the Jewish For though the Churches Declaration in thess matters alwaies depends on Tradition yet not on the 〈◊〉 â—â—â—dition enemies to any writings that favour Christianity as these Books we speak of here do and so let them shut up the Canon of their Books prophetical strictly so taken where and when they please but on that Tradition and testimony which the primitive times received from the Apostles who had the gift of discerning spirits concerning their Books nor need we for any Scripture ascend higher than Tradition Apostolical In which Apostles times Mr. Thorndike de ration finiend Controvers p. 545. 546. grants that the Greek copies of these books were read and perused together with the rest of the old Testament-Canon and were alluded to in several passages of the Apostles writings some of which he there quotes and so were delivered by them with the rest of the Canon to posterity Eas Apostolis lectas ad eas allusum ab Apostolis non est cur dubium sit p. 545. And Non potest dubium videri Hellenistarum codicibus scripturas de quibus nunc disputamus contineri solitas fuisse Adeo ab ipsis Apostolis quos eis usos fuisse posita jam sunt quae argumento esse debeant certatim eas scriptores ecclesiae Scripturarum nomine appellant And Ibid. p. 561. he grants of these Books Quod probati Apostolis Ecclesiae ab initio legerentur propter doctrinam Prophetarum successione acceptam non Pharisaeorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in novatam Thus He. And Ruffinus in his second Invective ‖ Apud Hieron â—om 9. proving the canonicalness and verity of some Books called Apocrppha the History of Susanna and Hymn of the three children from the Apostles delivering them to the Church against St. Jerom as one after almost four hundred years denying this and Judaizing in his opinion St. Jerom in his latter daies impar invidiae quam sibi conflare Ruffinum videbat as Mr. Thorndike will have it †Ibid. p. 561 return'd this answer Apolog. 2. Quod autem refero quid adversum Susannae historiam Hymnum trium puerorum Belis Draconis fabulas quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur Hebraeias soleant dicere qui me criminatur stultum se sycophantam probat Non enim quid ipse sentirem sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant explicavi And see something said by this Father to the same purpose opposing the Churches judgment to that of the Jews in his Preface to Tobit Librum utiq Tobiae Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa or Apocrypha if you will memorant manciparunt Feci satis desiderio vestro in transtating it non tamen meo studio Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum studia imputant nobis contra suum he saith not nostrum Canonem latinis auribus ista transferre Sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio Episcoporum jussionibus deservire institi ut potui c. And again in his preface to Judith Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Hagiographa or if you will Apocrypha legitur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero S. Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae c. To all these I grant Bishop Cosin makes replies ‖ See p. 81. c. but I think such as will appear to the Reader that well weighs them unsatisfactory as to the making St. Jerom constantly maintain all these Books to be in the same manner excluded from the Canon by the Church as they were by the Jews § 190 A third inadvertency of the same Author seems to be That from the Anathema joyned to their Decree and from Pius his declaration touching the new Creed he imposed Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus the Bishop argues often †See in him §. 198. That this Decree is made by this Council no less a necessary Article of the Christian Faith than that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin c. Contrary to which see what is said below § 192 and 194. c. § 191 A fourth inadvertency of the same Bishop is in reference to that rule given by St. Austin †De Doctr. Christ l. 1 c. 8. for knowing what books are by us to be held Canonical set down in his Sect. 81. viz. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium but the Bishop sets it down quamplurimum authoritatem sequatur Which Rule the Bishop seemeth there to approve and commend and yet since this Rule is no more proper or applicable to the Churches Authority or Guidance of its Subjects in S. Austins age than in any other precedent or subsequent from hence it will follow that the Bishop is to receive these Books now as Canonical because they are by the most and most dignified Churches of God received as such and he knows that no book is therefore justly excluded from the Canon because it hath been sometimes heretofore doubted of Excuse this digression by which perhaps you may perceive that this Bishop had no just cause to raise so great a quarrel against so great a Council out of this matter § 192 7. That the contrary to such Propositions the maintainers whereof are Anathematized 7. as Hereticks is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith in such a sence 1 As if it were made a Divine Truth or a matter or object of our Faith or the contrary Doctrine to it made against Faith or the matter of Heresie now which was not so formerly 2 Or as if such Divine Truth were not also revealed and declared to be so formerly either in the same Expression and conclusion or in its necessary Principles 3 Or as if any such thing were now necessary explicitly to be known or believ'd absolutely Ratione Medii for attaining Salvation which was not so formerly 4 Or yet as if there might not be such a sufficient proposal made to us of such Point formerly as that from this we had then an obligation to believe it 5 Or yet as if the ignorance of such point before the Definition of a Council might not be some loss in order to our salvation and this our ignorance of it then also culpable But That such Point is made by the Councils defining it an Article or object of our Faith now necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity wherein it was not before by reason of a more Evident proposal thereof when the Council whose judgment we are bound to believe and submit to declares it a Divine Truth or also now first delivers that point of faith more expresly in the Conclusion which was before involv'd and known only to the Christian World in its Principles By which evident Definition of the Council though the Doctrine opposing such point of faith was before Heretical or matter
