Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	age_n	church_n	time_n	1,732	5	3.5963	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30330	A collection of several tracts and discourses written in the years 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685 by Gilbert Burnet ; to which are added, a letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pool's secret power, the history of the power treason, with a vindication of the proceedings thereupon, an impartial consideration of the five Jesuits dying speeches, who were executed for the Popish Plot, 1679.; Selections. 1685	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1685 (1685)	Wing B5770; ESTC R214762	83,014	140

of their Church This latter I undertake to make out from the undeniable Maximes to which all of that Communion are bound to adhere There are Two Principles which I may well call the Fundamental Principles of the Roman Church since all Opinions that are not inconsistent with them can be tollerated among them But whatever strikes at these must needs be Abominated as Destructive of that they call The Catholick Faith The one is The Authority of the Church The other is The Certainty of Tradition If then the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and by consequence Killing them for if they are justly deposed it 's as just to kill them as to kill any Usurper is such that without denying the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition it cannot be denied then all men must resolve either to acknowledg it or to renounce their Subjection to a Church that must needs believe it About the Authority of the Church Two things are to be observed that serve for clearing what I design to make out The First is That the Church in any one Age has as much Authority as ever it had or can have in any other Age For if Christs Promises together with the other Arguments they bring for the Authority of the Church be good they are alike strong at all Times and in all Ages And therefore though in writing Books of Controversies they muster up Authorities out of the former Ages because we profess we pay little esteem to the latter Ages Yet among themselves all Ages are alike and the Decrees of them are of equal authority Secondly The Authority of the Church is as little to be disputed in moral matters that fall under practice as in Articles of Faith that only fall under Speculation and in a word The Church must be the Infallible Expounder of the Ten Commandments as well as of the Creed All the Arguments from Christs Promises from the hazard of trusting to our private Reasonings and the Necessity of Submitting to a publick Judg are by so much the more concluding in Practical matters as it is of more Importance That Men think aright in Practical than in Speculative Opinions If then there arises a Question about a Moral matter or the Exposition of any of the Commandments The only certain Decision must be expected from the Church For instance a Question arises about Images Whether it is lawful to use them in the Worship of God upon the seeming Opposition which the worship of them has to the 2d Commandment Since the Church has once Determin'd that it may be lawfully used it is Heresie to deny it on this pretence that we fancy it is contrary to one of the Commandments So if a Controversie arise upon the Fifth Commandment How far a King is to be acknowledged if the Church has determined the Limits of that it is Heresie to carry it further If also another Question arise how much the Sixth Commandment obliges It must be carried so far and no further than the Determination of the Church allows I confess by the Doctrine of that Church even a General Council may err in a point in which any matter of Fact is included Because they may be deceived by a false Information But in a General Rule about Morality and the Extent of any of the Ten Commandments The Decision of the Church must either be certain and for ever Obligatory or the whole Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church falls to the ground Concerning the Certainty of Tradition the general Opinion of that party is That Tradition is an Infallible Conveyance of Divine Truth and that whatever any Age of the Church delivers to another as derived from Christ and his Apostles must be received with the same Veneration and Obedience that we pay to the Holy Scriptures And for the ways of distinguishing a Tradition of the Church from any Imposture or Novelty There be four of them The first That is the most doubtful is That the greatest and most esteemed Doctors in any Age deliver as a Divine Truth Nor is it necessary that they formally say This is a Tradition but if many of them mention an Opinion and declare their own assent to it this passes as a sufficient proof of the Tradition of any Age of the Church So in all points of Controversie between them and us the greatest part of their Writers some few later and suspected ones only excepted think they have sufficiently justified their Church when they bring Testimonies out of any of the Writings of the Fathers that seem to favour their Opinion and will call it unreasonable for us to reject these because they only deliver their own opinion and do not call it the Tradition of the Church but conclude That many Writers in any age asserting an Opinion it may well be looked on as the Tradition of that Age. But because this is more liable to exception there is another way that is more infallible to judg of Tradition and that is by the conveyance of the See of Rome which they judg the chief Depository of the Faith and for which they fansie they have so many proofs from the high