that we comprehend the secret Natures of things; understand clearly the essential constitution of their Being's; see evidently all the attributes appropriated to them, & all the qualities irreconcilably repugnant to their natures. Supposing this, we readily pronounce, This is impossible, That cannot be, This is a mere chimaera, That's a contradiction; And, all this while, reflect not that we may perhaps be very much mistaken in our arbitrary notions, from whence we draw so easily these bold Conclusions. We do not consider the History, as well as Theory, of Natural Philosophy; if we did, we should find such strange varieties & alterations in it, as would demonstrate the uncertainty of of all its principles. Corpuscular Philosophy was well enough received in ancient times under Democritus & Epicurus: Afterwards it was, in a manner, quite laid by, & Aristotle's Notions succeeded in the place: And now, the world gins to seem unsatisfied; his matter & form, his quantity & qualities begin to look a little out of countenance; and the Corpuscular Philosophy gins to come in play again. If we would spend one serious thought upon these Revolutions in the very fundamentals of our Natural Philosophy, we should learn the best & the most beneficial knowledge in the world, which is the knowledge of our ignorance: We should find that the vain humour, which inclines some few to dogmatise in Natural Philosophy, proceeds not from their being wise than their neighbours, but rather from the strength of their imaginations than the power of their Reasons: We should see, that, since the Fall of Adam, even the works of nature are above our reach, 
* Eccles. 3.11.  No man, says Solomon, can find them out from the beginning to the end: When any mystery of Faith seems not to suit so well, as we would have it, with the notions which we fancy most, We should rather suspect that we may be mistaken in our principles, than cry it down as a chimerical absurdity, below God's Majesty, above his Art, & beyond the utmost stretch of his Omnipotence.  
As the mystery of the Incarnation seemed mere folly to the Gentiles, and a scandal to the Jews; so now the mystery of Transubstantiation seems impossible to some, incredible to others. It seems impossible, 1. for the Natural Body of Christ to be consigned within so small a compass; 2. for one Body to be at the same time in two places. It seems incredible. 1. that Christ should put himself to the expense of so superfluous a miracle, since he might easily have given us the very same grace without it; 2. that he should humble himself so low as to expose his sacred body & blood to almost all the abuses & indignities which bread & wine are subject to. These are the principal considerations whence some are pleased to draw this inference; That Transubstantiation is evidently contrary to Reason.  
'tis strange to see, when once our minds are prepossesst with an aversion from any doctrine, how blind we are in our inquiries, how partial & unequal in our judgements. We easily believe the Incarnation, and although we know that God is infinitely greater than our little souls are able to conceive, although we know that there can be no limits in the vast extension of his boundless Being, although we know that his Immensity has every where a Centre, no where a Circumference, yet because this is an article which we are willing to believe, we make no doubt but all God's Greatness may be lodged within the compass of a man; and that this man, who lived & died amongst us, is the great Creator & Conserver of the Universe. Why have you not the impudence to ridicule this mystery, & say 'tis evidently contrary to Reason? Why do you not tell the world that it involves clear contradiction, infinity measured, incomprehensibility comprehended, Immensity contained within the compass of a man? The reason is, because you like this article well enough; your education has not armed you against it; your first institution to piety has been accompanied with daily persuasions & inducements to submit your reason to it, & not to admit of every probable appearance of impossibility as a sufficient evidence against it. How comes it then, that, in an Age so sceptical in all things else, you are so positive & so, dogmatical in this, That 'tis impossible for the Body of Christ to shrink into the compass of a little bit of bread? or, at the same time, be in several places? You can believe one Nature in three Persons really distinguished, and one Person in two Natures, And yet you can't believe one Body in two Places. Is not this, streining at the lesser difficulty & swallowing the greater? & had not our Saviour reason to complain of the 
* Math. 23.24.  blind Guides that strain at a Gnat, & swallow a camel?  
The Common Answer to this Argument is: That we are better acquainted with the Nature of a Body, than of a Spirit. Bodies are the familiar object of our Senses, and if we do not know the Nature of them, we know nothing at all: But our Notions of a Spirit are so imperfect, that it is an argument of wisdom, rather than weakness, to submit our judgements in things we cannot understand.  
I must confess; if we consider only the superficial knowledge of Bodies. our Mathematicians measure very skilfully their three dimensions, we demonstrate many ingenious Truths, both useful & delightful, and have knowledge enough to make us proud: But, if we consider the inward constitution or nature of these very same bodies which we measure so skilfully, we shall soon find we have ignorance enough to humble us. 'tis an easy thing to tell me the length of a Line, & to measure it by so many inches; But, who can tell me what this line is made of? is it a chain of indivisible points immediately linked together? or is it composed of parts which may be really divided less & less, for ever & ever, world without end? The first is an unconceivable piece of nonsense: And the second is a Labyrinth which when our Reason enters it can never find the way out. What are we more acquainted with, or what is more familiar to us, than Light & Colour? And yet no body can tell certainly what they are: The Learned have disputed some thousands of years about it, & are not agreed upon the point. We see; and we believe our eyes; And nothing is more certain than that we do so: Yet nevertheless when we come to examine strictly, by what means, & how this operation is performed; we are as much in the dark as if we were stark blind. We move from place to place; we measure our motion, as to time & space; we know very well, whether one motion be longer or shorter, whether it be swifter or slower, than another: And yet when our Natural Philosophers inquire into the nature of this Motion, nothing is more uncertain: The greatest Wits have ever been at a loss when they pretend to explicate how Motion is possible; And Zeno's argument has never been clearly answered. In the same manner, although nothing is more certain than that all the Bodies, which we ever were acquainted with, have three dimensions, length, breadth, & depth; yet if we strictly inquire into the essential notion of a Body by which it differs from a Spirit, we shall find it not so easy to determine, but that this matter is very dark, as well as others I have mentioned. To make it as clear as I can, I suppose; 1. that there is no substance but what is either a body or a Spirit; 2. that no Spirit either has dimensions, or is capable of having them: From whence I conclude; 1. that every substance which either has dimensions or is capable of having them, is a body and no spirit; 2. that actual dimensions are not the essence of a body, because the Idea of them presupposes the capacity of having them, & this Capacity is the first Idea by which a Body differs from a Spirit. The Question is; Whether 'tis possible for a Body to be stripped naked of all its dimensions, & subsist without them?  
'tis no wonder, there is such confusion in deciding of this Case, because our Philosophers & Mathematicians are not Country men; They have each a peculiar language to themselves; and (which is worst of all) when they use the same words, they understand them in a different sense. A Mathematician never considers the Nature of a Body, neither is it to his purpose; all his business is to measure it. The vulgar part of mankind never consider what a Body is made of, any farther than they can either use it, or make money of it. So that a Body miraculously stripped of all its dimensions, being neither measurable, nor useful, nor marketable, is certainly (in the language of Mathematicians, & of the Vulgar) no Body at all. All the trade they drive with Bodies is by weight & measure; and therefore 'tis no wonder, if by the word Body, they conceive nothing but Dimensions. These people, by their own confession, have only a superficial knowledge of a Body: They declare frankly, they know nothing of it but the outside. Philosophers are the only men that consider the inside of Nature: They are not content to gaze without; but endeavour to enter the very Sanctuary, & discover what lies hid behind the Veil. And these men, if the rest of the world would give them a fair hearing & not make too much noise, would soon decide the difficulty. The Question is (putting the Case, that a Body were divested of its natural dimensions) whether the Remainder would be still a Body, or not?  
'tis evident that, in the Mathematical or Vulgar sense, it would not be so: Neither is that the true meaning of the Question. We do not ask, whether the Dimensions would remain when they are gone? We know very well, it implies a most manifest contradiction. Our enquiry is only concerning the Essence of a natural Body, that is, of a Substance which is not a Spirit. And, without all doubt, when we suppose nothing to be taken from a Body but its actual dimensions, That which we conceive to remain is still a natural Body, because 'tis certainly no Spirit: it still retains a real capacity of having its natural dimensions, and this Capacity is absolutely repugnant to the nature of a Spirit. Thus you plainly see, that the Supposition, we talk of, does not destroy the Essence of a natural Body; it does not imply any Contradiction; And therefore does not leave any reasonable ground of denying the possibility of it. Men may fancy what they please; and will ever do so, without ask their neighbours leave; There's no remedy for it: But, after all, He must be a bold man that undertakes to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of the Hypothesis I speak of.  
To return to my argument, I would now gladly inquire; since, in the Incarnation and Trinity, it is no argument of weakness, but of wisdom, to submit our judgements; Why is it not so in this? If the Nature of God, & the divine Persons, are objects so spiritual, and so much out of our reach, that it does not become us to dogmatise in matters belonging to them: Pray, tell me what acquaintance have we with a Body divested of all its natural dimensions, & reduced to the condition of a Spirit? All our Mathematical & Vulgar notions, of which we are so confident, are (in this case) so far from giving us any light, that they are rather like so much dust in our eyes that hinders us from seeing. 'tis no part of our Faith, that Christ in the Sacrament has all his natural dimensions: if it were, Then indeed these Notions might furnish something to say against it. One might argue, as S. Augustin does against Faustus, that Christ as to his corporal presence could not, at the same time, be in the Sun & Moon, & on the Cross. But, in our present Hypothesis, all our experimental knowledge of a Body is out of doors; And all our pretended demonstrations are mere nonsense. 'tis evident, that without local extension a Body is neither confined by being in one place, nor divided by being in two: And 'tis as easy a matter to measure a line without length, an angle without space, or a circle without diameter, as it is to find work for Mathematical conclusions in a Body without dimensions.  
Some will ingenuously confess, they do not think that Transubstantiation is impossible; but they are apt to think it is incredible, either that Christ should work so great a miracle without necessity, or humble himself to all those great indignities to which the Sacrament is every day exposed. 
* Rom. 9 20.  O man, says the Apostle, who art thou that repliest against God? His Goodness is as infinite as his Omnipotence; and 'tis as great an insolence to give laws to the one, as to give limits to the other. He seems to value more the reputation of his Goodness than of his Power; and if we trace his Providence throughout the Conduct of the Moral World, we cannot but observe that He has taken much more pains to show his goodness than to show his greatness. In the Creation of the Universe He showed his Power: But what was that to the Incarnation of the Son of God? All the Perfections of Creatures disappear, & shrink to nothing, when compared to the perfection of their great Creator; And the whole Universe, by which God shows his Greatness, is nothing in comparison of Jesus Christ by whom he shows his Kindness to us. You all are scandalised at their ingratitude, who will not give God thanks for this inestimable favour; will not believe that he has been so good, so merciful, so kind. They say, that though it were possible it is not credible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity; that there was none at all for him to come himself in person; that he might have sent a holy man for our instruction, he might have charged him with our sins, he might have pardoned both him and us without condign satisfaction: 'tis true, The Scripture seems to speak in plain terms the Divinity of Christ; but yet may bear another sense, and may admit a much more credible interpretation. If a Socinian should urge this argument against you, you would scarce have patience to hear him. Why then do you object the same against the mystery of Transubstantiation? Why do you tell us, 'tis incredible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity? that the real presence is not absolutely necessary? that the Sacrament might have sufficient efficacy to give grace without it? Why do you say, that though the Scripture plainly speaks in favour of this mystery, yet we are not obliged to take it in the literal sense? that the figurative sense is much more easy to conceive, & therefore is a much more credible interpretation? O man, says S. Paul to the Romans, 
* 9.20.  Who art thou that repliest against God? 
* 11.33. & 34.  How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his Counsellor! This is the only answer you can give to a Socinian; Apply it to yourselves, & rest content: Your argument is just the same, and either proves both mysteries incredible, or neither.  
When you object, that nothing can be more incredible, than that the Body & Blood, the sacred Humanity of Christ is shrouded under the outward forms of bread & wine, and consequently exposed to all indignities which they are subject to. Pray, give me leave to ask you, whether or no it be not more incredible, which we read in S. Paul, & in the Prophet Isaiah; that 
* 1. Tim. c. 3. v. 16.  God was manifest in flesh; that in this flesh 
* Isai. ch. 53.  He was despised & rejected of men, and we esteemed him not: He bore our griefs, & carried our sorrows: He was wounded for our transgressions, & bruised for our iniquities: He was oppresst, he was afflicted: 
* Phil. ch, 2. v, 6.7,  He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant; & being found in fashion as man, humbled himself & became obedient unto death? Is not this more incredible than all that you can say of the Sacrament?  
Ah! my dear Jesus! it grieves my heart to see, that thou hast made thy self of no reputation, by taking upon thee the form of bread; and that, by being found in fashion as bread, thou hast humbled thyself so low, as to be still despised, rejected, & disesteemed by men. But yet it is a comfort to me, when I think that thy most sacred Body in the Sacrament is now immortal & impassable; thou dost not now bear all our griefs, & carry all our sorrows; thou art not wounded there for our transgressions, nor bruised for our iniquities; thou art not capable of being now afflicted & oppresst. Compute then, if you please, all the indignities the Sacrament is subject to; and by the way take notice that it is a Sacrament no longer than the Sacramental forms are incorrupted; Remember that the natural alterations, which they undergo, can never operate upon him; Take these considerations along with you, And, if you have that candour & sincerity which I am willing to suppose you have, you will ingenuously confess that these indignities which Christ now seems to suffer in the forms of bread & wine, are nothing in comparison of those which once He suffered in the form of man.  
S. Paul writes to the Colossians; 
* 2. ch 8. v.  Beware lest any man deceive you, by Philosophy & vain fallacy, according to the Tradition of men, and the elements of the world, & not according to Christ. He writes to the Corinthians, that 'tis their duty to 
* 2. Ep. 10. ch. 5. v.  cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. He writes to the Romans, that they 
* 11. ch. 20. v.  stand by faith; bids them not be highminded, but fear; & in the following chapter bids them have a care of being 
* 12. ch. 16. n.  wise in their own conceits. These Admonitions of the Apostle were superscribed to the Colossians, Corinthians, & Romans; they were not written to us; but yet they were written for us, & for our instruction. 'tis a great insolence for human Reason to exalt itself against Omnipotence: an insolence much greater than the Pride of Lucifer: He only said, he would be like the Highest; but we are not content with that, we will be Higher than the Highest. We summon the Highest God of Heaven and Earth before the high Tribunal of our Reason; we make him accountable to us for his actions; And by our arbitrary notions of precarious Philosophy We make no scruple to pronounce, what sentence we think fit, upon his Wisdom, Power, and Goodness. But the day will come, when they who thus exalt themselves shall certainly be humbled; and (as S. Peter assures us) They who now 
* 1. Ep. 5. ch. 6. v.  humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, shall be exalted in due time: which happiness may the Almighty grant us through the grace and merits of his only beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, Amen.    

A SERMON Preached before their MAJESTIES AT WINDSOR. August. 26. 1688.  
Hoc est Corpus meum.  
This is my Body.  Math. 26.26. 
AMongst the nine & thirty articles of the pretended Reformation, the twenty eighth asserts; 1. that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by holy Writ; 2. that it is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture. It neither is my inclination nor design to throw dirt in the face of any men, but only to wipe it inoffensively & fairly of our own; by appealing to their own Translation of the Bible; and showing, 1. that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture; 2. that nothing can be better proud by holy Writ. This is in short the whole extent of my design, and shall be the subject of your entertainment, as soon I have begged the assistance of my Saviour, desiring his Virgin Mother with all the Angels & Saints to second my petition.  

FIRST PART.  
That all men do not rightly understand the word of God in Scripture, is a Truth which no man can deny that has a grain of common sense. Every man plainly sees how in our Nation the reformed religion is crumbled into multitudes of Sects, as opposite in many things to one another, as they are to us. They all read Scripture, follow Scripture, prove & disprove what they please by Scripture; and all the while, as they agree in nothing more than in the book, so they agree in nothing less than in the sense. No man is bound to think his neighbour, or the whole Church, wiser than himself; but every man has as much liberty, as he has vanity, to think himself the best interpreter of Scripture for himself. Amidst this great confusion, what wonder is it, if we find that many, with as little modesty as reason, face us down, that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture?  
The Text, which first appears against us, is in the 3. ch. of the Acts where it is said of Christ, that 
* v. 21.  the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things: whence it plainly follows, that his body is in heaven, & must be in heaven till the time of restitution, that is, till the day of judgement. All this is very true; and we believe it as much as any of our neighbours. But how comes this Text to contradict his real presence in the Sacrament? The Scripture tells us that our Saviour's Body is in heaven; but where does it teach us that it is not at the same time upon earth? Where does it plainly say, No miracle can make one body at the same time be in several places? Show us but this delivered plainly in the Scripture, and then we'll grant that Transubstantiation is repugnant to it. Some, upon this occasion, produce the Angel's words, who in the last chapter of S. Matthew, told the women at the sepulchre, He is not here, for He is risen: where the Angel seems to conclude, that because his body was in another place, therefore it was not in that place. All the whole stress of this argument depends upon a word of so little moment, that the last of S. Mark quite leaves it out; & the last of S. Luke not only leaves it cut, but puts another in the place: in S. Mark, the Angel says, He is risen, He is not here; in S. Luke he says, He is not here, but is risen. But however, if the Angel's Reasoning in S. Matthew must be so much magnified; when they have made the best they can of it, 'twill amount to neither more nor less than this; He is not here, because he is risen, that is, He is not here because he is gone from hence; which inference is not a jot the worse, although we should suppose that the same body may be, at the same time, in a thousand places. Let us suppose his Body at the same time, if you please, in millions of places; yet, if it be true, that he is risen & gone from hence, it follows evidently that he is not here.  
The second Text is found in the 3. ch. of S. Paul to the Colossians; where he gives both them & us good counsel; bids us 
* v. 1.2.  seek for things above, things which are only to be found in heaven, where Christ sits at the right hand of God; joys which are heavenly & everlasting, which in the same chapter he calls the 
* v. 24.  reward of our inheritance; He bids us raise our hearts above the world, above the vanities the pleasures & temptations of it: Alas! all this is nothing to our present purpose; all this we believe, although we know his body is as really on earth, as 'tis in heaven. Did not our Saviour preach the same to his Apostles? And yet he lived amongst them upon Earth.  
The third Text lies before us in the 14. of S. Mark, where our Redeemer makes a plain Antithesis betwixt him & the poor, compares himself with them, & shows the difference betwixt their case & his. 
* v. 7.  You have the poor with you always, says he, and when you will you may do them good, but me you have not always: as if he should say; you will always have the poor in a condition of doing them good; but, as for me, you will not always have me in that indigent condition, you will not hereafter be in a capacity of doing me any good. When he was visible amongst us before his resurrection, he was subject to our natural necessities, and it was in our power to relieve & ease him: But in the Sacrament he is immortal & impassable, incapable of being injured by the malice of his enemies, or bettered by the service of his friends.  
This Text not being able to support so weak a cause, a fourth is borrowed from the 1. Cor. in the 11. chapter, where the Apostle says, 
* v. 26.  We show the Lord's death till he comes: therefore he is not come yet; and, if he be not come. How is he really present in the Sacrament? Let us reflect a little, & examine the sense of these words, till he comes. This coming of our Saviour is repeated frequently in Scripture: in the 1. ch. of the Acts, we read, 
* v. 11.  He shall come in like manner as you have seen him go, in the 14. of S. Mark, 
* v. 62.  You shall see him coming in the clouds; in the 24. of S. Math. 
* v. 30.  They shall see him coming in power & great glory. Every man that can but say his Creed, is well acquainted with this coming, which is so much celebrated in the Scripture; we all believe that this his coming is so judge the quick & the dead. When they read in the Bible, we show the Lords death till he comes; they infer. Therefore he is not come yet: Very true: The Lord's Day is not come; the Day of judgement is not come; and only God knows when it will come: But, is it therefore evident that in the Sacrament there is no Transubstantiation, no Real Presence, because the Day of judgement is not come? I am inclined to think that, when it does come, when Christ comes to judge the world, & calls all those to an account who have pretended, every one according to their fancy, to reform his Church, they then will wish too late that, either they had let the Church alone, or else had had much better evidence than this to justify the Reformation.  
The fifth Text seems to promise more, & yet performs as little as the rest: We find it in the 22, of S. Luke, where our Saviour says, 
* v. 19  Do this in remembrance of me. Now, say they, we cannot remember any thing but what is absent, and therefore the Body of Christ must of necessity be absent from the Sacrament, cannot be really & truly present in it. Pray, cannot I remember God, & take delight in thinking of his goodness? Remember my own sinful soul, & pity her condition? And is not my soul present in my Body? Is not the Almighty present every where? 
* v. 1.  Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, says Solomon in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes; and yet this great Creator is not absent from us: S. Paul says, in the 17. ch. of the Acts, 
* v. 27.  He is not far from every one of us. Though He is always present, yet we easily forget him, because he is not present to our senses: And I am afraid, because we do not see the invisible body & blood of Christ, I am afraid we now & then forget how great a treasure we receive when we approach the Sacrament: I am afraid, because we neither see nor feel our souls, we oftentimes neglect & almost quite forget the great concern of our salvation, differing it from time to time, till by God's judgement death surprises us, and we are lost for all Eternity.  
The two last Texts as they have most appearance so they have the least of substance when they are examined. S. Paul says in his 1. Cor. 11. ch. 
* v. 28.  Let a man examine himself, & so let him eat of that bread: Our Saviour says, in the 26. ch. of S. Math. 
* v. 29.  I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine: Both of them speak thus after consecration; Both of them call it bread & wine; And therefore, after consecration, it still remains true bread & wine. You see how fairly I propose the difficulty, and now I humbly beg your best attention to the Answer. S. Paul does not say, This is Bread: Our Saviour does not say, This is Wine: S. Paul does not contradict our Saviour; nor does our Saviour contradict himself: Why then do they call it bread and wine? The Answer is obvious; Not because it was bread & wine then, but because it was bread & wine before. Nothing is more familiar in Scripture than this way of speaking. S. john in the 9 ch. of his Gospel, relating the miraculous cure of the man that was born blind, tells us in the 7. v. He went his way & washed & came seeing: and yet afterwards in the 17. v. he calls him blind, and tells us what they say to the blind man again. Why does the Scripture call him blind after his sight was restored? The reason is, not because he was blind then, but because he was blind before. Turn to the 7. ch. of S. Luke, and in the 22. v. you'll read these words of our Saviour, The blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear: he says they see, and yet he calls them blind; he says they walk, & yet he calls them lame; he says they hear, & yet he calls them deaf. Why does he call them blind, lame, & deaf, when he himself bears witness that they see, walk, & hear? The Answer lies before you: He calls them so, not because they were so then, but because they were so before. In the 2. ch. of S. john, the substantial change of water into wine was much the same as Transubstantiation, & therefore the example is fit for the purpose. In the 9 v. you read, that the Ruler of the Feast tasted the water that was made wine: You cannot but observe how plainly the Scripture says, it was made wine, and at the same time plainly calls it water. Will any man deny this miracle, and say it was not really & truly wine, because the Scripture calls it water after it was made wine? No, no; 'tis clear that, when the miracle was done, the Scripture calls it water, not because it was water then, but because it was water before. Read the 7. ch. of Exodus: you'll find in the 10. v. Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, & it became a Serpent: in the 11. v. The Magicians of Egypt also did in like manner: & in the 12. v. They cast down every man his rod, but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. Pause here one moment. The Scripture plainly tells us that these rods were all changed into Serpents; and yet, after the change, the Scripture calls them rods; not because they were rods then, but because they were rods before. If any of our Adversaries have a mind to say, these rods were not changed into Serpents, that Christ never changed water into wine, that when he told S. John's disciples the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, he sent them back to their master with so many lies in their mouths; if they have a mind to say, our Saviour never cured the man born blind; then they may have the same pretence to magnify this trifling argument: But if they are the men which I would willingly believe they are, if they are candid & sincere, if they submit their judgement fairly to the word of God, as it is plainly written in their own translation of of the Bible; they cannot but ingenuously confess that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture; but that Scripture itself contutes the best of all their arguments which they produce against it.  
I will not say 'tis ignorance, but I am sure 'tis either that, or want of ingenuity, which makes men argue that, because there are some metaphors in Scripture. Therefore the words of Consecration are a Metaphor or Figure. No man denies but that we often meet with metaphors in Scripture; but then, either the common phrase of speaking evidently marks them out, or else they are explaind by what foreruns or follows the expression, & so explaind that no judicious Reader doubts the meaning of them.  
When, in the 6. of S. john, our Saviour says, I am the bread of life; He adds, he that comes to me shall never hunger: When, in the 8. He says, I am the light of the world; He adds, he that follows me, shall have the light of life: When, in the 10. He says, I am the door; He adds, by me if any man enter, he shall be saved: When, in the 14. He says, I am the way; He adds, no man comes to my Father, but by me: When, in the 15. He says, I am the Vine; He adds, he that abides in me, brings forth much fruit.  
So when S. Paul tells the Ephesians, 5. ch. 30. v. We are members of his body, of his flesh & of his bones; He explicared it in the 23. v. that this Body, which Christ is the Head and Saviour of, is the Church; And when he mentions flesh & bones, he only carries on the metaphor by a mysterious allusion to the 2. of Genesis, because as Eve's Body drew its Being from the side of the first Adam when he slept in Paradise, so also the Church derives the grace, which animates it, from the side the flesh & bones of the last Adam when he slept his mortal sleep upon the Cross. The verse, which follows, leads directly to the place, and gives us, word for word, the 24. v. of the 2. of Genesis, that we may evidently know the Sense and Ground of the Comparison.  
In the same manner, no less care is taken in the 1. to the Cor. 10. ch. & 4. v. to explicate these words, That Rock was Christ. S. Paul seems to write with as much caution as if he had foreseen how much these words would be abused by those who now compare them with the words of Consecration. Lest any man might think that, when he said that rock was Christ, he took the word rock in the literal sense, he plainly says, he speaks of spiritual meat & spiritual drink; he says in the same verse, they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock, (that is, that spiritual rock) was Christ. What could a man say more to acquaint the world with the true meaning of his words, & give us an assurance that it is not literal, but only figurative & metaphorical?  
Some people are willing to believe that, because Christ's body & blood are only metaphorically broken & shed for us in the Sacrament, therefore they are not really his body & blood: As if, because one word is figurative in a sentence, therefore all the rest must be so too, merely for keeping it company; or as if we were obliged to believe that, because Christ's sitting at the right hand of his Father is a mere metaphor, therefore he did not really ascend to Heaven. When in S. Luke, & in the 1 Cor. we read these words, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; the Cup is one metaphor, the Testament is another, but hence it does not follow that the blood of Christ is merely metaphorical: For, in the common way of speaking, when we say, This Glass is a new Health in Wine, the glass is one metaphor, the health is another, and yet the wine is truly & substantially Wine. Having thus exposed the weakness of their arguments, by which they undertake to show that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture; I shall now endeavour to make out, that Transubstantiation may (if any thing can) be plainly proud by holy Writ: the proof of which shall make the second part of my Discourse.   

