The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

and the like, are now turned into another sense, and signify no more what they signified in old time. And after all, the Fathers are men subject to err, whom therefore the Roman Church doth condemn in a thousand things, and the Fathers themselves will not be believed but as much as they speak according to Scripture; upon which, as the only infallible rule, they will have their writings examined.

And here admire the notorious perverseness of our adversary; for we shall see how much Monsieur du Perron labors to prove, that conformity with Scripture cannot be a mark to discern the true Church: and yet the whole scope of his Book is to prove that the Roman Church is the true Church by her conformity with the Fathers. This he will have to be the mark, and the right cognizance of the true Church. So he rejects God, and his word, to put men in their place, and mis-leadeth men's minds into a way without end, and chooseth men for Judges in God's cause. What reason can be given, why the conformity with those who are called Fathers, must rather be the mark of the true Church, then the conformity with the word of God?

The Cardinal not content with the advantage which he takes, to have judges of his own choosing to decide our controversies, and leaving the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles, to pick among the Fathers, such as he likes best, gives himself again another advantage, which is to choose the matters about which he will dispute. These matters then he hath chosen. Of the real presence in the Sacrament, of the oblation of the Eucharist, of prayer and offering for the dead, and of invocation of Saints. Why he doth not put Transubstantion in the same rank? he gives a reason, namely, That it is not of the like necessity. He adds that the invocation of Saints, is not necessary to every particular person, that is, that every particular person may forbear praying to the Virgin Mary and to the Saints, but that it is necessary to the body of the Church. Of these four points then we treat in this Book, and make it evident, that he is cast by those very judges which he hath picked for himself.

But his Majesty of Great Britain, judging it unreasonable that the Cardinal should deal such a fair game to himself, put forth to him other questions; as the Communion under one kind; Private Masses; The Popes power to depose Kings. To which his Majesty might have added, The veneration of the Images of Saints, The Images of the Trinity, The Purgatory, The Divine Service and Prayers in an unknown tongue, The prohibition of reading Scripture, The treasure of Indulgences, The power of the Pope to Canonize Saints, and fetch souls out of Purgatory; and many such things, about most of which our adversaries avoid to dispute, either by the Scripture, or by the Fathers; for they are new inventions, of which, those among them that have some equity, freely acknowledge, that the Fathers make no mention.

The Cardinals second Preface, is nothing else but his old song said a thousand times over, which is an exhortation, that we submit ourselves to the judgment of the Church, and keep union with her: A good exhortation, when one hath discerned before which of many dissenting Churches is the good, where the truth and the way to salvation is taught. Also before one join with the true Church, he must know that the will of God is, that there be a Church in the world in which men may be saved. Which two points, none can know but after he hath been instructed in the Word of God. Whence it appeareth, that the Cardinal abuseth the Reader when he exhorts him to join with the union of the Church; but teacheth him not how to discern the good and orthodox Church from the false and erroneous, and giveth him no instruction by the word of God; without which we should not know that there must be a Church in the world, nor what that Church must be that one may be saved in it.

To strengthen that exhortation, and raise the authority of the Church, the Cardinal labors to debase the authority of holy Scripture, saying, that the most part of the propositions of Faith are not expressly set down in Scripture, but are deduced out of it by consequence only; and that those that are found in it are susceptible of divers, yea, and contrary, literal expositions. He bestoweth a long discourse to show the perplexities wherein that man entangleth himself, that will get his instruction by the Word of God, contained in the holy Scriptures. Wherefore he will have us to address ourselves unto the Church, which he calls a judiciary Court between the Princes Law, and the Subjects, to deliver assuredly the sense of Scripture wholly determined, and the decisions of Faith altogether done and formed. Now that Church he presupposeth to be the Roman only, which he holds to be infallible in the decisions of Faith, and in the interpretation of Scripture, and to give authority to Scripture; although both the Greek and the Syrian Church, from which the Roman is descended, and where Jesus Christ and the Apostles have preached and planted Christian Religion, contradict that assumed power of the Roman Church, and condemn her pride.

