condemned this Nicene Council for imposing it Neither of these Councils can be said to have been less Orthodox than that Council was in any point but that which they opposed And their very Opposing it shews that at those times it was not the sense either of the Eastern or of the Western Church When that Council obtained in the Eastern Church yet still it was opposed by the Western and however there also the practice crept in yet that Council has never been received in the Western Church as hath been lately proved by a most learned Writer Nor has Image-worship been defined by any other Council that could be said to Represent both the Eastern and Western Church In all Ages since the Councils which have defined any Articles have been but Western Councils at best For though some Greek Bishops were present at one or two of them yet what they consented to was never ratified by the Greek Church And for these Western Councils to give them their due it was not so much their fault if they lead us into Error as it is ours if we follow them in it For he that reads them and knows the History of their times will not chuse them for Guides if he has any care of that trust which God has given him of himself He cannot but see that bating the three last of those Councils which have not that Authority in the French Church nor with some other of that Communion all the rest were held in times of such palpable Ignorance that when they went amiss they could not well see how to do otherwise Their Bishops could not but be generally unqualified to judge of matters of Faith For they had a great want of good Books and of the Languages in which they were written I speak of those Books that are now chiefly used in all Questions of Faith as well by their as by our Writers And sure they that had them not to use could not but be miserably to seek in all those parts of knowledge which are Absolutely necessary for any one that should judge of those matters Namely those without which they could not Ordinarily know neither the true sense of holy Scripture nor the Judgments of Councils and Fathers nor the Practice of the Primitive Church We find by the best of their Writers in those times that they were so much to seek in those most needful things that not a Colledge in either of our Universities can be said without scandal to know no more in them than one of those Councils If instead of those last we bate four other of their Councils which are disowned by the Papalins for reasons which have been already given all the rest were in such Bondage to the Papacy that they had not the power to do otherwise than they did Their Bishops by Pope Hildebrand's device were all sworn to maintain the Royalties of St. Peter whereof one was that the Popes Faith could not fail And being assured of that as men should be of things which they swear their wisest course when matters of Faith came before them was to trust the Pope's Judgment and pass every thing as he brought it to their hands This way therefore they took and it saved them the trouble of Examination and Debate and such like Conciliary proceedings It may be worth the observing that in Seven General Councils which they reckon from the time of Pope Hildebrand downward among the many Doctrines which they are said to have Defined there is not one that appears to have cost them any more but the Hearing The Pope had them brought and read before the Council as if that was enough to make them their Acts as well as His. And this was the constant course till the Papacy was weakened by a long and scandalous Schism Then those Councils which made themselves superiour to the Pope thought fit to use their Own Judgment such as it was and they proceeded Conciliarly as Councils had done in former times Which way being more for the credit of their Definitions it was continued in those Councils which restored the Pope to his Supremacy with this difference only that whereas those Seven Councils above-mentioned passed all things in the Lump which the Pope or his Ministers brought before them the Councils since have passed them Piecemeal with some shew of using their own Judgment in every particular though in truth with so entire a resignation to the Pope that nothing could ever pass against his Interest or his will even when they seemed most to endeavour it So that in all these Councils whatsoever has passed in determining Doctrines of Faith is in truth no more than a Papal Decree though it bears the name and perhaps has some shew of a Councils Definition Lastly for the Judgment of the Diffusive Church we are not ignorant that many of the things thus imposed of which we can find no mention in Antiquity and which we know were first started long after the beginnings of Christianity yet have been received as well by Greeks as by the Latines in latter Ages But not to say by what means they obtained it we cannot forget what Ages those were in which these things came to gain such an Authority among