SECOND PART.  
In the 6. ch. of S. john, our Saviour promises that he will give us his flesh, that sacred flesh which he designed to sacrifice upon the Cross for our Redemption. In the 51. v. he says, the Bread that I will give is my Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. I know very well that in the former verses, from 26. to 51. He uses some expressions which are purely metaphorical: But, whatsoever a few modern Authors may say of this matter, I can never be persuaded, that this chapter talks of nothing else but Faith; & that from 50. to 60. the Eating, which is so much talked of, signifies nothing but Believing. We have appealed to Scripture: Let it judge the Case betwixt us.  
When in the 52 v. we read how the Jews strove amongst themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? we know they understood him in the literal Sense, & wondered how it could be true. If he had spoken only in a figurative Sense; it had been easy to have told them so. In other matters, of much less importance, 'twas his usual custom to expound his meaning. john, the 3. ch. & 4. v. Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born again when he is old? He let him understand He did not mean it in the literal sense, but that He spoke of Baptism: Except a man be born of water & the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Matth. 13. He proposed to his Disciples the Parable of the Sour: They understood it not: He presently expounded it to them. The Parable of Tares they understood as little; but, as soon as they desired him, He declared to them the whole mystery of it. In these & other occasions, when he had spoken any thing obscurely, He was always willing to interpret it: And there was never more necessity than when the Jews were scandalised to hear him say, the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. If he only designed to give them Bread & not his Flesh. I will not say He ought to have explained himself, because to punish their perverseness He might lawfully have left them in their ignorance; and, though he were the Light of the world, yet He might justly leave those in the dark who obslinately shut their eyes against him. But, that our Saviour should not only refuse to explicate his words, but also make it his business to confirm them in an error; that He, who came to instruct the world, should labour to deceive it; that He, who left the ninety nine sheep in the Desert, should endeavour to drive the lost sheep farther from the true way home; Let, who will, say it, A Christian must be ashamed to think it. If he were then resolved to give us nothing else to eat & drink but bread & wine, is it probable that He would so industriously repeat the eating of his Flesh & drinking of his Blood? Is it possible that he should tell them in the 55. v. My Flesh is meat indeed, & my Blood is drink indeed, if really the meat & drink were neither Flesh nor Blood? When, in the 24. of S. Luke, our Adversaries read, our Lord is risen indeed; or, in the 4. of S. john, this is indeed the Saviour of the world, They understand it & believe it in the literal sense: But, when they read these words, my Flesh is meat indeed, & my Blood is drink indeed, they believe 'tis nothing else but sacred bread & wine. Is this Believing Scripture? No, no; When Scripture speaks as plainly in one place as in another, & not convincing reason can be given why they force the sense of this place more than that, if they believe that & not this, They do not believe the Scripture but themselves; They do not believe because they read it, but because they like it.  
When the Disciples saw how seriously their Master taught the literal sense, they cried out, in the 60. v this is a hard saying, who can hear it? They considered it foolishly (says S. Austin) 
* In Psal. 98.  they understood it carnally, & thought our Lord would chop of morsels of his flesh, & give it them: They were not only startled at the seeming impossibility, but also at the barbarousness of the design: And the three following verses show us how our Saviour endeavoured to let them know, it neither was impossible, nor barbarous. Does this offend you? says He; Do you think I am not able to make good my words? Surely you know not who I am, you would not otherwise mistrust my Almighty Power. But what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Then I suppose you'll know that I am God, and from that miracle conclude that this is easy to me, & that I have not only wisdom to contrive but power to execute my promise. Does this offend you? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit & they are Life. I do not intent to give dead morsels of my flesh, which being separated from my Spirit & Divinity will profit nothing, because they will not give your souls the lise of grace. You shall not eat it in the natural form of human flesh; that is indeed a carnal and a barbarous way of eating it: But nevertheless, under the form of bread, you shall receive the true & real substance of my flesh; and this is that spiritual way of eating which you are not yet acquainted with. This is the mystery which I expect you should believe: This neither is impossible nor barbarous: This is not contrary to Reason, though it be above it. But yet, says he, v. 64. there are some of you that believe not: And, v. 65. he tells the reason why; because, says he, no man can come unto me, unless it be given to him of my Father. Proud, Silly, Wretches, as we are? We think it is sufficient to read God's word; we think there goes no more than reading to believe it; we never reflect that no man can believe the word of God the Son, unless he first receive the powerful grace of Christian Humility from God the Father; that Grace by which we willingly submit our Reason to such mysteries as are above it.  
The 66. v. lays before our eyes the sad example of those many disciples who from that time went back & walked no more with him. They heard the same words which our Adversaries read; They heard the 63. v. which is so much magnified; They heard with great attention & curiosity; & if from those expressions they had so clearly understood, that by his flesh he only meant a holy sign or figure of it, they never would have damned themselves eternally by walking no more with him. They watchfully observed his countenance; his way of speaking; and, as we better understand a friend when we discourse with him than when we only read his Letters, so these disciples having the advantage of our Saviour's presence & familiar conversation could not but understand him much better than those who only read in Scripture a small part of those discourses with which He entertained them. They plainly understood that, though he smoothed the difficulty by telling them He did not speak of carnal eating, yet nevertheless he still spoke positively, as to the literal Sense: They had not that great grace of Christian Humility, without which none can universally submit their Reason to Divine Authority: They could not come to God the Son, because they were not drawn by God the Father: Proud, as they were, away they went & walked no more with Jesus Christ, because this mystery was something above their small capacity; their weak imaginations could not reach it.  
See here an ancient Model of the modern Reformation! They heard the Church teach as our Saviour taught, that the Sacramental Bread is Flesh indeed, & the Sacramental Wine is Blood indeed, And so away they went with these words in their mouths, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? away they went, & walked with her no more.  
Our Saviour, who saw them thus abandon Him, and much more feelingly resented their eternal loss, than the contempt of his Voracity, did not so much as offer to call them back again, as certainly He would have done, had they been only guilty of mistaking what he meant; but turned immediately to his Apostles, and in the 67. v. said to them, Will you also go away? Whereupon Simon Peter answered him; Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe & are sure that Thou art Christ the Son of the living God: We believe, and are sure that Thou art able to make good thy words, although some people think them hard, & cannot hear them.  
What our Saviour promised in the 6. of S. john, He performed at his last supper: And 'tis no wonder that he talked of it so much before hand, because he dearly loved those whom he died for, and always had his eye upon the Legacy which he designed to leave them. The night before his death, in his last Will & Testament, He left us this holy Sacrament as a perpetual monument of his Affection. We wrangle & dispute about it, what This is? whether it is truly Bread, or truly the Body of Christ? We agree that Holy Writ shall be the judge. We find, in Holy Writ, four Copies of our Saviour's Will & Testament; in the 26. of S. Matthew, the 14. of S. Mark, the 22. of S. Luke, & the 11. of the 1. to the Corinthians. We open all of them; resolving to stand or fall by their determination. In all the Copies of his Testament, the words are plain, This is my Body: And, as soon as the words are read, They presently tell us; 'tis true, Our Saviour plainly says, This is my Body; but yet He only means, it is a sacred piece of bread, a holy figure of his body. For my part, I have ever admired, but never can sufficiently admire, in this occasion, the confidence of some men, that make such noise with Scripture; and yet, as soon as ever the book is open, tell us the Scripture says one thing, & means another, quite contrary to what it says.  
If it be said, that nothing is more usual than to give Signs the names of what they signify: I easily confess, 'tis very true; when things are certainly known to be Signs: because, Signs being only Substitutes, our thoughts never stop at them, but are presently fixed upon the things they signify; and, by the same reason that they put another thing in our minds, 'tis no wonder if they put another name in our mouths. Thus Joseph plainly answered Pharaoh's question, when he said, 
* Genes, 49.26.  The seven Kine are seven years. But when God instituted Circumcision in the 17. of Genesis, He did not say, in the 10. verse, This Circumcision is my Covenant; but, in the 11. it shall be a token of my Covenant. So, in the 12. of Exodus, when he instituted first the eating of the Paschal Lamb, from the 5. v. to the 10. it plainly appears there was something in it more than ordinary, and that it was not insignificant; so that it is no wonder we find it written in the 11. v. It is the Passeover of the Lord: Moreover, the following verses explicate the figurative sense; the 26 v. puts the question, what mean you by this service? What does it signify? and the 27. gives the answer, it is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover, that is, it signifies the Passeover. But, in our present case, 1. the Scripture does not insinuate before hand, that bread was an empty Sign of Christ's body; 2. there is nothing in Scripture that gives evidence for such interpretation of our Saviour's words, as I have showed in the first part of my Discourse.  
If any one object, that Bread and Flesh are opposite, & therefore the sense must of necessity be figurative: For a full answer to this difficulty I refer you to the 7. of S. Luke, where in the 22. v our Saviour says, the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the dead are raised. To be blind and see, to be lame and walk, to be deaf and hear, to be dead and alive, are things quite disparate and opposite, & yet our Saviour's words were evidently true in the plain literal sense. From whence we may also infer, that as these words the dead are raised cannot be literally true, unless the carcase be substantially changed into a living man; so when our Saviour says This is my Body, these words can never be true in the plain literal sense, unless the Bread be by a miracle substantially changed into his Flesh.  
To prove the literal sense, & to convince us of it, what can we wish for more than the unanimous consent of all the four Evangelists, and the subscription of S. Paul? There is not one of them that writes, This is only a Sign of my body, a mere Figure of my flesh. 'tis impossible the Sense should every where be figurative in so many several places & yet be not where explicated in the figurative sense. In other things, of less concern, we find that, what is metaphorically writ by one is explicated by another. S. Luke in his 11. ch. writes, if I in the finger of God cast out Devils: S. Matthew in the 12. ch. explains it, if I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. S. john, 6. ch. writes. Jesus the Son of Joseph, S. Luke 3. ch. explains it, Jesus being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph. Our Saviour frequently invites the thirsty to him, & promises them living water: S. john in the 7. ch. explains it, He spoke this of the spirit which they, who believed on him, should receive. But these words, which we read in all of them, are not explained by any one of them. From whence 'tis easy to infer, that all these sacred Penmen never understood our Adversaries figurative sense: They literally understood it, as we do; believed it as they understood it; & writ as they believed it.  
S. Mark 4. ch. 34. v. says of our Saviour, that when they were alone He expounded all things to his Disciples. If then our Saviour used a Figure, when he said, This is my Body, 'tis certain that when they were alone (at least) he expounded this figure to them. Perhaps the four Evangelists & the Apostle knew well enough this exposition, but forgot to write it. This will not serve the turn. Our Saviour promised them their memory should ever be assisted by his holy Spirit: In the 14. ch. of S. john; 
* v. 26.  the Holy Ghost, says he, shall bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. Perhaps they every one thought of it when they writ, but did not think it worth the writing. But if our Adversaries well consider the sixth Article of Reformation, which tells us all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture, they will scarce find room for this reply: because this exposition would have been so necessary to prevent the Idolatry which they accuse us of, & consequently necessary to Salvation. Since therefore this Interpretation never could have been forgot, if ever they had known it; Since it could not be omitted if they had remembered it; it follows clearly that this explication was never known amongst them, but only is a new invention of the modern Reformation, directly contradictory to Scripture.  
I cannot but admire when I reflect, how thick a mist men's passions and prejudices raise before their eyes. And this is undoubtedly the reason why so many able men of the reforming Party study Transubstantiation in Scripture, search with diligence, & great appearance of sincerity, yet never find it. If they were equal & impartial judges of the Texts which lie before them, they soon would see how grievously they are mistaken in the true intent & meaning of them. By the example of this instance they would judge the rest; acknowledge the injustice of the Reformation; return home joyfully to their old Mother-Church, & full of admiration of God's mercy to them 
* 1. Pet. 2.9.  show forth the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into his wonderful light, which guides us through this vale of misery to the everlasting joys of Heaven. Amen.    

A SERMON Preached before the KING AT WORCESTER. August. 24. 1687.  
Interroga Majores tuos & dicent tibi.  
Ask thy Elders, & They will tell thee.  Deut. 32.7. 
'tIs now no less than six & thirty years, Most Sacred MAJESTY, since our City of Worcester has been honoured with the Presence of our King. Our Loyalty was then sufficiently tried; and now it is abundantly rewarded. ward. Our Loyalty, which then was so well known to all the world, invited your Royal Brother to this Refuge: And we employed our best endeavours to preserve his sacred Person: But 'twas too great an Honour for us: The Almighty took it wholly to himself; and, by a surprising miracle of Providence, afterwards granted to our earnest Prayers what He before denied to our unfortunate Arms. As we have never forfeited the credit of our Loyalty, we hope your MAJESTY is well assured we shall be always ready to expose our lives & fortunes in your MAJESTY's service. It is not in the power of Subjects to give their Prince a more convincing assurance that they always will be Loyal, than that they always have been so. I only wish, with all my heart, that we had ever been as Loyal to the Church as to the State; and that we had as zealously opposed the Reformation of our Faith, as we withstood the Alteration of our Government.  
When I first appeared in this Place, I made it my business to prove, that according to principles of Natural Philosophy, the Mystery of Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason. In my second Sermon I endeavoured to show, it is so far from being contrary to Holy Writ, that no judicious Reader, who is free from prejudice, can understand Scripture without it. And, this being my third appearance where it is expected I should finish what I have begun, I now undertake to prove it is so far from being contrary to the purer faith of the first Ages, that for the first eight Centuries the Fathers universally believed it. Remember the days of old, says Moses, Consider the years of many generations; Ask thy Fathers & they will show thee, thy Elders & they will tell thee. My time is short, considering the work I have before me: But yet I hope it will not be accounted loss of time, to spend one moment on my knees, in begging the assistance of my Saviour, and desiring his Virgin-Mother with all the Blessed Spirits to accompany my prayers upon Earth with theirs in Heaven.  

FIRST PART.  
* Before I enter upon our proofs of Transubstantiation it will be worth observing, how almost all our Adversaries are mistaken, upon a groundless supposition, that if they can find expressions in the Fathers which import that the Sacrament is a type a sign a figure, They need not seek any farther; The question is already decided; The Fathers never believed the mystery of Transubstantiation. Now, I must needs conless, if we denied the Sacrament to be a type a sign or figure, we ought to stand corrected: Or, if all this were inconsistent with the mystery of Transubstantiation, we ought to own our Father's Belief was contrary to ours. But if in both these points our Adversaries are mistaken, we must beg their pardon if we still persever in our ancient Faith.  
* If they would only consider the difference betwixt the inward substance & the outward form, betwixt the infide & the outside, of the Sacrament; They would easily reconcile the different expressions which they meet with in the Father's writings. When the Fathens were intent upon the outward form, They call it a type, a sign, a figure; They say it is not his Body & Blood, but that it signifies it, represents it, & contains it.  
* S. Austin in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius, says, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner Christ's Body,.... as the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. The parity is good betwixt the outward form of bread, and Baptism, in this respect, that both are signs: Only this difference there is, the first contains what it signifies, the other does not. So in his book against Adimantus, 12. ch. he says. Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when He gave them a sign of his Body. And why should he doubt? If a man give his friend a purse of money, He does not doubt to say, This is my Money, although the Purse be only a sign of it. If a purse be empty, 'tis an empty sign: But if it be full, it than contains all that it signifies, and what it represents is truly & substantially present. Bread in the Old Law was an empty sign of Christ's Body: The outward form of Bread is still a sign of it; but not an empty sign, because it really contains the selfsame Body which it represents. I take no notice of S. Austin's words in the 3. book of his Christian Doctrine, where he says, Our Saviour 
* ch. 16.  seems to command a heinous wickedness,... therefore 'tis a figure: I take no notice of it, because He does not say it is an empty figure. He only says, our Saviour's speech is figurative in opposition to the literal sense of the Capernaites, that barbarous sense in which, indeed, it is a heinous crime to eat our Saviour's flesh.  
* I also pass over Tertullian's words, in his 4. book against Martion; 
* ch. 40.  This is my Body, that is, This figure of my Body: I pass them over because the true sense amounts to no more, than that This bread, which in the Old Law was but a figure of my Body, now in the New Law is my Body. The obscurity of this great man is well enough known to all that are acquainted with him: Nor can any, who converse with him, be ignorant that the figure Hyperbaton is often in his mouth. In the same book, ch. 11. he says, To a Parable will I open my mouth, that is, Similitude: and (in his book against Praxeas) Christ is dead, that is, Anointed This is enough to show the affected transposition of his words: And, for the sense, it may be easily conjectured by the design of his book; the principal end of which, is to show the correspondency betwixt the Old Law and the New; to which purpose it was a very pertinent observation, that the Form of Bread, in the Old Law was an empty figure of what is fulfilled in the New. In the same sense Tertullian says in his 1. book against Martion, that 
* ch. 14.  Christ by Bread represents his Body: that is, by the outward form of Bread He exhibits it substantially present. So, in his 4 book, he says, that 
* ch. 22.  God the Father represented Christ on Mount Thabor saying, This is my Son. So likewise in his book, of Prayer, he says, 
* ch. 5.  We pray for the representation (that is, the real presence) of God's Kingdom. And, again, speaking of the Day of judgement, in his book concerning the Resurrection, he says; 
* ch. 14.  it cannot be without the representation (that is, the personal presence) of all all Mankind: They who delight in reading Tertullian may find a great deal more to this effect; But this is enough to satisfy any rational man that my interpretation is not forced.  
* Facundus of Hermian speaks in the same Dialect, when in his 〈◊〉 for the defence of the Tria Capitula, He says; the Sacrament... is called his Body & Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain the mysteries of his Body & Blood. He explicates there, how signs are called by the names of what they signify: And argues, that the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption, as the outward forms of bread & wine are called the body & blood of Christ. The Argument is good: because these outward forms of bread & wine, considered in themselves, are only signs; they are not properly the body of our Lord; they are only called so, because they are types and figures of it; But, that they are not empty signs the same Author tells us, when he says in the same place, that they are called so because they contain the mysteries of his body & blood.  
* If some of you, perhaps, still think it strange that such expressions as these should be made use of frequently, by men who really believed this mystery; For your farther satisfaction you may please to reflect, that not only the Fathers of the first six Centuries, but also our most eminent Authors who have written since the Condemnation of Berengarius, & who undoubtedly held Transubstantiation, nevertheless use the very same phrase of speaking. It would be tedious to run over many instances: One, out of S. Anselm, will be enough to satisfy your curiosity. About the end of the eleventh Century when, by our English Reformers confession, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was fully settled & established, He writes thus, in his Treatise De Sacramento Altaris, That similitude of bread, which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes, considered in itself, is not the Body of our Lord.  
* Some people have such little souls, they cannot raise their thoughts above their vulgar notions; they are not much acquainted with those signs which signify things present; those signs which are not appointed to supply the defect of real presence, but only to supply the want of visible appearance: And therefore they will not allow that there are any such signs in the World. Say what you will, they mind not what you say, but tell you over & over again, that, if the outward form of the Sacrament be a sign of his Body, 'tis certain his Body is not really and truly present. Have but a little patience; and I shall quickly clear this point. My Speech and Motion are signs of Life & Soul in me: And must I believe a Sophister, if any were so silly as to tell me, Therefore I am a dead man, because it is the nature of all signs to exclude the real presence of what they signify? The form of a Serpent in Paradise was in some manner a sign of the Evil Spirit that tempted Eve; and was not this Evil Spirit really & truly present? The form of a Dove appearing at our Saviour's Baptism; & the forms of fiery tongues appearing on the day of Pentecost, represented the Holy Ghost; And will you say the Holy Ghost was never really present, neither one time nor other? The human forms which, in the old Testament, the Angels usually assumed, represented the Angels; And were those Angels never truly & substantially present? Such instances as these, I may presume, our Adversaries do not well consider: if they did, they never would conclude that the Fathers denied the mystery of Transubstantiation, because they call the outward form a type, a sign, or figure.  
* Besides this mighty difficulty, which I now have clearly satisfied, There remains one more; which is, that according to the Doctrine of the Fathers, the Substance of bread remains after Consecration. Here, I must needs confess, they charge us home: And, if they can perform what they promise, we are always ready to come over to them. But having been, so long, in full & peaceable possession of a Truth delivered to us as an ancient article of Faith, they cannot reasonably expect that we should quit our hold, before they bring clear evidence against our Title to it. Necessity obliges them to make this bold attempt. They know, if once they grant that all the Torrent of Antiquity runs clear and strong against them, they never can be able to bear up against the stream. They are sensible how plainly the Fathers speak their mind in favour of this mystery; And therefore search amongst the darkest passages of all their Writings, where they are glad to meet with any thing that makes a plausible appearance.  
* The Sum of their Objection is this; that S. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Gelasius expressly affirm, that the substance of bread remains after Consecration; and therefore it is not changed into the body of Christ.  
* This, at first sight, seems plausible enough, nor is it any wonder if it startle those who never heard of it before. And yet, if all these great Men, by their substance, meant no more than the true nature of the outward forms & sensible qualities; there is no danger of their disbelieving Transubstantiation. We believe the substance is really changed; and these Fathers were pleased to say, the substance is really the same: but yet▪ after all the noise they make with it, the Fathers and we may agree so far as to be both in the right, if we take the same word in different senses; & they by substance mean one thing, whilst we mean another. Philosophy, both old & new, distinguishes betwixt the inward substance & the outward forms of all corporeal Being's. These are the usual and familiar object of our Senses; that's an entity so subtle & so metaphysical that nothing but our Understanding can discern it. 'tis not, indeed, a Spirit; but it is no more to be discovered by our Senses, than a human Soul is in a Body. Extension, figure, colour, and its other qualities, are the Apparel which it wears; and these affect our Senses; But the naked Substance of all Bodies is perpetually hidden from them. However, although Philosophers make this distinction betwixt the inward substance & the outward forms, nevertheless the Generality of Mankind look no farther than their Senses lead them: They judge of bodies by their qualities & natural effects: By these they sensibly discern one Substance from another: And this is all they think of, when they talk of Substance. When any of the Fathers say, the Substance or nature of bread & wine remains after consecration, they only condescend so far as to accommodate their way of speaking to the vulgar phrase: And truly, what they mean, we all believe: We doubt not but all, which is vulgarly understood by substance, is the same: We doubt not but our Senses tell us truth; and that all the outward forms & qualities of bread & wine remain unalter'd: The Council of Trent declares there is no change in these; 
* Sess. 13. can. 2.  manentibus speciebus panis & vini. If therefore the Fathers use sometimes this vulgar notion of Substance, what wonder is it if sometimes they tell us, that the nature or the Substance is the same? What wonder is it, if S. Chrysostom in his epistle to Cesarius, writ thus? As before Consecration we call it Bread, but after it is no longer called Bread but the Body of our Lord, although the Nature of Bread remains in it; and it does not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ: So here the Divine Nature being joined to the Human, they both make one Son, & one Person. By the Nature of a Body we usually apprehend no more than the exterior qualities which we discover by our Senses; And when we find a change in these, we usually say the Nature changes, although the Body still remain the same. And, by the same rule, when the accidents make still the same impression upon our Senses, although the Body by a miracle be changed, we say the Nature is the same. Besides, These very words, which are produced against us, show clearly that S Chrysostom distinguishes betwixt the Nature of bread, & the Body of bread. Does not he say that although the Nature or accidents of Bread remain, yet the Body or Substance of bread does not remain; because there remains but One Body; and this one Body, if we believe him, is not the Body of bread, but the Body of Christ?  
* With as little reason they triumph because Theodoret says in his 2. Dialogue; The mystical Symbols remain in their former Substance form & figure, & may be seen & touched as before: And Gelasius, in his book De duabus in Christo naturis, says, the Substance or Nature of bread & wine does not cease.... they remain in the propriety of their Nature.  
* Theodoret does not speak of the corporeal Substance of bread by which it differs from a Spirit; but expressly names the mystical Symbols which are the outward forms & accidents of bread & wine: And Gelasius urging the same argument against the Eutychians, uses the word Substance only once, and the word Nature twice, to let us see that by the Substance of the mystical Symbols, or (as he calls them) the Sacraments which we receive, he only means the nature or the essence of the sensible Accidents.  
* And now I desire to know what wonder there is in all this? Is it any unheard of News to Men of Letters, that such words as substance, nature, essence, are promiscuously made use of, even by Philosophers? and that, by them, they mean to signify the notion of any other predicament, or any real being, as well as that of substance? S. Austin was undoubtedly a great Philosopher, & yet He calls every real Being by the name of Substance. In his Enarration upon the 68 Psalms, he says. Quod nulla substantia est, nihil omnino est: That which has no substance is nothing at all.  
* If this be true (you'll say) their argument against the Eutychians will be good for nothing. Excuse me. The Eutychians held that there was only One Nature in Christ, because they were pleased to fancy that his human nature was absorbed in the Divinity & changed into it. To prove the substantial change of human nature into the Divinity, they argued from the miraculous change of bread into the body of Christ; which argument they never would have urged, if they had not known that the Catholics of that Age believed the mystery of Transubstantiation. Theodoret and Gelasius answer, that the outward forms of bread & wine remain the same as formerly; from whence it follows evidently that, not only the accidents of human nature but also, the very subsiance of it, still remains in Christ: Because the accidents of human nature, separated from the substance of it, are neither capable of hypostatick union with God, nor of exercising the vital operations of a Man. But mang learned men who read Gelasius and Theodoret, want either skill or patience to understand them. They find these words, the substance of bread remains, and are so much transported with the joyful news of any thing that looks but like an argument against the Old Religion they have undertaken to reform; they do not well consider what the word may signify, but willingly suppose the Sense is just the same as they would have it; set their hearts at rest; and look no farther.  
* I have now sufficiently examined what the Fathers say concerning the outward form of the Sacrament; what they mean by calling it a type, a sign, or figure; & what they understand when they call it the substance or nature of bread. I now come close to the main point of the Question: What they have taught & constantly believed, during the first eight Centuries, concerning the inward substance of the Sacrament; Whether they believed it was the substance of bread & wine, or the substance of Christ's body & blood?   