things some of the Fathers have said about the dignity of that See Now if these conclude any thing it must follow That whatever has been delivered in any Age by a Pope as conveyed down from Christ or his Apostles must either be so indeed or the See of Rome is not a faithful Transmitter of Tradition But there is yet a more certain way of judging of Tradition by what the chief Pastors of the Church have delivered when assembled in a general Council This being the Supreme Tribunal in the Church there can lie no appeal from it Nor can the Doctrines delivered or approved by it be questioned For instance If it were under debate How the Tradition about Transubstantiation can be made out in the Thirteenth Century it is needless to seek any other evidence than That one Almerick is condemned for denying it and in Opposition to that it was formally established in a general Council This is as much as can be had and he were very unreasonable that were not satisfied with it So if it be asked How can the Tradition of the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and giving away their Dominions in the same Century be proved The Answer is plain That same very Council decreed it Upon which a great Prince was deposed and his Dominions were given to another These are the Common Standards by which Traditions are Examined But to these a new one has been lately added which is indeed a much shorter and nearer way And that is whatever the Church holds in any one age as a Material point of Religion she must have received it from the former age and that age from the former and so it climbs upwards till the days of the Apostles If this be a certain Track of Tradition by which we may infallibly trace it Then for instance If

the Tradition of the Church was confidently alledged and some Quotations were brought and very oft out of some later Writers The Paper was no sooner read than a loud and often repeated Shout of applause followed without any further search or canvasing about these Authorities And upon that the Decree was made This was the practice both of the second Nicene and of some more ancient Councils whose Journals are hitherto preserved and where the Journals are lost we have reason to believe they followed the same method so that it is very probable there might have been some such Writing read in the Council of Lateran And if they did not found their Decree upon Tradition they were much to blame for they had as venerable a Tradition as either the second Council of Nice or some other Councils had a practice about 150 years standing from the days of Pope Gregory the VII so that it is not to be denied but they had as good authority from Tradition to make this Decree as to make most of the other Decrees on which they insist much in the Books of Controversies that are written by them By the fourth Rule of judging about Tradition the matter is yet much plainer for if the generally received Belief of any Age of the Church is a good Thread to lead us up to the Apostles times then there needs no more be said For it is certain that for near four Ages together this was the universally received Doctrine of the Church of Rome And the opposition that some Princes made to it was condemned as Heresy Rebellion and every thing that was evil And it is remarkable that both O●…kam that wrote much for the Emperors cause against the Pope and Gerson and Almain no great favourers of Papal power are cited by Cardinal Perrow as acknowledging the Ecclesiastical power of deposing if a Prince were guilty of spiritual crimes So that the Controversies in this matter that were managed between the Writers for the Popes and Emperors were not whether the Pope in cases of Heresy might depose a Prince but were concerning two things very remote from this The one was whether the Pope had a direct Temporal power over all Kings by which as being Lord of the Fe●… he could proceed upon any Cause whatsoever against a King and take his Dominions from him To this indeed Gregory the 7th pretended tho more covertly and Boniface the 8th more avowedly There was great Opposition made to this by many Writers but at the same time they all agreed on it as an undeniable Maxim That the Pope had an indirect Power over Princes by which in the Cases of Heresy he might excommunicate and depose them nor was there so much as any Debate about it A second thing about which there was some Controversy was whether the Particulars that fell under debate came within the Head of Heresy or not So in the Case of Princes giving the Investitures into Bishopricks the Pope brought it in within the Head of Heresy and condemned those Persons as Simoniacks The Writers on the other side denied this pretending it was a Civil Matter and a right of the Crown The like Debates fell in when Princes were sentenced on any other account The Authority of the Sentence in the Case of Heresy was not controverted all the Question was Whether the Point under debate was Heresy or not And concerning these things any who have read the Writings in the great Collection made of them by Goldastus will receive an easy and full Satisfaction By which it appears that the Popes Power of deposing Kings in the Case of Heresy was the received Doctrine of the Church for several Ages and by consequence it must be looked on as derived down from the Apostles If the Doctrine of any one Age of the Church can lead us backward in a certain Track to discover what it was in the Apostles days By the first Position about the Nature of Supreme Power it is apparent that in the Case of Heresy a Prince deposed by the Pope if he stands out against the Sentence may be as lawfully killed as