therefore I have nothing more to do but cite the Fathers words so conclude S. Gaudentius is his 2. Tract upon Exodus says He the Creator Lord of Nature who produces bread out of the earth produces also his own proper body out of bread because he can do it promis'd to do it And He who produc'd wine out of water produces also his blood out of wine .... For when he gave the consecrated bread wine to his disciples He said This is my Body This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believ'd Truth cannot tell a lie S. Chrysostom in his 83. homilie upon S. Matthew has these excellent words Let us every where believe God Almighty nor contradict him although what He says seem contrary to our Reason and our Eyes ..... His word cannot deceive us Our Sense is easily deceiv'd That never erres This often is mistaken Since therefore He says This is my Body Let us be persuaded of it believe it .... These are not the works of human power He who did these things at his last supper He it is who now performs them We only are his Ministers 't is He that Sanctifies He that Transmutes the bread wine into his Body Blood. So that as the same Saint says in his 25. homily upon the 1. to the Corinthians That which is in the Chalice is that which flow'd from his side that we are partakers of S. Ambrose in his book De his qui mysteriis initiantur ch 9. Perhaps you 'l say says he I see quite another thing How do you assure me that I receive the Body of Christ And this is that which remains for us to prove How great says he are the examples which we use to shew that it is not the thing which Nature form'd but the thing which the Blessing has consecrated and that the Blessing has greater force than Nature because by the Blessing even the Nature it self is chang'd Afterwards He instances in the change of rods into Serpents and of water into blood and thus pursues his discourse If says he the word of Elias was powerfull enough to command fire down from Heaven shall not the word of Christ be able to change the Nature of the Elements You have read of the whole Creation He said they were made He commanded they were created The Word therefore of Christ which could make out of nothing that which was not cannot it change those things which are into what they were not S. Gregory Nyssen in his Catechistical Discourse ch 37. professes the same faith I do believe says he that by the word of God the Sanctified bread is transmuted into the Body of God the Word ... Not that by mediation of nourishment it becomes the body of the Word but that immediatly by the Word it is transmuted into his body by these words This is my Body .... the Nature of the things which appear being transelemented that is transubstantiated into it S. Cyril Patriarch of Hierusalem in his 4. Mystagogick Catechise discourses thus Do not consider it as meer bread wine for now it is the Body Blood of Christ according to our Lord 's own words Although your Sense suggest otherwise let your faith confirm you that you may not judge the thing by the Tast .... and a little after he goes on knowing says he holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread although it tast like bread the wine which we see is not wine although it tast like wine S. Hierome in his Catalogue Theodoret in his 2. Dialogue are witnesses that S. Cyril was the Author of this work And now I appeal to the judgment of my Auditory whether I may not venture to defy any Catholick of this present Age to express in plainer terms our Faith of Transubstantiation * However T is very strange you 'l say if this were the faith of the first Ages that None of the Heathens nor so much as Julian the Apostat should take notice of it This if we believe a late Author is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believ'd * As for Julian the Apostat Of three books which he wrote we have but one that imperfect Had he objected it 't is certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have taken notice of it in his Answer So cautious he is in speaking even of Baptism that he passes it over in these terms I should say many more things .... if I did not fear the ears of the profane For commonly they laugh at things they cannot understand * As for the Heathens 't is sufficient to reflect what care was taken by the primitive Christians to hide the mysteries of our Religion to keep our books out of the hands of Infidels This privacy of ours made Celsus call our Doctrine Clancular and Origen in his first book against him answers that it is proper not only to Christian Doctrine but also to Philosophy to have some things in it which are not communicated to every one Tertullian in his 4. book Ad Uxorem ch 5 for this reason would not allow Christian women to marry Pagan husbands will not your Husband says he know what you tast in Secret before you eat of any other meat And S. Basil in his book Concerning the Holy Ghost ch 27. says that The Apostles Fathers in the beginning of the Church by privacy silence preserv'd the dignity of their Mysteries * But because my Author thinks this Demonstration worth a Thousand I am the more willing to answer him in his own words that though I have untied the knot I could with more ease have cut it For since 't is plain evident from all the Records of the first eight Centuries that Transubstantiation always was believ'd it is the wildest and the most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain experience matter of Fact. This is just like Zeno's Demonstration against Motion when Diogenes walkt before his eyes A man may demonstrate till his head heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly was never to have been All the Reason in the World is too weak to Cope with so tough obstinate a difficulty I have now perform'd my promise I have in three Sermons prov'd 1. that Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason 2. that it follows clearly from the plainest words in Scripture 3. that it has been the perpetual faith of the Catholick Church not only since Paschasius but ever since the first foundation of Christian Religion And now I not only beg of you but earnestly conjure you by all that ought to be most dear to you by all your desires expectations of eternal Happyness to consider seriously leisurely three fundamental principles of Christianity 1. That without Faith 't is
thou that replyest against God * 11.33 34. How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out Who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his Counsellour This is the onely answer you can give to a Socinian Apply it to your selves rest content Your argument is just the same and either proves both mysteries incredible or neither When you object that nothing can be more incredible than that the Body Blood the sacred Humanity of Christ is shrouded under the outward forms of bread wine and consequently exposed to all indignities which they are subject to Pray give me leave to ask you whether or no it be not more incredible which we read in S. Paul in the Prophet Isaiah that * 1. Tim. c. 3. v. 16. God was manifest in flesh that in this flesh * Isai ch 53. He was despised rejected of men and we esteem'd him not He bore our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities He was oppresst he was afflicted * Phil. ch 2. v 6.7 He made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant being found in fashion as man humbled himself became obedient unto death Is not this more incredible than all that you can say of the Sacrament Ah! my dear Jesus it grieves my heart to see that thou hast made thy self of no reputation by taking upon thee the form of bread and that by being found in fashion as bread thou hast humbled thy self so low as to be still despised rejected disesteem'd by men But yet it is a comfort to me when I think that thy most sacred Body in the Sacrament is now immortal impassible thou dost not now bear all our griefs carry all our sorrows thou art not wounded there for our transgressions nor bruised for our iniquities thou art not capable of being now afflicted oppresst Compute then if you please all the indignities the Sacrament is subject to and by the way take notice that it is a Sacrament no longer than the Sacramental forms are incorrupted Remember that the natural alterations which they undergo can never operate upon him Take these considerations along with you And if you have that candour sincerity which I am willing to suppose you have you will ingenuously confesse that these indignities which Christ now seems to suffer in the forms of bread wine are nothing in comparison of those which once He sufferd in the form of man. S. Paul writes to the Colossians * 2. ch 8. v. Beware least any man deceive you by Philosophy vain fallacy according to the Tradition of men and the elements of the world not according to Christ He writes to the Corinthians that t is their duty to * 2. Ep. 10. ch 5. v. cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts it self against the knowledg of God bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ He writes to the Romans that they * 11. ch 20. v. stand by faith bids them not be high-minded but fear in the following chapter bids them have a care of being * 12. ch 16. n. wise in their own conceits These Admonitions of the Apostle were superscribed to the Colossians Corinthians Romans they were not written to us but yet they were written for us for our instruction T is a great insolence for human Reason to exalt it self against Omnipotence an insolence much greater than the Pride of Lucifer He only sayd he would be like the Highest but we are not content with that we will be Higher than the Highest We summon the Highest God of Heaven and Earth before the high Tribunal of our Reason we make him accountable to us for his actions And by our arbitrary notions of precarious Philosophy We make no scruple to pronounce what sentence we think fit upon his Wisdom Power and Goodness But the day will come when they who thus exalt themselves shall certainly be humbled and as S. Peter assures us They who now * 1. Ep. 5. ch 6. v. humble themselves under the mighty hand of God shall be exalted in due time which happyness may the Almighty grant us through the grace and merits of his onely beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ Amen A SERMON Preacht before their MAIESTIES AT WINDSOR August 26. 1688. Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body Math. 26.26 AMongst the nine thirty articles of the pretended Reformation the twenty eighth asserts 1. that Transubstantiation cannot be prov'd by holy Writ 2. that it is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture It neither is my inclination nor design to throw dirt in the face of any men but only to wipe it inoffensively fairly of our own by appealing to their own Translation of the Bible and shewing 1. that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture 2. that nothing can be better provd by holy Writ This is in short the whole extent of my design and shall be the subject of your entertainment as soon I have begg'd the assistance of my Saviour desiring his Virgin Mother with all the Angels Saints to second my petition FIRST PART That all men do not rightly understand the word of God in Scripture is a Truth which no man can deny that has a grain of common sense Every man plainly sees how in our Nation the reformed religion is crumbled into multitudes of Sects as opposite in many things to one another as they are to us They all read Scripture follow Scripture prove disprove what they please by Scripture and all the while as they agree in nothing more than in the book so they agree in nothing lesse than in the sense No man is bound to think his neighbour or the whole Church wiser than himself but every man has as much liberty as he has vanity to think himself the best interpreter of Scripture for himself Amidst this great confusion what wonder is it if we find that many with as little modesty as reason face us down that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture The Text which first appears against us is in the 3. ch of the Acts where it is said of Christ that * v. 21. the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things whence it plainly follows that his body is in heaven must be in heaven till the time of restitution that is till the day of judgment All this is very true and we believe it as much as any of our neighbours But how comes this Text to contradict his real presence in the Sacrament The Scripture tells us that our Saviours Body is in heaven but where dos it teach us that it is not at the same time upon earth Where dos it plainly say No miracle can make one
operations of a Man. But mang learned men who read Gelasius and Theodoret want either skill or patience to understand them They find these words the substance of bread remains and are so much transported with the joyfull news of any thing that looks but like an argument against the Old Religion they have undertaken to reform they do not well consider what the word may signifie but willingly suppose the Sense is just the same as they would have it set their hearts at rest and look no farther * I have now sufficiently examin'd what the Fathers say concerning the outward form of the Sacrament what they mean by calling it a type a sign or figure what they understand when they call it the substance or nature of bread I now come close to the main point of the Question What they have taught constantly believ'd during the first eight Centuries concerning the inward substance of the Sacrament Whether they believ'd it was the substance of bread wine or the substance of Christ's body blood SECOND PART Paschasius Rathertus a French Monk Native of Soisson in Picardy wrote a book in the year 831. de Corpore Sanguine Domini at the request of one of his Scholars call'd Placidius an Abbot to whom he dedicated it He makes it his business to explain prove three points 1. that the body blood of Christ are truly and substantially present 2. that the substances of bread wine remain no longer after Consecration 3. that the body is the very same which was born of the Virgin suffer'd on the Cross rose from the Sepulcre He was the more willing to write this book because some people out of ignorance began to doubt of several truths relating to the Sacrament This I gather from an epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard where I find these words Although some people are out of ignorance mistaken nevertheless as yet no body openly contradicts this doctrine which all the World believes professes Our Adversaries take a great deal of pains to persuade us that Paschasius was the first broacher of this Doctrine from him they date the first Rise of it about the beginning of the IX Age although it did not take root nor was fully settled established till towards the end of the eleventh They add that this was the most likely time for the Enemy to sow his Tares when the Christian World was lull'd asleep in ignorance and superstition that the generality of people being quiet secure were ready to receive any thing that came in under a pretence of mystery in religion but the men most eminent for piety learning in that time made great resistance against it This is the Account which now is generally given by our modern Writers and particularly by the Author of a late Discourse against Transubstantiation T is easily said and the contrary is as easily prov'd Read Leo Allatius in his 3. book of the perpetual agreement betwixt East West and you will find Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople saying that the bread wine are not an image or a figure But that they are transmuted into the body blood of Christ Read Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt in his Treatise De Corpore Sanguine Domini you may find it in the 12. Tome of the Spicilegium his words are these We believe therefore and faithfully confess hold that the substance of bread wine by the operation of the Divine Virtue is substantially chang'd into another substance that is Body Blood ..... The tast of bread wine remains the figure the nature of the substances being wholly chang'd into the body blood of Christ Read Theodorus 〈◊〉 Abucara