SECOND PART.  
Paschasius Rathertus a French Monk, Native of Soisson in Picardy, wrote a book, in the year 831. de Corpore & Sanguine Domini, at the request of one of his Scholars, called Placidius, an Abbot, to whom he dedicated it. He makes it his business to explain & prove three points: 1. that the body & blood of Christ are truly and substantially present; 2. that the substances of bread & wine remain no longer after Consecration; 3. that the body is the very same which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the Cross, & risen from the Sepulchre. He was the more willing to write this book, because some people out of ignorance began to doubt of several truths relating to the Sacrament. This I gather from an epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard, where I find these words, Although some people are out of ignorance mistaken; nevertheless as yet no body openly contradicts this doctrine, which all the World believes & professes.  
Our Adversaries take a great deal of pains to persuade us, that Paschasius was the first broacher of this Doctrine; from him they date the first Rise of it, about the beginning of the IX. Age, although it did not take root nor was fully settled & established, till towards the end of the eleventh. They add; that this was the most likely time for the Enemy to sow his Tares, when the Christian World was lulled asleep in ignorance and superstition; that the generality of people, being quiet & secure, were ready to receive any thing that came in under a pretence of mystery in religion; but the men most eminent for piety & learning in that time made great resistance against it. This is the Account which now is generally given by our modern Writers, and particularly by the Author of a late Discourse against Transubstantiation.  
'tis easily said; and the contrary is as easily proved. Read Leo Allatius in his 3. book of the perpetual agreement betwixt East & West, and you will find Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople saying, that the bread & wine are not an image or a figure, But that they are transmuted into the body & blood of Christ. Read Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt in his Treatise De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, (you may find it in the 12. Tom, of the Spicilegium) his words are these; We believe therefore, and faithfully confess & hold, that the substance of bread & wine, by the operation of the Divine Virtue, is substantially changed into another substance, that is, Body & Blood..... The taste of bread & wine remains, & the figure; the nature of the substances being wholly changed into the body & blood of Christ. Read Theodorus 〈◊〉 Abucara, in the Bibliotheca Patrum printed at Lions, you will find that in his 22. Opuscule he says, The Holy Ghost descends, & by his Divinity changes the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ. I omit several others, who lived in the same Age with Paschasius, and all witness that the Church believed the mystery of Transubstantiation. 'tis well known that the 3. part of Paschasius' doctrine occasioned some disputes about the manner of speaking. They allowed the body to be the same in substance, but not altogether the same; because it is not in the same form; it has no corporal motion or action; in a word, it is present (in some respects) after the manner of a spirit, imperceptible to sense, all in the whole & all in every part. This Spiritual presence of his body was much urged against Paschasius to prove, the body is not absolutely the same: But nevertheless, if we do not prefer darkness before light, we cannot but see that They who wrote against the third part, did not write against the second; and they, who quarreled with his way of speaking, did not deny the mystery of Transubstantiation; as appears by the testimonies of his pretended Adversaries. Amalarius in the 24. ch of his 3. book, says We believe the simple nature of bread & wine mixed (with water) to be changed into a reasonable nature, to wit, the body & blood of Christ. Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz in the 10. ch. of his 7. book, to Theotmarus, De sacris ordinibus; Who, says he, would ever have believed that bread could have been changed into flesh, & wine into blood, unless our Saviour himself had said it, who created bread & wine & all things out of nothing? These men were also Authors of the same IX. Age; And after all these testimonies I leave you to judge whether the IX. Age did not generally believe the mystery of Transubstantiation; or whether Paschasius was the first that broached it in the Western Church.  
I do not insist upon the authority of Bertram either one way or other: but however I shall give you a short account of him, as much as may suffice to justify my letting him alone. The first question, which he proposes in the beginning, is 
* pag 1.  whether the body of Christ be done in a mystery, or in truth? that is to say, according to his own words, whether it contain some secret thing, or whether the bodily sight do outwardly behold whatsoever is done? I have not hitherto met with any Author of the IX. Age, that ever said, Our eye sees all that our faith believes: but we are to suppose that some body said so, or else that Bertram was mistaken. He answers, with a great deal of truth, that 
* p. 5.  it cannot be called a mystery wherein there is nothing covered with some veil & removed from our bodily senses. Outwardly, says he, the form of bread is set out, but inwardly a thing far differing, 
* p. 6. London-Edit. 1687.  which is not discerned to be Christ's body by the carnal senses. Afterward he compares this Sacrament with that of Baptism; and finally in the 18. page he concludes; Therefore the things that are seen, & things that are believed, are not all one. This was indeed a mighty piece of business; and one would think that eighteen pages were little enough to prove, that things visible & things invisible are not all one. However the Answer is as wise as the Question, & does not contradict the doctrine of Transubstantiation. His comparison of Baptism, though very unequal, is tolerable enough; and shows how, in all Sacraments, the inward virtue is distinguished from the outward form. But when he gins to take a ramble among 
* pag. 18.  our Fathers that were under a Cloud: when he inquires so seriously 
* pag. 19  how the grosseness of a very thick air could sanctify the people? and tells us how 
* pag. 20.  the cloud gave out the cleanness of sanctification, in respect that it contained invisibly the sanctisication of the Holy Ghost: when he makes it an article of our faith 
* pag. 24.  to believe firmly that in the Wilderness Christ made the Manna & the Water of the Rock to become his own body & blood, as truly and as effectually as now he changes the bread & wine: when he goes on, & argues that 
* pag. 26.  even as he could do the one a little before he suffered, so likewise he was able to do the other a great while before he was born: finally, when he tells us further-more, that the Sacramental bread & wine is as much turned into the body & 
* pag. 68.69.  blood of the believing people, as into the body & blood of Christ; and proves it stoutly, because where there is but one sanctification, there must needs follow the like mystery: When I consider what stuff this is, and how he has put it together; I begin to think 'tis no great matter, either what he says, or what he would say if he could speak. Several learned Men have taken pains to excuse him, & to show that all these instances were only intended to prove the difference betwixt the outward form & inward substance of the Sacrament. If this were all; I confess he might mean well; but He has expressed himself so very ill, that (for my part) I do not think him worth quarrelling for. I am very well contented to leave him as I find him, & to let our Adversaries make the best they can of him. If He pursued his notions too far, and left the Church, He was the first that ever did so, in this matter: and besides, He wandered by himself, for no body in the IX. Age followed him.  
Let us now consider the VIII. Age; And we shall see the stream of Truth run clearer, as we approach nigher the Fountain. S. John Damascen in his Orthodox Faith, 3. Book & 14. chapter, discourses thus: The Body truly joined to the Divinity is that which was born of the Virgin; not that the Body, He assumed, descends from heaven; but the bread itself & wine are changed into the Body & Blood of God: which, if you ask, How it can be done? 'tis enough for you to hear, it is done by the Holy Ghost.... Nothing says he, is more clear and certain, than that God's word is true and efficacious and omnipotent..... After a wonderful manner they are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are not two, but one & the same... Neither are the Bread & Wine a Figure of Christ's Body & Blood, but the Body itself of our Lord, accompanied with his Divinity: For our Lord himself said; This is, not a sign of my Body, but my Body; nor a sign of my Blood, but my Blood.  
Hitherto ye have heard S. john Damascen; Pray, what do ye think of him? Do ye think that No body in the VIII. Age believed the mystery of Transubstantiation? Well: but He was only one man. What say ye then, if I produce 350. more? I mean the 350. Bishops who sat in the VII. general Council, called in the 87. year of the VIII. Age.  
* The Iconoclast Heretics would not allow any relative worship; and therefore refused all worship of any images but the Eucharist. All other images of Christ's Humanity, subsisting by themselves, were (as they fancied) false images, and favoured the Heresy of Nestorius who gave his Humanity a proper subsistence by itself: But the outward form of the Sacrament not being a thing subsistent by itself, but supported by the invisible substance & Person of Christ, was a true image and might not only be retained but adored. So clear it is, that the Iconoclasts did not deny Transubstantiation; but, because they believed it, therefore they allowed the adoration of the Eucharist. They say, indeed, the Sacramental bread must not be figured in the shape of a human body, for fear of introducing Idolatry; but they only feared the introducing of other Image-worship, given to other pictures of our Saviour which do not really contain Him. However, they did not speak their mind so plain, but that the Council doubted of their meaning: &, supposing that by the word image they understood an empty sign, the Bishops quarreled with the seeming contradiction of their terms, calling the Eucharist, sometimes an Image, sometimes his Body: And argued against them that if it be an empty image, it cannot be this Divine Body.  
Read the VI Action, and you will find the Judgement of the whole Council delivered plainly in these words: None of the Trumpet's of the Holy Ghost, the holy Apostles and our illustrious Fathers, did ever call our unbloody Sacrifice... an image of his Body. Neither did they learn of our Lord, so to say & confess... He did not say, Take & eat the image of my Body.... The bread & wine, before they are sanctified, are called Types; but after their sanctification they are properly called the Body & Blood of Christ: They are so, & are believed to be so. These are the words of 350. Bishops, who all with one voice declare, They firmly believe that, what was bread before, is after consecration properly Christ's body, & not only an image of it: And this is all we understand by Transubstantiation.  
So much for the VIII. Age. I come now to the 3. next Ages, the V the VI and VII. And because the Reforming Party is willing to believe S. Austin favours them, we will begin with S. Austin. I am not ignorant that in his Writings upon the Gospel of S. John. he copiously dilates upon the figurative sense; and that in his 3. book De Doctrinâ Christianâ, he says that the Sacrament is a figure of our Lord's Passion, which when we receive, we ought to lay up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. But on the other side, I know, that as when S. Austin says, in his 9 Tract upon S. John, that the conversion of water into wine was a figure of the spiritual conversion of the Law into the Gospel, He does not deny the substantial change of water into wine; so when he says, the Sacrament is a figure of Christ's Passion, He does not deny Transubstantiation. In the 9 ch. of his 2. book, Contra Adu. Legis & Prophetarum, he says, that with faithful hearts & mouths we receive the Mediator of God & men Christ Jesus, giving us his flesh to eat, & his Blood to drink; although it seems more horrible, to eat man's flesh, than to kill it, or to drink man's blood, than to shed it. In this place, he first distinguishes two ways of eating; oral, and spiritua; & then asserts them both. And I could wish they would take a little notice of this place, who so much please themselves with popular declamations against the pretended barbarousness of this Mystery. In his Comments upon the 33. Psalms, He makes no difficulty of admitting all the real consequences of this mystery, which to our Adversaries seem absurd & impossible; as for example; that Christ's Body should be at the same time in two places, that he should hold himself in his own hand, give himself to his Disciples, keep himself to himself, & the like. First he moves the difficulty: Who is carried in his own hands? In another's hands one may be carried; No man is carried in his own. Afterwards he answers; Christ was carried in his own hands; when commending to them his own Body, He said, This is my Body; For he carried that Body in his own hands. I will only mention one more testimony of this Father; but so plain a one, that 'tis impossible any man in his wits should have uttered if he had not believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. In his Comments upon the 98. Psalms; Christ, says he, took flesh of the flesh of Mary; in this flesh he walked here with us; this flesh he gave us to eat, that we may be saved: No body eats this flesh, but first Adores it. Observe his words: He plainly speaks of oral eating; he does not mean only believing: if he did, he would not say, we always adore before we eat; because 'tis evident, we do not adore before we believe. Pray, what is this we adore before we eat? is it only apiece of bread, a wafer, a sacred figure of Christ's body? Surely you will not make S. Austin, & all the Christians of his time. Idolaters? Adore a thing which they believed was not their God? No, no: They believed that although before the words of Consecration it was only a piece of bread, yet after Consecration it was by God's Omnipotence substantially changed into the Body of Christ, & so became their God as well as their Food; And therefore the Christians of that Age adored the Sacrament before they durst approach to eat it; & S. Austin was so zealous for this Adoration, that he says in the same place, It is not only lawful to adore, but a Sin not to adore.  
The Dispute that was betwixt Nestorius & S Cyril of Alexandria, plainly shows that in those times this mystery was universally believed. Nestorius' fancied there were two persons in Christ, the one true God, the other true Man, and pretended to prove that the Flesh of Christ and his Divinity are not united in one Person. The Scripture plainly told him that we eat the Flesh of Christ; But, said he, We do not eat the Divinity; Therefore the Flesh & the Divinity are not united in one Person. If S. Cyril had believed that what we eat with our mouths is mere bread, He might easily have answered; That this argument only proves, the nature of bread & the Divine nature are not united in one Person. But, because he believed that the Sacrament which seems mere bread, is not any longer bread, but the true substance of Christ's Body; therefore he answered that although we do not eat the Divine Nature, yet the holy Flesh of Christ is not common Flesh.... 'tis the proper Body of the Word, which gives life to all things. This Argument and Answer you may read in his Apology for his anathemas. The Catholics & the Nestorians both agreed in the common belief, that the Sacrament is not bread, but the Flesh of Christ: Otherwise Nestorius had been the most silly Disputant that ever lived, & S. Cyril had been quite infatuated that did not give another Answer. Nestorius' argued: We do not eat the Divinity; Therefore the Flesh is not united to the Divine Person. S. Cyril answered: The Flesh, which we eat, giveth life; therefore 'tis united to the Divine Person; without which it profiteth nothing, according to our Saviour's words in the sixth chapter of S. John.  
Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus in his book De duabus in Christo Naturis, proves against the Eutychians that there are two Natures in Christ; Because in the Sacrament there are two natures, to wit, the visible nature of the outward forms, and the invisible nature of Christ's substance: And explicating how this is performed, he says; The Bread & Wine are changed, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, into the Divine substance. The Accidents of bread & wine remain according to Gelasius, in the propriety of their Nature; but yet the bread & wine are changed into the Divine Substance. Think a little of this; and tell me, what it is, if it be not Transubstantiation.  
Theodoret in his first Dialogue, taking notice how Jacob in the 49. of Genesis, gave our Saviour's Blood the name of Wine, and our Saviour in the Gospel gave Wine the name of his Blood, He says, The reason is manifest; because he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries, not to mind the Nature of the things which are seen; but, by the change of names, believe the change which is made by grace. In the second Dialogue, he says of the Sacramental bread & wine: They are understood to be, what they are made to be; and are believed to be such; and are Adored, because they are the same which we believe them to be. In the first Dialogue, he says, the Sacramental bread is changed; In the second, he says, it is adored. What change is this which makes the Sacramental bread deserve to be adored? Consider it a while, and you will find it nothing else but Transubstantiation.  
I should be tedious, if I undertook to lay before you all the Testimonies of the Fathers who, in these three Ages, have writ upon this subject. These which I have produced already, are beyond exception: They declare the Faith of the Ages they lived in; They say the Sacramental bread is changed into the Substance of Christ; They say, No body eats it, but first adores it; They say it is a Sin not to adore it: All this They say, & this is all we understand by Transubstantiation.  
I come now to the first four Centuries, and put the Question to those Fathers who had the happiness to flourish in the best & purest times of Christianity; Whether the inward Substance of the Sacrament be bread & wine, or whether it be the Body & Blood of Christ? If it be true, that the inward Substance of the Sacrament is really the Body or Flesh of Christ, it follows evidently that it is no longer Bread: And, whether it be true, or no, is the Question which the Fathers of the first four Ages are to answer.  
S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans, speaking of this bread of God, says it is the Flesh of Jesus Christ.  
S. Justin martyr, in his Apology to Antoninus Pius, says, We are taught that it is the Body & Blood of Jesus Incarnate.  
S. Ireneus in his fifth book against heresies, ch 11. speaking of the bread & wine, says that by the word of God they are made the Eucharist which is the Body & Blood of Christ.  
Origen in his 7. homily upon the 6. of Numbers, says Then in a figure, Manna was their meat; but now, in reality, the Flesh of God the Word is our true meat.  
Optatus, in his 6. book against Parmenian, gives the Sacrament no other name: What is the Altar? (says he) but the seat of Christ's Body & Blood? He repeats it over & over again; And, if all the while he meant only a figure, 'tis strange he should never call it by the right name.  
S. Ephrem the Deacon, in his book, De Naturâ Dei curiosè non scrutandâ; says, Our Saviour has given us his Body & Blood; and that this gift of his exceeds all admiration, all expression, all understanding: Which he would never have said, if he had thought it had been but a figure.  
To all these proofs, & several more which I omit, the Author of a late Dialogue in which the mysteries of Trinity & Transubstantiation are compared, returns this answer: that the Reformers themselves general say the Eucharist is the Body of Christ; And yet they all deny the mystery of Transubstantiation.  
This is soon said; & amounts to no more than this: That the Reformers say as we do, & think otherwise; They say, it is his body; & they think, it is not. But you must give me leave to tell you, that although their words look one way & their thoughts another; I have no reason to suspect this fallacy of speech in the good Fathers of the first four Centuries. What they received, in plain terms, from our Saviour & his Apostles, They delivered with the same sincerity & candour to succeeding Ages. Hear what S. Hilary of Poitiers tells you, in his 8. book De Trinitate, where taking notice of our Saviour's words in the 6. ch. of S. John, He says, There is no place lest for doubting of the Truth of his Body & Blood; for now, by our Lord's Profession, & our Faith, 'tis truly his Body, & truly his Blood. Hear S. Epiphanius in his Ancorat; where, to oppose the Allegorical Sense of Origen in the Creation of Paradise, He alleges several places out of Scripture; which, though they are hard to understand, are universally believed in the plain literal sense. Amongst the rest he produces the example of the Eucharist, & thus discourses upon it: We see it is not equal, nor like the Body of Christ; & yet our Saviour would pronounce, This is my Body; Nor is there any one who does not believe these words of his: For he, who does not believe them to be true, falls absolutely from the state of Grace & of Salvation. What think ye of this? Do ye think these great Men did not understand the faith of the Age they lived in? Do ye think they were not able to inform the World, concerning the Faith of former Ages, much better than our late Reformers, who came into the World above a thousand years after them? They tell us, The literal Sense is matter of Faith; & that they who do not believe it are neither in the State of Grace, nor of Salvation.  
If it be said, that any Real Presence of Christ's Body, or the Impanation of his Person, is enough: What need is there of Transubstantiation to verify the literal Sense? The Answer is obvious & clear. 1. Our Saviour did not say, My Body is here, but This is my Body: And although any real presence is enough to make good the former Assertion, yet nothing less than a Substantial change can verify the later. 2. Although by virtue of an hypostatick union, it may be as true to say, This bread is Christ, as to say, This Man is God; yet still 'twill be as false to say, This Bread is the Body of Christ, as to say, This Humanity is the Divinity. Besides, it falls out a little unluckily that this Invention, only serves to pull down the old Transubstantiation, & to set up a new one; by changing the subsistence of bread, into the divine Subsistence, the Second Person of the B. Trinity.  
It cannot be literally verified that This Bread (or This thing which was bread) is the Flesh of Christ; unless the bread be changed into his flesh; that is, cease to be bread, and begin to be his flesh: And this is the substantial change which we call Transubstantiation. There are two sorts of changes: one accidental, as when cold water is made warm; another substantial, as when our Saviour changed water into wine. An accidental change may warm the water; but only a substantial change can make it wine. In the same manner, an accidental change may make bread a Sacrament, but nothing less than a substantial change can make it the Flesh or Body of Christ.  
* The Father's often compare these changes, but never confound the one with the other. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his 1. Mystagogick Catechise, observes that, as Bread, by invocation of the Trinity, is made the Body of Christ; so meats offered to Devils are made impure by invocation of them. In his 3. Catechise, he says; As bread, after the invocation, is the Body of Christ, so the Ointment after consecration is the Chrism of Christ. S. Ambrose in his 4. book De Sacramentis, ch. 4. proves that Christ can effect great changes above nature, because by his grace We are new Creatures in Him. But yet the Fathers do not say, These changes are equal to That by which Bread is made the Body of Christ. These Assertions, This meat is impure, This ointment is the Chrism of Christ, This man is a new creature in Christ; All This is evidently verified in the plain literal Sense by a mere accidental change: But when the Fathers say, This bread is the Flesh of Christ, Nothing but a substantial change can verify the plain Sense of the Letter; Nothing can make it literally true but Transubstantiation.  
Bread is one Body, one corporeal Substance: The Flesh of Christ is another Body, another corporeal Substance. Change that into this; You change one Body into another, one Substance into another; And then, I pray, What change is this, if it be not Substantial? What is it, if it be not Transubstantiation? 'tis clear, that when the Fathers of the first four Ages speak of the wonderful change made in the Sacrament, they speak of the change of Bread into the Flesh or Body of Christ; They speak not, of an Accidental change, but a Substantial one, which now the Church calls Transubstantiation: And therefore I have nothing more to do but cite the Father's words, & so conclude.  
S. Gaudentius is his 2. Tract upon Exodus, says, He, the Creator & Lord of Nature, who produces bread out of the earth, produces also his own proper body out of bread, because he can do it, & promised to do it: And He who produced wine out of water, produceth also his blood out of wine.... For when he gave the consecrated bread & wine to his disciples, He said; This is my Body, This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believed; Truth cannot tell a lie.  
S. Chrysostom in his 83. homily upon S. Matthew, has these excellent words; Let us every where believe God Almighty; nor contradict him, although what He says seem contrary to our Reason and our Eyes..... His word cannot deceive us; Our Sense is easily deceived: That never errs. This often is mistaken. Since therefore He says, This is my Body; Let us be persuaded of it, & believe it.... These are not the works of human power. He who did these things at his last supper, He it is who now performs them. We only are his Ministers; 'tis He that Sanctifies, He that Transmutes the bread & wine into his Body & Blood. So that, as the same Saint says in his 25. homily upon the 1. to the Corinthians, That, which is in the Chalice, is that which flowed from his side, & that we are partakers of.  
S. Ambrose in his book De his qui mysteriis initiantur; ch. 9 Perhaps you'll say, says he, I see quite another thing: How do you assure me that I receive the Body of Christ? And this is that which remains for us to prove. How great, says he, are the examples which we use to show, that it is not the thing which Nature formed, but the thing which the Blessing has consecrated; and that the Blessing has greater force than Nature; because, by the Blessing, even the Nature itself is changed. Afterwards He instances in the change of rods into Serpents, and of water into blood; and thus pursues his discourse. If, says he, the word of Elias was powerful enough to command fire down from Heaven, shall not the word of Christ be able to change the Nature of the Elements? You have read, of the whole Creation; He said, & they were made, He commanded, & they were created: The Word therefore of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which was not; cannot it change those things which are, into what they were not?  
S. Gregory Nyssen in his Catechistical Discourse, ch. 37. professes the same faith: I do believe, says he, that by the word of God, the Sanctified bread is transmuted into the Body of God the Word... Not that by mediation of nourishment it becomes the body of the Word; but that immediately by the Word it is transmuted into his body, by these words, This is my Body.... the Nature of the things, which appear, being transelemented, that is, transubstantiated, into it.  
S. Cyril Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his 4. Mystagogick Catechise, discourses thus: Do not consider it as mere bread & wine; for now it is the Body & Blood of Christ according to our Lord's own words. Although your Sense suggest otherwise, let your faith confirm you, that you may not judge the thing by the Taste.... and a little after, he goes on; knowing, says he, & holding for certain, that the bread which we see, is not bread, although it taste like bread; & the wine which we see, is not wine, although it taste like wine. S. Hierome in his Catalogue, & Theodoret in his 2. Dialogue, are witnesses that S. Cyril was the Author of this work. And now I appeal to the judgement of my Auditory, whether I may not venture to defy any Catholic of this present Age, to express in plainer terms our Faith of Transubstantiation.  
* However, 'tis very strange, (you'll say) if this were the faith of the first Ages, that None of the Heathens, nor so much as Julian the Apostate, should take notice of it. This, if we believe a late Author, is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations, that no such doctrine was then believed.  
* As for Julian the Apostate; Of three books, which he wrote, we have but one, & that imperfect. Had he objected it, 'tis certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have taken notice of it in his Answer: So cautious he is in speaking, even of Baptism, that he passes it over in these terms; I should say many more things.... if I did not fear the ears of the profane. For commonly they laugh at things they cannot understand.  
* As for the Heathens, 'tis sufficient to reflect what care was taken by the primitive Christians to hid the mysteries of our Religion, & to keep our books out of the hands of Infidels. This privacy of ours made Celsus call our Doctrine Clancular: and Origen, in his first book against him, answers that it is proper, not only to Christian Doctrine, but also to Philosophy, to have some things in it, which are not communicated to every one. Tertullian, in his 4. book, Ad Uxorem, ch. 5 for this reason, would not allow Christian women to marry Pagan husbands: will not your Husband, says he, know what you taste in Secret, before you eat of any other meat? And S. Basil in his book Concerning the Holy Ghost, ch. 27. says, that The Apostles & Fathers in the beginning of the Church, by privacy & silence preserved the dignity of their Mysteries.  
* But, because my Author thinks this Demonstration worth a Thousand, I am the more willing to answer him in his own words, that though I have untied the knot, I could with more ease have cut it. For since 'tis plain & evident from all the Records of the first eight Centuries, that Transubstantiation always was believed, it is the wildest, and the most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain experience & matter of Fact. This is just like Zeno's Demonstration against Motion, when Diogenes walked before his eyes. A man may demonstrate till his head & heart ache, before he shall ever be able to prove, that which certainly was, never to have been. All the Reason in the World is too weak to Cope with so tough & obstinate a difficulty.  
I have now performed my promise. I have in three Sermons proved; 1. that Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason; 2. that it follows clearly from the plainest words in Scripture; 3. that it has been the perpetual faith of the Catholic Church, not only since Paschasius, but ever since the first foundation of Christian Religion. And now I not only beg of you, but earnestly conjure you by all that aught to be most dear to you, by all your desires & expectations of eternal Happiness, to consider seriously & leisurely three fundamental principles of Christianity.  
1. That without Faith 'tis impossible to please God. They are the words of S. Paul to the Hebrews, ch. 11. v. 16.  
2. That there is but one Body, one Spirit,... one Lord, one Faith. They are the words of the same Apostle to the Ephesians, ch. 4. v. 4. & 5.  
3. That we ought to follow the Direction of this one Lord, to find out this one Faith. This Direction is written in the Prophet Jeremy, ch 6. v. 16. Thus says the Lord: stand in the ways & see; And ask for the Old Paths, where is the good Way, & walk therein; and you shall find rest for your souls.  
'tis natural for men to please themselves with thinking how much they are wiser than their Predecessors. Nothing is more agreeable to Man's proud inclinations, than to be always finding faults & giving magisterial directions for the mending of them: And this is that which makes the very Name of Reformation pleasing & delightful. To give it its due; Reforming is a pretty Thing, if it were well applied. If every Man would make it his chief business to reform himself; O! what a Happy Reformation should we live to see! But this alas, is much the smallest part of all our Business. There is no Vanity, no Pleasure, in Reforming of ourselves: We only gain a Victory where we desire it not; & only triumph over our own faults. A proud man would as willingly sit out, as play at such small game as this: All his delight is to reform his Neighbours. And here, I must confess, if Men were only a little overbusy in reforming of their neighbour's Manners, the Folly of their Pride were in some measure tolerable. But when our insolence attempts the Reformation of their Faith, & of that Church to which Divine as well as Human Laws require Obedience and Submission; the specious Name & popular Pretence will never sanctify the Crime. If they who, in the last Age, undertook the Reformation of our Church, were known to be infallible; some grains of blind Obedience might be easily allowed. But since they may perhaps be grievously mistaken, it very much behoves you to consider it. 'tis a common saying; if a man cheat me once, 'tis his fault; but if he cheat me twice, 'tis mine. 'tis not the first time that a considerable Party in the Catholic Church has separated from the whole, upon these plausible pretences of Reformation, to correct Abuses, Innovations, & Errors. Did not the Arians, thirteen hundred years since, begin to separate upon this popular pretence? Did not they, in the same manner, amuse their Proselytes with plausible stories, of errors, innovations, and abuses, crept into the Church? Did not they make as great a noise against the Consubstantiality of God the Son? complain as much of Spiritual Tyranny? inveigh as much against the Council of Nice for making, introducing, and imposing, a new, unheard of, Article of Faith: quite contrary to the belief of three preceding Ages, & plainly opposite to Holy Writ? All This, you know, was false: You know that, though the word was new, the faith was old & plainly proved by Scripture: And yet these popular noises which then the Arians buzzed into the people's ears, amused them so. They never entertained the least suspicion of their being cheated. Had our Reformers been the first, & you had been deceived, The fault had then been theirs. But, since the same trick has been played so often in the Church, if now you are deceived, the fault is yours. I have laid before your eyes, this day, a prospect of the eight first Ages. They accuse the Catholic Church of making a new Article of Faith: And, by the most Authentic Records of Antiquity, it has been plainly proved that they themselves are guilty of unmaking an old Article of Faith, as ancient as Christ & his Apostles. Remember the days of old; Consider the years of many generations; Ask thy Father, & he will show thee; thy Elders, and They will tell thee. Stand in in the ways, & see; and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, & walk therein: There is no other Way which can conduct you safely to the Joys of Heaven; which I wish you all, in the Name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, Amen. 
* When this Sermon was preached before his Majesty, several paragraphs (which are all marks with a *) were omitted, for brevity sake; but are here printed, as they were found in the Author's papers.     