Here impiety goes abroad unmasked, and makes open war against God: Yet with so ill success, that at the very first the Cardinal doth evidently enterfere, and contradict himself; for he will have the people to go to the Church for the true decision of the doubts in the faith, before they know whether the Church, to which they address themselves, be good, and whether it teach true doctrine. And how can the poor people come by that knowledge? Shall it be by the holy Scripture? but it is a Book which their people is not permitted to read: and Monsieur du Perron saith, that one cannot come out of difficulty that way, or get a certain instruction. Shall it be by the Fathers? but they are far more obscure then Scripture, and of an endless length, and they dissent among themselves, and they are Greek and Latin Books which the people understands not. Shall it be by the custom and the place of their birth, and the counsel of their neighbors? But so shall everyone follow the Religion of his Country. Shall it be by the authority of the Church? But there are many dissenting Churches: And if we must absolutely, and without further inquiry believe that the Roman Church is the best, because she saith so, she shall be judge in her own cause; and the foundation of Christian faith shall be that the Pope must be believed, because the Pope will have it; and the Roman Church must be followed because the Roman Church doth command it. And in the questions about the duty of the Church, the Church herself shall be Judge. In the question whether the Roman Church be an infallible Judge, the Roman Church shall be the infallible Judge; and cannot err in judging the controversy whether herself can err. So Subjects shall be infallible Judges of the Law of their Prince, and Felons shall infallibly determine of the sense of that Law which condemneth their fellony.

Without question, that man that beareth himself as an infallible Judge, of the sense of God's Word, assumes an authority above that of God. For so he will have all men obliged to follow, not the Words of God's Law, but the authority of that new Interpreter: But then that Interpreter should be without sin, least he should sin in his Interpretation, or make it serve to spare or to disguise his sin; By which means he should become his own Judge, if his sins must be judged by the interpretation which himself will be pleased to give to the Law.

From that abuse are sprung those abominable rules maintained by M. Du Perron, that the Church can dispense from the Commandments of God, and alter that which is commanded in his Word. Of which hereafter.

In this especially the imposture and the spirit of error is visible, that the Cardinal will have the people to address themselves unto the Church to have the sense and infallible intepretation of Scripture, which is putting the people to seek for a thing which cannot be found, for hitherto the Roman Church hath made no interpretation of Scripture. Only you shall find great number of Comments upon Scripture, made by private Doctors that confute one another, and an extreme diversity among them. The Roman Church never set out any interpretation of Scripture, approved by public authority, of which one may say, This is the Ecclesiastical interpretation, This is the sense of Scripture which the Roman Church commands to be received. And here it would be proper to produce the ridiculous or impious interpretations given by the Popes in their Canons, Decrees, and Councils unto Scripture; of which the Learned of this Age among our Adversaries are ashamed. M. Du Perron was wiser then to make use of them in his Book. For these we dedicate a Chapter purposely.

To resolve Consciences we shall go another way to work, a short, a straight and a safe way. Our Adversaries and we are agreed that the holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament is the Book of God's Word, and that there is none else. For although the Popes did endeavor to put their Decretals among the Canonical Scriptures, as we will show; yet God did not suffer them to compass that enterprise. Since then that Book is the Word of God, in that Book only we seek the Doctrine of Salvation. And to the question of our Adversaries, Who shall be the interpriter of that Scripture? Is everyone of you inspired by God to penetrate into the sense of Scripture? We answer, that it needs no interpreter for the things necessary to Salvation: For those necessary things are so clearly set down in Scripture, that there is no need of interpretation to understand them sufficiently to be saved. Scripture teacheth us that God hath created the World, That Jesus Christ is dead for us, and that he is risen again. Scripture commands us to love God with all our heart, and our Neighbor like ourselves. Scripture forbids us to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, &c. To understand these things is there any need to find an infallible Interpreter? Now I say, that the things that are thus clear in Scripture, are sufficient to Salvation.