to be handled in Council were lawful before the Council why not during it Especially the matters being so various as that the Legats were not capable of such Instructions all at once neither did this encroach on the liberty of the Council unless it can be shewed that the Council was obliged to follow it which it is clear they were not because de facto they many times opposed it Neither was any thing in matter of Doctrine voted in Council whatever instructions came in the male from Rome a considerable part resisting § 262 To Ï„. To Ï„. See what is said § 170 171. The Popes Pensions given to some poorer Bishops during so long a Session of the Council might be an effect of his charity not policy However it is clear that their assistance to him was useless as to Protestant Controversies and stood him in little stead as to those Catholick ones wherein a considerable part of the Council opposed him none of which were passed for him if any perhaps were hindred by his party from being passed against him this was the uttermost of any service done by his Pensioners As for many Titular Bishops sent and new Bishopricks erected during the Council whilst those things are only in general said and no particulars named they carry the suspicion of a groundless report § 263 To ν. To ν. The Councils determining things repugnant to Scripture 1 That no injunction repugnant to the Holy Scriptures is to be obeyed is on all sides agreed on But that some of the Councils decrees are contrary to the Scriptures as it is a thing affirmed by the Protestants the lesser so is it denied by the Council and its adherents much the major part of the Doctors and Church-Governours of the West We are to seek then which of them our duty doth oblige us to obey and follow Next 2 As to the Councils determining things not warranted by Scripture See before § 176. the two Propositions both Divine Revelation whereby the Scriptures warrant the Church in her defining and requiring a belief of such things to be lawful and in her injoyning such things to be practised as the Holy Scriptures have not prohibited or declared against This warrant from the Scriptures for any of their Decrees the Council wants not and affirms no further warrant from them as to such Decrees necessary § 264 To φ. To Φ I answer 1st That the Council of Trent allows no Tradition extra Scripturas or unwritten there to be sufficient ground of defining matter of faith unless it be Tradition Apostolical Traditiones saith It †See Sess 4. Decret de Canon Scrip. quae exipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae aut ab ipsis Apostolis spiritu sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt And ‖ Salv. Conduct Sess 15. Vult S. Synodus quod causae controversae secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones c. in praedicto Concilio tractentur 2ly That any Council should make the word of God delivered by the Apostles either by Tradition written the Holy Scriptures or unwritten i. e. by them equally a ground of Faith where there is a certainty equal or sufficient of the one as of the other that it is Apostolical I see not how it can be liable to any Censure Of this thus Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 210. Your next inquiry is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility As for the necessity of standing Records which he there alledgeth from the speedy decay of an Orall Tradition this is sufficiently remedied if the Apostles Successors at least do commit to writing things which were by them orally received And thus Mr. Chillingw †We conceive no antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might stand very well together If God had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written So he hath sending us to our spiritual Guides †Heb. 13.7 17. Eph. 4.11 14. who do by Tradition of their Predecessors writings conveâ—â—â—â—â—â— to us that right sence of Scriptures which is dubious in the written letter of them 3 ly None can rationally deny that the Traditive Doctrine of the Church-Guides would have been a sufficient ground of our faith had the Scriptures not been written because it was so before they were written and is so still to some who cannot read them written or know that others read them right Of this also thus Mr. Stillingf †p. 208. It is evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of faith as to that revelation Because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and his Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrine of Christ before it was written and this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of the Scripture 4ly We find the first General Councils universally allowed to have grounded their Decrees upon the Argument of Tradition and the Doctrine or Interpretation of Scriptures descended to them from former ages as well as upon the Text of Scriptures and by both these not one of them singly to have defended their cause against Hereticks Of which thus Athanasius †Synodi Nicen decreta Ecce nos demonstramus istiusmodi sententiam à Patribus ad Patres quasi per manus traditam esse and In eo Concilio illa sunt scripta quae ab initio ipsi qui Testes oculati Ministri verbi fuere tradiderunt Fides enim quae scriptis decretisque Synodi sancita est ea est totius Ecclesiae And ‖ Epistol ad Epictetum Ego arbitrabar omnium quotquot unquam fuere haereticorum inanem garrulitatem Nicaeno Concilio sedatam esse Nam fides quae inibi à Patribus secundum sacras Scripturas tradita confessionibus confirmata est satis mihi idonea essicaxque videbatur ad omnem impietatem evertendam pietatem ejus quae in Christo est fidei constituendam 5 ly Protestants in some point of faith ground their belief only or at least sufficiently on Tradition †Stillingf pt 1 c. 7. namely in this That the Scriptures are God's Word and consequently must allow any other Tradition of equal evidence a sufficient ground of any other Article of Faith and so do When you can produce saith Mr. Stillingf ‖ p. 210. aâ— certain evidence