Christians They were such as learned men of the Roman Communion who are acquainted with the Writers of those times I say as well with the Greek as Latine Writers do not at all reverence their Judgments apart whatsoever they think of them together in Councils And according to the Rule prescribed by those Fathers it will not pass for the Judgment of the Catholic diffusive Church though both Greeks and Latines agree in it and have done so for some Ages together There must be semper as well as ubique and ab omnibus Though the two last conditions may suffice to make us think any Doctrine to be true or at least the Error in it not to be Damnable yet to make us believe it is a Doctrine of Faith there must be semper likewise without which it is no Catholic Tradition It is surely a great Affront to the Catholic Church and to the great Author and finisher of her Faith that as if that Faith once delivered were Insufficient there must be new things added to it from time to time by a Succession of men that take upon them to be his Vicars without making out any colourable title to that Office And though we find no such things in the Ancient Records of his Church though we see these are framed to support the new Authority of those Vicars and though we know how they abused the Ignorance and Tameness of many Ages yet because in those Ages these things were generally received and have mellowed some time since in the Faith of them that knew no better they are pleased to use this as an Argument not only why others must be concluded and bound for ever to sit down by their Judgment who had little and
that matter as well in Foro Ecclesiae having the Canonical right of an Appeal against them as in Foro Conscientiae because what she did was to keep her Faith pure from their undue Impositions Whether she can be cleared as well on the account of her Government in Ecclesiastical matters this we ought to consider as a thing that more immediately concerns us For we date the Reformation of our Church from the beginning of her Reign And though we have a Prescription since of above a hundred years which is enough to secure us against the Claims of the Papacy in the Judgment of them that hold it to be only of Humane Right as all men ought to do upon those grounds above mentioned yet to them of the Roman Communion it will perhaps be more satisfactory if it appear that beside the Right that we have now from Prescription there was also an Original Right in our Reformers to do what they did in the beginning of the Reformation The first thing they did was to assert the Queens Supremacy from whence they proceeded to settle the Church Government and ended with the Reformation of Worship and Doctrine 1. First of what she did in assuming the Supremacy more needs not be said than to make it be understood And we cannot understand her meaning in it better than by her own declaration and practice She declared that she took no other power to her self than what Anciently belonged to the Crown of England that is immediately under God to govern her people of all sorts as well the Clergy as the Laity And she exercised no other Power or Jurisdiction over the Church than what was meerly External as appears by her Injunctions and other Acts. Though if she had exercised any other power than what she claimed it had been only an Act of Misgovernment in her for which she was accountable to God and the Church had not therefore been guilty of Schism since it gave her no other power nor owned her in the exercise of any other than what is above-mentioned And that power is so inherent in every Supreme Magistrate and so necessary for the well-being of the People that we cannot deny the right of it in them to whom we grant the Supreme Magistracy it self Wheresoever any Prince or State have seemed to think so ill of themselves as if they were not so fit as a Foreiner was to be trusted with this Power over their own People or rather where they have been so obsequious to the Pope as to take this Flower out of their own Crown and put it into the Triple It may be every where observed that either they or their Successors have found occasion at some time or other to call for it home again or to use it as if they had notgiven it from themselves We may see examples of this in Germany in Ockham's days in Spain under the Emperour Charles V and in Venice at the time of the Interdict But especially in France where the Gallican Church is obliged to justifie this Right of Princes unless she will grant that her most Christian Kings have been in Schism more than once and especially while they stood to the pragmatic Sanction But we need not go abroad for examples having so many at home and such as are very full to our purpose He that will may see them elsewhere gathered to his hand And I have mentioned enough to shew that even in Popish times our Princes were not ignorant of their Right and that between whiles they were fain to assert it in such terms as did import