Since then in that question about the interpretation of Scripture M. Du Perron will have us to find out an Interpreter that may judge with an infallible authority, and a judiciary Court able to give infallible and irrevocable decisions, I maintain that there is no such Judge to be found among men; but the Sovereign Prince can interpret his Laws with an interpretation that hath the force of a Law. It is our part to obey God, not to be Judges of his Ordinances. When some obscurity occurs in Scripture, God's faithful Ministers expound Scripture by word or writing, not by a judgment of authority, but by a judgment of discretion; as when one judgeth of the taste of meats; not to give Laws, but to declare his opinion: and always their expositions must be drawn from Scripture itself, not from the unwritten word as the Roman Church doth. If God by some obscure Text is pleased to exercise or try our humility, we ought rather to choose to be ignorant of the sense then to make ourselves infallible Judges of the Word of God, contenting ourselves with those things necessary to Salvation, which are clearly set down in Scripture.

What I say here will make a stronger impression in men's minds, when those Texts shall be examined which the Roman Church alledgeth, to arrogate unto herself the authority of Judge and infallible interpreter of the sense of Scripture. For even in this that she alledgeth Scripture to ground her authority, she acknowledgeth that the authority of Scripture is not grounded upon the authority of the Church, since the Church seeketh to ground her authority upon Scripture. The Roman Church endeavoring to prove by Texts of Scripture, that to her belongeth the authority of an infallible Interpreter, thereby divesteth herself from the auhority of Interpreter: For must she be Interpreter of those texts whereby she pretendeth that she is acknowledged to be Interpreter? That audaciousness trespasseth against common sense.

But what texts do they use to confer the title of an infallible Interpreter upon the Roman Church? They allege these words, Tell it unto the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen man and a Publican. Is not that mocking God? Is it spoken there of the Roman Church anymore then of the Greek, or Armenian, or Syrian, or Ethiopian? See the text, and you shall find that it is not spoken there of the Universal Church, nor of the decisions of Faith, but of quarrels and offenses between two private persons, upon which, if he that hath wronged his Neighbor will not hear the admonitions of the Church, the Lord Jesus will have him held for a stranger, and put out of the communion of the faithful. To take up such a quarrel between two brothers, doth the Universal Church assemble herself? Is it not evident, that in that text the doubts about Faith are not meant, but Ecclesiastical censures about manners? Is there any mention in that place of the Roman Church, or of her authority to expound Scripture? Is not then this interpretation brought by Innocent the III. and approved by Cardinal Bellarmine a gallant one. Tell it unto the Church, that is, unto the Pope; and let the Pope tell it unto the Church, that is, unto himself.

In vain Mr. Du Perron goeth about to daube so many absurdities with some texts of the Fathers, which exault the authority of the Church, and the succession of Pastors. In vain doth he bring forth Vincentius Lirinensis, who will have Scripture interpreted according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense; For none of those whom the Cardinal alledgeth, speaks of the Roman Church; None of them puts the Church above Scripture. And all things considered, that which the Ancients write of the Church of their time, cannot be accommodated to the Church of our time. For they spake in a time when the Churches of Europe, Asia, and Africa were joined in one body, the parts whereof are now separate in Communion, and in a time when the succession was short and of fresh date, and known of all. But now, that all those Churches are divided by a Schism of many Ages, and the successions of chairs have been confounded and interrupted by a thousand alterations; and in the same chairs, not only in those of Alexandria and Antioch (which are held to have been founded by St. Peter ) but also, in that of Rome; I say now after so many years and changes, it is offering an abuse both to God and men, to go about to apply to the Roman Church that which the Ancients say of the Church of their time. As if Apes coming into a room whence men are gone out, would attire themselves with their clothes. There was more need to teach the Roma • Church to speak as the Apostles do, and to reform her by the Word of God.