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218. Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices § 220 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non-Residence § 235. 4. Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to Church-Authority § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
at least by the Emperor one not without Designs * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods the charges of continuing there great not a few Bishops and other Divines poor great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council especially in its first beginning the more necessitous without some maintenance of their charges threatening to depart as Soavo himself acknowledgeth p. 124 and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them before they had his leave and saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7. these pensions were so small being but 25 Crowns a month that the Bishops so reliev'd staid not without murmuring that thus they were deprived of a just pretence to go away and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated attendance than thanks for his allowance and often complaining of their want some of them saith he in the consultations gave more molestation than some others both to the Legats and to the Pope But if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service it had been easie for Christian Princes by the like allowances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions to have countermined such policies § 171 To the 5th The admitting Titular Bishops 'T is true that some Titular Bishops were in the Council To 5. but they are justified by their allowed ordination of Priests to be true Bishops and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council and vote therein without asking any ones leave I find not any said to be in the Council who were not made Bishops before it Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope as some others do either of erecting any new Bishopricks or creating Titular Bishops during the sitting of the Council nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope save two and those at the first beginning of the Council nor these meerly Titular laus Magnus and Robert Venants waucap One Archbishop of Vpsali in Sweden the other of Armagh in Ireland both excluded from their Sees by Princes enemies to the Catholick Faith Of whom as you may read what is said in Soave p. 140. to their disparagement so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their commendation The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts so chiefly for their Country one being a Swede the other a Scot that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them Lastly if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope the same may be said of them as hath been †§. 167. of the Italians in general * That the Pope found but little assistance from them where he most needed them nor was any advantagious thing done for Him in the Council by their help * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs and passed several Acts against †Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 4. de Deform Sesss 14. c. 2 them when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council some of them would have spoken there in their own defence especially that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bishop without his licence But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress for the future the creating any such Bishops for the reasons given in Soave p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops or of those who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches or of Prelats imployed in greater affairs § 172 To the last The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations and had in them a vote with the rest but were not admitted to have a definitive vote in the Council for this reason least so whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence these their Substitutes coming abundantly from all parts might overbear the Bishops in the Council these being men of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption as they might of the Bishops themselves and this being a thing which those Prelats who afforded their own personal attendance would be much offended with Yet was it attempted to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent as to some of the German Bishops but that this could not be easily done exclusively to others †See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8. l. 21. c. 1. n. 3. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason alledged by Protestants viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted I cannot judge But those Bishops who sent Proxies themselves afterward accepting the Council did what was equivalent to their own or their Proxies definitive voting in it But to conclude this matter suppose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly and to the prejudice of the Council in some things yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above § 148 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things which were therein actually and unanimously established which is enough to overthrow the Reformation CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3. That all General Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new Divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in some former Councils § 198. 9. That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10. That a Discession from the Church and declaration against its Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. § 173 THus much from § 147.