though they did not name a Supremacy But as their Laws did not expresly mention the word so neither did they always stand by their Laws When they had made them the Pope still found some device or other to make them ineffectual Till King Henry VIII having thrown out the Pope for those reasons above mentioned did by advice of his Council and Bishops take both the Power and the Title on himself whether he took more than his due let others judge As I am not engaged to defend all that he assumed so I need not for so much as Queen Mary exercised of it For it is agreed and there was great reason for it that she was always for the Popes Supremacy in her heart though for fear of her life she renounced it when time was And yet she no sooner came to the Crown but she exercised the Supremacy her self in changing most of the Bishops and Reforming what she held to be Abuses in the Church Afterward when she had surrendred it to the Pope yet she did not so wholly put it out of her self but that when He displeased her she could shut his Legate out of her Kingdom So that to adjust the matter between the two Sisters in this point of Supremacy they seem to have differed only thus One adjudged it to the Pope and yet took it from him when she pleased the other thought it belonged to the Crown and therefore kept it wholly to her self 2. What Queen Elizabeth did in setling Church matters was founded on her Right in the Supremacy By vertue whereof she took upon her to Reform abuses in the Church as her Sister Queen Mary had done And I believe that whosoever compares their proceedings will find that she took more leisure and advice than Queen Mary in doing it For before a Parliament sate she had gone only thus far that she allowed her people some of the Church Offices in a Language which they all understood Afterward by advice of her Parliament she restored King Edwards Laws and repealed those which had been made by Queen Mary for Ecclesiastical matters And by those Laws she abolished the Popish Mass and restored the whole Communion to the Laity whereas her Sister had done the contrary without Law by her mere Right of Supremacy Which Right she having afterwards given away by Act of Parliament though still she used it when she saw cause Queen Elizabeth thought fit to have it restored by Act of Parliament or rather Redeclared for the Act was not Operative but Declarative And whereas by this Act it was required that all Bishops and others that held any Church-living in this Kingdom should take an Oath of Supremacy as we call it or else should be uncapable of holding any such Church preferment on refusal of this Oath there were turned out thirteen Bishops I note the number the rather because there had been just so many of the Protestant Bishops turned out by Queen Mary There appears to have been some difference between the turning out of these by Law and of those without any Law then in force But there was more in the cause of their fuffering those being outed for matters purely Religious and these for a Civil cause for refusing an Oath lawfully imposed Which Oath did not truly concern their
it had been delivered from the beginning But of this Doctrine it has been proved that it was in the Church before those Councils above mentioned and was either declared or supposed by those General Councils therefore it must have been from Catholic Tradition And therefore according to their Principles it ought not to be called to a review much less be disbelieved or disputed by any in this present Age whatsoever advantage it may have above those former Ages in point of Learning and Monuments for the discerning of Catholic Tradition What has been said is sufficient to make it appear that all they of the Roman Church by the Principles of their Communion are obliged to maintain these Doctrines of Popery Whence it will follow that as long as they are true to those Principles we cannot be secure that they will not practise those Doctrines Therefore all the reason we can have to believe that they will do us no hurt if they are truly conscientious persons is only this that we may hope they do not yet know their Churches sense in this matter At present they do not see the repugnancy between their Duty to Princes and the Principles of their Communion But this will only secure us so long as they do not see it and that may be a very little while For as the proofs of this Inconsistency are great and notorious so they are ready to be objected to them by their Adversaries in their own Communion And therefore we can have little security of them if we can have none any longer than while we may suppose them likely to continue in this Ignorance So that the only solid and lasting reason that we have or can have to hope well of the Loyalty of any such Consciencious Persons among them must be the assurance that we have of their firmer adherence to their Duty to King and Country than to the Principles of their Communion Of these Persons we