The exhortation which M. Du Perron addeth, whereby he doth exhort us to charity and union, is very specious: And would to God that it were in our power to practice it. For what profit do we reap from this discord but ruin and disgrace? And can anything be more desirable then a peace with God, whereby we be rejoined with men, and the Union in the true Faith be made fast by the bond of charity and concord? Oh that such a great good might be purchased with our blood! Oh that we migt be more afflicted yet then we are, so that God thereby were glorified, and our Adversaries brought to Salvation! There was no need then of the Cardinal's exhortations in the words of our Savior, and of St. Paul that we love one another, that we avoid divisions, and that we become one body and one spirit; For to that charity we are wholly and heartily inclined, as every godly person ought to be. But that Union ought to be in good things. And we hope that no exhortation shall ever prevail so far with us, as to make us agree with any to do evil. We owe much unto Concord, but we owe all unto Truth. As in the breasts of the wicked peace of Conscience is not a true peace but a lethargy and a profound drowsiness; likewise the agreement of many wicked men is not a peace but a conspiracy. Therefore the Apostle to the Hebrews saith, Follow peace with all men and holiness. And St. Paul will have us to speak the truth in love. For the Apostle would not have our charity employed to foster untruth. So the Cardinals exhortations to charity will be welcome to us, when we are satisfied once of the truth of his doctrine. That being not evident unto us, but rather the clean contrary, while we keep far from the doctrine of those that hate us, yet we will love their persons and pray for their conversion.

Towards the end he doth triumph though he hath got no victory; taking it for granted, that the Roman Church is that which is meant in Solomon 's Song, Thou hast ravished my heart my sister, my spouse. And that for which St. Paul saith, that Jesus Christ hath given himself. That of which Isaiah saith, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish. And every tongue that shall rise against thee in Judgment thou shalt condemn. That of which Christ saith that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her; and that who so refuseth to hear her, must be accounted as a Heathen man and a Publican. Of which texts, some speak of the Church of the Elect; for she is that Church meant in the Canticles, that Church redeemed with Christ's Blood, That Spouse and that Body of Christ, without blemish and without spot, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, as we shall show in the right place. The other texts speak of the Universal and Orthodox Church planted by the Apostles, not of the Roman Church, of which Isaiah never spake. Or they speak of every particular Orthodx Church, of which, whosoever (that hath offended God or his Neighbor) doth not receive the admonitions, and opposeth the discipline, must be held as a Pagan and a Publican. For by a great abuse of Scripture the Cardinal confounds all these texts as speaking of the same thing, and of the same kind of Church, and supposeth without proof, that all that belongs to the Roman Church.

Finally, he concludes his Preface by some texts, which he employeth to prove that out of the Church there is no Salvation. He brings in the first place a text of St. Paul, that God gave him to be the head over all things unto the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. A text nothing to his purpose; for the Apostle speaks not of the Roman Church, nor of the visible Church neither, but of the Church of the Elect, which only (to speak properly) is the mystical body of Christ; unless we will put dead members in the body of Christ, who is the Author of life, and affirm that many profane and hypocrites living in the visible Church, are members of the body of Christ, and that the same man is a limb of the body of Satan and of the body of Christ together. Is there any doubt that when St. Paul cauls the Church the body of Christ and the fullness of it, he means the whole body of Christ? Out of which body those Saints which are reigning in Heaven cannot be excluded, nor the Elect which are yet unborn. That being granted, it is impossible that the visible Church be meant in that text, seeing that the greatest and the best part of that Church which the Apostle speaks of is invisible unto us; and there is neither reason nor likelihood, that the profane and false Christians that are on earth, be of the same body as the Saints which are in Heaven. Wherefore also the same Apostle in the same Epistle saith, that this Church hath neither spot nor wrinkle, which cannot be proper to any visible Church, and to the Roman Church less then to any, she being defiled with so much uncleanness by the very confession of the most passionate of our Adversaries, as we have shown many times. Besides, that text doth not speak of a necessity of joining with the Church, but of the dignity and Spiritual Empire which the Father hath bestowed upon his Son our Lord.