before the sitting of this Council and condemning most of the points which this justifies the Sacrifice of the Mass Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images Purgatory Indulgences and some others were condemned and declared to be against Gods Word by the Articles of the Church of England many years before the same were either imposed to be sworn to by Pius or defended and justified by the Articles of Trent the one done in 1549. the other in 1562. 2 ly Who leave as little liberty to their Subjects to hold the Roman tenents as the Roman Church doth to hold theirs For as the Roman Church doth Anathematize those who affirm the contrary to her Articles to be true so doth the Church of England in the Synod held under King James 1603. can 5. excommunicate those that affirm any of her Articles to be erroneous And for this Churches requiring also not only an external non-contradiction but internal assent I desire you to weight the proofs produced in the 3d. Disc c. 7. †wither §. 83. n. 1. to avoid Repetitions I remit you And if we look into the Protestant Churches abroad we find the National Synod of Dort assembled A. D. 1618. touching some differences among their Divines in those high and dark points of Divine Predestination Co-operation of Grace and Freewill c. where were present also some Divines sent from all the other Protestant-Churches following the Doctrine of Calvin except the French We find it I say in those five Points * to have passed partly in asserting Truths partly in condemning errors no less than 91. Articles or Canons What might their Canons have amounted to had they discussed so many Points of Controversie as that of Trent did And then * to enjoyn all the Pastors their Subjects the teaching to the people of these Truths and therefore the believing of them and * to excommunicate all those holding the contrary as corrupters of the Truth till they shall give satisfaction to the Church in professing the true Doctrines The words of the Synod Sess 138. are these Synodus haec Dordrechtana pro authoritate quam ex Dei verbo in omnia Ecclesiarum suarum membra obtinet in Christi nomine injungit omnibus singulis in Faederato Belgio Ecclesiarm Pastoribus c. ut banc sacram veritatis salutaris doctrinam viz. that delivered in the 91. Articles concerning the five Points in Controversie sinceram inviolatam conservent illam populo juventuti fideliter proponant explicent c. which publick teaching of them required includes assent to them Then against the Remonstrants pronounceth thus Synodus suae Authoritatis ex verbo Dei probe conscia omnium legitimarum tum veterum tum recentiorum Synodorum vestigiis insistens declarat atque judicat Pastores illos c. the Remonstrant Ministers corruptae Religionis scissae Ecclesiae unitatis reos teneri Quas ob causas Synodus praedictis omni ecclesiastico munere interdicit eisque ab officiis suis abdicat donec per seriam resipiscentiam dictis factis studiis contrariis comprobatam ecclesiae satisfaciant atque ad ejus communionem recipiantur Then orders Vt Synodi Provinciales neminem ad sacrum Ministerium admittant qui doctrinae hisce Synodicis constitutionibus declaratae subscribere eamque docere recuset § 201. Only this main difference there is between these two Churches That the one requires assent to her Articles telling her Subjects that in necessaries she cannot erre the other requires assent declaring to her followers that she may erre even in points Necessary The one requires assent in obedience to her Authority delegated to her by our Lord the other seems to require assent only from the Evidence in Scripture or otherwise of the matter proposed Therefore so many of her Subjects as see not such Evidence in equity me thinks should be freed from her exacting their assent And then such obligation to assent would fail of its end expressed before her Articles viz. the hindering diversity of Opinions and the establishing of consent touching true Religion § 202 10. Lastly to shut up all Whatever offence either this strict Profession of Faith summ'd up by Pius 10. or Anathemas multiplied by the Council of Trent may have given to the Reformed yet neither the one nor the other can justly be charged to have given occasion to their discession and rent from the former Catholick Church Which Division and as I have shewed †§. 200. their Censure also of the Roman Doctrines preceded both the times of Pius and the sitting of this Council and on the contrary their Departure and such Censure first occasioned the Churches standing upon her Defence and the setting up these new fences and Bars for preservation of her ancient Doctrine invaded by them and for hindering her sheep from stragling out of her fold and hearkning after the voice of Strangers CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome § 207. 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218 Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices 220. 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to Pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy § 209. 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non Residence § 235. 