A SERMON Preached before their MAJESTIES AT WHITEHALL. April 23. 1688.  
Printed by his Majesty's Order.  
Sine me nihil potestis facere.  
Without me you can do nothing.  john. 15.5. 
THe principal difference betwixt the daring Boldness of a Heathen & the true Valour of a Christian, Sacred MAJESTY'S, consists in this; The first is grounded in Pride, the second in Humility: The first gins from a vain Imagination of our own Sufficiency, as if we were able to do all things; The second from a true Idea of our natural Weakness who are able to do nothing of ourselves. This was the reason why our Saviour Jesus Christ instructing his Apostles, those great Hero's of the Church, was pleased to settle this foundation for the superstructure of their great & glorious Actions, Without me you can do nothing. That they might better understand it, He compared them to the branches of a Vine, which being separated from the Root immediately fade & whither without bringing fruit. I am the Vine, you are the Branches; Without me you are fruitless; Without Humility all that seems great & glorious is but a splendid Bubble, a mere empty Nothing.  
All this, you'll say, is very true: Humi'ity is never out of Season. But why so much of it in this Day's Gospel? Why is it now in Season, more than any other time? The Reason is; Because no Virtue is so apt to puff us up with Pride, as Fortitude. A Hero, among men, is too often like Lucifer, among the Angels. From the Meridian of his aspiring height, if he look down, 'tis with Contempt, if upward, 'tis with Emulation of being like the Highest. No wonder, whilst he lives and flourishes, if he desires to be like God; For, even when he is dead, Posterity is apt to make him so. Hence 'tis, the Hero's of Antiquity have peopled an imaginary Heaven with so many Deities, and Mankind was so ignorantly Superstitious as to offer Sacrifices to them. Had we not been instructed better by the Word of God, and particularly by the Gospel of this Day; Our Nation, for aught I know, might have been guilty of the same extravagance: S. George might then, perhaps, have been a God among us. But since all Catholics, are well acquainted with this great & fundamental Truth, contained in the words of my Text; Without Christ all the Apostles, all the Saints in Heaven, can do Nothing; The Knowledge of this Truth has dashed the hopes of Hell; the Gates of it can never prevail against us; We cannot, if we do not quite renounce our Faith, We cannot be in danger of so gross Idolatry. My first design, in this Discourse, is to maintain the Honour which redounds upon S. George from Solemnity we celebrate: My second is, to show the obligation incumbent upon all, & particularly those of his Profession, to follow his Example. That I may have success in both, I shall endeavour to obtain the assistance of my Saviour, addressing my humble prayers to Him without whom we are able to do Nothing.  

FIRST PART.  
From a deep Sense of this important Truth, which is the first foundation of Christian Humility, the Catholic Church has ever been persuaded that it is her Duty to appoint the Festivals of Saints, for these two reasons: 1. to offer up our humble Thanks to God, for all the signal instances of his great Power & Mercy, all the Favours He so graciously bestowed upon his Saints, who could do nothing of themselves: 2. to offer up our humble Prayers to God, that since we also are not able to do any thing without him, He may please to help us with proportionable Graces, such as may enable us to follow their Example. Humble Thanksgiving, Humble Prayer, are the Duties of this Day-In the performance of the first, we raise our thoughts to Heaven, and contemplating this great Saint before the Throne of God (where he acknowledges, & renders Thanks for, all the miracles of Grace, which raised him to so high a Station of Glory there) we fall devoutly down upon our knees, with admiration of God's great Mercy, & Thanksgiving for the powerful assistance which appeared so signally in him who of himself was able to do Nothing. In the second, we look down upon ourselves, and conscious of our Frailty we begin to Pray with all Humility, that since his Goodness has been heretofore so great, He may continue it to us: And, at the same time, this great Saint, remembering the danger he has escaped, compassionates the danger we are in, & humbly Prays that since the same Redeemer died for him and us, the selfsame helps which carried on the work of his Salvation may be employed in ours, Having thus fairly stated & divided the whole Duty of the Day, I shall proceed to justify the Honour which from hence redounds upon the Saint whose Feast we celebrate.  
I need not tell you, that if any Saint deserve a Festival in honour of his memory, S. George may very well expect it from us more than any other Nation. All Christendom has been ambitious of his Patronage; and almost every Part been at a holy strife with one another which should honour him most. In Portugal they look upon him as the Soldiers Patron: In Germany we find a Military Order dedicated to him: In Italy we have seen the great decay of the Italian Soldiery recovered by S. George's Regiment. In Asia the Georgians, which way soever they employ their forces, carry with them a fair Banner with the Picture of S. George upon it. In the Armenian Churches they religiously observe his Feast. Among the Greeks they keep the same Solemnity; And they who travel in those parts can hardly find two Churches in a Town whereof one is not dedicated to S George. Thus have all Countries studied to outvie each other in the Honour of this Saint. But as the Genius of this Nation suits more than any with his proper Character, We bid the fairest for his Patronage. What Saint more proper to be Patron of a Warlike Nation, than a Warlike Saint? A Nation whose Valour has been always envied & admired by all the World, what could could they want to make them Saints as well as Soldiers, but the Patronage & great Example of S. George, a Soldier & a Saint?  
But yet, I know not how it comes to pass, there are a certain sort of people in the World so superstitiously over-jealous of God's Honour & so scrupulous in misinterpreting their Duty to Him, that they dare not upon any terms allow the least proportion of Honour to a Saint, for fear of giving God too little, & the Saint too much. I do not pretend to enter now into the Lists of Disputation; but only to present you some few obvious reflections, relating to the main Dispute, which may contribute something towards the removal of these groundless fears & scandalous misapprehensions.  
In the first place; If we think as humbly and as meanly of the Saint, as he does of himself, We cannot therefore be accounted guilty of Idolatry: The Saint is then no more our Idol than he is his own. You cannot imagine that the Saints in Heaven idolise themselves: If therefore we esteem the Saints no more than they esteem themselves; There is no danger (upon this account) of honouring them too much. The Saints in Heaven are more humble now than ever. 'tis true; They see God face to face; They see in him all they desire to see: But yet this Knowledge does not puff them up with Pride, because they see in Him that He is All, & they are Nothing. They only believed it upon Earth; but now they plainly see it. S. Paul is now persuaded more than ever, that 
* Gel. 6.3.  if a man think himself to be Something, when he is Nothing, he deceives himself. All the Apostles plainly see the Evidence of what our Saviour once taught them; without me you are able to do nothing. S George himself is now convinced, more sensibly than ever, of the Prophet's Doctrine; 
* jerem. 9.23.  Let not the Mighty man glory in his Might; Let not the daring Hero glory in his Courage; Let him rather humble himself so much the more in presence of his God, who made him Great. They All annihilate themselves in presence of their God, 
* job. 26.11.  The Pillars of Heaven tremble in his sight; They tremble, not so much with fear, as with an awful & profound Humility; They 
* Apos. 4.10.  cast down their Crowns before the Throne; & All at once acknowledge they are Nothing of themselves. Pause here one moment, & reflect how little the greatest Saints esteem themselves: Reflect again; We value them no more than this; And than you will ingenuously. confess, We do not value them too much.  
In the second place; if by our Festival Thanksgiving to their God & ours, We only honour them as they honour us; that is to say, as Branches of the selfsame Vine without which they, as well as we, are able to do nothing; Then, I suppose, we may conclude, We do not honour them above their merit. And, if we well examine the Design of these Solemnities; if we consider nothing on the one side, but the Honour which accrues to them, because we bear them company in giving Thanks; and, on the other side, the Honour which redounds upon us by their gracious return of the like Kindness, their espousing of our Cause, their joining of their interest with ours; We shall find that, barely by our Festival Thanksgiving-Days, we only honour them as we are honoured by them. Although we celebrate this Day the Sacrifice of Mass in memory & honour of S George, 
* Council of Trent. sess. 22. chap. 3.  we offer not the Sacrifice to him, but to God alone, who crowned him with immortal Glory; offering our humble Thanks to God both for his Victory & his Eternal Triumph. By our Thanksgiving we direct the Sacrifice no more to this great Saint, than to your Sacred MAJESTY'S; for in the selfsame Sacrifice we offer our most hearty thanks to the same God for the inestimable Blessing of your Sacred MAJESTY'S Coronation upon Earth, the Annual Solemnity of which returns this Day, with that of S. George's Coronation in Heaven. We join our Thanks with his; He joins his Prayers with ours. If it be such an Honour to this great & glorious Saint, that we poor Sinners bear him Company, attend, & wait upon him to the Throne of Grace, to offer up our Thanks with his: Consider well, and tell me whether or no, it be not a great Honour to us miserable Sinners, that this great & glorious Saint appears before us, introduces us, presents us to our God & his, & offers up his Prayer, his Petition, his Address with ours? Can you imagine a more honourable Testimony of our Excellency, than that the Blessed Saints in Heaven, notwithstanding all their glorious advantages above poor Sinners, nevertheless esteem so much, & set so great a value on, God's Image in us, as to offer up their humble Supplications for us, and to interpose with such profound Humility betwixt our angry God & us, as if in Heaven they so highly prised us, as to solemnise Humiliation-Days in favour of us?  
This, I confess, appears to me enough to counterbalance all our Holy-Day-Thanksgivings upon Earth. But I have yet more weight to put into the Scale, which will not fail to bear it down. If it be such an Honour, to the Saints above, that Sinners here below keep Holy Days to celebrate their Victories with marks of joy & thanks; surely we must allow that 'tis no little Honour to repentant Sinners, that the Angels and Saints in Heaven celebrate, with jubilation and thanksgiving, all the Victories of Grace by which we overcome our Enemies on Earth. I do not say, They keep our Holy Days; because all such expressions, transferred from Earth to Heaven, lose their sense, and we are always at a loss for words, when ever we pretend to talk of things so far above us: But yet I am inclined to think that all those Days, in which a Sinner is converted, are Thanksgiving-Days in Heaven: 
* Luke. 15.7. & 10.  There is joy in Heaven, There is Joy in presence of the Angels & Saints of God, over one Sinner that repenteth. Consider this, and you will easily conclude that we receive great honour, whilst we give it; and that we are ungrateful, if we think we give too much.  
In the third, & last place; if the Honour we allow to Saints be of the selfsame kind with what we do to one another. We cannot then be reasonably scandalised at the excess; we cannot, surely, be so vain as to imagine that a Saint in Heaven is not as deserving as a Sinner upon Earth. We daily pray to one another, as we pray to them: The Honour is no more Divine when we desire the Prayers of a Saint, than when we beg the Prayers of a Sinner: We injure Christ no more when we demand their intercession there, than when we ask the intercession of our Neighbours here: The Mediatorship of Christ is still the same, whether the Prayers of our Friends be interposed on this side, or on t'other side of Heaven.  
I cannot but reflect, whilst I am talking thus, it may perhaps appear a little strange, that I employ my time to show how little honour we allow our Saint, when many people are in expectation of a Panegyric to persuade them that they cannot honour him too much. But 'tis enough for me if I have done him justice. I am sure our Saint desires no more than he deserves; And I have said enough to prove that he deserves as much as we allow him. By our desiring of his intercession we do him no more honour than we do to one another. By our Thanksgiving for his Happiness, we only are so grateful, as to honour God in him, who honours God in us. By our Consideration of his Merit, we conceive as humble an Idea of him, as our Saint does of himself; and are, in that respect, as innocent as he.  
O! what a Joy it is to a dejected Sinner, that S. George himself was once a Man infirm & frail as well as we; & that the Difference which now we so admire betwixt him & ourselves, is not in any Excellency he can boast of, but a pure effect of God's great Mercy to him. 'tis true here, what S Bernard says upon the like occasion; This Man was once like us; framed of the same clay, cast in the same mould, and subject to the same infirmities of Flesh & Blood: We have reason to rejoice, & to be ashamed: rejoice that He is gone before us, & be ashamed that, though we may, we will not follow his Example; Which is an Obligation incumbent upon All, & particularly those of his Profession, as I shall show you in the second part of my Discourse.   

SECOND PART.  
As Nothing is more difficult than for a man to be a Soldier and a Saint, So there is Nothing which our God appears more zealously concerned for, than the Reputation of so great a Work; Nothing of which He is more jealous, than least the admiring World, whose eyes are dazzled with the splendour of Heroic Actions, may rob Him of the Honour, & assume it to themselves. He will not allow the Branch 'to glory in the Fruit it bears; because it cannot bear fruit of itself: Divide it from the Vine; it withers without Fruit, Men gather it, make fire, & burn it.  
But, though the Branch be fruitless when 'tis separated from the Root, Yet nevertheless as long as it remains united to the Vine it flourishes & fructifies: 
* john. 15.5.  He who abides in me, brings forth much Fruit 
* 1. john. ch. 5. v. 4.  This is the Victory, says the Apostle, by which we overcome the World, Our Faith (I mean Our Faith in this our Saviour's Doctrine) that though without Him We are able to do nothing, Yet with his help we may be able to do all things: 
* john. 15.7.  If you abide in me, if you place all your trust, your hope, & confidence in me, ask what you will, it shall be done. A Diffidence in our own strength, A loving Confidence in God, is so agreeable, it charms him so, He in a manner lends us his Omnipotence, and by his Grace enables us to conquer all things.  
S. Paul, of all men living, had the least opinion of his own sufficiency; He confessed he had not, of himself, the power to think so much as one good thought; And yet he doubted not but he was able to do all things by the Strength of Grace; 
* Psal. 4.13.  I can do all things, says he, through Christ who strengthens me. Although he was not present when our Saviour encouraged his Apostles, when He carefully forewarned them of the dangerous Adventures they were like to meet with, when He told them that although their Enemies were strong yet He was infinitely stronger; Although S. Paul was absent when our Saviour gave them this Encouragement, he was as much assured of his Protection, as if he had been present, & had heard Him say, 
* john, ch. 16. v. 33.  Take Courage, I have overcome the World.  
Nothing could be more seasonable, than this Comsort, to a Soldier, who values above all things the Security of his Salvation, & desires to be a Saint. A Soldier & a Saint are things so hard to reconcile, that He who has the Courage to encounter any Death, & look it in the face as boldly as S. George himself, has seldom Courage to attempt the following of his Example, but concludes, that in so dangerous a state of Life, 'tis morally impossible to be a Saint.  
'tis not that Sober men are scrupulous upon the Quality of that Profession; or that they think the State of life unlawful. They know that when S. John the Baptist preached Repentance to the People, & when the Soldiers came among the rest to learn their Duty, He did not bid them throw away their Arms; he did not tell them their Vocation was criminal, he did not say that there was no Salvation for them if they did not quit those dangerous occasions of Sin: He only gave them such Directions as were proper to their Calling; giving them to understand, that they ought 
* Luke ch. 3. v. 14.  not to Do violence, But observe the Order of military Discipline, & be Content with their Pay.  
They do not think it is a Sin to be a Soldier; but are afraid that 'tis almost impossible to be a Soldier without Sinning. Nor do they think that Piety is inconsistent with the Courage of a Soldier: They know that Virtue raises men above the fear of Death; and that No man so much contemns this life as he who values nothing but the next. But yet they observe & by their daily observation find, the Circumstances are extremely difficult in which a Military life engages them; and when they seriously compare their weakness on the one side with the difficulty on the other, they are almost ready to Despair.  
To tell these men, The Grace of God is powerful; to mind them, that although the Enemies of our Eternal Happiness are numerous & strong our Saviour by the power of his Grace has vanquished all of them; and that he therefore bids them reassume their Courage, because He has overcome the World: This, I confess, may be some comfort to them; though it be not perhaps enough to allay those fears & apprehensions which arise from the immense disparity betwixt our God & us. Alas! what great encouragement to him, who knows his frailcy, to consider that our Saviour Jesus Christ has overcome the world? What wonder that a Man, who was true God, could conquer all his Enemies? Show us a Man, say they, infirm and frail, whose flesh and blood are subject to the same Corruptions as ours; Let such a Man divide his whole life betwixt Camp & Garrison; And, if He notwithstanding all this lives and dies a Saint, than we shall have some hopes that we may be enabled by God's Grace to follow his Example.  
If this be all they ask, if this will answer all their fears, and make them ashamed to plead such vain excuses for a lose & irrel gious life; Let them reflect upon the great Example of the Saint whose Feast we celebrate. He was so much a Soldier, & so eminent in that Profession, that by the Splendour of his Military Virtues, he obscured & darkened all his other Excellencies: Nothing else appears upon the Authentic Records of his Fame; The rest lies buried in the Rubbish of Antiquity, under the Trophies of a Soldier & a Saint. He was no more a God than we are: setting aside God's Grace, he was a man no better than the mea he left behind him: And yet he lived and died a Saint: He now triumphs for all Eternity in Heaven: Thence He looks down upon us with a sensible compassion of their cowardly mistake, who think it is impossible to follow his Example: And, if he might but speak, He would exhort them, in our Saviour's words, Take Courage I have overcome the World: I, who when I lived on Earth, desired as much, & more than you do, the Salvation of my soul; who had the selfsame fearful apprehensions, which you have, of the difficulties which occur in such a dangerous Vocation: I, who thought it almost impossible to be Devout in Camp, Sober in Garrison, Innocent in such corrupted Conversation; Nevertheless, by the assistance of God's Grace I came to be what now I am; Take Courage; I, as frail a man as you are, I have overcome the dangers which you are so much afraid of, I have overcome the World.  
I have said enough to show that Soldiers may, if they please, be Saints: & nothing now remains, but this; that all good Christians, all Saints, must of necessity be Soldiers. 'tis not sufficient that the Soldier follow the Example of the Saint; The Saint must also follow the Example of the Soldier. To let you see, there's no new mystery in what I say, I take the liberty to lay before your eyes the Field of Battle which engages all the World, without exception, under one of these two Standards, either that of Jesus Christ, or that of Lucifer. S. Michael had defeated him in Heaven; But however, upon Earth he reinforced his baffled strength; and to make sure of his intended Conquest of our Paradise below, he would not openly invade it, but surprised it, by a base inglorious treachery, without proclaiming War. Having thus possessed himself of this low World, the Prince of Darkness governed it, he domineered & tyrannised, till Jesus Christ the Son of God appeared against him; 
* 1. je. 3, 8.  and was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil. He immediately set up the standard of the Cross. 'tis true; He pressed none to serve him; He only listed Volunteers; 
* Math. 16.24.  If any man will (says he) come after me Let him take up his Cross, & follow me. But yet, to show there's no Neutrality allowable in such a War, He proclaimed himself an Enemy to all that fought not for him; 
* Math. 12.30.  He who is not with me, is against me.  
The Church, in Scripture; is compared in several places, to a Vineyard, to a Kingdom, to an Army: To a Vineyard, because under the care of one Husbandman; to a Kingdom, because governed by one Prince, and to an Army, because under the Conduct of one General. As in this Vineyard every Branch abiding in the Vine is fruitful: As in this Kingdom every good man is a Loyal Subject to his Prince: So in this Army all good Christians are Soldiers, fight every one against the common Enemy, under the Standard and Command of Jesus Christ our General.  
Raise up your thoughts above the world: Consider all the Blessed Spirits who are happy there: Assure yourselves there is not one of them a Saint triumphant now in Heaven, who was not formerly a Soldier militant on Earth. S. Paul assures us, that there is not one who wears a Crown of Glory there, but what he fought for here; 
* 2. Tim. 2.5.  He is not crowned, says he, except he have fought lawfully.  
Our Saviour tells us in the Gospel of S. Luke, Our Enemy the Devil is both 
* Luke. 11.21.  Strong and Armed: And is it not then the Duty of all Christians to arm against him? Hear how S Paul describes a Christian, & tell me what he meant, if not a Soldier? 
* Ephes. ch. 6.  Put on the whole Armour of God, your Loins girded with Truth; taking the Shield of Faith, and the Helmet of Salvation. And why all this? 
* ibid.  That you may be able to stand against the Devil; the 
* Apoc. 12.9.  Old Serpont whose History gins in Genesis and ends in the Apocalypse.  
S. George is always pictured fight with a Serpent. The Story, which perhaps was first occasioned by the Picture, is a Fable: But however, if the Maxim of Mythologists be true, that there is seldom any Fable without some foundation in History, we may believe the Picture is, 
* D. Heylin. Hist. of S. G.  at least in part, Historical; as being thus contrived of purpose (in those times, & by those men, who most affectionately were devoted to our Martyr) to publish to Posterity how bravely he refelled the Devil, that Old Serpent, the old Enemy of Mankind; with how much courage he resisted all his violent assaults; And with how much constancy he stood  
* ibid.  in the profession of his Faith: the whole Church praying with him, and kneeling (like the Virgin) by him, in that holy Action, that God would give him strength to live & die victorious in a War which all good Christians are engaged in, & a War in which we all are equally obliged to follow the example of our then Victorious & now Triumphing Saint.  
Whensoever we see the George hang at the Breast of any Knight of that most noble & heroic Order, I could wish it would mind us, How happy all those are who by a frequent memory of his Example wear a deep impression of it in their Hearts. I cannot but admire the Piety of that great 
* Edward iii.  Prince, the Glory of his Times, and Ornament of Europe, who in the Institution of it, took such care to recommend it, with such marks of honour, to Posterity. Nor can I pass without reflection, how suitable the Statutes are to the intention of the Founder & how well they answer his design; by ordering that the George be never laid aside, although the other Ornaments upon occasion may be let alone, and only are of obligation upon solemn Days. Because the Spiritual War, in which all Christians are Soldiers, is perpetual & without intermission; Because the Devil, like a cunning Serpent, always lies in ambush ready to surprise us; Because he every day so frequently assaults us & obliges us to be upon our guard; Therefore the Image of this Fight Saint must always be before their eyes, always appear upon their breasts, & always awake the memory of those, who, over & above the common tye of Christianity, are by their Knighthood bound in honour not to lay aside S. George's resolution of encountering the infernal Serpent, the malicious Enemy of their Eternal Happiness, that so they may at length receive an Everlasting Crown of Glory. And this is the reason why, at the Investitre of any of these Knights, when first the George is put about their Necks, the Chancellor of the Order reads an Admonition importing that They wear the Image of the Blessed Soldier of Christ, S. George, to the end that by his imitation they may be provoked, and having stoutly vanquished their Enemies both of Body & Soul, they may not only receive the praise of this transient Combat, but be crowned with the Palm of Eternal Victory. Not only They whose Dignity entitles them to wear the George upon their Breasts, but All who with respect behold it there, are animated & instructed by it, to discharge the Essential Duty of a Christian, whose Life is a continual Warfate upon Earth.  
S. George himself had never been Victorious without God's Grace. Without Christ, he had been able to do Nothing. The very same Grace we may have for ask, if we are sincere. The whole Courch prays, this Day, that God may grant it us. Let us Therefore Conclude; and join our Prayers with Her's: O God, who by thy Blessed Martyr George's intercession & merits dost rejoice us, mercifully grant, that we who by him crave thy Blessings, may receive them by the Gift of thy Grace, Through jesus Christ our Lord; Amen.    

