III. ceived himself, or he would deceive others. There is no such Discourse thing, nor the least insinuation against them, either directly or by consequence. But he is fallible, and may err in this, as well as he doth in saying that I "have been sworn to them." We do use to subscribe unto them indeed, not as articles of Faith, but as theological verities, for the preservation of unity among ourselves; but never any son of the. Church of England was obliged to swear unto them, or punished for dissenting from them in his judgment, so he did not publish it by word or writing. SECTION THE THIRD. Secondly, they charge us with schismatical disobedience [The se249 to the determinations of the general Council of Trent. To which I answered, that that Council was neither general, nor free, nor lawful h cond objection; viz. that we schismatically disobey the Council of Trent.] 1. The Council of Trent not 1. First, not general,-because there was not one Bishop present out of all the other Patriarchates, and but a part of the Occidental Church; secondly, of those who were present, two parts were Italians, and many of them the Pope's general: pensioners; thirdly, at the definition of some of the weightiest controversies, there were not so many Bishops as the king of England could have called together in a month. within his own realms; fourthly, it was not generally received by the Romanists'. To this he answers, that "there were some Grecian Bishops" there. Perhaps one or two titular Bishops without Bishoprics, not empowered by commission, nor sent with instructions from any Patriarch. These were no Grecian Bishops. He addeth, that "it is not necessary" to summon "heretical or schismatical" Bishops'. Yes, the rather, before they be lawfully condemned; as these never were. Besides, this is begging of the question. When or where were they convicted of heresy or schism? This is but the opinion of the lesser and unsounder part of the Church, against the PART greater and sounder part. Upon this ground the Donatists I. might have called a Council in Afric, and nick-named it a 2. Nor free: general Council. He saith, "it is obeyed by all Catholics for matters of Faith," though not for "matters of factm." He meaneth, by all Roman Catholics. But if it were the supreme tribunal of the militant Church, it ought to be obeyed for "matters of fact" also, so far as they are ecclesiastical. Break ice in one place and it will crack in more. He saith, Pius the Fourth sent "most loving letters" to Queen Elizabeth, but his messenger "was not admitted into England"." As we have in horror the treacherous and tyrannical proceedings of Paul the Third and Pius the Fifth against our princes and realms, so we acknowledge with gratitude the civilities of Pius the Fourth. Certainly he took the more prudent way for a Christian prelate. 2. Secondly, the Council of Trent was not free-first, because "the place afforded no security" to Protestants; secondly, "the accuser was the judge;" thirdly, any one "who spake a free word," was either silenced or thrust out of the Council; fourthly, the Protestants who came on purpose to dispute, "were not admitted;" fifthly, "the legates 'gave auricular votes,'" and some of the Council did not stick to confess, that it was guided by "the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a mail;" sixthly, "new Bishoprics were created during the session, to make the Papalins able to overvote the Tramontanes"." To all these exceptions he answereth, that if the Pope had been their judge, "it had been no more unjust, than for a king to judge" his own "notorious rebels;" but the Pope, out of his abundant "favour," made the Council their judge, which he needed not, their heresies having been formerly "lawfully condemned"." He supposeth, without any proof, that the Pope is an absolute monarch of the Church, which all the Christian world except themselves doth deny. He should remember, that these are their own objections, and that he is now to prove, not to dictate. Whether the Pope III. did judge the Protestants by himself, or by a Council consist- DISCOURSE ing for the most part of his own clients and creatures, who knew no motion but by his influence, is all one in effect. He knew, that he had made his game sure enough underhand, whilst the Italian Episcopals were so numerous and partial. If the Pope did rather choose to refer the Protestants to the Council, it was not out of "favour" to them, as a more equal and indifferent way, but to take the envy off from himself. If Christian princes desire to have a free Council, they must reduce it to the form of the Council of Constance, and revive the 'Deputies of the Nations.' Whereas he saith, that the Protestants were formerly "lawfully condemned," either they were strange phantasms of Protestants, or it was a strange prophetical decree. Lastly, he demands," how I can say that it was not a free" Council, "where two or three safe conducts were granted," where "the Council bound itself to determine" the controversy "by Holy Scripture, Apostolical tradition, approved Councils, consent of the Catholic Church, and authority of Holy Fathers?" Yes, I can say well enough