4 Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. And the Divine Service not in the vulgar tongue § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. § 203 THus much from § 173. of the 4th Head Concerning the multitude of the Canons Definitions and Anathemas of this Council in points of Doctrine The fifth succeeds touching the Acts for Reformation of several corruptions and disorders in the Churches Government and Discipline which was so much petitioned for by Christian Princes and also from its first sitting undertaken by this Council But with such a contrary and unexpected issue saith Soave †l. 1. p. 2. That this Council being managed by Princes for Reformation of Ecclesiastical Discipline hath caused the greatest Deformation that ever was since Christianity did begin and hoped for by the Bishops to regain the Episcopal Authority usurped for the most part by the Pope hath made them lose it altogether bringing them into greater servitude on the contrary feared and avoided by the See of Rome as a potent means to moderat the exorbitant power mounted from small beginnings by divers degrees unto an unlimited excess it hath so established and confirmed the same over that part which
concerning the ignorance or negligence of the Fathers in the main points of our salvation Mans servitude under sin Reconciliation to God Justification the effects of Christs Death and Intercessions thus he in his answer to Cassander's offic pii viri ‖ Apud Cassand p. 802. Si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi ceres si absque Traditionis i. e. Patrum subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit Quid jam fiet praecipuis fides nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causâ preferam 1 Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati tyrannide 2 Gratuita Justificatio 3 Christi sacerdotium apud vetusissimos scriptores it a obscure attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Satan callide spinosis quaestionibus pios Doctores intricabat ut negligentiores essent in hac parte Quomam vero errores quibus profligandis tunc circumagebantur magna ex parte sunt obsoleti mediocrem duntaxat fructum percipimus ex eorum libris Interea si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omnis fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur à spiritu Sancto formemur in obsequium Justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continuae pro nobis intercessio c. The knowledge of such things surely the chief principles of our salvation not to be learnt out of the Fathers And that you may not think that herein Calvins censure stands single before this man Melancthon speaking of Luthers new discovery to the world of the Apostolical Doctrine in the very same points in his Preface to the second Tome of Luthers works thus pleaseth himself in the rare invention thereof Eruditis saith he gratum erat quasi ex tenebris â—duci Christum Prophetas Apostolos conspici discrimen Legis Evangelii promissionum legis promissionis Evangelicae Quod certe non extabat in Thoma Scoto similibus This throws off the Schoolmen the Disciples of the Fathers But he stayes not here till he hath hunted up the same error and mistake in these matters in the Fathers too as high as Origens time Origenica aetas saith he effudit hanc persuasionem mediocrem rationis disciplinam mereri remissionem peccatorum c. And Haec aetas paene amisit totum discrimen Legis Evangelii sermonem Apostolicum dedidicit Now who here could have the boldness to imbrace a way of Justification or Salvation though pretended never so rational or scriptural yet which is withal confessed if not also boasted of after so many ages of the Church that it is a new Discovery Descend we to others of the same more free and open times Peter Martyr in his common Places writing De Patrum Authoritate ‖ Class 4 c. 4. alledgeth Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus capisse errores Quum ergo volumus saith he instaurare Ecclesiam nihil consultibus est quam omnia revocare ad prima ecclesiae principia religionis primordia Quamdiu enim eonsistimus in Conciliis Patribus versabimur semper in iisdem erroribus ' Again Quid fecerunt Antiquissimi illi scriptores cum nulli adhuc essent Patres Si tum ecclesia judicabat ex verbo spiritu cur nunc quoque ita non potest judicare which Question is soon answered that the Fathers Fathers were the Apostles and that they judged ex verbo spiritu Traditione Apostolorum for the sence of the same Scriptures where dubious Again Provocare à Scripturis he must mean for what is the true sence of Scripture ad Patres est provocare à certis ad incerta à claris ad obscura à firmis ad infirma Et aliud quod dixi potissimum spectandum est Patres non semper congruere inter se interdum ne unum quidem ipsum convenire secum Would any thus prejudice the witnesses he intends to bring into the Court for his own cause Again Objiciunt nobis Paulum in Ep. ad Tim. appellare ecclesiam Columnam veritatis Fateor Est quidem Columna veritatis Sed non semper Verum quando nititur verbo Dei But thus is the most ignorant person that can be named Columna veritatis So Peter Martyr Bishop Juel our Countryman as the English Divines who have departed less from Antiquity than other forrain Protestant Churches seem also more desirous of being reputed to keep a fair correspondence with it in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's daies in his challenge at Pauls Cross proposed no less than 27. Articles of Religion wherein he offered to be tried by the Fathers of the first six hundred years But then it is very observable