in the Bibliotheca Patrum printed at Lions you will find that in his 22. Opuscule he says The Holy Ghost descends by his Divinity changes the bread wine into the body blood of Christ I omit several others who lived in the same Age with Paschasius and all witness that the Church believd the mystery of Transubstantiation T is well known that the 3. part of Paschasius's doctrine occasion'd some disputes about the manner of speaking They allow'd the body to be the same in substance but not altogether the same because it is not in the same form it has no corporal motion or action in a word it is present in some respects after the manner of a spirit imperceptible to sense all in the whole all in every part This Spiritual presence of his body was much urg'd against Paschasius to prove the body is not absolutely the same But nevertheless if we do not preferr darkness before light we cannot but see that They who wrote against the third part did not write against the second and they who quarreld with his way of speaking did not deny the mystery of Transubstantiation as appears by the testimonies of his pretended Adversaries Amalarius in the 24. ch of his 3. book says We believe the simple nature of bread wine mixt with water to be chang'd into a reasonable nature to wit the body blood of Christ Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz in the 10. ch of his 7. book to Theotmarus De sacris ordinibus Who says he would ever have believ'd that bread could have been chang'd into flesh wine into blood unless our Saviour himself had said it who created bread wine all things out of nothing These men were also Authors of the same IX Age And after all these testimonies I leave you to judge whether the IX Age did not generally believe the mystery of Transubstantiation or whether Paschasius was the first that broacht it in the Western Church I do not insist upon the authority of Bertram either one way or other but however I shall give you a short account of him as much as may suffice to justifie my letting him alone The first question which he proposes in the beginning is * pag 1. whether the body of Christ be done in a mystery or in truth that is to say according to his own words whether it contain some secret thing or whether the bodily sight do outwardly behold whatsoever is done I have not hitherto met with any Author of the IX Age that ever said Our eye sees all that our faith believes but we are to suppose that some body said so or else that Bertram was mistaken He answers with a great deal of truth that * p. 5. it cannot be call'd a mystery wherein there is nothing covered with some veil removed from our bodily senses Outwardly says he the form of bread is set out but inwardly a thing far differing * p. 6. London-Edit 1687. which is not discern'd to be Christ's body by the carnal senses Afterward he compares this Sacrament with that of Baptism and finally in the 18. page he concludes Therefore the things that are seen things that are believ'd are not all one This was indeed a
Catherine de Medicis was pleas'd to tell the Pope's Nuncio that the Council could not be admitted because by the Council's Decrees the King could not gratifie such Ministers of State as had done him singular service with the means of Religious Houses of Church Benefices VI. Leo X. before the Convocation of the Council had declar'd that Luther his Adherents were Hereticks Being therefore already condemn'd why should they come to Council A. 10 Their Errors had been condemn'd in former General Councils and since it really was so Why might not the Pope say so 12. Because the Pope had condemn'd them therefore they * See Scave p. 11. appeal'd to a General Council and since they had appeal'd to it Why should they not go to it VII It was not a legal Council A. That is to say it was not such a one as they had a mind to Luther being question'd first made friends to be tried in Germany As soon as he was there condemn'd by Cajetan he appeal'd to the Pope Immediatly after foreseeing his condemnation there he intercepted this appeal with * ibid. p. 8. another from the Pope to a General Council having ground to imagine He would never call one who was suppos'd to fear that it would severely reform him his Court. As soon as he saw that in good earnest a Bull was publisht in the year 1537. to call a Council at Vicenza he began presently to vilifie Councils put out a book De Conciliis to prove that they always did more harm than good not sparing so much as the first Councils of Nice or of the Apostles Then he appeal'd from Council to Scripture where He that makes himself supreme Judge of the Sense may easily maintain what absurdity he pleases Soave tells us he was * p. 17. used to say that he was so well assured of his Doctrine that it being Divine he would not submit it so much as to the judgment of Angels yea that with it he was to judge all both men Angels After this his Followers thought it more plausible not to shuffle so visibly but to admit a Council clog it with such conditions as would quite disarm it make it useless You may read them in Soave as follows * p. 600. 