may be secured whilest they are ignorant of that Inconsistence because if they are truly such as we take them to be they cannot but think themselves bound in Conscience to deal fairly and uprightly with us And when the Papalins who will still be practising upon them shall have brought them to discern that Inconsistency the effect of it may be better than they intend For we have reason to hope that such Persons will be so far from quitting their Duty for their Communion that they may be rather induced to leave their Communion when they shall be convinced that it is not possible to maintain it without complying with those Doctrines which they have in so great detestation And these hopes of the good effect of this Countenance to them above others and of the consequent jealousie of those others of their own Communion may be a farther encouragement to zealous Protestants to fhew them this countenance Not only in regard of the security which such as these may give to the State but also in regard of the hopes that in process of these disputes among themselves they may at last by the wisdom of God be won over to the Protestant Communion And concerning these Persons for whom the favour of the Laws is desired we have reason to believe that many of them do really adhere more firmly to the sense of their duty to their Country than to that of continuing in the Roman Communion Many of them are such as have given good proof of it already of which Instances might be produced if it were necessary But to wave all Historical inquiries in this place If the State desire satisfaction herein it may be had by the form which shall be tendred to them By which they may profess that they do in Conscience believe themselves more obliged to pay their duty to their Prince and Country than to stand to the Authoritative Decision of any Judge whatsoever that is owned in the Church of that Communion The second thing objected against that discrimination here proposed is this which were considerable enough of it self but much more being added to the other It is said that we can have no assurance of any engagement they make to us they have so many ways to elude the force of it what by Equivocation and Mental Reservation what by Popes Dispensations by their Doctrine of Probability and the rest There are so many of them that considered one after another they look like a contrivance to destroy all Faith among men For when we think our selves assured by their Promise and especially when confirmed with an Oath yet by Equivocation that Oath in their sense shall signifie quite otherwise than was meant by them that made or imposed it If they do not Equivocate yet they may have some mental Reservation saying inwardly not or something else that quite alters the meaning of what is spoken And if they Swear without either of these tricks yet they may believe the Pope can dispense with that Oath or he can absolve them when they have taken it And though the Pope should not do this yet their Church hath given them the President of breaking Faith with known Heretics And if they make Conscience of that yet it may be some Doctors opinion that there is something unlawful in this Oath which though they did not discover before and therefore took it yet having discovered this after they may think themselves not obliged by it And though they should not be of this Doctors opinion yet that extrinsic probability of this Doctors Authority may be enough to sway them against their own convictions to the contrary The Probability that there is of their holding all these opinions as having been held by Doctors of Reputation among them and none of them ever censured for it by the Church though she hath taken all possible care to censure all such opinions as may be any way contrary either to her Judgment or Interest this presumption is sufficient to persuade private persons that their Church though perhaps she may not believe them true yet believeth them not hurtful or dangerous to her Children And if a Doctrine hath no danger in it though it prove to be false yet the security of it is inducement enough for men to practise it These Principles will the rather hold because according to their other Principles they are taught to relie on the Judgment of their Church in matters of belief even where they cannot do it without renouncing their own Judgment And in this Objection it is very considerable that it is not so easie as it was in the former to distinguish who they are that do indeed hold these dangerous Principles Only we have reason to suspect all them that keep to that Communion upon Principles of Conscience For they must think themselves bound in Conscience to hold these Principles to be practicable because they are so according to the Principles of their Communion And they who are once suspected upon prudent grounds can neither