that this learned man hath chosen them so warily that of the twentyseven twenty two are concerning the Eucharist and again most of these only about circumstantiels therein and in these concerning the Eucharist he omits the Oblation of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice to God the Father only contends Art 17. no offering up therein of Christ unto his Father omits also the reservation of the Euhcarist after Communion ended Omits also the most if not all the other principal points that are in Controversie As Invocation of Saints Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead Veneration of sacred Relicks Evangelical Councils Monastick Vows Celibacy of the Clergy The Roman Doctrine concerning Justification Freewill and Merits concerning Penances and Satisfactions Concerning Auricular Confession Distinction of venial and mortal sin c. His silence in which arguing the Fathers not for but against Him seems to have done much more prejudice to his cause than his confident challenge for the other hath done it credit This thing Dr. Cole then a Prisoner observed and in a Letter expostulated with him Quod minutiora attigerit graviora praetermiserit †See Dr. Humphrey vita Juelli p. 132. who return'd this answer Quaestiones se primum leviores movisse ut post ad alia dogmata veniretur Alia i. e. the points he omitted esse ejusmodi ad quae probanda Conciliorum Patrum authoritates quaedam obtendi possint Haec quae ab ipso sunt posita nullum colorem probabilitatis habere c. And Dr. Humphrey Vita Juelli p. 212. seems not very well pleased with this challenge of Juels where he saith Tamen utmiam largitus est vobis plus aequo concessit sibi nimium fuit injurius quod rejecto medio i. e. the Scriptures quo causam suam facilius firmius sustentare potuisset seipsum ecclesiam quodammodo spoliavit Satis enim erat Christrano sic dixisse Sic dicit Dominus Satis erat opposuisse Vestra dogmata Scripturis edversantur Siquidem Daemoniacorum quaestio est Quid nobis tibi Jesu fili David At sanctorum
Body not by a meer joyning it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by his first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there Thus Greeks and Latines ormer and latter times §. 321. n. 20. will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Tranubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Vnion Hypostatical * Christ s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lords or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivisicating virtue of Christs natural body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only not to the Symbols * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lords Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same Body this with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say But this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated But only in the former sence i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it the same If such be their sence the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sence this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8 th Observation M. Claud's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it 9 ly After this §. 321. n. 21 He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neithâ—r Believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presâ—â—ce is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to Him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latines nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines p. 375. because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latines never to have accused the Greeks as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Teneâ—t which they never formerly contested and of an errour in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latines and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very begining of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons 10 ly Hitherto §. 321. n 22. from § 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1 st He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claud's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2 ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8 p 416. The Author
our selves that are upon the Earth because we see the Earth under our feet for we are translated into Heaven and placed among the Angels Where saith he the Father denies not absolutely that we are upon Earth and so he thinks himself as safely guarded here against the Panis apparet by this as before against the Eucharist being pretended to be Ipsum Corpus Christi in a litteral or a proper sense by his shewing that the poor were said to be ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi too Such Evidences therefore rejected by M. Claude he requires for the verifying of Transubstantiation that we produce a Testimony such as this That the Bread is Transubstantiated or the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body So that according to him The Bread but not a Substance is said by them to be changed into Christs Body but not inâ—o a Substance And by the same reason we may say That our Lords Nourishment when he lived here on Earth being changed into our Lords Body proves not that it was changed into the Substance of his Body But suppose then the Expression running as he would have it That