To that text Monsieur Du Perron addeth many texts of the Fathers, which say that out of the Church there is no Salvation. I will do so much for him as to suppose that by the Church he understands not some Heretical or Idolatrous Church, but the true, the good, and the pure in doctrine. Now the question between us is, whether the Roman Church be such: And this is that which must be proved, not presupposed. And although this were proved, yet since the Roman Church is a particular Church, not the Universal, I might as well find Salvation in another particular Church equal to it in purity. After all, to what purpose should one allege against us, that out of the Church there is no Salvation, since we also hold it and believe it? For if it be question of the Church of the Elect, it is out of question that out of it one cannot be saved. As a branch cannot live separated from the body of the tree, so there is no life to Salvation out of the body of Christ, who is the Spring of life. Or if one speak of the visible Church, it is certain that none can be saved who by profaneness or error in the foundation of the Faith, separates himself from the communion of the Universal Church, and renounceth the communion of the Church, to live after his own fancy, or make a Sect of his own. But of that matter, as also whether this rule, that out of the Church there is no Salvaion, be liable to some exceptions, we shall speak further hereafter. The main matter is to show, that in the Roman Church Jesus Christ is preached according to the Gospel, and his Word purely taught; for without that there can be no Salvation in it. Take that away, all the titles of Catholic Church, chairs, keys, succession, multitude, miracles, in vain will be bragged of; All that will serve only to lead Souls into Hell more speciously, and to give authority to untruth. As unchaste women are the most curious to trick themselves up, the worst Churches will put on the most eminent titles. But as the Devil appearing in the shape of a man's body, will counterfeit all the parts and likeness of the body, but only the life and the brightness of the eye: Likwise false Churches will put on the show of the Church of Jesus Christ, all but the light of his truth.

It remains now, that we give some general taste to the Reader of this Book of the Lord Cardinal Du Perron, that by a pattern he may judge of the whole piece.

In the first place, if doing evil can deserve any praise, and if defending Heresy with dexterity can be worthy of any commendation, that praise I cannot deny to the memory of this Cardinal; that this Book of his is built with a singular Art, to which he hath bent all his faculties, and to make it complete he hath with a long labor employd all the dexterity of his wit, of which he had to spare. Among all our Adversaries I find not such another elaborate piece of Work. And whereas all his other Books are but small things in comparison, we may say that in this he went beyond himself. How great is his diligence in the search of Antiquity! How admirable his nimbleness in giving a fair color to the weakness of his matter, in declining those questions which he judgeth insufficient to bear the trial of a combat; and to set forth all that is most specious for Popery! He finds out many new shifts which none had thought on before him. And where the other Champions of Popery do not satisfy him, he devises some new expedient, and taketh another way. He gently declines the dint of our Objections, and coloureth his want of strength with a show of contempt. All this he clotheth over with a civil language, and with a sweet and pleasant style; but only in those places where he finds himself gravelled and pressed by the evidence of truth. For then he doth purposely involve his sense with dark words, and heaps up a pile of distinctions in philosophical terms, raising a cloud of dust about him, with a capricious and tedious style. By his great reading in the Fathers he gathers up (more out of ostentation then necessity) a multitude of allegations about light or uncontroverted things. But his little skill in the Greek tongue and other human letters, makes him trip often. His whole book is swarming with falsified citations, which I undertake not in this book to examine one by one, contenting myself to produce a few of many; for I know that such an examination is wearisome to the Reader, and of no great instruction. But in general, it is certain that none of those that have blurred paper in France in the Popes behalf, can be compared unto him. I should do him wrong, I say not to equal to him, but even to name after him some petty clamorous wranglers, of the highest boldness, and the lowest ignorance, as Father Gontier, Father Veron, Father Regourd, men whose impudence and venomous choler hath distempered their brains; who in other times should not be suffered, but are fit for this time, in which audaciousness goes for learning, pride for zeal, and a scolding injurious style for true eloquence. I could almost be persuaded to place John Jaubert Bishop of Bazas in the same form; but I spare his Miter, and receive his alehouse Rhetoric of foul words as so many praises. All these start up after M. du Perron, as Wasps out of the body of a dead Horse.