1. That it should be celebrated in Germany 2. That it should not be intimated by the Pope 3. That He should not preside but be part of the Council subject to the determinations of it 4. That the Bishops other Prelates should be freed from their Oath given to the Pope 5. That the Holy Scripture might be Judge in Council all Humane Authority excluded 6. That the Divines of the States of the Augustan Confession sent to the Council might not only have a consulting but a deciding voice 7. That the Decisions in Council should not be made as in Secular matters by plurality of voices but the more sound opinions preferr'd that is those which were regulated by the word of God. You will not deny but that in England we have had some Kings whose title to the Crown has been unquestionable that some free legal Parliaments have been assembled during their reign Give me leave to put the case that two or three Counties had revolted protesting against all that would be done in such a Parliament resusing to send any Deputies to it but upon these conditions 1. that it be assembled in their Territory 2. that it be not call'd by the King 3. that his Majesty may be subject to it 4. that all the members of it be freed from their Oath of Allegeance 5. that all Humane Authority of former Parliaments may be excluded 6. that they may depute as many as they please with a decisive voice 7. that for fear of being over-voted the Decisions be not made as usually by plurality of voices but that the more sound opinions that is their own may be preferr'd What would you think of these Articles Would you conclude the Parliament was illegal if it did not submit to their demands I do not pretend here to make an exact parallel betwixt the Monarchy of the Church that of England yet however the parity is not so unequal but that it may help to open your eyes VIII The Parties concern'd were Judges in their own case A. No more than in the I. of Nice The world was then divided into Catholicks Arians as now into Catholicks Protestants And as the Catholicks had then a right to judge the one so now they had the very same right to judge the other If any part separate from the whole it does not therefore acquire a right of saying that the Whole from which they divide themselves is now a Party therefore must not judge them Pope Leo and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria counteraccus'd one another of Heresy and yet the Pope legally presided in the IV. General Council which condemn'd Dioscorus Neither was it ever thought a sufficient excuse for Dioscorus to say the Pope was a Party Judge in his own case Mr Chillingworth confesses that in controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to avoid but the Judge must be a Party For this must be the first controversy whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a Party Such is the Pope's Case in the Definition of his Supremacy The same necessity is found in supreme Civil power Inferiour Courts are liable to Appeals But if some of the King's subjects rebell against him oppose his prerogatives or laws 't is evidently necessary that the King must judge his own case or the Offence must not be judg'd at all What must the King do Substitute an equal number of Royalists Rebells This can never be an effectual provision for the Common Peace of Government Or must he remit the arbitration to a neighbouring State 1. This state is always interess'd therefore partial 2. This does not leave within the compass of any Kingdom upon earth sufficient power to procure the common good 3. Were it allow'd in Civil Power it cannot be applied to our present case unless Controversies in Religion could be decided out of the Church by men of no Religion at all In the National Synod of Dort in the year 1618. the Low-country Remonstrants seeing themselves like to be over-voted by the Protestants made the same excuses saying that the major part of the Synod was declar'd of a contrary party that they were already excommunicated by them and therefore they ought not to be Judges To this the Synod replied that if this exception were admitted it would subvert the whole frame of Ecclesiastical Government that Pastors would be discourag'd from their duty of opposing the first beginnings of Heresy if therefore they must forfeit their right of giving suffrages or being Judges afterwards that the Arians other Hereticks might ever have pleaded the same exception against the Orthodox Fathers that
do I find the least syllable of any promise made by the Emperour to him that the Council should not proceed against him according to Law. He came upon his good behaviour and in his own defence confiding in his own prudence and abilities as well as in the Emperour's Letters in which there is no sign of these two promises 1. that he should not be imprison'd if by any misdemeanour he deserv'd it 2. that he should not be executed if legally condemn'd Both these promises were plainly included in the Extraordinary Safe-conduct which the Tridentine Council granted to the Protestants And therefore as I told you in the beginning The Case was quite different Read Soave and if you believe him you 'l begin to be asham'd of your objection * p. 348 Conc. Trid Sess 15. 