clear themselves nor satisfie us by any form of profession they can make Because we must still suspect that such persons do prevaricate even in those forms by which they seem to renounce Prevarication This Objection hath been made and it is not without visible cause Now in answer to this it cannot be denied but that many of them have maintained such Principles of this kind as would destroy all possible trust in dealing with them And if they had stood to these Principles in their Actions this would have given us cause to suspect all the rest of their Communion while they continue in it But whatsoever they say in their disputes we have reason to judge of their belief by what they shew of it when they come to the trial of Action And thus even the Papalins themselves have not ventured to act upon these Principles even where they could have nothing to hinder them from it but convictions of Conscience They who have died rather than they would take that Oath which according to these Principles they might have taken and prevaricated in it have plainly shewn that even they durst not trust their own subtilties when they came to be practised Nay the Pope himself who hath forbidden them to take these Oaths and hath animated them to be Martyrs rather than take them would not have exposed his dearest friends to such extreme hazards if in earnest he himself could have approved the practising of these Principles The utmost therefore that we may fear in dealing with them seems only this that whilst they renounce one form of Prevarication they may make use of another If they renounce Equivocation they may at the same time believe themselves obliged not to Equivocate and yet not renounce the belief of the Popes Authority to dispense with their Oath if that be not expresly contained in the Form But we have no Reason to believe that men of such Politics as the Court of Rome are known to be can possibly when they come to practise own fuch Principles as are like to prove so prejudicial to their own Interest Or if they should be overseen so far as to do this yet the mischief that would follow upon it being likely to prove more dangerous to themselves than to us we have no reason to fear running the hazard of it For if there are any that believe that they may prevaricate in the very same form of prevarication which they renounce How is it possible that the Roman Court it self can be assured of such persons That Court it self hath found by experience that it hath had many real enemies that still pretended to live in its Communion How can they be assured but that many of these who pretend to be their Servants and Subjects may prove to be their dangerous Enemies If in earnest they may prevaricate even coram Iudice in a thing not belonging to his Jurisdiction how can the Court secure themselves that persons persuaded of the injustice of the Popes Claim to a power in temporal things upon any pretence whatsoever may not prevaricate with him since they believe that these matters belong not to his Jurisdiction How can they secure themselves but that multitudes of such persons may therefore still keep to their Communion purposely to form Intrigues against them which they could not do if they were out of it It is certain that not only the Papalins have owned these Doctrines but even those who have been the greatest Adversaries of the Papacy among themselves Particularly the Council of Constance is that which gave Authority to the Doctrine of breaking Faith with known Heretics And according to the definition of that same Council the Pope himself and all they who challenge for him the Supremacy over Councils are Heretics for doing so And therefore why may they not break Faith with him as well as with any other Heretic This is a just reason for him to suspect and they who are once suspected can give him no assurance by these Principles Since therefore the belief of this liberty of using Reflexive Prevarication is neither for the Interest nor agreeable to the practice of the Roman Court it self and since the danger that may follow in the trust of it must be more theirs than ours for it destroys the Faith of all whom they have to employ either to defend themselves or to prejudice us we have reason to believe that Forms whereby they renounce prevarication may oblige them to bar themselves the use of those Prevarications which they do therein expresly renounce So that for giving us compleat security nothing more can be desired but that the Forms to be tendred to them may take in all the cases wherein any celebrated Doctors among them do allow them this liberty of prevaricating And therefore the drawing up of this Test would be more properly a work of Divines than of Statesmen and more particularly of such Divines as have been most conversant in the Casuists of the Roman Church If this will not suffice how is it possible that even Protestants who are once suspected of inclining to Popery can ever purge themselves of this Imputation We have had too many Instances of unjust Accusations of this kind It hath been generally the Fate of them