any Tory or Moss-Trooper or Bantito may be for he is a Rebel against his Lord and an Usurper over the People from that day forward And therefore tho Mariana told a Secret too publickly yet it cannot be denied to be a certain Consequent of their Principles It had been indeed more discreetly done to have ordered this only to be infused unto Peoples Consciences by their Confessors in secret And for Mariana tho the Book in gross is condemned as they give out yet the Opinions set down in it are not censured But Suarez writing against K. Iames tells him in plain Terms That a King who is canonically deposed may be killed by any man whatsoever This was not only published with an ordinary License but the whole University of Alcala declared every thing in it to be according to the Doctrine of the Church Valentia tho he disguises it a little yet says That an Heretical Prince may by the Popes Sentence be deprived of his Life Foulis cites ten more Doctors for the same Opinion of killing Kings by private persons I do not build upon the Assertions of these Jesuits as binding Authorities in that Church but make use of them to shew that some of their own eminentest Writers acknowledg the force of this Consequence which is indeed so evident that nothing but good Manners and some small Care not to provoke Princes too much by such bare-faced Positions keeps others from asserting it Few Princes are so tame as Childeric was to go into a Monastery after they are deposed Therefore this Doctrine is but a lame provision for the Churches Security from Heresie if the Lawfulness of killing does not follow that of deposing Kings And it was so generally received that it is told of Gerson that he was at great pains to get it declared that no private Cut-throat might kill a King and that by consequence it was only the Popes Prerogative to order them to be destroyed By the second Position about the Nature of Supreme Power that in extraordinary Cases Forms of Law may be superseded It is also clear that tho we know nothing of any Sentence of Deposition given out against the King yet he is not a whit the safer for he lies under an yearly Curse every Maundy Thursday The Notoriousness of his Heresy will sufficiently justify a particular Sentence without any further Process or Citation according to the Maxims of the Canon Law And there may be for ought we can know as valid a Deposition as Parchment and Lead can make it already expeded And if it be not yet done we are sure it may be done very suddenly and will be done whensoever they see any probability of Success Bellarmine hath very sincerely told us the Reason why Heretical Princes are not deposed because the Church has not strength enough to make such

have felt such signal marks of his Royal Clemency that they can have no colour to complain except it be because they cannot bear any Office in the Nation For what Noise soever they make of the severe Laws yet in force both against the Clergy and Laity of their Religion they cannot pretend that since his Majesties happy Restauration any Priest has died or any Family has been ruined for their Religion But I confess it is enough according to the Doctrine of their Church to discharge them of their Allegiance That the King is a favourer of Heresy and if upon this Reason they will still Plot and Conspire against his Person and Government we have no reason to wonder at it for they act according to their Principles Nor have these Islands been the only Scenes in which those Principles have produced such dismal Effects If we look abroad and reflect on what was done in France we shall find they have had the same Operation there I need not mention that perfidious and cruel Massacre that as Thuanus tells us was so much extolled in Rome and Spain and of which the Pope has a Memorial kept in the Hangings at the entrance of his Chappel to this day The Barricadoes of Paris the design of Deposing Henry the 3d only because he had made Pe●…ce with the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde the whole progress of the holy League their taking Arms against that King when the Duke and Cardinal of Guise were killed by his Orders and at last his being stabbed by Clement a Dominican Friar are Instances beyond exception The prosecution of the Rebellion against Henry the 4th the attempt made upon his Person by Iohn Chastel which was more successful in Ravilliack's hands shew sufficiently That a Princes turning from that which they call Heresie over to their Church does not secure him unless he will extirpate Hereticks For tho Henry the 4th changed his Religion yet the favour he shewed the Protestants in the Edict of Nantes was a thing never to be forgiven These things were set on and encouraged from Rome and pleaded for by their Writers That the holy League was authorized from Rome that Sixtus the 5th by his Bulls declared the King of Navar incapable of the Succession that he intended to have Deposed Henry the 3d and that he rejoyced at his death and magnified the Fact preferring it to Eleazar's killing the Elephant and Iudeth's killing Hollofernes and ascribed it to a singular Providence and Disposition of the Almighty called it a great Miracle and appeared vain that a Friar had done it having been one himself tho no doubt he had liked it better if Clement had been of his own sute and would have had himself thought a Prophet for foretelling it and so he might well do perhaps and in the end concluded That unfortunate Kings favouring Hereticks to be the unpardonable Sin against the Holy Ghost These were all so publickly done that it were a needless labour to go about the proving them Francis Veronne wrote a