the manifesting of such dangerous errors as were pretended; or otherwise for the quieting of all differences, if no such errors could be proved. Adding hereunto, that the judgment of divers grave and learned prelates of this Church had yet confirmed both his Majesty and himself in the good opinion which his late sovereign lord and master always conceived of Mr. Mountague's worth and learning, together with his constant resolution to maintain the doctrine publicly established in the Church of England, and to continue sound in his religion, whereof some had begun to make a doubt.

Moreover, he said that in this opinion of him he should still continue, whiles he had no just cause shewed him to remove him from it; and if any just cause were shewn, it must be in the substance of his books; for as for the sharpness of style or language wherein they were written, it was partly by direction given him, and partly by peevishness of his adversaries, which might well draw him thereunto: and for concluding that the substantial parts of his writings were only to be regarded in this conference, and that if they were not found erroneous, Mr. Mountague's language, whatsoever it were, ought to be no prejudice unto him, he wished his lordship of Coventry and Lichfield to proceed.

Which he did, in urging for his first point, that authority had been abused. For in publishing of the Appeal divers passages were now printed which were never allowed or approved of before. And for instance he alleged the chapter of Antichrist, where the word rather was added, and the sentence made "the Turk is rather that Antichrist than the Pope."

Whereupon the dean of Carlisle (unto whom the Approbation of the book was committed by his Majesty) made answer, that he could not remember whether the printed copy and that which he licensed did in every tittle, word, and title, agree or no; but for any substantial and material addition or alteration, he could observe none to be made through the whole book; and therefore was still ready to maintain every thing now printed and published to be answerable unto that Approbation whereunto he subscribed his name, unless it could be proved that he was mistaken therein.

The bishop, not seeming to be satisfied with this answer,

CONF. still made instance in the word rather, and urged it so, as if I. the dean himself had in some company affirmed it to have

been added.

The dean answering again as before, and that it was a matter of no moment whether any such word was added or no, the bishop of Rochester began to put his lordship of Lichfield in mind that the adding or not adding of this word, unless it were first proved by him to concern the doctrine of the Church of England, made little to his purpose; and that therefore his lordship should do well to shew first, where the Church of England had by public authority, either one way or other, determined that controversy.

"If it concerns not the public established doctrine of the Church," quoth the duke, "why should we trouble ourselves withal ?"

Whereupon the bishop of Lichfield (though with some unwillingness and reluctation) gave over this first objection against the word, signifying withal, that he meant to speak of the matter of Antichrist hereafter. And so proceeded to his second objection, which was concerning General Councils. Whereupon he urged that Mr. Mountague, in his Appeal,p. 122, &c., had contradicted the public doctrine of the Church of England, delivered in the twenty-first Article, he affirming that "General Councils neither have erred nor can err;" and the Article allowing the contrary, that "General Councils, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and word of God, may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things appertaining to God.”

After the bishop had a while advanced this objection, the dean of Carlisle answered, that when Mr. Mountague was rightly understood, the seeming contradiction between his words and the words of the Article would be soon taken away. For, first, whereas the Article speaketh of General Councils indefinitely and at large, that is, of such as have been reputed lawful and general according to the opinion of the multitude, Mr. Mountague proposeth his assertion of none such, but of some certain General Councils only, which are such as be not lawfully called alone, and which consist of the most worthy and

ceed to the making of their canons and framing their conclusions, according to the rule of God's word, submitting themselves to the guidance of His Spirit, which He hath promised unto such as are gathered together in His name.

And here, as the dean was about to proceed, "Take what Council you will," quoth my lord of Lichfield, “and qualified with any conditions whatsoever, I will prove by this twentyfirst Article that all the Councils of the world may err. this is my syllogism:

All assemblies of men may err;

For

But all General Councils whatsoever are assemblies of men; therefore

All General Councils whatsoever may err."

It was answered, that all assemblies of men in sensu diviso, and considered merely as men, may err; but all assemblies of men in sensu composito, considered as men rightly qualified, and duly proceeding through the power of God's Spirit (wherewith they have promise to be assisted and led unto all truth), shall not so err.