Nevertheless the more I esteem the wit and learning of Monsieur du Perron, the more I deplore his condition for selling his pen unto the Pope, and bending his wit to war with God. For whoso shall seriously consider this book which I am to examine, shall find in it a great contempt, yea, a secret hatred of the Holy Scripture; of which he endeavoreth to breed a disgust into men's minds, to find in it insoluble absurdities, and to undermine its authority. For besides that in so great a book as his, Scripture is very seldom alleged, insomuch that sometimes in fifty leaves there is no mention of God or his word; he makes bold to maintain that the Church can change the things which God hath commanded in his word, and hath authority to dispense from the commandments of Jesus Christ. Of that subject he hath written an express chapter, whose argument is, Of the authority of the Church to alter things contained in the Scripture. There he affirms that there are things in Scripture, which the Church can alter, and hath in effect altered. And speaking of the form after which Jesus Christ hath instituted his Sacraments, he saith that when great inconveniences occur in it, the Church can bring to them, both dispensation and alteration. Especially concerning that command of the Lord Drink ye all of it, he maintains that this precept is not indispensable and unalterable; A blasphemous proposition arriving to the last period of impiety! for none of the ancient Heretics ever went so far.

They took pretences indeed to dispense themselves from the commandments of God, and contradict his word, making use of glosses and exceptions. But never any heretical Church presumed to use this language, We acknowledge indeed that God hath given this commandment; but we have the power to alter it; and it belongs to the Church to judge what commandments of God are dispensable. By that means the Church shall not be subject to God's commands, but as far as she thinks good; and shall blot out of the Law of God whatsoever she disliketh; saying, This commandment I judge to be dispensable. Thus shall man be above God, being once judge of the Law of God. Such is the rude and hard dealing offered to God by the Gloss of the Canon Lector • n the thirty fourth Distinction of the Decree, where it is said, that Papa dispensat contra Apostolum, the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle. Pope Innocent the third saith the same. These are his words, We can according to the fullness of our power dispense from the right, and above the right. And upon that, the Gloss of the Doctors addeth, For the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle, and against the Old Testament, and in vows and oaths. Conformably to the gloss of the Canon Sunt quidam, in the first Question of the twenty fifth Cause, Papa dispensat in Evangelio interpretando ipsum, The Pope dispenseth in the Gospel by giving interpretation to it.

Thomas Aquinas goeth so far as to say that the Pope can make a new Edition of the Symbole, which is making a new Christian Religion. And so the Jesuit (c) Vasquez, Though we should grant that it was a commandment of the Apostles, nevertheless the Church and the Sovereign Pontifex could abolish it upon good causes. And Andradius, Our ancestors men excellent in religion and piety, have disannulled these and many other decrees of the Apostles. Whence he doth infer, that those have not erred, that say that the Roman Popes can sometimes dispense from obeying the Laws of the Apostle St. Paul, and the four first Councils. For so much the Gloss of the chapter Quando personam, saith in the first book of the Decretals, The Pope can change the nature of things, and dispense above the right, and the wrong he can turn into right. Which is the same as Bellarmine saith That Christ hath given to Peter (that is, unto the Pope) the power of making that which is sin to be no sin; and that which is no sin to be sin. And that if the Pope erred in commanding vices, and prohibiting virtues, the Church should be obliged to believe that vices are good, and virtues evil, unless she would sin against her conscience. We tremble out of horror at these blasphemies and shake out the dust of our feet. Must the Pope be above God? Can a mortal and sinful man dispense us from the commandment of God? Or shall he be wiser then Jesus Christ and his Apostles? But of that impious proposition of the Cardinal more shall be said in its proper place.