the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body And that though it seems the Substance of Bread Yet in truth it is the Substâ—nce of Christs Body or Flesh are we ever a whit now the abler to silence him Or will not his answers still fit as well as befoâ—e viz. That though it seems yet it is not the simple or naked Substance of Bread That it is in truth also the Substance of Christs Body i. e. containing in it the whole Vertue or if I may so say the Substance of this Substance For so it may be shewed sometimes that Substance is used for Vertue He Grants †l. 3. c. 10. p. 263. the Greeks cannot think Christs Flesh or Body to be the Subject of those accidents which are perceived by our Sences to remain in the Eucharist and then the Greeks also to say Videtur Panis Vinum in veritate Corpus Christi Sanguis est and yet will not yield that they hold the Existence of these Appearances or Accidents in the Eucharist without a Subject He grants the Greeks to hold our Lords Body that is distributed in the Eucharist to be indivisible impartible impassible and then affirms them though it is not so to say that no other Substance is this Body than the Bread and yet not to hold the accidents only of the Bread to be passible partible c. The Greeks say that the Body of our Lord which is consecrated and offered in many places at once and at many times successively yet in all these is but one and the same Body and that though it is in all these places broken divided and eaten by many Communicants yet is received by each of them not in a piece of it but whole and entire and after this remains still perfect unconsum'd alive immortal And yet he saith †l. 3. c. 13. the Greeks do not hold or affirm Idem Corpus in pluribus locis do not maintain a concomitancy of our Lords Flesh and Blood not the existence of his Body in the Eucharist after a non-natural manner And that the same Greeks do hold the Substance of that which is offered and distributed in one place as to one person to be really and numerically diverse from that offered or distributed in another But that their meaning only is that the Vertue of this Body is in all places one and the same and to all persons whole and entire and must he not say also that this Vertue is incorrupted and alive 2 Resp p. 514. I yield saith he †in answer to D. Arnaud's Objections touching Remigids that if the Bread were made the Body of Christ in its Substance it would follow that our Lord would have so many Bodies as he is united i. e. in his Divinity to different Breads this he grants notwithstanding Remigius his arguing all these Breads but one and the same Body from the same Divinity replenishing them of which more below But the Bread not being made Christs Body save only in Vertue and in efficacy this consequence is null because this Vertue through the whole world is one and the same For this Vertue is indivisible and is all of it entire wherever it is Thus he And that such are his answers and explications of these expressions of the Greeks as I have here represented You may see in his 2d. Answer part 3. c. 2. 4. His last Answer l. 3. c. 9 c. 10. l. 4. c. 7. l 5 c. 7. l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere § 321 Where chiefly you may observe n. 8. that how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the preâ—ence of Christs very Body yet he expounds them only of the Vertue exclusive to the Substance of Christs Body And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold †l. 4. c 7. That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ opposed to figure by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body so as our Nourishment is made our Body And yet elsewhere †l. 6. c. 10. more fully †That upon the Consecration they held and Vnion of the Bread with the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity an Vnion to his natural Body and that they understood that by the means of this Vnion or of this Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and is made the same Body with it I add as our nourishment by its union to the same Soul is made the same Body with our's Now then when we say that our nourishment upon such an operation passing upon it is or is changed into or is made our Body or Flesh did he candidly here interpret our meaning who should say that we affirm only that this nourishment is our Body or Flesh in Vertue or changed into the Vertue of it exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it So doth this person deal candidly for instance when Euthymius a Greek Author that held this opinion expresseth himself thus †Comment Quemadmodum Jesus Christus supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit m Matt. c. 64 Etiam Hac the Bread and Wine ineffabiliter transmutat i. e. by his united Deity in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suunt in gratiam ipsorum which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthening us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating and encouraging us as Wine †See Psalm 103.15 I say doth he deal ingenuously to expound the here by a C ' est a dire or id est Transmutat ineffabiliter in ipsum Corpus in ipsum Sanguinem id est in gratiam ipsorum Making the Body a Synonyman with its vertue Such a Synonyman saith he as that of S. Paul in 1. Tim. 4.3 They who believe and
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in