18. The Synod doth make Faith to all Priests Princes Persons of what condition soever ... Safe conduct to come remain PROPOSE speak IN THE SYNOD to HANDLE EXAMINE WHAT THEY THINK FIT. give Articles confirm them ANSWER the OBJECTIONS of the Council DISPUTE with those whom it doth elect declaring that the CONTROVERSIES in this Council shall be handled according to the HOLY SCRIPTURE Traditions of the APOSTLES approv'd COUNCILS Consent of the CATHOLICK CHURCH Authority of the Holy FATHERS adding that they SHALL NOT BE PUNISH'D upon PRETENCE OF RELIGION or OFFENCES COMITTED or which WILL BE COMMITTED ... and shall RETURN when it shall seem good unto them WITHOUT LET with SAFETY OF THEIR ROBE HONOUR PERSONS but with the knowledg of the Deputies of the Synod that provision may be made for their Security granting that in this Safe conduct ALL those CLAUSES be held to be included which are NECESSARY FOR REAL FULL ASSURANCE Adding that if any of the Protestants either in coming or in Trent or in returning SHALL COMMIT ANY ENORMITY which shall NULLIFIE THE BENEFIT OF THIS PUBLICK FAITH he shall be PUNISH'D BY THEIR OWN Protestant JUDGES so that the Synod may be satisfied and on the other side if any Catholick in coming hither remaining here or returning SHALL COMMIT ANY THING which may VIOLATE THIS SAFE CONDUCT he shall be punish'd by the Synod WITH APPROBATION OF THE GERMAN Protestant 's THEMSELVES who shall be present in Trent .... which things it promiseth faithfully in the name of all faithfull Christians Ecclesiastical Secular If Huss Jerome had come to Constance with such a Safe-conduct they had neither been imprison'd nor executed With such a one as this the Bohemians went afterwards to Basil were civilly used return'd quietly home With this the Wittenberg Protestants went to Trent remain'd quiet there return'd without receiving any affront That no more of the Protestants follow'd their example in going thither was their own fault They knew very well they might have gone remain'd return'd securely if they pleas'd Consider all this at leisure and then tell me if you can what 's become of your Excuse XI The Councils of Constance Sienna had declared it lawfull to break the faith of any Safe-conduct whatsoever A. Read the Decrees you 'l plainly see the contrary The Council of Constance dos not say 't is lawfull for any whosoever they are to violate the faith of their promises but only declares that no Secular Power can legally hinder the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because it is not only independent of it but manifestly superior to it in matters of Religion T is a common Maxim of the Law Superior legibus aut pactis Inferioris non ligatur And in all appearance the design of the Council was to satisfie the World that although the Emperour had pretended to grant an Extraordinary Safe-conduct such as exempts a man from Justice as well as Violence it could not have hindred the supreme Power of Pope Council from proceeding according to the Canons in Causes which are purely of Religion This was the reason why the Protestants would not rely upon the Emperour 's Safe-conduct Nor can I blame them for it See Soave p. 298. Duke Maurice wrote to the Emperour that his Safe-conduct was not sufficient For in the Council of Constance it was determin'd that THEY MIGHT PROCEED AGAINST THOSE THAT CAME TO THE COUNCIL THOUGH THEY HAD SAFE-CONDUCT FROM THE EMPEROUR And that therefore the Bohemians would not go Basil but under the Publick Faith of the whole Council See p. 307. The Ambassadors went all together to the Presidents told them that the Emperour had given the Protestants a Safe-conduct but that they were not contented with it alledging that it was decreed in the Council of Constance and really executed that THE COUNCIL IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAFE-CONDUCT OF ANY WHOSOEVER HE BE therefore they required one from the Synod These Protestants you see understood the Council in the same sense as I do How come you to understand it otherwise Let the Decree speak for it self judge case betwixt us It runs thus Presens Sancta Synodus ex QUOVIS SALVO CONDUCTU per Imperatorem Reges alios Seculi Principes HAERETICIS vel de Haeresi diffamatis putantes eosdem sic a suis erroribus revocare quocunque vinculo se adstrinxerint CONCESSO NULLUM Fidei Catholicae vel JURISDICTIONI ECCLESIASTICAE praejudicium generari vel IMPEDIMENTUM PRAESTARI POSSE seu DEBERE declarat QUOMINUS dicto Salvo-conductu non obstante LICEAT JUDICI competenti ECCLESIASTICO de hujusmodi personarum erroribus IN QUIRERE aliàs contra eos DEBITE PROCEDERE eosdemque PUNIRE QUANTUM JUSTITIA SUADEBIT si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint etiamsi de Salvo conductu confiss ad locum vonerint Judicii aliàs non venturi Nec sic promittentem cum fecerit quod in ipso est ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum Conc. Const Sess 17. The Council does not say that any one who makes a promise is not obliged in conscience to keep it to the utmost of his just lawfull power But only declares that every man's Promises Obligations of performance are confined within the limits of his own Jurisdiction which he cannot lawfully exceed And that therefore No man either can promise or be by promise oblig'd to perform any more This is the plain sense of those words Nec ipsum promittentem Imperatorem Regem vel alium quemvis Seculi Principem cum fecerit quod in ipso est quod nimirum ex officio jure suo potest ac debet ex hoc Salvo conductu in aliquo quod Jurisdictioni obsit Ecclesiasticae remansisse ulteriùs obligatum Can you blame this Doctrine Does not every body know 1. that any man may promise every man ought to perform what lies in his power 2. that no man can either promise to encroach upon a power superior to his own or be oblig'd to perform it The 1. Act of the Council of Sienna proceeds upon the same principles