Book to justify both the Facts of Clement the Dominican and Chastel as well he might from the Principles of their Church After all these dismal Facts was it not time for the States of France to think of some effectual Remedy to prevent the like for the future And they judged aright that without Condemning the Deposing Power it could not be done To which as was already hinted the Clergy made such vigorous Opposition that it came to nothing If these things had flowed only from the heat of some violent Spirits the danger were not so great but it is the Doctrine of their Church so Lessius under the name of Singletonus says That if the power of Deposing lies not in the Pope the Church must of necessity Err which has taught it and to assert that is Heretical and a more intollerable Error than any about the Sacrament can be And Becanus Confessor to Ferdinand the 2d says No Man doubts but if Princes are Contumacious the Pope may order their Lives to be taken away What security then can there be found out from Persons who give up their Consciences to the conduct of Men of such Principles and profess an Implicite Obedience and belief of all that their Church teaches and commands which possesses all its Votaries with such cursed rage against Hereticks that not content to adjudg them to eternal Flames in another Life they must needs Persecute and Burn without Mercy where they have the Power in their Hands and Plot and Conspire Kill and Massacre without relenting where they have not Power to do it with any colour of Law Men of Honour will not be easily drawn in to such Practices But in Conclusion when a fit Opportunity appears they must either forsake their Church or concur in the most mischievous Designs that the Masters of their Consciences will draw them into which I pray God make them see in good time before they are Involved in such Snares that Repentance will come too late to do them good or to preserve the Nation from those Miseries that they will bring upon it FINIS THE Unreasonableness AND IMPIETY OF POPERY IN A SECOND LETTER Written upon the Discovery of the Late PLOT Imprimatur C. Alston Nov. 12. 1678. LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1678. The Unreasonableness and Impiety OF POPERY In a Second Letter written upon the Discovery of the Late PLOT SIR YOu are pleased to tell me that my last Letter has had some good effect and that many who were before carried away with the false colours of the Romish Religion are now a little awakned and seem not unwilling to examin things which they took formerly upon trust and therefore you desire me since you are not Master of so much spare time your self to set down the most material and convincing reasons and in as few words as may be that are most likely to open the eyes of honest and simple persons that have been hitherto misled and are now willing to be instructed In all such cases I first consider the temper of the persons to be dealt with Such as take up their Religion out of interest or humour and think it point of honour to continue in it and so will examine nothing are not to be spoken to Others that are naturally superstitious and credulous are very hard to be wrought on for they believe every thing that is said on the one hand and distrust all that is told them by any body else Some of those have a vanity in coming to talk with Divines but it is an endless labour to deal with them for at every time one must begin of new But the only persons to be dealt with are those that are sincere and inquisitive that having been bred in that Religion or brought over to it by some specious pretences are now willing to hear reason and resolved to follow it

The Third Branch of the Christian Religion is the Worship of God and that chiefly the use of the Sacraments For the Worship of God let it be considered that we pray to God and praise him only for all these things about which the Scriptures command us to address to him Our worship is in a Language that all the people understand and so are edified by it according to St. Paul who has enlarged so much on this matter in a whole Chapter that it is strange how any who acknowledg the Authority of that Epistle can deny it Our Liturgies are such that the Romanists cannot except to any part of them Our ceremonies are few and these be both decent and useful So that in all the parts of our Worship we do so exactly agree to the Rule of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church that they cannot blame us for any one Rubrick or Collect in it But for their worship It is in a Language not understood by the people who to be sure can receive no Edification from that they understand not nor can they say Amen to such Devotions This is as it were in spite to St. Paul who took special care that as long as his Authority was in any esteem in the Church such an abuse should never creep into it Nor is there a shadow of Authority for such a practice from the Primitive Church in which for many Ages the Worship was still in the vulgar Tongues Next their Worship is so overcharged with many Rites and Ceremonies that the seriousness of Devotion must needs be much alloyed by them A great part of the Worship is so whispered as if they were muttering Spells Their Books of Exorcisms are the most indecent things that can be full of Charms and other ridiculous Rites And for the Pontifical and Ceremonial of their Church they may match with Heathenism for Superstition Their Offices are so various and numerous and the Rubricks seem so full of disorder that a man may as soon learn a Trade as know all the several parts of them How this can be reconciled to the Simplicity of the