A LETTER Concerning the COUNCIL OF TRENT.  
SIR,  
Having perused the 
* The History of the Council of Trent, written in Italian by Pietro Soave Polano, translated by N. B. printed London. 1676. in fol. pages 769. If my Reader have a different Edition, he may observe his whole number of pages, and (by the Rule of Three) as this of mine is to that, so will my quotations be to his.  Author you so much recommended to me, I am apt to fancy that never any two Historians disagreed more than yours & mine; the one so zealous in exalting, the other in depressing of the Council. But yet I am not of opinion that this was the only difference betwixt them. palavicini had the freedom of the Vatican Archives; He refers himself to the Records of the Council, & the writings of 
* He sets down their names, l. 8. c. 10. n. 14.  such Persons as were Members of it: Moreover. He is so far from being partial, that 
* D. Still. Rat. Account.  Aquilino says He has done the Church more disservice by his Answer, than his Adversary had done by his History. As for your friend Soave, I am afraid he's apt to make the worst of things, even when he speaks truth as to the substance. His intimate acquaintance with the Archbishop of Spalatro, & his correspondency with the French Huguenots. are enough to make me suspicious of him. If you tell me, he was a Popish Friar. I must mind you, that he was a Venetian Papist, that he lived in a time of great dissensions betwixt the State of Venice and the Pope, & that he was even then engaged in writing against the Pope's proceed. 'tis hard to say how much he was a friend to the Church, But any man may see how bitter an enemy he was to the Court of Rome. He liked well enough to be meddling with State-Affairs, & the Senators consulted him as an Oracle: which unusual honour was enough to make him proud & factious; and, whether it did or not, He only knows who sees men's hearts. However all this put together is enough to make me suspect him. palavicini, you'll say, being of the Court-party deserves to be suspected too. But, if that be all you have to say against him, we will not quarrel about preliminaries, nor lose time in disputing what grains of allowance are due to each of them. Upon condition you'll believe your friend Soave when he speaks well of the Council, I am content to believe palavicini whensoever he speaks ill of it.  
You remember how easily, when I saw you last, you agreed with me, that if the Council of Trent were as General, as free, and as legal in all its circumstances, as the first four Councils were, you must needs own yourself obliged in conscience, to submit to it, & to leave of Protesting against it 'Twas fair & reasonable, & what I might expect from a Son of the Church of England: I desired no more in hand, but was willing to give credit for the rest.  
I might have told you that if the Council had been only Patriarchal; it would have bound the English Reformers to the obedience of noncontradiction. Three British Bishops sat in the 1. Council of Arles: & S. Athanasius in his 2. Apol. says that they were present in the Council of Sardice, which ratified the Pope's power in decision of Appeals: From whence you may conclude, that the British Clergy were subject to the canons of Arles & Sardice, & consequently to the Western Patriarch. We find them also afterwards in the Council of Constance where voting by Nations the English were one of the four in condemning these doctrines of Huss & Wickliff, that The Pope is not the immediate Vicar of Christ, & that The chief Bishop of the Roman Church has no Pri●nacy over other particular Churches. I might have added the testimony of your own Dr. Field, who in his book of the Church freely confesses, that The Decrees of Popes made with the consent & joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops, do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West. But this is not the case: the Council of Trent is truly General; and, if the Reformers cannot manifestly prove the contrary, they remain without excuse. The Objections which you sent me in your Letter, I have considered at leisure, and, according to promise, have sent you here my Answers: but, before I set them down, I must beg your pardon if I try your patience with some few remarks which follow. Ch. Gou. P. IU.  
1. A General Council requires, either the presence of all the Catholic Patriarches, or their Legates, with the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well convene, or their Delegates; or else (in their necessary absence) it requires that the Acts & Decrees be approved, either by all, or by the major part of the absent Prelates.  
2. As for such a General Council as comprehends all the Bishops of the Catholic Universe, there never was yet any. We find always a greater or lesser number, according to divers circumstances; propinquity of place, peace of Princes, numerosity of Sects, etc. The first four Councils, of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, & Chalcedon, by reason of the Oriental Heresies, were held in the East, & consisted principally of Oriental Bishops. In the I. were present only the Pope's two Legates, & three Western Bishops. The II. had not Western Bishop at all, but only was afterward confirmed by the Pope & his Council. The III. had only three Delegates, sent by the Pope & his Occidental Council. They transacted most of their business, & condemned Nestorius, without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch. The iv had only four Legates sent by the Bishop of Rome, two African Bishops, & one Sicilian. They acted without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch. They deposed him for favouring Heretics, & for his contumacy against the See of Rome.  
3. If all Catholic Prelates, or the much greater part, be personally present in the Council, there's no need of farther acceptation to confirm it. But, this wanting, 'tis supplied by the after-acceptation of such persons as are capable of a vote, and so many as, if they had been present, would have made it the much greater part of Catholic Prelates, that is, of such as were not before shut of the Church by Heresy or Schism. The II. & V General Councils became such by the confirmation & after acceptation of Damasus & Vigilius with their Western Bishops; and 'tis a fundamental principle of Government not simply Monarchical, that No Laws can be promulgated, no Unity preserved, if of their Governors the lesser part be not regulated by the greater.  
4. The Council remains General, notwithstanding the absence of some considerable Churches: 1. if they cannot conveniently come: 2. if they refuse without just hindrance: 3. if they were formerly cut of by Heresy or Schism. The Catholic Church is narrower than Christianity and a Council may be General, though the Church were reduced to one Patriarchate.  
5. All that were capable of a voice in any General Council, were summoned to Trent The Eastern Bishops, in the Turks Dominions could not conveniently come, there being war betwixt Christians & Turks. The Division, which occasioned the Assembly, arose only in the West, & therefore there was less need of their presence. Moreover six Greek Bishops sat in the Council: And, ten years after, the Wittenberg Divines sent the Augustan Confession to Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople, whose Answer to them differs very little from the Decrees of Trent. 'tis true; Cyril Lucar 
* 1629.  published a Calvinistical Contession: But his immediate Successor Cyril of Iberia assembled at Constantinople a Synod of 23. Bishops, besides the Patriarches of Alexandria & Jerusalem; And again, his Successor Parthenius assembled another of 25. Bishops, & amongst them the Metropolitan of Moscovy: Both these Synods anathematised Lucar with his Adherents; and also justified these Tenets of the Council, the Corporal Presence of Christ's Body & Blood with the Symbols; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of sacred Images; Prayer & Alms for the Faithful deceased with repentance, as betterable in their present condition by them; Free will; seven Sacraments; Church Infallibility, etc. See Leo Allatius, De perpetuo Consensu etc. l. 3. See Monsieur Arnauld's Answer to Claude l. 4 ch 7.  
6. The absence of the Protestant Clergy from the Council did not hinder its being General. 1. They who are not Bishops, have no right to sit there. 2. When Bishops contumaciously absent themselves for fear of Censure, their presence is not requisite; otherwise farewell the Power of all General Councils. 3. There is no place due to them whose Doctrines have been anathematised in former General Councils. Veneration of Images was declared lawful in the II. of Nice. Our Canon of Scripture, Purgatory; Seven Sacraments, & Pope's Supremacy, were defined in the Council of Florence: Auricular Confession & Transubstantiation, in that of Lateran.  
7. Although in the first Sessions under Paul III. there were only about 48. Bishops. 3. Benedictine Abbots, 5. Generals of Religious Orders, with about 40. able Divines by way of Counsellors: This paucity under Paul or Julius was amply recompensed by a greater number of Prelates under Pius IV who all unanimously received & ratified the former Acts of the Council. If you count them, you'll find in the Catalogue, 270. to which if you add the learned Divines who assisted, the whole number amounts to about 450. persons.  
8. A General Council requires, that the Pope either preside in it; or approve the Acts of it, as in the case of the II. & V General Council. In the IV. VI VII. & VIII. the Protestants allow that he presided To the III he deputed S. Cyril. To the I. he sent his Legates. Osius, you'll say, subscribed before them. 1. 'tis thought he presided in the Pope's name with them 2. If not, it was a pure indulgence of honour to him: The Legates subscribed before all the Patriarches. 3. The subscriptions were manifestly irregular, because the Bishop of Antioch who was the III. Patriarch, suscribed after the Bishops of Egypt, & also those of Palestine, which were subject to him. I have now done with my remarks, & shall make what hast I can with your objections, setting them down in the same order you sent them.  
I. The Eastern Bishops were absent: & the Protestants would not go to the Council. A. 1. There were six Greek Bishops present: Afterwards three Eastern Patriarches, & two Assemblies of their Prelates approved the chief points. The Protestants had not right to a decisive voice: Their opinions had been censured in former Councils, and were like to be condemned again in this: If, for these reasons, they absented; 'twas their own fault: The Council was never the worse for't. 2. Read the Bulls of Convocation: you will find that all & every one who, either by law, by custom, or by privilege, have any right to be present, or to deliver their opinion, in General Councils, were summoned to appear in Trent. 3. Soave himself relates how there was a deliberation of sending, & granting safe-conduct, to the Greek Churches under the Turk; 
* p. 451.  but it was presently seen, says he, that these poor men afflicted in servitude, could not without danger, & assisiance of money, think of Councils. He says also, that 
* p. 408.  although the Pope was put in mind, that to send Nuncio's into England & to Princes elsewhere, who do profess open Separation from the See of Rome, would be a disreputation to him; yet he answered that he would humble himself to Heresy, in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ, did become that See.  
II. In some of the first Sessions there were not above fifty Bishops. A. The difficulties & disturbances of the Times bear all that blame. All was fully recompensed in the end, by a numerous & unanimous ratification of all, & by the acceptation of the absent Prelates afterward. Soave says, that, under Pius IU. 
* p. 504.  the Actions of this Council were in greater expectation than in former times, in regard the number of the Prelates were assembled four times as many as before. He says, 
* p. 757.  All the Decrees made in this Council, under Paul and Julius, as well of Faith as Reformation, were recited: And the Secretary going into the midst did interrogate, whether the Fathers were pleased that Confirmation should be demanded of Pope ●ius iv of all things decreed under Paul, Julius, & his Holiness; and they answered, not one by one but all together, Placet. palavicini says the same; only he proves that 
* l. 24. c. 8.  the votes were given, as usually, one by one.  
III. Many of the Bishops were only Titular: And many made, during the Council, that the Papalins might over-vote the Ultramontans. A. As to the first part; Soave takes notice only of two Titular Bishops, the Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, and Upsal in Sweden; both driven from their Sees by persecution of Protestants, both true Bishops by their Ordination, and both sent by the Pope in the beginning of the Council. The second part, being barely asserted, locks like a groundless calumny, & may justly be supposed such, till some proof appear.  
iv The Popes, of those times, & major part of the Prelates, would never allow this Title, of the Council, Representing the Universal Church: Therefore they themselves did not look upon it as a General Council. A. Here I must beg your pardon, if I think you very much mistaken in your inference. This Title was usurped by the Councils of Constance & Basil; but never assumed by any Council, which was totally approved. You know very well, that Catholic Divines are divided upon the point; whether the Pope be superior to a General Council; or whether a General Council, without him, be so complete a Representati e of the Univerial Church, as to be superior to the Pope? They who maintained the superiority of a General Council, were zealous for this Title; and the others constantly opposed it: But both parties always agreed, that the Council of Trent was as truly General, as the first four Councils were, or any have been since.  
V It was never received by the Protestants: Nor by the French Catholics. A. 1. The Council of Nice was never received by the Arians. 2 It was universally received by both Ecclesiastical & Civil State of France: in point of Doctrine 3. The Decrees of Reformation were approved by all the Catholic Clergy of that Kingdom. In the Assembly at Blois, in the year, 1576. The Archbi hop of Lions in the name of all the Ecclesiastical State of France begged the assistance of the King's Authority to put this Reformation in execution. In the Assembly of Melun, 1579. the Bishop of Bazas, in their name, made the same request to the King, chief because they are tied & bound to all Laws, so made by the Catholic Church, upon pain of being reputed Schismatical, & of incurring the curse of Eternal Damnation. At Fontainebleau in the year, 1582. The Archbishop of Bourges tells the King, The stain & reproach of Schism rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries. And this is the cause, why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire, etc. In the General Assembly of the States at Paris, in the year, 1614 Cardinal Perron, & Cardinal Richelieu, than Bishop of Luson, prosecuted in vain the same request. Thus you see the Catholic Clergy of France unanimously receiving & approving the Council of Trent in matter of Discipline. The Civil State, as it has no share in the Votes of the Council, so their non-approbation cannot diminish the Authority of it. You may guests at the reasons of excepting against it, by what the Queen Regent, Catherine de Medicis, was pleased to tell the Pope's Nuncio; that the Council could not be admitted, because by the Council's Decrees the King could not gratify such Ministers of State, as had done him singular service, with the means of Religious Houses, & of Church. Benefices.  
VI Leo X. before the Convocation of the Council, had declared that Luther & his Adherents were Heretics: Being therefore already condemned, why should they come to Council? A. 10 Their Errors had been condemned in former General Councils: and, since it really was so, Why might not the Pope say so 12. Because the Pope had condemned them therefore they 
* See Scave p. 11.  appealed to a General Council: and, since they had appealed to it, Why should they not go to it?  
VII. It was not a legal Council. A. That is to say, it was not such a one as they had a mind to. Luther, being questioned, first made friends to be tried in Germany. As soon as he was there condemned by Cajetan, he appealed to the Pope. Immediately after, foreseeing his condemnation there, he intercepted this appeal with 
* ibid. p. 8.  another, from the Pope to a General Council; having ground to imagine, He would never call one, who was supposed, to fear that it would severely reform him & his Court. As soon as he saw that, in good earnest, a Bull was published, in the year, 1537. to call a Council at Vicenza; he began presently, to vilify Councils, & put out a book De Conciliis, to prove that they always did more harm than good; not sparing so much as the first Councils of Nice, or of the Apostles Than he appealed from Council to Scripture, where He that makes himself supreme Judge of the Sense, may easily maintain what absurdity he pleases. Soave tells us, he was 
* p. 17.  used to say, that he was so well assured of his Doctrine, that, it being Divine, he would not submit it so much as to the judgement of Angels; yea, that with it he was to judge all, both men & Angels. After this, his Followers thought it more plausible not to shuffle so visibly, but to admit a Council, & clog it with such conditions as would quite disarm it, & make it useless. You may read them in Soave, as follows.  