who have been most zealous for the Church of England or for any thing of Order and Discipline in it to have been thus represented to the people by men who have desired to make them odious And the mischief which must follow upon this distrust among our selves even of those who are our most zealous Patriots and therefore most eminently capable of doing service is a mischief much greater than we can fear from any thing that can follow on such a trust of the Romanists as have been here described It will make us uncapable of driving on any great design either for our own defence or to defeat their machinations against us And therefore it must be much more mischievous to us than any hurt we can suffer from those of the Roman Communion especially from those who desire not our trust but protection If it be farther suspected that when they have taken all the Tests that can be given them still their minds may alter after all this and that so long as their Priests are near them and have their ear we have too just reason to suspect that they may actually change It will be easie to reply that a change may be possible when all diligence hath been used to the contrary But we have no reason to believe it probable of them who by a Test that hath been before propounded shall profess themselves more obliged to theirDuty to King and Country than to any Judgment or Interest of their Church to the contrary For whosoever they are that are ready to oppose the Judgment of their Church it self if she should declare any thing contrary to their duty it cannot in reason be supposed that they should be so far
Nicen. I. can 6. Concil Constant. I. can 2. Concil Ephes. I. can 8. Conc. Chalced. can 28. together with Act. 16. of that Council Concil Afric can 31. in the Greek or 72. and 92. in the Latin Epist. ad Coelestinum which is at the end of that Council †The Western and Eastern Bishops together were 170. saith St. Athamasius who was one of them AdSolit vitam agenâ—es Tom. 1.818 Of the Eastern 73 declared against the Western Bishops Hilar. Fragm p. 448. and some were Neuters * By his Novel dated An. 445. Iune 6. Vid. Leo I. Epist. 89. * There were no Brittish Bishops at the Council of Sardica as appears by the Inscription of the Synodical Epistle Athan. Tom. 1. p. 756. and by the Subscriptions both of the Synodical Epistle Hilar. Fragm col 408. and of the Canons in the Edition of Isidorus Mercator Though the Brittish Bishops or some of them did afterwards approve of the Councils Judgment in the case of St. Athanasius Ath. Tom. 1. p. 720. where note the Translation is false And as for that Law of Valentinian III. It was not made till after Britain was forsaken by the Romans which was Theodosii 18 or Anno 440. saith Prosper Pithaei Anno 443. saith the Saxon Chron. Theodosii 23. or Anno 455. saith Beda Hist. l. 13. * Page 4 5 c. 2. Cor. 10.8 James 3.15 From King Stephen to Hen. III. Pisa Constance Siena and Basil Greg. XII and Bennet XIII and Iohn XXIII * Concil Const. Sess. 39. Aux Part I. 28 and ult and 11 14 21. Theod. de Niem Nemoris part 6. c. 10. Ioh. Marius de Schism Conc. 1.19 24. a The. Cromwel Herbert p. 173 174. b Dr. Lee and Tregonion Fox p. 119. Dr. London Fox p. 897 and 1104 c. c B. Gardiner B. Bonner c. d Camden Eliz. p. 26. e Sand. de Schism p. 103. B. Ed. 1585. Cressy Pref. to Exom a Labbe Chron. An. 1528. b L. Herbert in Henry VIII c 1502 ending d L. Herbert Ib. e Ibid. f 1505. Iune 27. Ibid. page 249. g 1509. Iune 3. Pol. Virgil. h Sand. de Sch. page 9. who makes 1526. the First Year of the Divorce * Sand. Ib. Pallavicino i Hist. Conc. Trent II. 15.5 Sand. Ib. p. 10. * 1527. the Second Year i L. Herbert †Sand. Ibid. k 1527. Septem L. Herbert l From the Bishop of Tarbe's Speech before the Council Sand. de Schism page 10. m Pallav. Hist. Conc. Trid. II. 15.9 n Sand. de Schism p. 27. L. Herb. p. 233. o Guicciard Hist. Ital. l. 19. Camd. Eliz. p. 3. p 1528. Ian. 13. Letter of Casalis in L. Herbert 1528. The Third Year q Camden Eliz. p. 2. saith in his 38. year of age But he was born 1491. Iune 28. r Camden Ibid. p. 102. s Camden Ibid. saith being then returned Heylin saith she returned with her Father from his Embassie which was in 1527. saith Stow in that year * Page 10. t Camden Ibid. Sand. de Schism p. 23. Pallavic Ibid. 11.15.8 u Sand. Ibid. p. 17. x Camd. Eliz. p. 3. y L. Herb. p. 232. z Sand. Ibid. p. 28. a L. Herb. 1528. Decemb. 17. b Signified to the King 1529 Iun. 13. L. Herbert publisht Iuly 3. Ibid. c Thuan. l. 1. p. 18. C. D. d A vocation signed Iun. 15. L. Herbert 1529. the fourth year e In August Fox Mart. p. 1688. lin 88. f Fuller Hist. of Camb. Sect. 6. n. 40. g Cardinal Bellay's brother and Bishop Stokesly Stow p. 532.1530 the fifth year h Bologna and Padua i L. Herb. 1530. Iun. 13. and 22. k L. Herb. Ib. Aug. 24. and 29. and Sept. 23. l Aug. 31. Ibid. m Speed Hen. 8. n. 71. a Camd. Eliz. p. 3. and 4. b Wolsey and Warham L. Herb. p. 334. c 1530. Aug 9. Florence taken 1531. Iuly 7. Alex. Medices made Duke of it Ricciol Chron. d L. Herb. p. 335.1531 The Sixth Year e Apr. 30. Stow. L. Herb. p. 352. May 31. f L. Herb. p. 354. g Iuly 14. L. Herb. Ibid. h 1532. Feb. L. Herb. p. 363. i March 16. L. Herb. p. 364. 