Gospel or the Worshipping God in spirit and truth may be easily judged by those who can compare things For the Sacraments we have the Two that Christ Instituted Baptism and the Lords Supper And for Pennance Confirmation Ordination and Marriage we have them also among us as they were appointed by Christ and his Apostles though we do not call these Sacraments For Extream Unction we find no warrant at all for it as a sacred Ordinance and we are sure the Church for many Ages did not think of it For Baptism it is done among us in the very Form our Saviour appointed and this they do not deny But among them they cannot be assured that they are at all Baptized since according to the Doctrine of the necessity of the Intention of the Priest to the Being of a Sacrament they cannot be assured of it for an Atheistical Priest can spoil their Baptism so that unless they can be certain of that which is impossible for them to know I mean the Intention of the Priest they are not sure that they were ever truly Baptized But for the Lords Supper if any person will so far trust his own Reason and senses as to compare all the Warrants we have in Scripture for that Ordinance with the Practice of our Church and theirs they will soon see who agree most to them Christ took Bread which he blessed and gave saying This is my Body which is given for you He also took the Chalice and said Drink ye all of it c. All this we doe and no more so that it is indeed a Communion among us and those who have read the account that Iustin Martyr gives us of the Rites in the Communion in his days would think he were reading the very Abstract of our Office But in the Church of Rome besides the less material things of the Form of the Bread the Consecration of Altars and Vessels with the numberless little devices in the Canon of the Mass that they seem not of such importance let these considerable changes they have made be looked into 1. They have brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation against the clearest Evidence both of sense and reason against the nature of a Sacrament and its being a Memorial of Christs Death and that by the very words of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Christs Body and Blood as the one was given for us and the other shed for us on the Cross and not as he is now at the Right hand of God The belief of this crept in by degrees from the eighth Century in which it was first set on foot but much contradicted both in the Eastern and Western Church and was not fully setled till the 13th Century We are sure it was not the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome Constantinople Asia Antioch nor Africk in the 5th and 6th Centuries by express Testimonies from the most esteemed Authors of that time Gelasius Chrysostom Ephrem Theodoret and St. Austin 2. They deny the Chalice to the Laity against the express words of the Institution and contrary both to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church for 1300 years 3. They have declared the Priests saying Mass to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and the Living though the Scripture plainly says That Christ was once offered for us It is true the Primitive Church used the words Sacrifice and Oblation as our Church yet does but their meaning by that was only in the general sense of these terms as Prayers Praises and Alms are called Sacrifices 4. They have brought in a new piece of Worship which is the hearing of Mass without receiving the Sacrament and it is now the great Devotion of their Church Though by the Institution it is as express as can be that the Consecration is only in order to its being a Communion And by the Apostolical Canons which some in their Church believe to be the work of the Apostles and are by them all acknowledged to be a Collection of the Rites of the first Ages all persons that were present at the Worship and did not communicate were to be severely censured 5. The adoring the Sacrament the exposing it on the Altar and carrying it about in solemn Processions to be worshipped as they are late Inventions so if Transubstantiation be not true they are by their own confession the grossest Idolatries that ever were And are not these considerable variations from the first Institution of this Sacrament As for their own Sacraments though there is no reason to equal them to either of these that were instituted by Christ yet some of them we use as they were at first appointed Persons Baptized are Confirmed with Imposition of hands the only Ceremony used by the Apostles We allow the use of Confession and do press it in many cases and give the benefit of

think them the fittest to express their Notions Secondly They were divided into two famous Schools among whom there were great heats the Scotists and Thomists So that if either of these had asserted any thing that was not the received Doctrine of the Age they lived in the other Party had such Emulation against them that they would not have failed to have laid them open as they did in the matter of the Immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin Whereas the Fathers writing only against Hereticks or other Enemies to Christianity they might have mistaken somethings without so publick a discovery as was likely to happen among the Schoolmen 3dly The Schoolmen wrote on purpose to deliver the Doctrine of the Age in which they lived to those who were to succeed them Their Books being generally the Divinity Lectures they read either in Colledges or Religious Houses to their Scholars whereas the Fathers wrote upon Emergent Occasions either Letters or Treatises to private Persons regarding more the