* p. 600.  1. That it should be celebrated in Germany; 2. That it should not be intimated by the Pope; 3. That He should not preside, but be part of the Council, subject to the determinations of it; 4. That the Bishops & other Prelates should be freed from their Oath given to the Pope; 5. That the Holy Scripture might be Judge in Council, & all Humane Authority excluded; 6. That the Divines of the States of the Augustan Confession. sent to the Council, might not only have a consulting, but a deciding voice; 7. That the Decisions in Council should not be made, as in Secular matters, by plurality of voices; but the more sound opinions preferred, that is, those which were regulated by the word of God. You will not deny, but that in England we have had some Kings whose title to the Crown has been unquestionable, & that some free & legal Parliaments have been assembled during their reign. Give me leave to put the case, that two or three Counties had revolted, protesting against all that would be done in such a Parliament, & resusing to send any Deputies to it, but upon these conditions: 1. that it be assembled in their Territory; 2. that it be not called by the King; 3. that his Majesty may be subject to it; 4. that all the members of it be freed from their Oath of Allegiance; 5. that all Humane Authority of former Parliaments may be excluded; 6. that they may depute as many as they please with a decisive voice; 7. that (for fear of being over-voted) the Decisions be not made, as usually, by plurality of voices, but that the more sound opinions, (that is, their own) may be preferred. What would you think of these Articles? Would you conclude, the Parliament was illegal, if it did not submit to their demands? I do not pretend here, to make an exact parallel betwixt the Monarchy of the Church & that of England: yet however the parity is not so unequal, but that it may help to open your eyes.  
VIII. The Parties concerned were Judges in their own case. A. No more than in the I. of Nice. The world was then divided into Catholics & Arians, as now into Catholics & Protestants: And, as the Catholics had then a right to judge the one, so now they had the very same right to judge the other. If any part separate from the whole, it does not therefore acquire a right of saying, that the Whole, from which they divide themselves, is now a Party, & therefore must not judge them. Pope Leo and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria counteraccused one another of Heresy; and yet the Pope legally presided in the iv General Council which condemned Dioscorus. Neither was it ever thought a sufficient excuse for Dioscorus to say, the Pope was a Party & Judge in his own case.  
Mr: Chillingworth confesses, that, in controversies of Religion, it is in a manner impossible to avoid but the Judge must be a Party. For this must be the first controversy, whether he be a Judge or no; and in that he must be a Party. Such is the Pope's Case, in the Definition of his Supremacy. The same necessity is found in supreme Civil power. Inferior Courts are liable to Appeals: But, if some of the King's subjects rebel against him, & oppose his prerogatives or laws; 'tis evidently necessary that the King must judge his own case, or the Offence must not be judged at all. What must the King do? Substitute an equal number of Royalists & Rebels? This can never be an effectual provision for the Common Peace of Government. Or must he remit the arbitration to a neighbouring State? 1. This state is always interested; & therefore partial. 2. This does not leave, within the compass of any Kingdom upon earth, sufficient power to procure the common good 3. Were it allowed in Civil Power, it cannot be applied to our present case, unless Controversies in Religion could be decided out of the Church, by men of no Religion at all.  
In the National Synod of Dort, in the year, 1618. the Low-countrieses Remonstrants seeing themselves like to be over-voted by the Protestants, made the same excuses; saying, that the major part of the Synod was declared of a contrary party; that they were already excommunicated by them, and, therefore, they ought not to be Judges. To this, the Synod replied: that, if this exception were admitted, it would subvert the whole frame of Ecclesiastical Government: that Pastors would be discouraged from their duty of opposing the first beginnings of Heresy, if therefore they must forfeit their right of giving suffrages, or being Judges, afterwards: that the Arians & other Heretics might ever have pleaded the same exception against the Orthodox Fathers: that Divines neither are, nor aught to be, indifferent in matters of Religion; so that, if only Neuters may be judges, there will be none left in the Church, and we must go abroad (not body knows where) to look for 'em. This was the substance of their Answer; which I here set down in the Latin, to satisfy your curiosity. Nunquam praxim hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse, ut pastors, quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio se opponerent, propterea jure suffragiorum, aut de illis ipsis erroribus judicandi potestate, exciderent Ita enim omnem everti judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem; efficique ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant.... Eos qui in doctrinâ aut moribus scandalorum autores sunt, semper Censores suos, Consistoria, Classes, Synodos, ceu partem adversam, rejicere .... ad eum modum Arianis, aliisque olim hereticis, adversus Orthodoxos Pastores semper licuisset excipere. The English Divines delivered their opinion in these terms: 1. Huic sententiae refragatur perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum. Name in Synodis Oecumenicis. Nicaeno, etc. two, qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt ab illis, qui eandem sibi traditam admiserunt & approbarunt, examinati, judicati, damnati sunt. 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit. Theologi enim, in negotio religionis, neque esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae, neque esse debent. Si igitur soli neutrales possent esse judices, extra Ecclesiam in quâ lites enatae sunt, quaerendi essent. 3. Ipsa aequitas suadere videtur. Nam quae ratio reddi potest, ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi pastors, qui ex officio receptam Ecclesiae Doctrinam propugnates secus docentibus adversati sunt. Si hoc obtinuerit, nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisteret, ne ipso facto jus omne postmodum de illis controver. siis judicandi amitteret. Pray, give me leave now to ask, Why might not the Parties be Judges in the Council of Trent, as well as in the Synod of Dort? If, in one case, the Remonstrants were obliged to submit to the Protestants, Why were not the Protestants obliged to submit to the Catholics in the other? The Synod was forc'd to pretend some disparity; and, for want of a better, alleged this; that the Protestants and Remonstrants were under the same Magistracy. And, what if if they were? We are not now talking of Civil Assemblies, but of Ecclesiastical. Does the division of Civil Power destroy the Unity of the Catholic Church, which we believe in our Creed? Or, if there be any reason why (when any Schism arises) the Authority of the Whole is devolved to the major part, does not the same Reason conclude as evidently in favour of a General, as of a National, Council?  
IX. To make it better appear, which was the major part, the Protestants ought to have had a decisive voice in Council. A. 1. Binius says, that the Council premitted this caution, that, if the Protestants were allowed, for once, to give a Placet, it should be no prejudice to the right & honour of the present & future Councils: which looks as if the Council were not fully resolved to deny this to them, if much insisted upon. 2. They, who openly maintain such doctrines as have been formerly condemned in General Councils, are cut of from the Catholic Church; they are not Members of it; & therefore can have no right to a decisive voice. 3. If it had been permitted, they were still certain to be over-voted by 270. Bishops; to whom if you add the Catholic Divines, by the same rule as the Protestants, there remained no ground for any hopes. This the Protestants saw well enough, & therefore were willing to wave all Ecclesiastical Judges. Soave tells you, how they shuffled in this point. One time, they proposed a Decision by Laics indifferently chosen, in an equal number, on both sides. Another time, they appealed to 
* p. 73.  a godly & free Council, which is not the Tribunal of Pope & Priests only, but of all the Orders of the Church, not excluding the Seculars. Here indeed the Clergy were admitted to this godly & free Council; but it was only, by way of spectators, to see what the Laity would please to do there for, 
* ibid.  the Pope making himself a party to the cause, it was just that the manner and form of the proceeding, should be letermined by the Princes. This was the 
* ib.  Answer of 15. Princes, & 30, Cities, assembled in Smalcalda, 1535. Again, about two years after, when the 
* p. 76.  Emperor sent his Vicechancellor to exhort them to receive the Council, they answered, that they had always demanded a free & Christian Council, that every man may freely speak, Turks & Infidels being excluded. Here you see, that every man, who called himself a Christian, (no matter how otherwise qualified) was to have a free Vote in Council: only Turks & Infidels were to be excluded. Judge you, what a free & godly Council this was like to be. Mean time, all this was only a copy of their countenance. They clearly foresaw that the much greater part, of those to whom God has committed the care of his Church, would certainly condemn their errors: They were already self-condemned, as to Authority; And therefore they never intended to appear in any legal Council, but hated the very thought of it: Although though the Name of a Council was very plausible, and fit to be made use of, for a time, to amuse the world with 〈◊〉 an opinion of the Reformers, that they were not proud & obstinate; but always willing to hear reason, & desirous to be better informed.  
The Duke of Prussia was more sincere, when Canobius came to invite him; He 
* p. 413.  answered plainly, without any mincing or disguising of the matter, that he was of the Augustan Confession, & therefore could not consent to a Popish Council. Yet, after all, to do the Protestants justice, I must needs confess that, as soon as they were no longer in fear of the Emperor, they began to unmask & speak as plainly as the Duke did. Read Soave's Annals, 1562. he says that, 
* p. 599.  so soon as the Diet was assembled in Francfort, the Prince of Condé sent to treat an union of the Huguenots with those of the Confession of Ausburg; and, in particular, to make a joint demand, for a free & new Council, in which the resolutions of Trent might be examined, the French men of the old Catholic Religion giving hope also that they would agree unto it... But the Dutch Protestants were most averse from a Gouncil, so long as Germany might be in peace without it. And therefore a book was printed in Francfort, full of reasons why they neither would, nor could, come to Trent, with protestation of the nullity of all that was, or would be, done in that place.  
One thing, which makes me less wonder they could never agree to any Council of ours, is this, that I find in Soave, they could not agree in a Council of their own. 
* p. 411.  In Germany, says he, the Princes of the Augustan Confession, assembled in Neumburg, being ashamed that their Religion should be esteemed a Confusion for the variety of Doctrines amongst them, did propose that they might first agree in one, & then resolve whother they ought to refuse or accept the Synod... They said, the Augustan Confession was to be the ground of their Doctrine; but, there being divers copies of that Confession, which differed, in regard of divers additions made in divers of them, some approving one & some another, Many thought they ought to take that only which was presented to Charles in the year, 1530. Whereunto those of the Palatinate did not consent, unless it were declared, in a Proheme made unto it, that the other Edition did agree with it. The Duke of Saxony answered, that they could not stop the eyes & ears of the world, that they should not see & hear their differences; & that if they would make show of union, where they were at variance, they should be convinced of vanity & lying: And, after many contentions, they remained without agreement in that point. How should the Catholics please them, if they knew not how to please themselves?  
X. The burning of John Huss was a sufficient excuse for the Protestants, not to rely upon any Safe conduct. A. I must beg your pardon, if I believe no such matter. It was no excuse at all. His Safe conduct was of the ordinary form; Theirs was extraordinary: And. therefore the Case was quite different.  
'Tis certain that the Ordinary Safe-conducts secure a man only from unjust violence, but not from the just execution of a legal sentence, if he be found guilty, When a person, suspected of a crime, is cited to appear, & to answer for himself, the Ordinary Safe-conduct secures him from all abuses or affronts which might otherwise be offered to him, either going, staying, or returning: but however, if, after a fair Trial, he be legally condemned: it will never save him from suffering according to Law. If this were all the Security that Huss relied upon, we may justly admire his confidence, in going so boldly to the Council; but cannot reasonably wonder, either at his imprisonment, or execution.  
That this was all the Security given him, appears by the testimony of one of his own Disciples, who wrote his Acts which are published in the beginning of his Works, & says he was an eyewitness of what passed. He relates the words of the Emperor Sigismond telling Huss to his face, at Constance; 
* Acta johannis Huss. p. 15.  Although, says he, Some say that, by your friends & patrons, you received our Letters of Public Faith, fifteen days after your imprisonment; yet we can prove, by the testimony of many Princes & men of chief note, that, before you left Frague, you received our Letters by Wenceslaus of Duba. & John of Chlum, to whose trusty care we recommended you, THAT NO INJURY MIGHT BE DONE TO YOU, but that you might speak freely, & answer for yourself, before the whole Council, concerning your faith & doctrine. And this, you see, the most Reverend Lords, Cardinals & Bishops, have so performed, that I have reason to give them many thanks... Now therefore we advise you, not to defend any thing obstinately, but to submit yourself, with what obedience you ought, to the Authority of the Holy Council. If you do this, we will endeavour, that, for our sakes, you may be favourably dismissed by the Council. If not... We truly will never patronise your obstinacy & your errors.  
In this discourse of the Emperor I observe, 1. That the Letters of Public Faith were given to Huss, only that no injury might be done to him: And therefore conclude, that, if contrary to the common law of Safe-conducts he endeavoured to make his escape, his imprisonment was just, and no injury done. See Bremus a Protestant Lawyer, Quaest. ult. de securitate, who citys a great number of others, agreeing with him this opinion. that Public Faith is ended or forfeited, if a man, having received Public Faith, commits a new crime, be cause, for this, he may be punished. 2. That the friends of Huss made no great scruple of telling stories in favour of him, & of raising a false report that the Letters were given him the fifteenth day after his confinement; thinking, perhaps, that by this rumour the Emperor would be obliged in honour, to rescue him out of prison: Which deceitful dealing makes me less wonder, either that his Disciples make no mention of his endeavouring to escape, or that the Nobles of Bohemia, take no notice of it in their Letters of complaint to the Emperor; & makes me more apt to believe the Relation of it, set down by Ulricus Reichental, an inhabitant of Consiance, an eye-witness of what happened, & an accurate Historian of the Council, whom if you understand not in the original Teutonick, you may read this part translated into Latin by Cochlaeus, lib. 11. Hist. Hussitarum, pag. 73.  
Before Huss was guilty of this crime, he had been kindly received and favourably treated at Constance, as well as all the way thither This he confesses himself, in his Letters to his friends. 
* Epist. 5.  We came, says he, to Constance, after the feast of All Saints, passing through the Cities without any ill usage, And we lodge in a street which is nigh the Pope's Palace. Again; 
* Ep. 6.  All my affairs are in a good posture, says he; Scitote quod bene sto per omnia. And, in his Letter above cited, speaking of Latzembock and Lepka to whose care the Emperor had recommended him, he says, 
* Ep. 5.  They have been with the Pope, & have spoken to him concerning me; Who answered, that he will do nothing by violence. Besides, his Chamber-fellow Plebanus de Jannowitz wrote a Letter dated from Constance, the Saturday before S Martin's feast; in which he tells, how 
* Ep. 4. Hussiticarum.  the Bishop of Constance with his Official, came to their Lodging, letting them know that the Pope suspended the interdict & the sentences of excommunication against Master John; desiving him nevertheless, that, to avoid scandal & discourse of the People, he would absent himself from the solemn services of the Mass; otherwise, that he might freely go about to see the Town, the Churches, or any other places, at he pleased.. We have, says he, full liberty in Constance.  
Afterwards, as Ulricus relates it, the people flocked together, to hear Huss say Mass in his Lodging; which being a scandalous thing, (he having been excommunicated for Heresy, & not having yet justified himself) the Bishop of Constance, as Ordinary of the place, prohibited his doing so: But, Huss still persisting to celebrate, & the Bishop forbidding the people to be present, he began to look upon it as an evil omen of his future condemnation, and resolved to contrive his escape. Upon the third Sunday in Lent, when Huss did not appear at dinner, Latzembock went immediately to the Governor of the City, and complained of the flight of John Huss. The gates being shut, & search made, Huss was found hid in a Cart of the same Latzembock, where he lay covered with hay & straw, which had been ordered to be transported out of town, that afternoon. Latzembock made him be set on horse back, & brought him to the Pope's Palace. He pleaded, that, having Safe-conduct, he ought not to be impriprisoned. But this Noble Bohemian (who knew very well what Safe-conduct he had, he being committed to his care, by Sigismond) answered, 'Tis so Decreed, that either you must justify your Cause, that it is not heretical; or die, unless you renounce it. I do not say, this was not severe; The Imperial Laws are severe enough: but yet, since it was according to the Common Law of Ordinary Safe-conducts, it cannot be truly called an Injury, And, by the same rule, that the Emperor was not obliged, according to his Letters, to patronise his obstinacy & his errors, neither was he obliged to protect him from the course of Common Law in this occasion.  
Nevertheless I am apt to believe, that the Emperor did really design to procure (as much as he could, by fair means) more favour for him than the rigour of the Law allowed. Among other reasons which incline me to this opinion, these two may suffice at present: 1. that John Chlum 
* Inter Epist. Hussiticas. num. 57  complained, his Master's Safe-conduct was violated: 2. that the Emperor himself in his Answer to the Nobles of Bohemia, writes, He 
* Cochlaus l. 4, Hist. Hussita●…. p. 155.  often solicited for him; often, in a passion, went out of the Council; yea rather, upon his account, departed from Constance; till they said, If You will not give Justice leave to take its course in Council, what have We to do here? Whereupon says he, I concluded, it was not in my power to do any thing more, in this matter. Neither was it lawful for me to speak any more, of this Business; because, by so doing, the Council would have been dissolved. Thus He behaved himself; And, whether it were Vanity, or Generosity, or Policy, that moved him, is not my business to inquire; 'tis enough for your satisfaction & mine, that, by his Letters of Public Faith, He was not obliged, either in Conscience, or in Honour, to rescue him out of the hands of Justice, but only to protect him from Unjust Violence.  
'tis incredible, you'll say, that Huss should be such a fool as to go to Constance upon these terms. Neither can I deny but that it must be some degree of folly for any man to be so confident of his own abilities as to cope with a whole Council, & to defy all his Opposers to convince him of his errors. But why might not the Master be as bold as the Scholar? I mean Jerome of Prague who followed him soon after, to Constance, upon the same terms, with a Safe-conduct from the Council. 
* Sess. 6.  Citamus... quatenus compareas ... recepturus, ac facturus, in omnibus Justitiae complementum, ad quod A VIOLENTIA, JUSTITIA SEMPER SALVA, omnem Salvum-conductum nostrum, quantum in nobis est, & Fides exigit Orthodoxa, praesentium tenore offerimus. Observe these words, a violentiâ; The Safe-conduct was only to secure him from unjust violence. Observe also the following clause, Justitiâ semper saluâ; He was not to expect any protection against Justice. If Jerome desired no more than this from the Council, Why might not Huss be content with as much from the Emperor?  
That this was the Ordinary form of all Safe-conducts, granted according to Common Law, appears evidently by the general consent of Lawyers; among which, for your better satisfaction, I shall cite only such as were Protestants. Bremus, q. 7. de Securitate, says, this is the common Imperial form of Safe-conducts; Damus tibi Fidem Publicam, causam dicendi in Judicio, CONTRA VIM, NON CONTRA JURIS EXECUTIONEM. Mynsingerus, Observ. 82. upon the Judgement of the Imperial Chamber, says, Quando datur alicui Securitas, vel Salvus conductus, Tunc intelligitur solum de VIOLENTIA, quae de facto CONTRA JUS infertur. Et ideo, meo tempore, cuidam, qui habebat Salvum-conductum, capto propter delictum, vel maleficium, & supcanti in Camerâ pro Mandato de relaxando ... petiti Processus a Dominis Assessoribus sunt denegati. Again, Everardus Specklan. another Lawyer, Centuriâ 1. q. 1. §. 18. citys a great many Authors, All agreeing that such is the usual form. And, in the Jus Camerale, Tit. 276. (See the Edition of Goldastus) this Law of Maximilianus Augustus is read; Subditos Judicio Rotwilensi avocaturi, Fidem actori Publicam, CONTRA VIM, NON CONTRA JUS, dare tenentor. Any man, that understands Latin, sees plainly by these quotations, that Common Law, in such Cases, always grants Security from Injury, but not from Justice.  
That Huss had no Safe-conduct from the Pope, he expressly acknowledges, Epist. 6. I came, says he, to Constance, without Safe conduct from the Pope. That he had none from the Council, appears not only by his silence, but by Soave's History, pages, 298. & 307. which I shall cite in the following Objection. That the Safe-conduct, which he had from the Emperor, was never intended to hinder the Council's proceeding against him, according to the Canons, is manifest, not only by what has been already said, but by the Emperor's Letters of Public Faith, dated from Spire, Octob. 18. 1414. extant in Goldastus his Appendix Documentorum ad Commentarios de Regni Bohemiae Juribus & Privilegiis. p. 81. We hearty recommend, to all & every one of you, the honourable Master John Huss Bachelor of Divinity, & Master of Arts, the Bearer of These, whom We have taken into Our protection & Safeguard of the Holy Empire, passing from the Kingdom of Bohemia to the General Council which is shortly to be held in the City of Constance: Desiring you to receive him kindly, & treat him favourably, whensoever he shall come unto you, and that you will & aught to show your readiness, in promoting what belongs to his speed & safety, either by Land or Water, permitting also, him, his servants, his horses, & all things else belonging to him, freely, & without any hindrance, to pass, to stop, to stay, & to return, by any passages, ports, bridges, lands, dominions, jurisdictions, cities, towns, castles, villages, & whatsoever places of yours, without any expense of tribute, toll, or any other payment; And, that you will, & aught, for the honour & respect of our Majesty, to provide Secure & Safe conduct for him & his, when occasion shall require.  
All this the Emperor commanded, as much as lay in Him, And, in all this, his subjects obeyed, as much as lay in them. He had no Authority over the Council, in matters of Religion: Nor do I find the least syllable of any promise, made by the Emperor to him, that the Council should not proceed against him, according to Law. He came upon his good behaviour, and in his own defence; confiding in his own prudence and abilities, as well as in the Emperor's Letters; in which there is no sign of these two promises, 1. that he should not be imprisoned, if by any misdemeanour he deserved it; 2. that he should not be executed, if legally condemned.  
Both these promises were plainly included in the Extraordinary Safe-conduct which the Tridentine Council granted to the Protestants: And therefore, as I told you in the beginning, The Case was quite different. Read Soave, and if you believe him, you'll begin to be ashamed of your objection. 
* p. 348, Conc. Tried Sess. 15. & 18.  The Synod doth make Faith to all Priests, Princes, & Persons of what condition soever... Safe conduct, to come, remain, PROPOSE, & speak IN THE SYNOD, to HANDLE & EXAMINE WHAT THEY THINK FIT. give Articles, & confirm them, ANSWER the OBJECTIONS of the Council, & DISPUTE with those, whom it doth elect, declaring that the CONTROVERSIES in this Council shall be handled according to the HOLY SCRIPTURE, Traditions of the APOSTLES, approved COUNCILS, Consent of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, & Authority of the Holy FATHERS; adding, that they SHALL NOT BE PUNISHED upon PRETENCE OF RELIGION, or OFFENCES commited, or which WILL BE COMMITTED... and shall RETURN, when it shall seem good unto them, WITHOUT LET, with SAFETY OF THEIR ROBE, HONOUR, & PERSONS, but with the knowledge of the Deputies of the Synod, that provision may be made for their Security: granting that, in this Safe conduct, ALL those CLAUSES be held to be included, which are NECESSARY FOR REAL & FULL ASSURANCE: Adding, that if any of the Protestants, either in coming, or in Trent, or in returning, SHALL COMMIT ANY ENORMITY, which shall NULLIFY THE BENEFIT OF THIS PUBLIC FAITH, he shall be PUNISHED BY THEIR OWN Protestant JUDGES, so that the Synod may be satisfied: and, on the other side, if any Catholic in coming hither, remaining here, or returning, SHALL COMMIT ANY THING which may VIOLATE THIS SAFE CONDUCT, he shall be punished by the Synod, WITH APPROBATION OF THE GERMANE Protestant 's THEMSELVES, who shall be present in Trent.... which things it promiseth faithfully, in the name of all faithful Christians, Ecclesiastical & Secular. If Huss & Jerome had come to Constance with such a Safe-conduct, they had neither been imprisoned, nor executed. With such a one as this, the Bohemians went afterwards to Basil, were civilly used, & returned quietly home. With this the Wittenberg Protestant's went to Trent, remained quiet there, & returned without receiving any affront. That no more of the Protestants followed their example, in going thither, was their own fault: They knew very well, they might have gone, remained, & returned, securely, if they pleased. Consider all this, at leisure; and then, tell me (if you can) what's become of your Excuse.  
XI. The Councils of Constance & Sienna had declared it lawful to break the faith of any Safe-conduct whatsoever. A. Read the Decrees; you'll plainly see the contrary. The Council of Constance does not say, 'tis lawful for any, whosoever they are, to violate the faith of their promises; but only declares, that no Secular Power can legally hinder the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, because it is, not only independent of it, but manifestly superior to it, in matters of Religion. 'tis a common Maxim of the Law; Superior legibus aut pactis Inferioris non ligatur. And, in all appearance, the design of the Council was to satisfy the World, that, although the Emperor had pretended to grant an Extraordinary Safe-conduct, such as exempts a man from Justice as well as Violence, it could not have hindered the supreme Power of Pope & Council from proceeding according to the Canons, in Causes which are purely of Religion.  
This was the reason why the Protestants would not rely upon the emperor's Safe-conduct; Nor can I blame them for it. See Soave, p. 298. Duke Maurice wrote to the Emperor, that his Safe-conduct was not sufficient. For, in the Council of Constance, it was determined, that THEY MIGHT PROCEED AGAINST THOSE THAT CAME TO THE COUNCIL, THOUGH THEY HAD SAFE-CONDUCT FROM THE EMPEROR. And that, therefore the Bohemians would not go Basil, but under the Public Faith of the whole Council. See p. 307. The Ambassadors went all together to the Precedents, & told them, that the Emperor had given the Protestants a Safe-conduct, but that they were not contented with it, alleging that it was decreed in the Council of Constance, and really executed, that THE COUNCIL IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAFE-CONDUCT OF ANY, WHOSOEVER HE BE; & therefore they required one from the Synod. These Protestants, you see, understood the Council in the same sense as I do: How come you to understand it otherwise?  
Let the Decree speak for itself, & judge case betwixt us. It runs thus: Presens Sancta Synodus, ex QUOVIS SALVO CONDUCTU per Imperatorem, Reges, & alios Seculi Principes, HAERETICIS vel de Haeresi diffamatis, putantes eosdem sic a suis erroribus revocare, quocunque vinculo se adstrinxerint, CONCESSO, NULLUM Fidei Catholicae, vel JURISDICTIONI ECCLESIASTICAE, praejudicium generari, vel IMPEDIMENTUM PRAESTARI POSSE seu DEBERE declarat, QUOMINUS dicto Salvo-conductu non obstante, LICEAT JUDICI competenti & ECCLESIASTICO de hujusmodi personarum erroribus IN QUIRERE. & alias contra eos DEBITE PROCEDERE, eosdemque PUNIRE, QUANTUM JUSTITIA SUADEBIT, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etiamsi de Salvo conductu confiss ad locum vonerint Judicii, alias non venturi: Nec sic promittentem, cum fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum. Conc. Const. Sess. 17.  
The Council does not say, that any one, who makes a promise, is not obliged in conscience to keep it, to the utmost of his just & lawful power: But only declares, that every man's Promises, & Obligations of performance, are confined within the limits of his own Jurisdiction, which he cannot lawfully exceed; And that, therefore, No man either can promise, or be by promise obliged to perform, any more. This is the plain sense of those words: Nec ipsum promittentem Imperatorem, Regem, vel alium quemvis Seculi Principem, cum fecerit quod in ipso est, quod nimirum, ex officio, & jure suo, potest ac debet, ex hoc Salvo conductu, in aliquo, quod Jurisdictioni obsit Ecclesiasticae, remansisse ulteriùs obligatum. Can you blame this Doctrine? Does not every body know, 1. that any man may promise, & every man ought to perform, what lies in his power? 2. that no man can, either promise to encroach upon a power superior to his own, or be obliged to perform it?  
The 1. Act of the Council of Sienna proceeds upon the same principles. Though it was very inconsiderable in its issue & conclusion, it was General in its convocation & design; It imitated the Council of Constance, in assuming the Title of Representing the Universal Church; And, by virtue of the supreme Ecclesiastical Power implied in that Title, They commanded All Governors Ecclesiastical & Secular, to prosecute the Laws against the followers of Huss & Wickliff, revoking & forbidding all privileges, immunities, exemptions, & Safe-conducts whatsoever; Privilegiis, Exemptionibus, Immunitatibus, SALVIS CONDUCTIBUS, a quibuscumque Personis, Ecclesiasticis vel Secularibus, etiamsi Pontificali, Imperiali, Regali, aut Ducali; aut aliâ quâcumque Ecclesiasticâ vel Seculari praesulgeant dignitate, concessis vel concedendis, NON OBSTANTIBUS QUIBUSCUNQUE. You may look upon this Persecuting Decree as a severe thing, & blame it (if you please) upon that account: But you cannot justly blame the Doctrine upon which 'tis grounded, it being the very same with that of the Council of Constance.  
If you ask me, Why then does the Council of Trent insert this clause in the end of the Safe-conduct, that 
* p 348.  the Synod shall not use, or suffer any to use, any authority, power, right, statute, or privilege, of laws, canons, or Councils, ESPECIALLY that of Constance, & of Sienna; which things, in this behalf, & for this time, the Council doth disallow? Why does it disallow these Statutes, if they were fair & just? A. It does not disallow them absolutely, but only conditionally; that is, IF they contain any doctrine contrary to the Security of Public Faith. The reason of this proceeding was, because among the Protestants there were a great many who had an ill opinion of these Decrees, and were very jealous of them. 'Twas more easy for the Council to protest, that, whatsoever they were, they should not prejudice the Safe-conduct; than it was, to persuade them that the Decrees were innocent. It was the charitable design of the Council to use all condescension possible, and give such an extraordinary Safe-conduct, as might prevent all jealousies & take away all excuses. And here it is, that the Synod might justly say, what the Pope said upon other occasion, They 
* p. 408.  humbled themselves to Heresy, in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ, did become that Council.  
If you have a mind to see a great deal more of this charitable condescension towards them, read Soave's History, where he tells you how, the Council having granted them a Safe-conduct in the 13. Session, they excepted against it, & demanded another of a more ample form, which was soon after granted, & published in the 15. Session, Jan. 25. 1552. Observe how Soave relates it. 
* p. 343.  The Emperor's Ambassadors desired to have the draught of it, before it was published, to show it the Protestants, that if it did not give them satisfaction, it might be so amended, that they might not have an occasion to refuse it, as they did the other. Afterwards the Emperor's Ambassadors called the Protestants to them, & the Ambassador Pictavius exhorted them to give some little part of satisfaction to the Council, as they received much from it; told them that it was concluded, to receive their Mandates & Persons, and to hear their Propositions, and to defer the conclusion of the points of Doctrine, though already discussed & digested, to expect the Divines, and hear them first; that they have a very ample Safe-conduct, as they desired... that it was necessary to yield something to the time, & not to desire all at once; that when they shall be entered into the business, occasion will make them obtain many things which before seemed hard... that they themselves, the Emperor's Ambassadors, have matters to propose of great moment, and do stand only expecting that the Protestants should begin, that afterwards they themselves may come forth also. For this cause he prayed them to proceed slowly in their demand, that the Pope should submit himself to the Council. For the Fathers do know that there is something to be amended in the Papal greatness; but withal, that they must go on cunningly; that they themselves have daily experience, what dexterity & art must be used in treating with the Pope's Ministers Therefore let their Divines come, who should have a convenient audience in all things, and when they shall see themselves wronged, it shall ever be free for them to departed. The Protestants retiring & considering the draught of the Safe-conduct, were not content. They required four things more; 1. a decisive voice; 2. that the Scripture, & interpreters conformable to it, should be Judges; 3. that they might exercise their religion in their own houses; 4. that nothing should be done in contempt of their doctrine. 
* p. 349.  The Imperialists persuaded them to go on with dexterity; saying, as before, that with time they should obtain all; but, seeking things distasteful, & before there was opportunity, every thing would be more hard: that the 3. article was understood to be granted, because it was not forbid: & that the 4. was plainly expressed, because good usage was promised. Ambassador Toledo had told them, 
* p. 344.  that the chief importance was in the Security of coming & departing; that the residue appertained to the manner of their Negotiation, which might more easily be concluded by the presence of the Divines, that it was too much obstinacy, to yield in nothing, & to desire to give laws to the whole Church. After all this, 
* p. 352.  the Protestants received the Safe-conduct; but, with protestation, that they did it, only to send it to their Princes. Would not any body think, these men were very hard to please?  
XII. When some of the Protestants came to Trent. they were denied audience, & liberty of disputing. A. Neither the one, nor the other, was denied them. 'tis true, they were not heard, but whose fault was that? It was because the victorious Army of the Protestants made the Bishops run away from Trent, before the preliminaries of the Treaty could be well agreed upon. They came about the middle of March, & departed in the beginning of April. Have but a little patience to hear Soave tell the story, and you will presently see that this objection is a mere calumny. 
* ibid.  The Electors of Mentz and Collen departed the eleventh of March.... four Divines of Wittenberg and two of Argentina came to Trent afterwards, & desired to begin the Conference. The Legate answered, that the nineteenth of March being a day appointed for the Session, they would then consider about a form how to treat. Was this, denying audience? Afterwards a resolution was taken, to prolong the Session till the first of May. This was some Delay indeed, & little enough to deliberate upon the preliminaries of so unusual a Treaty; but however, it was no Denial. Mean time, 
* p. 352.  the Protestants often desired the Action should begin (it seems, they were in great haste) but difficulty was still raised, sometimes about the manner of treating, sometimes about the matter with which to begin... 
* p. 353.  the Adherents of Cesar, Spaniards, & others, moved by the Emperor's Ambassadors, desired to proceed; but the Papalins (he has always a fling at the Court) suspecting that the end of the Imperialists was to come to the Reformation of the Court of Rome, embraced all occasions of delay. The Legate, says he, was thought to feign himself sick; but Soave, I presume, did not think so himself, because he tells us in the very next page, that he died soon after at Verona, which was no good proof of his dissimulation But let us go on with his story. 
* ibid.  The first of April, the Elector of Saxony besieged Ausburg, which did render itself the third day, & the sixth news came thereof to Trent, & that all Tirol did arm, & meant to go to Inspruc... Therefore many of the Italian Bishops embarked, & went down the river Adice, to go to Verona, and the Protestan's determined to departed. See here the true cause of their departure: and tell me no more, of their being either denied audience, or liberty of disputing.  
XIII. The place was not secure. A. Very true; it was far from being secure for the Catholics: The Protestant Army forced them to suspend the Council, April, 28. Neither was it any wonder, that they were so much afraid of their victorious arms: Soave says, 
* p 355.  The Emperor was forced to fly by night, with all his Court from Inspruc, & to wander in the mountains of Trent, and that a few hours after, Maurice arrived there, the same night, & made himself Lord of the Emperor's baggage. Consider here, on the one side, how littie reason the Protestants have to complain of the choice of this place: 1. it was nigher the Protestants of Germany, than the Catholics of Spain & France: 2. the Pope's forces had no access thither; 'twas in the Emperor's power: 3. the appearance only, of the Protestant Army, was enough to fright away the Council. On the other sid, you see how justly the Pope refused to call a Council in any City of Germany, for fear of the Protestant arms. As for the Canon, Ut illic lites terminentur ubi exortae sunt, 'tis understood of those causes, where some fact is to be proved by witnesses that live upon the place.  
XIV. The Council was not free. It was called by the Pope: And nothing could be determined till the Pope sent his instructions from Rome. A If any man have a right to convocate the supreme Ecclesiastical Assembly, 'tis certainly He who has from God the supreme Ecclesiastical power upon earth; and this right, of calling it, appertains as manifestly to the Pope, as the convocation of a Provincial Council belongs to the Metropolitan. Moreover, Scave says. the Princes in the Diet of Noremberg desired 
* p, 31.  that by the Pope with consent of the Emperor, a free Council should be intimated as soon as was possible: he says, the Emperor sent Letters to the Diet of Spira, that 
* p. 34.  he was resolved to pass into Italy, and to Rome, to treat with the Pope, for the calling of a Council: and afterwards, under Pius IU. he says, 
* p. 304.  all Princes had agreed in demanding it.  
As to the Second part of your objection; 'Tis certain that, if it had stood with the Pope's conveniency, He ought to have been present. In his absence, 'twas necessary for the Legates, representing his person, to receive frequent directions from him, that they might the better supply the want of his presence. If, for this reason, it was lawful to give them instructions before the Council began; why not, afterwards, as long as the Council was sitting? In fine, whatsoever advice came from Rome, Nothing in matter of Doctrine was determined, which any considerable part resisted. Soave himself confesses, 
* 538.  that it was a general Maxim in this Council, that to establish a Decree of Reformation, a major part of voices was sufficient; but that a Decree of Faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict.  
XV. Many of the Bishops were Pensioners to the Pope. A. Soave acknowledges, that several 
* p. 116.  of the Bishops, moved by poverty, made grievous complaints, & threatened that they would departed. If therefore the Pope maintained some of them, it was a great charity done by him; a good example to Princes; a thing which formerly used to be done by the Emperors. 2. Secular Princes had more money than the Pope; and, if it had been the policy of his Holiness, they might easily have countermined it. 3. All the Popes, in their Bulls of Convocation, desired & exhorted all Secular Princes to send as many of their Bishops as possibly they could. 4. His Pensioners were not necessary for him, at least in the Protestant Controversies; & therefore this is no excuse for the Reformation.  
XVI. In some Sessions, under Paul and Julius. there were scarce any besides Italians. A. 1. The Council being drawn out from 1545. till 1563. & actually sitting for about four years, it cannot be rationally expected that any great frequency of Bishops should be continually present. 2. The disorders, caused by the Calvinists in France, and by the Lutherans in Germany, required their Bishop's residence to secure Catholic Religion at home; otherwise they would not have been absent from the Synod. 3. The dissensions that happened betwixt the Pope, the Emperor, & King of France, and the civil wars betwixt Catholics & Protestants, hindered the Bishops, sometimes of one Nation, sometimes of another, from attending the Council. 4. All this was fully recompensed, in the third & last Convocation of the Council, under Pius IU.  
XVII. In the end of the Council, we find 187. Italian Bishops, and all the rest make only 83. A. 1. All these Italians were not of the Pope's Territory, but a great many of them subject to the Emperor, the King of Spain, the Duke of Florence, & the State of Venice. In several matters they had different instructions, & adhered to their divers interests, even in opposition to the Pope, when the Ambassadors of their Princes craved their assistance. Soave tells us, 
* p. 522.  it was publichly said by the Papalins (so he is pleased to call them) that France had ever pretended to limit the Popo's power, & subject it to the Canous; and that this opinion would be followed by many Italians, who, because they cannot, or know not how to make use of the preferments of the Court, do envy those that do; besides those, who are desirous of novity, they know not why, of whom there seemed to be a considerable number.  
2. 'Tis no great matter, as to our present purpose, whether the Pope had all the Italian suffrages at his beck, or no; because 'tis certain he had no need at all, of any such assistance in deciding the Protestant controversies, in which the Bishops, of all nations, unanimously agreed. See what Soave says, concerning the following points. Apostolical Traditions. p. 145. It was approved by all, that they should be received, as of equal authority with the Scriptures. Vulgar Edition of Scripture. p. 150. It was approved almost by a general consent. & p. 152 the Congregation being ended, the Cardinal Santa Croce assembled those that had opposed the Vulgar Edition, & showed they had no reason to complain, because it was not prohibited, but left free to correct it, & to have recourse to the Original; but that only it was forbid to say, there were in it Errors of Faith for which it ought to be corrected. Original Sin. p. 164. No man resisted the condemnation of the Articles. Justification & Merit. p. 215. In condemning the Lutheran opinions all did agree with exquisite Unity. Sacraments. p. 219. All the Divines agreed in affirming the number seven, & condemning the contrary opinion as heretical. Baptism & Confirmation. p. 232. All parties were satisfied. Worship of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 306. All agreed. Communion under one kind. p. 306. All made use of long discourses, but all to the same purpose. & p. 485. They all agreed that there was no necessity, or precept, of the Cup. Transubstantiation. p. 309. There was a contention between the two Schools, Dominican and Franciscan, which troubled the Fathers, with the subtlety & small fruit thereof. The Dominicans said, the one substance is made of the other; The Franciscans said; the one doth succeed the other, Both agreed, that it is properly & truly called Transubstantiation: & p. 310 it was determined in the General Congregation, to use an expression so universal as might be accommodated to the meaning of both parties, without approving or condemning, either the one, or the other. Sacrifice of Mass. p. 508. In the discussions of the Divines, all were uniform in condemning the Protestant opinions; although there was some contention. whether or no Christ at supper offered himself; p. 538. some saying, that, in regard of the three & twenty contradictors, it was not lawfully decided; and others answering, that an eighth part could not be called considerable. Auricular Confession. p. 328.329, 330. No disagreement appears among the Prelates or Divines, concerning the 6.7. & 8. can. of the 14. Session. Extreme Unction. p. 330. The Divines spoke with some prolixity, but without any difference among themselves. Promotion of married persons to holy Orders. p. 698. The Fathers did uniformly, & without difficulty, agree upon the negative. Matrimony. p. 730. The doctrine, & anathematisms, were read; to which all consented. Purgatory. Invocation of Saints p. 749 The Decrees were read, & all approved, with great brevity & little contradiction. Indulgences. p. 757. The Decrees were read, & approved by all.  
XVIII. Proxies were not allowed to have decisive votes. A. 1. There were but seven in the Council. 2. They had votes in consultations, among the rest. 3. They had no right to a decisive vote. 4. Were it indifferently allowed, it would encourage Bishops to pretend necessity of their absence.  
XIX. All the Bishops were sworn to the Pope, before they sat in Council. A. 1. They never swore to vote against their judgement: They only swore Canonical obedience & fidelity to him, that is, such obedience & fidelity as the Canons of former Councils require, 
* Bellarmin, De Council, lib. 1. cap. 21.  as long as he is Pope, and so long as he commands those things, which, according to God, & according to the Canons, he can command; but they do not swear, that they will not in Council say what they think; or that they will not depose him, if they convict him of being a Heretic. 2. An Oath taken in general terms, to defend his Canonical rights, leaves the Council in perfect liberty to examine what is Canonical, & what not. 3. Without the Oath they are strictly bound, by the Canons, to the same obedience & fidelity; so that it induces no new obligation, but only confirms what was their duty before. 4. Parliament-men swearing sidelity to their King, according to the Laws, do not lose the freedom of their Vote, nor the power of changing many Laws, & making others, with the King's consent. 5. Every Bishop in the English Church, at his consecration, swear due obedience to his Archbishop & his Successors: Why may not Catholic Bishops swear as much obedience to the Pope? And what harm is there, if they take the very same Oath again, before they sit in Council?  
XX. In one of the Congregations the Bishop of Guadice was interrupted & affronted; and the Cardinal of Lorain complained, the Council was not free. A. This happened only once, & satisfaction was presently given Soave relates it thus. 
* p. 593.  The Bishop of Guadice speaking of the last 
* Sess. 23.  Canon, where it was determined, that Bishops called by the Pope are true & lawful, said that there were also Bishops, not called by the Pope, nor confimed by him, which nevertheless were true & lawful. For example he brought four Suffragans, elected & ordained by the Archbishop of Salzburg, who take no confirmation from the Pope. Cardinal Simoneta did not suffer him to proceed, saying, that whatsoever the Arthbishop of Salzburg or other Primates did, was all by the Pope's authority. The Bishop of Cava, and two more, called him Schismatic, and said he ought to be put out of the Council. Immediately there followed a great noise among the Prelates, as well of whispering as of feet, partly in offence of the Prelate that gave his voice, & partly in defence. The Legates did hardly appease the stir, by making others proceed, who were to speak in that Congregation; which being ended, Lorain said the Bishop had not spoken ill.... & indeed it was found that the Bishop had not spoken ill, and the Canon was corrected; for whereas it said, the Bishops called by the Pope of Rome, it was altered thus; the Bishops assumed by the authority of the Pope of Rome..... Mantua did also reprehend the noise made with feet & words, saying that, if hereafter they did not speak with respect, They, the Legates, would go out of the Congregation.... Lorain commended the admonition, & said that as the Legates ought not to go out of the Congregation, for any occasion whatsoever, so it was most just that the perturbers of it, should be punished. Here you have a full account of the whole matter. It was only a sudden heat, & soon over. The public reprehension. of those who made a noise, was satisfaction abundantly sufficient for what was passed: And the altering of the Canon, according to the Bishop's advice, was a very extraordinary encouragement for him, & every body else, to speak freely for the future. The Cardinal complained, before the satisfaction was given, & the Canon altered, but not after. Besides, it is not impossible for great men to find fault when there is but little reason for it. They are used to be humoured, & when they are crossed, a small matter is enough for great complaints. I'll give you an instance out of Soave. 
* p. 615.  Lorain and Madruccio had composed a form concerning Residence; The Legates approved it at first sight; afterwards, consulting with the Canonists, they disliked one part. Lorain and Madruccio were much offended with this mutation, & thought they were disparaged. Lorain said, it was not a free Council. Why was not the Council free? If the form which they two had composed, had been blindly received without examen; if, out of compliment to them, it had been approved nemine contradicente; All had been well; The Council had been free enough: But because some others took the liberty to consider it, & spoke their minds freely in contradicting it; therefore the Council was not free. Madruccio 
* ibid.  did not forbear to say, there was a secret Council, within the Council, which did arrogate more authority. The Canonists, who examined the form which they two had composed, are here called a secret Council, & accused of arrogancy; not because they assumed more authority, but because they pretended to an equal liberty of speaking as freely against the form as others had spoken for it. So prond & so ambitious we are, to have our own opinions idolised, and to enlarge the empire of our fancies by enforcing them upon our neighbours; that when we meet with any opposition, though ever so reasonable, we are straightened for want of room, & complain for want of liberty. So, when Guzdellun came to the Council, & had 
* p. 617.  seen the passages of one day, he said, he understood plainly the Council was not free. What these passages were, Soave does not tell us: and, I am sure, if any thing had happened contrary to the liberty of the Council, the Relation of it would have been nuts to him. Since therefore your Historian leaves us to conjecture what we please; for aught I know, Guzdellun might have so great an opinion of himself, as to imagine, that, when he came to Council, the weight of his reasons would have presently turned the scale of their deliberations, & that in one day he should carry all before him: but afterwards, when he plainly sound his mistake, and saw he could not in one day have all things determined as he pleased, than it was he understood plainly, the Council was not free.  
XXI. In the History of the Council we find several grievous complaints of the Spanish Prelates, that they had not their liberty in proposing & determining the divine right of Residence. A. Let us hear their several complaints in order, & if you believe your own Historian, you will find they had no reason to complain.  
1. 
* p. 474.  They complained of the Pope for holding the Council in servitude, to which he ought to leave free power to handle & determine all things, and not to meddle himself. A. This last clause is manifestly unreasonable; Why should not he meddle as well as they? Pray, read Soave, & see in what manner he meddled with them. 
* p. 470.  He commended them for speaking according to their Conscience.... He complained of those who referred themselves unto him, because the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his opinion... 
* p. 471.  He was pleased that every one should deliver his opinion freely... but said, it was a strange thing, that he who was Head of the Church, and other Prelates, who have voice in Council, may not be informed of what is handled, and speak their opinion.. whereas, on the other side, it is plain that so many Prelates come to Trent with commission from their Princes, according to which they proceed; & that the Ambassadors by Letters & persuasions do compel them to follow the interests of their Masters, & yet, for all this, no man says, that therefore the Council is not free. This He amplified with much vehemency, & certainly with a great deal of reason.  
2. In their Letter to the King of Spain, They 
* p. 515.  complained of the Legates for not suffering the point of Residence to be concluded, before they could have an answer from Rome. A. They themselves acquainted the King with these matters: Why might not the Legates inform the Pope? They 
* ibid.  beseeched his Majesty to consult with godly men about this Article: Why might not the Pope consult with godly men, as well as He? They 
* ibid.  assured themselves that, after mature deliberation, He would favour their opinion: Whether He would or not, was more than they could tell, till they had an answer; & Why might not an answer be expected from Rome, as well as from Madrid?  
3. In the same Letter, they complained 
* ibid.  that there was no liberty in the Council, because the Italians did overcome with plurality of voices. A. In the same Letter they tell the King, that two thirds of the Prelates did desire the Definition, & that all the Ambassadors did favour the Truth herein. If two thirds were for them, & only one third against them, can you tell me how 'twas possible for them to be overcome with plurality of voices?  
4. They complained that 
* p. 475.  when a proposition is made in which 70. Bishops do uniformly agree, they are hindered even to speak thereof. A. Who hindered them? Soave tells us, that the King of Spain wrote to his Ambassador to let 
* p. 505.  his Prelates know, He thought the Declaration did not befit the present time, & therefore wished them to desist; & that the French Ambassadors wrote to their Master, how little hopes they had of 
* p 507.  reforming the Court of Rome, because the Spaniards, who were very zealous for the Reformation, were cooled, & put in fear, by the reprehension of their King. But the Pope, instead of wishing them to desist, 
* p. 470.  commended them for speaking according to their Conscience. Neither did the Legates wish them to desist: They only 
* p. 473.  answered, that the Article was not fit to be proposed in that Session, but that it should be done in time convenient: which was so far from being any hindrance of their speaking, that upon the very next occasion 
* p. 477.  they began to discourse again of it... & the heat grew so great, that some of the Ultramontans threatened to protest & departed; and perhaps would have departed, had not the Ambassadors pacified them. So unreasonably jealous men are of their Liberty, that, even when they take too much, they think they have too little.  
XXII. Andrew Dudith, Bishop of Five-churches, sent by the Emperor Ferdinand as his Ambassador to the Council, writes afterwards a Letter to Maximilian II. in which he complains that the votes were not weighed but numbered, that the Pope had a hundred for one, that the Holy Ghost was sent from Rome in a Postillons Cloak bag... O monstrous extraordinary madness! Nothing could be ratified which the Bishops did decree, unless the Pope made himself the Author of it. A. 1. His Lordship was perhaps a little angry when he wrote this Letter; & an angry man, you know, is apt to talk extravagantly: Iratus nil nisi monstra loquitur. What would you say, if a Member of the House, a friend of yours, should complain at the same rate; O monstrous extraordinary madness! nothing could be ratified in Parliament which the Lords & Commons did decree, unless his Majesty were pleased to give his Royal Assent. Would you take this for the language of his Reason or his Passion? 2. Although he seemed a Catholic when he sat in Council, yet he declared himself a Protestant soon after; which is another motive to suspect he makes the worst of things. 3. 'Tis remarkable that his conceit of the Cloak-bag was first made use of in Trent, when the Legates, finding 
* p. 464.  a fourth part only against the divine right of Residence, & observing how 
* p. 465.  they came to words of some bitterness, they exhorted the Fathers to modesty, gave them leave to departed, & agreed to give the Pope an account of all. This did not please the Spaniards: but, why Bishop Dudith should find fault, I cannot understand. Soave tells us, he employed his Rhetoric to oppose the Bishop of Aiace, & to prove that it was lawful for Bishops to 
* p. 457.  busy themselves in the Courts of Princes, & in the Affairs of the world. as being Judges, Chancellors, Secretaries, Counsellors, Treasurers, etc. which was, as Soave observes, a plain 
* p 458.  contradicting of those who thought that Residence was de jure divino. Pray, help me now, if you can, to reconcile your Friend's History with the Bishop's Letter.  
1. In his Letter, we find him very bitter against the hireling Bishops, the images of Daedalus that moved by nerves which were none of their own, the country bagpipes which could not speak, but as breath was put into them. And who would think, after all this, that in your History we should find him among these very Papalins, & as busy as the best of them, giving his suffrage with them, against the Decree of Residence? Who hired him? what nerves moved him to side with them? Whose breath was put into him to make him speak in favour of them? 2. In his Letter, he complains the votes were not weighed but numbered: And, in your History, the agreement of the Legates, not to determine a point of Doctrine, which 
* p. 464.  a fourth part did dislike, makes it plainly appear, that the votes of Bishop Dudith's party were not only numbered but weighed. 3. If we believe his Letter, the Pope had an hundred for one, & if those had not been enough, he could have sent a thousand more in a Cloak-bag to have helped in time of need: And, if Soave's History may be believed, the Papalins in this occasion were 
* ibid.  a fourth part only; They had three for one against them. How to accord these matters, I confess, I am at a loss: when you have nothing else to do, you may try you skill at leisure, Mean time, I can discover no other reason, he had to quarrel with the Council, but that it was a Body with a Head. He had a mortal aversion against the Pope: And, whether the Papalins were for Dudith or against him, 'twas all the same: If his Holiness were consulted, he had not patience to support it without exclaiming, O monstrous extraordinary madness! What shall you & I call Passion, if this must pass for Reason?  
XXIII. Soave himself, after having related the manner how the Council was transferred from Trent to Bolonia, defies any man 
* p. 251.  to say what liberty they had. A. Let us hear him tell his own story; take it in pieces; & see whether Soave be not able to answer himself.  
The Article of Residence being set on foot by the Spaniards, together with several other points of Reformation; the Legates wrote to Paul III. that 
* p. 239.  the Prelates did every day take more liberty, not refraining to speak of the Cardinals without respect, and with small reverence of his Holiness: that hereafter it would be hard to keep them in order, because they had many private assemblies among themselves... & that it was not likely they would be so bold, without they were upheld, & perhaps incited, by some great Prince. The Pope considered, that all the Reformation aimed to restrain his Authority, & to enlarge the power of Bishops... that 
* p. 241.  the Spaniards are a wise Nation who step not one foot forward without looking a great way before them... He thought that this web was secretly spun by the Emperor, in regard his Ambassador did daily treat with them... He weighed above all, his words used to the Nuncio, that he had no greater enemy than the Pope. He feared that when he had established an absolute authority in Germany, he would think to do alike in Italy, making use of the Council to suppress the Papacy... To translate it to a place where he had more absolute authority, seemed the best Counsel... Bolonia seemed the best place... & he resolved to cause it to done by the Legates, by the Authority given them in the Bull of Translation. Being thus resolved, he sent a private Gentleman, with Letters of credit, to do this Ambassage to both the Legates... 
* p. 248.  The 21. of April, the Pope's messenger appeared & declared to the Legates his Credence... At this time, it happened fitly, that many in the families of the Prelates were sick... the air had been moist many days before... the Physicians spoke as if the disease were contagious... it was reported that the neighbour places would have no commerce with the City.. The Physicians were examined, & a Process made concerning the Pestilent infirmity... the Process was prosecuted until the 8. day, when news came that Verona would trasick no more with them... Therefore, the 9 day, a general Congregation was held, & Monte took this opportunity to propose the Translation of the Council, & cause the Popu's Bull to be read... The Emperor's Prelates answered that the disease & dangers were not so great, and looked upon it as 
* p. 250.  a pretence. The next day a Congregation was called to consult upon the same matter. It was sound that 11. Prelates were already parted; & they began to speak of the place, whither to go. That it should be in Germany all did abhor. It could not be in the State of any Prince, because they had treated with none. The Legates proposed Bolonia... The Imperialists did contradict: but the major part consented... The next day, the Session being held, & the Decree read, 25. Bishops & 3. Generals did assent, but the Cardinal Pacceco & 17. other Bishops opposed. Among those that consented, there was not one of the Emperor's subjects, etc. In this Relation I have purposely omitted several clauses, not only for brevity sake, but because I cannot think that any man is obliged to believe such abusive constructions & conjectures, without better proof than Soave's bare word for't. And now you may here observe, 