As the bishop of Lichfield began to reply, "My lord," quoth the bishop of Rochester, "you shall not need; for as you propound your argument, you make an adversary to yourself, where you find none. The point of difference is not so much, whether General Councils may err or no at all (for in many things they have erred, saith the Article, and Mr. Mountague denieth it not); but whether General Councils qualified, as before was told you, have erred, shall or may err in fundamentals or no, which the Article doth not, and Mr. Mountague will not, affirm."

"I will prove it," said the bishop of Lichfield, "that it saith they may err in fundamentals :

Things necessary to salvation are matters fundamental; But the Article saith, they may err and have erred in things necessary to salvation ;

Therefore the Article saith, they may err in fundamentals." It was answered, that the Article said no more but that they might err, and sometimes have erred, even in things appertaining unto God, and many things appertaining unto God are neither fundamental nor simply necessary to salvation. "There can no sense be made of the Article," quoth my

I.

CONF. lord of Lichfield, "but only that which I have made already; things appertaining unto God, and things necessary to salvation, have reference here one to another, and are made the same things."

My lord of Rochester replied, that the sense was this: first, that General Councils at all times, and in all things appertaining unto God, are not infallible; for in some of these they may err, and sometimes have erred;—and secondly, that if they proceed in a further degree of making things which pertain unto God and religion to be also necessary to salvation, their authority shall not be received without the Scripture. So that here was a plain difference put between things necessary to salvation and things generally appertaining unto God.

Hereupon my lord chamberlain called for the book of Articles, and comparing the former words with the latter, professed that my lord of Rochester had given a most plain and true meaning of them both. Dr. White added, "that howsoever the Article saith, they may and have erred in things appertaining unto God, yet it doth not affirm that they have or shall err in things necessary to salvation, so long as they take the Scripture for their guide, and use the means which God hath appointed, and which the first four General Councils used to guide them."

"Do not all things necessary to salvation pertain to God?" quoth the bishop of Lichfield.

"Yea," quoth my lord of Rochester; "but all things appertaining unto God are not necessary to salvation. Neither doth the Article speak of erring in all things that pertain to God, but in some only; for the matter being contingent, and the proposition indefinite, the rule is, Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti semper est particularis; and therefore in some things they have erred and may err, but not in all."

The bishop of Lichfield replied, "It is a true rule, my lord, in other things, but not in Articles ;" and being not yet satisfied, endeavoured so long with his logic in antecedents and consequents to prove that either the Article must bear that sense which himself had made of it, or else have no sense in it at all, as that the lords begun to be somewhat weary of his discourse; and thereupon desired him to return

where he was before, and to shew when and in what fundamental point any General Council hath erred, which was qualified as Mr. Mountague requireth.

The bishop made instance in the second Council of Ephesus, which was both general and lawfully called by the Emperor Theodosius; yet it erred in approving of Eutyches' impiety against Christ.

It was answered by my lord of Rochester, that this was no lawful Council, but a factious and heretical conventicle, which wanted all the conditions that Mr. Mountague requireth to the constitution of a true General Council.

It was also added by Mr. Cosin, that all men know how that synod at Ephesus was presented, condemned and vilified by the great General Council of Chalcedon; and the reason was given by Mr. Dean of Carlisle, not only because of the errors in faith there concluded, but also in respect of the outward form and manner of proceeding therein.

Then was a second instance made by the bishop of Lichfield in many later General Councils, and especially that of Trent.

It was answered again, that all these were neither truly general, nor yet otherwise qualified according to the conditions required in a Council by Mr. Mountague, who hath exempted none from error but such (for still his discourse runs upon the word such, said my lord duke and the earl of Carlisle) as have the like form and qualifications to the first four General Councils. "Yet," quoth my lord of Rochester, 66 as ill as things were carried in the very Council of Trent, which was far from being general, it is hard to demonstrate where this Council hath erred in any direct fundamental point of faith; for that in the very beginning of the Council, sessione tertia, it had made a special decree that all and the only fundamental points of faith, which every man must necessarily believe for his salvation, were contained, totidem verbis, in the Constantinopolitan Creed then used in the Church, and there repeated and established by that Council. Whereupon whatsoever they determined afterwards, cannot, by their own decree, be made fundamental or necessary to salvation."

And with this discourse the lords professed themselves much satisfied, and were confirmed in the truth, or so great