present than the succeeding Age. In which we cannot expect that exactness that is to be looked for in a Publick Lecture Upon all which I assume That allowing the Church to have the same Authority in all Ages the Schoolmen are more competent Witnesses of the Tradition of the Church in their Ages than the Fathers were in theirs By the second Rule for judging of Traditions from the Conveyance of the See of Rome it does undeniably follow That the Popes from Gregory the Sevenths time downward were as sure Depositories of the Traditions of the Church as were the Popes from Gregory the First his time upward They were both alike Christ's Vicars and St. Peters Successors So that all the high words that the Fathers bestow on the See of Rome were either Complements in which they are not wanting or were said because of the worth of the Bishops whom they had known in that See But if they be to be understood in that sence in which the Writers of Controversy obtrude them on us then it will follow manifestly that as to the Conveyance of Tradition P. Gregory the 7th is as much to be believed when he says any thing in the Name of St. Peter or of Christ as any of the Popes are For in the Preamble of Bulls and Breeves the Reasons are given of what follows which are most commonly vouched from Apostolical Authority and Tradition So let the Pope be ever so ignorant or so corrupt in his Manners what he asserts to be Apostolical Tradition must be either received as such or the authority of that See is overthrown therefore they must either cease to press us any more with tht Authority of the See of Rome or acknowledg that all the Popes Declarations which they make about Traditions are to be received It is an Answer to be made use of only to ignorant Persons to say These Depositions were the Deeds of some Popes who might be ill Men and the Church is not concerned to justify them I confess whether this or that Deposition was justly or lawfully made is a personal thing in which only the Pope who decreed it is concerned But if he declares in the Preamble that the Power of deposing upon those reasons is grounded on an Apostolical Tradition then the See is concerned in it for either he declares true or false if the former then that Power of deposing comes from Apostolical Tradition if they acknowledge he declares false then we are not any more to be urged with the Authority of that See as the certain Depository of the Traditions of the Church By the third Mark to judge of the Tradition of any age from the Decision of a General Council it appears that the Decisions of the fourth Council of Lateran are as Obligatory as the Decrees of the first Council of Nice the Church having the same power in all Ages If it be said it was only a Council of the Western Church the like may be objected against the first General Council which were generally made up of Eastern Bishops and very few of the Western Bishops sat in them And if we esteem a Council General because it was received by the Church then the whole Church of Rome having received that Council it must be acknowledged to be General as much as any ever was But to this others answer That a Council is only Infallible when a thing is decreed by it according to the Tradition of the Church If this be true the whole Controversie between the Roman Church and us about the authority of Councils is decided on our Side For if a Council has only authority to declare Traditions then it is free for every Person to examine whether this Declaration be according to truth or not And if it be found that it is not so they may lawfully reject such Decisions For instance in the second Council of Nice the worship of Images was established upon a mock-shew of Tradition and yet all the World knows there were no Images allowed in the Church the first four Ages after Christ and even in the sixth Age P. Gregory declared That though they might be in the Church yet they ought not to be worshipped Nor was there any contest about it before the eighth Century This being thus examined and found to be True then according to the foregoing Answer that Decision was of no force though made by the second Council of Nice In a word if this Maxime be true That Councils are only to be submitted to when they decree according to Apostolical Tradition then they have no Authority in themselves and their decisions can have no more force than this That it may seem probable that they were not mistaken and in an Ignorant Age even this probability will vanish to nothing No Body will reject the Decision of a Council when the Decrees are just and right But if i●… be upon that score alone that they are to be submitted to then none are bound by them before they have examined them And if upon a Search it appear they decreed against Tradition then their Decrees are to be rejected So it is apparent this Answer does plainly according to their Principles lay the foundation of all Heresie since it gives every Man a right to question the Decrees of a General Council Besides How can those Persons be assured that the fourth Council of Lateran did not decree according to Tradition The Acts of that Council are lost so we cannot know upon what reasons they made their Decrees And it cannot be said that because there is no mention made of any Tradition in the Decree that therefore they considered none It is seldom found that the reasons of any Decree are put with it But we may reasonably enough believe that they followed the Method in this Council that had been used in some former ones particularly in the second Council of Nice which was this a Writing was read penned perhaps by the Pope or a Patriarch in which