1. How little power the Pope had in Trent, since he thought it not fit to appear in this business, & since the Legates were in great danger of finding an insuperable opposition, had not the sickness happened fitly for the purpose.  
2. How much power the Emperor had over all his Prelates. Soave says, 
* p. 250.  the Imperialists were commanded by the Emperor's Ambassador, not to departed, until his Majesty were informed, & gave them order. He gives an account afterwards of their 
* p. 253.  remaining in Trent by express order from the Emperor, and obstinately 
* p. 260.  refusing to go or send to Bolonia, to acknowledge the Council; although the Pope 
* p. 262.  prayed them, either to come, or send Proctors.  
3. The Pope praying on the one side, the Emperor commanding on the other; the prayers being slighted, the commands being punctually obeyed; 'tis easy to conclude, which was most likely to restrain the liberty of the Council, when returned to Trent: especially, if we consider the Emperor's being then 
* p. 283.  King of Spain and Naples, Prince of the Low-Countries, & having other adherencies in Italy.  
4. The Emperor's Protestation, read by Valasco in the Council of Bolonia, shows plainly what liberty might be expected from him, who assumed to himself the arbitrary privilege of judging the 
* p. 263.  opinions of the Fathers, & determining who did speak for conscience sake, & 
* p. 264.  who, though not so many in number, aught to be preferred, as more wise. At this rate, All the other Prelates of the Universal Church, what would they signify? Though they were ten for one against them, 'tis no matter; the Prelates of the Emperor must always be supposed to be the men who speak for conscience sake, the men who are more wise, & therefore the men who ought to be preferred.  
5. If the Pope, having just reason to suspect the future servitude of the Council, endeavoured to prevent the great disorders, which might happen in Trent, by giving secret instructions to his Legates, to transfer the Synod to Bolonia, Who can blame him?    
Soave says, 
* p. 251.  it scandalised every one. And yet I know not why they should be scandalised, any more than you & I were, when King Charles removed the Parliament from Westminster to Oxford. He goes on, if the two Legates could command all the Prelates to part from Trent, & compel them by censures, Let any man say that can, what liberty they had. 'Tis easily said; They had, all of them, liberty to vote freely according to their conscience; The Legates commanded no body; The matter was put to Votes, & the Majority carried it: And now, Let any man say, that can, what liberty they wanted.  
XXIV. This is not all. The same Author (having rehearsed how the Fathers at Bolonia unanimously agreed, not to treat of returning to Trent, till those, who remained there, first came to Bolonia, to unite with the rest, and acknowledge the Council;) concludes with these words, 
* ibid.  The Spirit which was wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did, & the Bishops to believe as the Legates, did work as formerly it had done. A. Have but patience to consider well what Soave himself has said elsewhere; 
* p. 260.  and, if you believe him, you'll believe he is mistaken here. 

1. Pray, what spirit formerly moved all the Imperialists to stay behind at Trent, when the rest went with the Legates to Bolonia? In Trent the Bishops formerly had disagreed about going thence: Afterwards in Bolonia they all agreed about staying there. And, truly, if Soave could have persuaded us that Concord & Discord are all one, he might easily have made us believe that in Bolonia, The spirit worked as formerly it had done. Besides, These of Bolonia were the major part, & 'tis no wonder they persevered in their resolutions: Those of Trent were the lesser part, which ought to have submitted; and yet, although the Pope exhorted them to their duty, & 
* p. 262.  prayed them, either to come, or to send Proctors, they still remained as obstinate as the others were constant. And, I must needs say, betwixt you & me, if your Friend Soave had been impartial, he would never have committed such a mistake in the misplacing of his jest: He would have told us (with a great deal of Truth, & without appearance of impiety) that The spirit which was wont to move the Ambassadors to think as the Emperor did, & the Bishops to believe as the Ambassadors, did work as formerly it had done.  
2. If, by this conceit, he would insinuate that the Legates were always Papalins; I must beg your pardon, if I undertake to prove it notoriously false, by his own History. He often tells us, how the proceed of the Legates were contrary to the instructions they received from Rome. 
* p. 470.  The Court did generally complain of all the Legates, for suffering the Article of Residence to be proposed... because they had an example of the disorder, which this dispute caused in the first Council.  
3. Although I do not find that, in this Council, the Ambassadors of any Secular Prince ever dissented among themselves, in things relating to their Master's interests; yet Soave himself assures us, that, in this case of Residence, only two of the Legates were for the Papalins, & three against them: 
* p. 464.  Altemps followed Simoneta, and the other two adhered to Mantua. By which you may clearly see that your Historian was grievously mistaken, when he said, the spirit was wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did; for, by his own computation, there were three to two among them, who were moved to think quite contrary.  
4. You remember the contest which arose, concerning the third Convocation of the Council: The Spanish Ambassador 
* p. 473.  made earnest suit in the King's name, that it might be declared a Continuation of the Council, begun under Paul III. & prosecuted under Julius. He was assisted by the Spanish Prelates, and others who followed them... On the other side, the Emperor's Ambassadors used strong persuasions to the contrary, saying they would presently departed & protest.. The Legates were divided: Seripando had no other aim, but that it should be determined to be a Continuation... but Mantua did constantly resist... Here you may take notice once more, that Soave's jests are not always true ones: The Spirit did not move Mantua to think as the Pope did: for when the 
* p 474.  news came to Rome, the Pope was sorry to see that Cardinal joined with the Spaniards in the point of Residence, and opposite to them in the Continuation; which was to cross him in all things.  
5. Afterwards 
* p. 478  the Pope resolved that the Continuation should be declared, let the Emperor do what he could; and dispatched a Currier to Trent with this Commission. If the Spirit had been wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did, why does Soave tell us that, this Commission being arrived the second of June, they all resolved uniformly to inform the Pope better, & show him the impossibility to perform his Order? Why does he tell us, that the next day... at night, a Currier came with Letters, that his Holiness did refer all to the wisdom & judgement of the Legates? I might cite you a great deal more, to this purpose; but this is enough to show, 1. that the Legates spoke freely their minds, and acted according to their Conscience; 2. that the Pope did not endeavour to hold the Council in servitude.    
XXV. Nothing could be debated but what the Legates proposed; the Pope's Commissions running with this clause, proponentibus Legatis. A. 1. At least the Council voted freely upon the matters which were proposed. 2. In great Assemblies such a method is necessary, to avoid confusion. 3. It was at length 
* Sess 24. cap. 21. de Reform.  declared, that the clause was not inserted with design of changing the usual methed of treating matters in, General Councils; and then, Soave says, 
* p. 728.  The difficulty received an end, with satisfaction of all.  
You that have read Soave, may easily remember a great many passages, in which the Prelate's overruled the Legates, & forced them to debate things which they had no mind to. 1. This clause, proponentibus Legatis, was 
* ibid.  much agitated: 2. The Title of the Council, Representing the Universal Church: 3. The divine right of Residence: 4. The Institution of Bishops being de jure divino: 5. The general Reformation of the Church: which point might have been pushed perhaps too far, if the Legates had not wisely counterpoised it, with proposing a suitable Reformation of Secular Princes. 6. Concerning the grant of the Cup, demanded by the Emperor, you read in Soave, that 
* p. 530.  the Legates were desirous to give him satisfaction, but could not, because the party of the negative prevailed. 7. About admitting the Protestant Divines to disputation, you find that 
* p. 343.  this opinion was readily embraced, first by the Dutch, then by the Spanish Prelates, & at last somewhat coldly by the Italians, the Legate remaining , and showing plainly that he stood quiet, being forced by necessity.  
Give me leave to add one instance more, and if you are not fully satisfied with it, I shall know what to think of you. Read Soave, p. 498. & 499. and observe, 1. how boldly the Bishops of Veglia and Sidonia spoke their minds concerning the corruptions of Rome, & Reformation of the Pope himself; 2. how moderately the Legates & other Papalins discoursed about it, when, the Congregation being ended, they remained in the place together to consider the boldness, & too much licence, of the Prelates, in broaching new matters.  
Upon this occasion Castello, who had been Speaker under Julius, told them that Cardinal Crescentius was used to interrupt them & sometimes impose them silence. But the Cardinal of Varmia sharply reprehended this practice, & said, that Nothing is more necessary to a Christian Synod than Liberty; and that, reading the Councils of the better times, one shall find contentions & discords in the beginnings of them, even in the presence of the Emperors, which notwithstanding did, in the end, turn, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, into a marvellous concord; and that was the miracle which did pacify the world. He said, there were infinite contentions in the Nicene Council, & most exorbitant in the Ephesine, and therefore no wonder if there were now some diversity of opinions civilly carried, which he that would resist by human & violent means, will let the world know that the Council is not free, & take from it all reputation; that it is good to refer the cause unto God, who will govern Councils, & moderate those who are assembled in his name. The Cardinal of Mantua approved this opinion, & disliked the proceeding of Crescentius, but said, it was not contrary to the liberty of the Council to moderate abuses with Decrees, prescribing the order & time of speaking, & distributing to every one his own part. This was commended by Varmia, & they agreed to give order for it.  
XXVI. Notwithstanding all this, the Legates would not give leave to propose the Article concerning the Institution of Bishops. 
* p. 550.  Granata, Braganza, Messina, & Segovia, having obtained audience of the Legates, desired that they might handle the Articles, that Bishops are instituted by Christ, & are Superior to Priests jure divino. The Legates, after they had conferred together, answered, that it was fit to declare, a Bishop is superior, but 
* p. 551.  that it was not necessary to say, quo jure. Granata replied, that there was a Controversy, and that, if the Divines did dispute it, the necessity of deciding this point would be known. The Legates would not consent by any means. A. 1. They did not absolutely forbid the debating of this matter. 2. After experience of the contentions about Residence, they could not but foresee that this dispute, so much connected with the other, might occasion greater disorders, of which they would have been guilty, had they given leave: & therefore they 
* ibid.  would not consent by any means. 3. The Divines & Prelates freely took leave, though it was not given them; & never spoke more boldly, than they did upon this subject. If you will not believe me, believe your friend Soave: Read what follows, & believe your own eyes.  
Michael Orencuspe, a Divine of the Bishop of Pampelona, argued, 
* p. 558.  that howsoever it be true and certain, that Bishops are superior jure Pontificio, yet the Lutherans are not in this regard to be condemned for Heretics, because that cannot be an Article of Faith, which is grounded only upon the Law of man.  

* ibid.  John Fonseca a Divine of the Archbishop of Granata followed, saying, it neither was, nor could be forbidden to speak of it. For the Article being proposed to be discussed, whether it be heretical or no, it is necessary to understand whether it be against Faith; against which it cannot be, if it do not repugn to the Law of God. He said that if the Pope be instituted by Christ, because be hath said to Peter, Feed my Lambs, Bishops are likewise instituted by him, because he hath said alike to all the Apostles, as my Father hath sent me, so I send you. And, if the Pope be Successor of S. Peter, the Bishops are Successors of the Apostles; which he proved by many Authorities out of the Fathers. He added, that to be confirmed or created by the Pope, did not conclude, that they were not instituted by Christ, or had not authority from him. For the Pope himself is created by the Cardinals, and yet hath his authority from Christ: So the Bishops receive the Diocese from the Pope, & authority from Christ, Their Superiority over Priests he proved to be jure divino, by authority of many Fathers, who say that Bishops succeed the Apostles, & Priests the seventy two Disciples.  
Antony Grossetus insisted upon the same point. 
* p. 559.  He said it was necessary to declare, that Bishops have not commission, for their Office, from men; for so they would be Hirelings, to whom the Lambs do not belong, because the man, who had committed the care unto them, being satisfied, they had no more to think on.... In the end, he excused himself, that he had spoken without premeditation... not remembering that that point was forbidden to be spoke of Here it is that Soave would make us believe, that Grossetus feared some bad encounter; but, I am sure, if any bad encounter had ever happened to him, upon this account, Soave would have taken care to let us know it. Have but a little patience to observe how freely & boldly the Bishops delivered their opinions in the following Congregations, and then I'll give you leave to tell me, if you can, what bad encounter they feared.  
The Archbishop of Granata said, 
* p. 565.  They must needs declare both these two points, that is, that Bishops are instituted jure divino, and are jure divino superior to Priests: And he confirmed his opinion at large, with many reasons, arguments, & authorities... He cited Pope Eleutherius, who, in an epistle to the Bishops of France, wrote, that Christ had committed the Church Universal to them. He added, that Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Corinthians saith, that the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ, & is Vicar of the Lord... that there are extant Epistles of Cyprian to Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, and Stephanus, Popes, where he giveth them the title of Brothers; and of Austin, written in his own name, & of the Bishops of Africa, in which the Pope's Innocentius and Bonifacius are likewise called Brothers; &, which is most plain, not only in the Epistles of those two Saints, but of many others, the Pope is called Colleague... that it is against the nature of a College to consist of persons of divers kinds... In this College of Bishops, the Pope is Head; but, for edification only... that S. Gregory saith in his epistle to Johannes Syracusanus, that when a Bishop is in a fault, he is subject to the Apostolic See, but otherwise all are equal by reason of humility, which Christian Humility is never separated from the Truth. He inveighed against those Theologues who said, that S. Peter had ordained the other Apostles Bishops... 
* p. 566.  He jested at those Divines who had said, that all the Apostles were instituted by Christ, and made equal in authority, but that it was personal in them, & ought not to pass to their Successors, except that of S. Peter; ask them, as if they had been present, with what ground, authority, or reason, they were induced to make such a bold affirmation, invented within these fifty years only, expressly contrary to the Scripture, in which Christ said to all the Apostles, I will be with you until the end of the world, which words, because they cannot be expounded of their particular persons only, must be necessarily understood of the succession of all.  