for all this, that the Council was not free. "Fistula dulce canit volucrem dum decipit auceps"250" the pipe plays sweetly whilst the fowler is about his prey." No man,' saith Tullys, 'proclaimeth in the market that he hath rotten wares to sell.' When men intend most to play tricks, they do often strip up their sleeves, to make a shew of upright dealing. Scriptures, Tradition, Councils, Fathers, Churches, are excellent rules beyond exception, yet an inexpert or partial artist may make a crooked line with them. Any one of these proofs would satisfy us abundantly, but this was a mere empty flourish. The Protestants had safe conduct granted, but yet those that repaired to the Council were not admitted to dispute. ful. 3. Thirdly, as the Council of Trent was not a general nor 3. Nor lawa free Council, so neither was it a lawful Council:-first, because it was not in Germany; "a guilty person is to be judged in his own province;" secondly, because the Pope alone by himself or his ministers acted all the four parts of PART [Protestants not in notorious accuser, witness, guilty person, and judge; thirdly, because the Protestants were condemned before they were heard'. To this he answereth, first, that Trent is in Germany":" wherein he is much mistaken. For proof whereof I produce, first, the public protestation of the German Protestants,that to 'promise a Council in Germany and to choose Trent was to mock the world,' that Trent "cannot be said to be in Germany, but only because the Bishop is a Prince of the Empire, otherwise that for security it is as well and as much in Italy and in the Fope's power as Rome itself;" to which the Pope himself giveth testimony in his answer to the "Cardinal, Bishop, and Lord of Trent," when he desired maintenance for a garrison from the Pope to secure the Council, that "there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent," and engageth himself to secure it. The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany, the redress which they sought was in Germany. Germany, not Italy, had been the proper place for the Council. R. C. proceedeth, 'the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope'.' It may be so, but not in a legal or judiciary way. rebellion.] He confesseth, that "in doubtful cases" there "ought to be four distinct persons, the accuser, the witness, the person accused, and the judge," but "not in notorious rebellion," in which case there needs neither witness nor accusera." And doth not this merit the reputation of a "doubtful case," wherein so great a part of the Occidental Church are engaged? who are ready to prove evidently, that he who is their accuser, and usurps the office of their judge, is the notorious rebel himself. I confess, that in some cases the notoriety of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses; but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the law to be rebellion, or heresy, or the like. The Pope's rebellion hath been already condemned in the Council of Constance, and his heretical maintaining of it in the Council of Basle; but the Protestants' renouncing of his usurped authority hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other. III. Yet he saith, the Protestants " were condemned not only DISCOURSE by the Council of Trent, but by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom they appealed".' The Protestants not condemn Patriarch but the One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise, would ed by the believe, that the Protestants in general had appealed from of Constanthe Council of Trent and were juridically condemned by the tinople, Patriarch of Constantinople. Who gave the appellants pro- Romanists. curation to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general? Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the appeal? Where is the condemnation? Is the English Church included therein? No such thing. The case was this. One or two foreign particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them, and he delivered his opinion, it should seem, as R. C. conceiveth, more to the advantage of the Romanists than of the Protestants. This he calleth an appeal and a condemnation. I crave pardon of the reader, if I do not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarch's answer. It is thirty years since I see it; neither do I know how to procure it. Thus far I will charge my memory, that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated, and the Patriarch's answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome than of the Church of England. The right stating of the question is all in all. When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way, they will make them more apposite, and more to the purpose. 251 But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Con- [Cyril Lucarn.] stantinople, to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him go. I mean Cyrillus, since the time of Hieremy, whom that learned gentleman Sir Thomas Roe, then ambassador for our late king at Constantinople, had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church. He published a treatise of his own, much about the year 1630, which he |