1532. the seventh year k Iuly 8. L. Herb. p. 364. k Iuly 8. L. Herb. p. 364. l Nov. 4. m Nov. 14. L. Herb. Ibid. n Sand. de Schism p. 60. Cooper Holinshed 129 c. 1533. the eighth year o May 23 L. Herb. p. 375 c. p Iune 1. q Sand. de Schism p. 29. r Iuly 11. L. Herb. p. 386. s Nov. 7. Bonner delivered the Appeal L. Herb. p. 389. t Nov. 10. L. Herb. Ibid. u Decemb. 2. L. Herb. p. 395 396. x L. Herb. p. 396. and Lab. Chron. A. 1534 †In the Christmas holy-days L. Herb. p. 396. y L. Herb. and Labbe Ibid. z March 19. L. Herb. p. 396â— 1534. a L. Herb. Ibid. b L. Herb. and Labbe Ibid. c Pope Iulius II. stiled him Defender of the Papal Dignity Leo X. stiled him Defender of the Faith And Clement VII The Deliverer of the Roman City d L. Herb. and Labbe Ibid. e L. Herbert P. 397. f Mar. 23. L. Herb. Ibid. g L. Herbert p. 406. h Bzovius ann 1534.7 i 1534. Sept. 26. Paul III. k L. Herb. p. 451. l Novem. 3 m L. Herb. Ibid. n 1535 Aug. 30. L. Herb. p. 394. o 1538. Dec. 17. L. Herb. and Labbe L. Herb. p. 489. Marius de Schism Conc. part 3. c. 16. Pallav. hist. III. 12.5 Stow Chron. 1533. May. Mantua Vicenza 1536. Iuly 20 L. Herb. p. 471 472. 1537. Mar. 25. L. Herb. p. 489. 1538. April 8. L. Herb. p. 502. Rich. Pates Titular Bishop of Worcester L. Herb. p. 609. * L. Herbert p. 451 452. a L. Her p. 584 and 595. b B. Tonstal's Letter in Foxes Acts c. II. 347.60 Edit 1641. c Sand. de Schism p. 53 L. Herb. p. 329. d Sand. de Schism p. 55. e L. Herbert p. 418. v. Poli Orat. ad Imp. f B. Tonstal Ib. II. 345.10 in his printed Sermon Ibid. 341.46 g L. Herbert p. 511. h Labbe Chro. Anno 1537. i Pag. 45. k Pag. 8 9. l Sand. de Schis p. 68. b. m Pa. 97 98. n Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. An. 1546. April 8. o Supra p. 91 Sand. de Schis p. 139. p Camd. Eliz. p. 39 40. q V.B. Sparrow's Collection r XXXIX Articles Art 37. s See Sir Roger Twisden's Collection of them in his Vindication t Supra p. 18.45 u L. Herbert p. 408. x Supra p. 45. y Sand. de Schism p. 134. z Camd. Eliz. a She puts out thirteen Bishops b Fox Acts and Mon. 1280.60.1282.50 and 1332.20 80. c Full. Church Hist. l. 8 §. 3. n. 41. Pallavic Hist. Conc. Trid. XV. 7.1 2 d 1559. Ian. 23 e Camd. Eliz. p. 39. f Ibid. p. 25. g V. Supra h V. Bramhalâ—'s Vindication p. 86. i Camd. Eliz. p. 41. Bonner Tonstal and Thurlby k Camd. Eliz. p. 36. l Supra p. 6 7. m Anno 1562. n Conc. Trident. Sess. 4. o Cressy's Ep. Apol. n. 132. p Supra p. 8 9. q Conc. Chalced. Can. 30. in the Codex Canonum Universae Ecclisiae and in Binnius III. p. 447. E. Edit Paris An. 1636 a Pa. 81 c. b Anno 787. Conc. Nic. II. said to be of 350 Bishops c Anno 754. Conc. Const. of 338 Bishops Anno 794. Conc. Frankf of about 300. * Dr. Stillingfleet in answer to T. G. p. 812. to p. 838. * Supra p. 88. e V. Greg. VII dictâ—ta f Hence the Style of those Decrees Alex. in Conc. Lateran Innocent in Conc. Lateran c. Pag. 78 80. Objections against the practicableness of this Discrimination * Considerations of present Concernment 1675. I. The Roman Church and Court not differing in their Principles * H. Dodwell of the fundamental Principle of Popery a Pag. 6. a V. Labbe's Edition of the Councils tom X. p. 23. A. and P. 379. E. compared with the Oath in the Pontifical c Ib. tom XIV Col. 944. C. v. sup p. 10. d V. Supra p. 88. e Iohn Major f Anno 1552. Hist. Conc. Trid. l. 4. and Pallavic hist. XII 15.12 15. g V. supra p. 10 h Pallavic hist. Trent XXI 7.5 i Sand. de Schism Contiu p. 182. k Unam sanctam tit de Major Obed. l Concil Edit Labb tom X. p. 405. A. c. m Baron Anno 1046. n. 4. n Baron Anno 1111. n. 29. n. 42. o From Hildebrand downward p H. D. Considerations § XXX of third Lateran § XXXI of the fourth § XXXVI of the Council of Lions q Ibid. § XXXVII of the Council of Constance v. Concil tom 12. p. 276. D. r H.D. Considerations § XXVIII s Ib. § IX c. * King Iames thought himself concerned to write his Defence of the right of Kings in answer to it v. his Works p. 383. t Brunonis Hist. belli Sax. p. 123. Lin. 18. in Freheri Germ. edit Francof 1600. Councils of Labbe's Edition Tom. XI part 1. Col. 727. D. 629. E. u Bzov. An. 1221. n. 2. 1225. n. 10. x Councils of Labbâ—'s Edition Tom. XI part 1. Col. 642. A. y Being called Conciliabula Answer The second Objection * Council of Constance Sess 19. in Labbe's Edition of Councils Tom. XII Col. 196. E. 1 0. A. Answer a Council of Basil in Labbe's Councils Tom. XII p. 620. D. 621. A. 766. B. 767. B. c No new order of Regulars is to be admitted in any place without leave of the Ordinary v. Conc. Trident. Sess. 25. de Regular Cap. 3. Bullam Urb. VIII 1628. Aug. 28. which begins with Romanus Pontifex in the Bullarium Cherubini of Lyons Edition Tom IV. p. 62. d Jesuites discalceat Carmelites and Cappucìns