* p. 567.  The Archbishop of Braga proved at large, the Institution of Bishop's de jure divino. He said, that the Pope cannot take from Bishops the Authority given them in their consecration, which doth contain in it the power, not only of Order but of Jurisdiction... that to Titular Bishops a City is allotted, which would not be necessary, if the Episcopal Order could subsist without Jurisdiction. He was followed by the Bishops of Segovia, of Segna, & others, who spoke as boldy as himself, not fearing any bad encounter; and Soave says 
* p. 569.  almost the half were of that opinion.  
Afterwards, 
* p. 577,  to quench the boiling heat of the controversy about the Institution of Bishops, that it might not increase, by means of so many who were prepared to contradict Laynez, they would not hold any Congregation for many days. And yet they were so far from fearing any bad encounter, that almost every day 
* p 578,  three or four of them joined together, & went to some of the Legates to renew the instance. And, one day, the Bishop of Guadice, with four others, told them, among other things, that 
* ibid.  as a Prince does institute, in a City, a Judge of the first instance, & a Judge of Appeal, who though he be superior, yet cannot take authority from the other, nor usurp the causes belonging to him: so Christ in the Church hath instituted all Bishops, & the Pope superior, in whom the Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was; yet so, that others had theirs depending on Christ alone.  
After all this, the Bishop of Segovia, when the Prelates met again in Congregation, argued 
* p. 582.  that it was decided in the Congregations under Julius III. that Bishops are instituted jure divino; though it was not published in Session, by reason of the sudden dissolution of the Council... The Cardinal of Mantua caused the Acts of that time to be searched, & that to be read by the Secretary, which was then defined to be published... Three Heads of Doctrine were then composed, and in the third, which was of Hierarchy, it was said, The Holy Synod doth teach, that those are not to be harkened unto, who say that Bishops are not inslituted sure divino, it appearing manifestly by the words of the Gospel, that Christ our Lord hath himself called the Apostles, & promoted them to the degree of Apostleship, into whose place the Bishops are subrogated; neither ought we to think that this so eminent & necessary a Degree, hath been brought into the Church by human institution. There were also eight Canons, the last whereof said thus: He that shall say, that Bishops are not instituted Jure divino, or are not Superior to Priests, or have not power to ordain, or that this doth belong to Priests, Let him be Anathema. This the Cardinal of Mantua interpreted, only of the power of Order, & the Bishop of Segovia understood it of All, which containeth Order & Jurisdiction; and, though he answered reverently in appearance, there past so many replies, that they were forced to break up the Congregation.  
When the Cardinal of Lorain came to Trent, he told the Cardinal of Mantua, he 
* p 583.  would not be curious in unprofitable questions; that, for his own part, he was more inclined to the opinion which doth affirm the Institution of Bishops, & the Obligation of Residence, to be de jure divino; but, though it were certainly true, he saw no necessity, or opportunity, to proceed to a declaration thereof. Nevertheless, when Lorain came to Council, 
* p. 598.  The Bishop of Liria, to inform him of all the reasons of the Spaniards, did recapitulate, with great eloquence, whatsoever they had said in this matter: And added besides, that nothing was more in favour of the Lutherans, than to say that Bishops are instituted by the Law of man.  
When Lorain gave his suffrage, he proposed the reasons on both sides; he 
* p. 596.  concluded in the end, that the Question was boundless; and exhorted the Fathers to leave it, omitting jure divino, & saying instituted by Christ. But notwithstanding this, 
* ibid.  The French Prelates, who spoke after Lorain, did not use the same ambiguity, but maintained openly, that the Authority of Bishops was de jure divino.  
Again, in another Congregation, 
* p. 598.  The French made proof of their liberty. They said, that the Institution & Jurisdiction of Bishops was de jure divino, as well as that of the Pope; that there was no difference, but in degree of Superiority; and that the Pope's Authority is confined within the limits of the Canons, relating & commending the stile of the Parliaments of France, that when any Pope's Bull is presented, which containeth any thing contrary to the Canons received in France, they pronounce it to be abusive, & forbidden the execution. Have you never heard, that such boldness as this, even in a free Parliament, has been enough to send a man to the Tower? And yet, Soave confesses, They were heard with much patience. Consider well these passages, from the beginning to the end of this Dispute; and tell me then, what liberty was wanting in the Council.  
XXVII. If the Prelates were so bold, & took such liberty, How was it possible for the Council to end so quietly? A. In some matters, they had full 
* p. 728.  satisfaction; as in the clause, Proponentibus Legatis. In some, a considerable part opposed, as in the Doctrine of Residence; which therefore, according to the 
* p. 538.  general Maxim of the Council, could not be determined. In others, as the Institution of Bishops, & the Pope's Authority, although their arguments had been urged, repeated, & amplified, in several Congregations, yet still the major part was of another opinion; it was, therefore, impossible to come to any determination: And, you know, how natural it is, for reasonable men, to be quiet and silent, when they plainly see, it is in vain to speak.  
XXVIII. Was not the Pope's Authority, at length, made use of, to restrain their liberty, under pretence of their abusing it? A. Soave himself, who never makesthe best of things, is pleased to tell us quite another story. Lorain (who, at his first coming to Trent, had opposed the 
* p. 583.  declaration of these points. & had 
* p. 596.  exhorted the Fathers to leave it) 
* p. 684.  proposed the omission of the two Articles, of the Institution of Bishops, and Authority of the Pope, as things wherein the parties were too passionate. And very fitly, says your Author, 
* ibid.  an Order came from the Emperor to his Ambassadors, to use all means that the Authority of the Pope should not be discussed in Council; which his Majesty did, because he saw the major part inclined to enlarge it... The Ambassadors, having treated with the Legates in conformity hereof, as also with Lorain, & other principal Prelates, did cause this Article to be omitted, as also that other of the Institution of Bishops. But first they made many consultations about it, that all might rest contented.  
XXIX. Why were the Popes, of those times, so afraid of a General Council? Why so averse from it? Why did they, to secure themselves, shift sides so often betwixt the Emperor & King of France? A. You might as well have asked me, Why does a Pilot fear a storm? Why is he so averse from it? Why does he trimm the boat so often? S. Peter's Ship, in those days, was grievously tossed, & almost covered with the waves: But our Lord, who seemed to sleep, at length arose, commanded the winds & the Sea, & there followed a great Calm.  
XXX. Why did they avoid, & defer so long, the General Reformation? Why were Bulls given secretly to the Legates, to suspend or transfer the Council, as occasion served? Why did they openly declare, that a Council is ever dangerous, when the Pope's Authority is questioned? A. You'll never have done with these cramp-questions, except a man give you as good as you bring. Is not the Reformation of Abuses, in the Church, as dangerous as the Redressing of Grievances, in the State? If our Nation were in the same ferment, as under the reign of Charles I. would you blame his Majesty for pretending to prorogue or dissolve as he pleases? And have we not, ever since, great reason to believe that a Parliament (though, otherwise, excellent in itself) is always dangerous, when the King's Authority is questioned? In those tumults of Ecclefiastical Affairs, Reformation was a dangerous business: And, had the Reformers been let slip at the Abuses, they would perhaps have worried the whole Church. If S. Paul was in perils among false Brethren, the Successor of S. Peter was no less. 
* p. 284.  Not only the Protestants did impugn his Authority, but many Princes also would restrain it, & many Bishops did think to moderate it. 
* p. 205.  The Spaniards had a secret, which they communicated only among themselves, to make great the Episcopal Authority, so that the Pope could not restrain it. The French had 
* p. 532.  ever pretended to limit the Pope's power, & subject it to the Canons & Councils, 
* p. 349.  The Emperor's Ambassadors had given the Protestants hope to moderate the Papal Authority, & said that they expected to see a Gate laid open by their negotiation, that afterwards they might second it: and Julius III had intelligence, that the Emperor had a design to advance himself, by debasing of the Papacy. This was enough to make the Popes, of that Age, take care to look before they leaped. But yet this was not all, if Soave says true. The 
* p. 17.  Governors of Countries regarded not much, what the Council might determine concerning Doctrines; but desired it might be such a one, as might reduce the Priests & Friars to their beginning; hoping that by that means the regalities & temporal jurisdictions might return unto them. And therefore they said, it was in vain to call a Council where the Bishops, & other Prelates, only, should have a deliberative voice; because they ought to be reformed, and it was necessary that others should have the charge thereof, who could not be deceived by their proper interests. Here you see, in plain English, what the Reformation was like to come to. 1. The design was laid to bring the ecclesiastics to their beginning: They were to be brought to their Staff and Scrip again, & sent about their business, whilst the Reformers plondered the Church, & divided the spoils. 2. To do it with more ease, it was in vain to call a Council of Bishops, but the Laity were to have the charge thereof, who could not be deceived by their proper interests. This Reason, I confess, if it had taken place, would have been worth its weight in gold: but, pray, give me leave to make the case your own. Suppose a man should demand your purse; and, upon refusal, tell you He is the better Judge, whether or no you aught to deliver; because your interest blinds you, but He cannot be deceived by his praper interest. Would you believe this honest Gentleman? How did you like this method of Reforming, when our English Rebels threw the Sovereignty out of doors, & the Church of England out of the windows? Did you fancy that those Church-and-State-Menders deserved to have the charge of those matters, and that it was necessary they should have it, because they could not be deceived by their proper interests?  
If such a Throughout-Reformation as this, had been effectually procured, All had been well: Complaints would then have ceased, because there would have been nothing left to complain of: The Reformers would have reduced the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops Priests & Friars, to their beginning, which in plain English is little better than reducing them to their end: The Faction would then have triumphed, according to their hearts desire; just as our Rebels did, when they had brought our Monarchy to its beginning, by beheading of the Government. But, this not being effected, All the rest was nothing to the purpose. One would think that eleven or twelve Decrees, containing above 140. chapters of Reformation, might be some degree of satisfaction to any reasonable men: But, when people are disappointed in their principal design, right or wrong 'tis all the same, they are out of humour; and, when they are so, 'tis a hard matter to please them. This was the reason why the Lutheran Critics were so sharp in censuring & ridiculing the Decrees, as soon as each Session of the Council was published in Germany. p. 504. The Birth of the Mountains, was a proverb much in vogue, which Soave has recorded in more places than one, though otherwise worded, The travail of the mountains, and the nativity of the mouse: an expression proper enough to let us understand, what vast projects they had laid of reducing all things to their beginning; & how much they were disappointed in them; since what was decreed by the Council, compared with what they would have done themselves, was no more than a mouse to a mountain. In the same page, he goes on; Concerning the Reformation it was said, that more light points could not be handled, nor more lightly; and that they did imitate the Physician, who, in a hectical body, laboured to kill the Itch. This was another pleasant jest, which Soave took care of, for fear it should be lost. But, let him jest as he pleases, the Itch, he talks of, is not so easily cured. This humour, of Reforming, is a very itching humour: And the Itch is a strange restless disease: Even the wiser sort of mankind, when they have once got it, cannot for their lives forbear Scratching, though they know by experience that it does more harm than good.  
Read the Decrees of Reformation from the beginning to the end, and if you read them with a serious attention, I am very confident, an impartial man, as you are, will not say they are, either light, or lightly handled. If you have the Council in your Library, I had rather you would read them there, than in Soave; who, I must needs tell you, is not so exact as I could wish him. Under pretence of relating the substance, he leaves out a great many circumstances, which a curious man would be desirous to know: And besides, although I have compared a very small part of his translation with the original, I find several mistakes in it. p. 503. n. 1. he reads is, for is not. p. 692. n. 12. he reads six, for five. p. 733. n. 2. he reads two, for three. p 753. n. 1. of two express commands, he has made only one exhortation. Such negligences as these are enough to make me suspect him in other matters; & are a great argument that it was more his business, to find fault with the Reformation, than to give an exact account of it. But, whether you consult the Council or his History, that you may find out all the Decrees in order, without any trouble, I have directed you to all the Sessions of the one, & pages of the other. V 173. 174 VI 211. 212. VII. 247. 248. XIII. 320. 321. XIV. 331. 332. 333. 334. XXI. 503. XXII. 537. 538. XXIII. 691. 692. 693. XXIV. 730. 731. 732. 733. 734. 735. XXV. 751. 752. 753. 754. 755. 756. And, for your better satisfaction. I have set down some few instances of Soave's Translation, comparing it with the Original, & enclosing, what he has either altered or omitted, in a parenthesis like [this.]  
1. Concerning Scripture. The first point of Reformation, in the first chapter, of the first Decree, is this, 
* p. 173. n. 1.  that in the Churches, where there is a stipend allotted for reading Divinity, the Bishop should provide that the Holy Scripture should be read by the Stipendiary, if he be sit; and, not being sit, the Bishop should depute a Substitute to perform the charge: But, for hereafter, that the Benefice should not be conferred but upon a sufficient person. That in the Cathedral Churches of populous Cities, & Collegiate Churches of great Castles, where no such stipend is assigned, the first Prebend that falleth void, should be applied to that use, or a simple Benefice, or a contribution of all Beneficed men, to institute the Lecture. And again, concerning 
* p. 693. n. 18.  the institution of Seminaries, it was constituted, that every Episcopal Church should have a certain number of boys, brought up in a College, to learn, among other things, the Holy Scripture. All this 
* Sess. 5. c. 1.  The Holy Synod ordereth & decreeth [least that heavenly Treasure of Sacred Books, which the Holy Ghost has so liberally bestowed upon mankind, should lie neglected.]  
2. Concerning ecclesiastics. 
* p. 732. n. 1.  The Decrees of Reformation did contain. That whosoever have right in the Promotion, shall be admonished that it is a mortal sin, if they shall not use all diligence to promote the most worthy & most profitable to the Church. And it was added, How necessary it is, that the Pope, in regard of his Duty, should endeavour to assume Cardinals of [most] excellent worth, & to provide the Church of fit Pastors, because if the flock should perish by [the evil government of persons negligent & forgetful of their duty] Christ will demand an account of his Holiness. 
* p. 733. n. 3.  That [Patriarches, Primates, Metropolitans, &] Bishops, shall be bound to visit [their proper] Diocese... That the Visitor shall go with a modest train of men & horses, dispatching the Visitation, as soon as may be; and shall not receive any [money, or present, whatsoever it be, or in what manner soever it be offered] but frugal & moderate Diet... 
* ibid. n. 4.  That the Bishops shall be bound to preach in person; or, having a lawful impediment, by others. And in case the Parish-Priest be hindered, that he cannot preach in his own Church, he shall, at his charge, maintain another to do it, deputed by the Bishops... That the Bishop shall admonish every one [that, where it may conveniently be done, he ought] to go to his own Parish, to hear the Sermon: and that None [either Secular, or Regular, even in the Churches of their own Order,] shall preach against the Bishop's will, 
* p. 734. n. 10,  That where Visitation, or Correction of manners, is in question, no exemption or appeal, though to the Apostolic See, shall [any way] hinder or suspend the execution of that which is decreed or adjudged. 
* p. 735. n. 17.  That no Ecclesiastical person, though a Cardinal, shall have more than one Benefice, which not being able to maintain him, another simple Benefice may be added, so that they do not both require Residence, which shall be understood of all Benefices, of what title or quality soever, though Commended. And he that hath now more Benefices than one, shall be bound to leave all but one, within six months; or, if not, they shall be all void. 
* p. 753. n. 3.  The Reading of the General Reformation did follow, which, after an Exhortation to Bishops, for exemplary life, [commandeth, not only that they be content with] modesty & frugality of [householdstuff & table; but also, that in the rest of their way of living, & in their whole house, nothing may appear but what bears the character of simplicity, zeal, & contempt of Vanities: And absolutely] doth forbid them to enrich their friends or kindred, with the revenues of the Church; but, if poor, to allot them their distribution, as to the rest of the poor. What has been said of Bishops, it Decreeth to be observed by all beneficed Eccleasticks, either Secular or Regular, and also by the Cardinals.  
Here I have cited only eight points, a very inconsiderable part, of the whole Reformation which contains above a hundred & forty chapters: But, for a man of your skill, a pattern is enough to judge of the whole piece. And, besides all these Decrees, there are also others of Doctrine, forbidding & condemning several abuses, which are worth your taking notice of.  
1. Concerning Purgatory. 
* p. 751.  The Synod teaches no more, than that there is a Purgatory, & that the Souls detained in it, are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, & the Sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore it doth command Bishops to teach sound doctrine in this matter [such as is delivered by the Holy Fathers, & Sacred Councils] and cause it to be preached, without handling subtle questions before the ignorant people, nor suffering uncertain & unlikely things to be published; Prohibiting curiosities, superstition, & unhonest gain.  
2. Concerning Masses. 
* p. 537.  A Decree was read concerning abuses, to be corrected, in the celebration of Masses: And contained in substance; that the Bishops ought to forbid all things brought in by Avarice. Irreverence, or Superstition.  
3. 
* p. 751.  In matter of Saints, it doth command Bishops, & all others who have the charge of teaching, to instruct the people concerning the intercession & invocation of them, according to the ancient doctrine of the Church, consent of Fathers, & decrees of Councils, teaching, that the Saints do pray for men, that it is profitable to invocate them, & to have recourse to their prayers & assistance, to obtain benefits from God, through Jesus Christ his Son our Lord, who is our only Saviour & Redeemer. Concerning Images; that those of Christ & the Saints, aught to have due honour given them; but that there is no divinity or virtue in them... Afterwards it addeth, that, desiring to take away the abuses, & occasions of pernicious errors, it doth Ordain 〈◊〉 that all Superstition, in invocation of Saints, in worship of Relics, & in use of Images, be taken away.  
4. Concerning Indulgences. 
* p. 757.  The Synod doth only anathematise those that shall say, they are unprofitable, & that the Church hath not power to grant them. It doth command that all those offices of Pardon-mongers be abolished: And, for the other abuses [which have taken their rise from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any other way, Whereas they cannot conveniently be forbidden, in particular, by reason of the manifold corruptions of provinces, & places where they are committed,] it doth command the Bishops, that every one shall collect all those of his own Church, to propose them in the Provincial Synod, 
* p. 733. n. 2.  which shall be called by the Metropolitan, or the most ancient Suffragan, within one year, at the most, after the end of this Synod, and afterwards, every [three] years', at least.  
Tell me now your opinion concerning these matters. All these points, are they light, and lightly handled? Are they all nothing to the purpose? Suppose the Vineyard had been a little neglected, & the Vines wanted pruning, Will nothing else serve your turn, but reducing them to their beginning, & cutting them up by the Roots?  
I had almost quite forgot to tell you that, in the end of the General Reformation, the Council has taken particular care, that no Dispensing power may obstruct the force & benefit of the Decrees. Be it known to all men, says the Council, 
* p. 756. n. 18.  that the Canons shall be observed [exactly &] indistinctly by all, & shall not be dispensed, but for [an urgent and just] cause, heard with [great] maturity, & without cost [by whosoe'er they are, to whom it appertains: Otherwise, the Dispensation shall be judged Surreptitious.] If the Cause be, not only just but urgent; if the justice and urgency be well known before the grant of it; if nothing be given to any whosoever for it; Such a Dispensation is unquestionably blameless. And now, I desire to know, How was it possible for the Council to provide more effectually for the punctual observance of all these three conditions, than by declaring that otherwise the Dispensation is, & shall be, surreptitious, & of no effect?  
XXXI. In the end of the Council, there was great joy in Rome, for having cheated the world, and advanced their interest, where they feared to have their wings clipped. A. Here I know not how you'll be able to make the two ends of Soave's History meet. In his first book, he talks much at this rate; and, in his last, he largely contradicts it. He tells us, in the end, how the Pope and Cardinals deliberated upon the matter, whether or no the Decrees of Reformation, were to be confirmed; And says, that 
* p. 759.  the Court, understanding that the Pope was resolved upon the Confirmation, changed their joy into grief; All the Officers complained of the losses they should receive in their offices, if that Reformation were executed... Supplications also, & Memorials, were given to the Pope, by those, who, having bought their Offices, & foreseeing this loss, demanded restitution... The Pope having diligently considered thereof, deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confirmation; & to think upon some remedies for the complaints of the Court... He concludes, It is certain, that they who did procure the Council, had no aim but to pull down the Pope's Authority; And, while the Council did last, every one did speak, as if it had power to give Laws to him.  
After all, you think to mortify me with objecting, that the corruptions of the Court, & the abuses tolerated in the Church, are at great as ever. But you must give me leave to tell you, 1. I am not obliged to take your bare word for't; 2. Whether it be true or false, 'tis nothing to my present purpose. If false, you are to blame for saying so: If true, 'tis none of the Council's fault. Having proceeded legally, & having made good Laws, the Council has done its part: 'tis ours, to do the rest. My business is to defend the Council: I have nothing to do, to rake the dunghill of the Church. Has the Decalogue less Authority, because the greatest part of mankind are so disobedient? Or is the Gospel less Sacred, because there are so few who live according to the maxims of it? If this be the only reason, why you Protest against the Council of Trent, because the Decrees of Reformation are not every where, in all things, punctually observed; I see no reason, why you may not, with as good a grace, Protest against the Gospel, & the Ten Commandments.  
I have now done with your Objections: And although I am not of the Poet's mind, that Brevity is always good, be it, or be it not, understood; Yet I have endeavoured to be as short as possibly I could, because, when I deal with a man of your parts, a word is enough to the wise, & few words are best.  
As for Soave, whom you so much admire, I desire to ask you a few questions, before I tell you what I think of him. Suppose a mortal enemy of yours should Libel you, by the way of History; call you Rogue & Rascal in the very Preface; and, at the same time, persuade his Reader, that he follows exactly the truth: Would you have me take this Author for an Oracle? Would you not think me reasonable, if I suspected almost every word he said? And ought not I to do the Council as much Justice, as I would my Friend? 'tis certain that Soave was a mortal enemy of the Council: In the very beginning, he declares it: He says, 
* p. 2.  it has caused the greatest deformation that ever was, & calls it the Iliad of the Age; which is as kind a compliment to the Fathers, as if he had called them, a pack of Villains. He tells us indeed, in the same place, that he is not possessed with any passion, which may make him err; and this was well enough said; But how shall a body do to believe him? If it were your own case, I'm sure you would not like my being credulous: And how do I know but that an Enemy of the Council may deserve as little credit, as an Enemy of yours?  
Another reason, why I do not like him, is because he takes upon him to write men's private thoughts, with as much assurance as he writes their words and actions. He hardly ever speaks of any intelligence coming to Rome, but he entertains his Reader with a pleasant Scene, in which he brings the Pope alone upon the Stage, discoursing with himself his secret apprehensions & deliberations upon every matter; such thoughts as no wise man would trust his neighbour with, although he were the best & surest friend he had in the world. How Soave could possibly come to any certain knowledge of such things, I am not able to comprehend: And truly, if a man, in one case, will tell me more than he can know; I have just reason to be afraid that, in another, he'll tell me more than he does know.  
A third reason, which weighs more with me than all the rest, is this: You tell me, on the one side, He was a Popish Friar; And, on the other, I cannot believe, but that (although perhaps, for some reasons, he did not openly profess it) He was really a Protestant. It appears so plainly, by his censuring the Decrees of Doctrine, as well as those of Reformation, & by the severe reflections of his own, which he intermixes with those of the Lutheran Critics; that I do not conceive how any man of sense, who reads him with attention, can be of another opinion. Had he been a barefaced Protestant, I should be more inclined to believe him. There is something of integrity & honour in a man that openly professes what he is: And, although passion & prejudice may blind him, yet I am apt to think that such a person will never deceive me, more than he deceives himself. But a Protestant, that lives & dies in the profession of a Popish Friar, How can I believe his words, when the most serious of his actions are only so many lies? For my own part, I would as soon make choice of a Catholic Jew to comment upon the Gospel, & to write the life of Christ, as I would choose a Protestant Friar to write the History of a General Council.  
Before I end my Letter, give me leave, once more, to mind you of the Discourse we had, when we saw one another last. We both agreed, that 
* C. II. p. 1.  it were a very irrational thing to make Laws for a Country, & leave it to the inhabitants to be the Interpreters & Judges of those Laws; for then every man will be his own Judge, & by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong: that 
* ibid.  therefore we cannot suppose, that God Almighty would leave us at those Uncertainties, as to give us a Rule to go by, & leave every man to be his own Judge: that 
* ib.  Christ left his Spirit & Power to his Church, by which they were the Judges, even of the Scripture itself, many years after the Apostles, which Books were Canonical, & which were not: that 
* ibid. p. 2.  the Judgement of the Church, is without Appeal; otherwise, what they decide would be no farther to be followed than it agrees with every man's private Judgement: that because, in the Apostles Creed, we believe in the Holy Catholic Church, therefore we ought to believe in the first four General Councils, which were true & legal Representatives of it: And lastly, that if the Council of Trent were proved to be as General, as free, & as legal in all its circumstances, as any of the first four Councils were; than you must needs own yourself obliged in Conscience to submit to it, & to leave of Protesting against it.  
This last part I have here endeavoured to prove, out of Soave himself, your own Historian, who always makes the worst of things, & never speaks a favourable word, but when the Power of Truth constrains him to it. If I have not performed according to expectation; 'tis your own fault, who are to blame for having a better opinion of me than I deserve. I am no Doctor, nor Graduate; but every way unfit to be a Champion of the Cause. Yet, having received your Commands, I have just reason to expect, that you will easily pardon a man, who in this occasion is guilty of no other crime than being ready to show himself,  
Your Obedient Servant, N. N. Sept. 22. 1686.   

Page. 70. line. 1. read. rewarded. p. 75. *. 4. r. ch. 14. p. 76. l. 8. r. his 9 book. p. 85. l. 26. r. many. p. 86. l. 29. r. the year 831. p. 89. l. 8. deal de. p. 114. l. 21. r. his 2. book. p. 152. l 27. r. shut out. p. 161. l. 6. r. it has. p. 165. l. 1. r. your. p. 168. l. 5. r. haereticis. p. 172. l. 3. deal an. p. 176. l. 26. r. in this. p. 189. l. 22. r. to. Basil. p. 190. l. 9 r. the case. ibid. l. 13. r. HAERETICIS. p. 194. l. 1. r. another. p. 225. l. 3. r. Charles II. p. 240. *. 2. r. 590.  
FINIS.