Of the like nature are these assertions of the Cardinal, when finding himself pressed by the express word of God, he saith that such a commandment was given only for a time, and by provision, not for perpetuity; As in the question of the Celibate of the Clergy he makes Chrysostom to say, that this commandment of the Apostle [ Let the Bishop be the husband of one wife ] was free in St. Paul's time, by reason (saith the Cardinal) of the rarity of unmarried persons in the time of the birth of the Church. And a little after, They were constrained to accept of married persons for the Priesthood, so that they had been but once married; and acknowledgeth that custom to have lasted as far as Constantine's reign, that is, in the three first ages. By his reason we must say that when St. Paul made this order [ The Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, &c. ] he charged Bishops to be sober and blameless only for a time, not always: For since these commandments are joined together by the Apostle, why shall the Church have the power to dispense with the one, not with the other? And who is he that first made that distinction? It is pity then that the Apostle forgot to specify, till when, and for how long that commandment was to be kept, and how long that permission for Bishops to have wives, was to take place. It was ill providing for the good of the Church to command absolutely without exception of persons and restriction of time, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, if that precept was given but for a time, and provisionally, as M. du Perron will have it.

The same spirit of impiety is manifest in that other proposition in the seventh chapter of the fourth observation of the second book; the argument of the chapter in this; One must not go back to the time of the Apostles to cleanse the Church from her pretended corruptions. By which principle the Apostles and their writings, are divested of the quality of judges: Neither must we have recourse anymore unto their writings to end our differences. And no more is wanting but to say that their books ought to be burnt: for what are they good for if they must judge of nothing, and are unfit to resolve us? Indeed M. du Perron denies that there is any corruption in the Roman Church, but those pretended corruptions of which we accuse her he will have tried, not by the writings of the Apostles, but by those of the Fathers that lived in the time of the first four Councils; which is an open confession that the Apostles are contrary to him, since he refuseth them for Judges. Now this reason he giveth why he will be judged by the Fathers of the age of the four first Councils, that is, from the year 325. of our Lord, unto the year 451. The reason (saith he) why we must rather have recourse to those ages, then to that of the Apostles, is evident by the discourse of our observation, which is, that of the first and second Age after the Apostles, far fewer monuments are extant to see the entire face of the Church represented, then of those of the four first Councils. I cannot comprehend with what reason he can say that of the Age of the Apostles and of the Ages next unto them we have less clear Monuments to represent the doctrine of the Church, then of the following Ages, since we have the writings of the Apostles, who are better alone then all the writings of the Fathers that came since; for the writings of the Apostles are of an infallible certainty, and in them no discord is found; but the Fathers have been subject to failings, and agree not among themselves. Wherefore also the Roman Church condemneth them very often.

This Authors impiety is no less manifest in the 12. chap. of his first book, pag. 52. where he denieth that the Faithful have a Theological Faith, and he will have their faith to be only a Moral Faith: Which moral faith will be found also in the Pagans, yea in the Devils. A virtue is called Theological, when it is planted in man's heart by the documents which God gives us in his word: Now faith comes by hearing of the word of God, saith the Apostle, Rom. 10.17. If then the faith of the Christian is not a Theological virtue, it is human or devilish. Faith being the mother of all the Theological virtues, how can it be other but Theological?

As for the Fathers of the three first ages, whom M. du Perron will not receive for Judges, I maintain that from them, more then from the Authors of a latter time, we learn the state and the doctrine of the Primitive Church. Yea, I say, that to those Fathers of the three first Ages, we owe the intelligence of the Fathers that are come since, which follow the steps of the former, and borrow their terms. But how should the Fathers of the time of the first four Councils be rather our Judges then the Apostles, since those very Fathers will be judged by the Apostles, and acknowledge themselves obliged not to speak but after them? Now the reason why M. du Perron stands rather upon the posterior Fathers, and inferior in Antiquity, is not that which he brings: The true cause is, that the ancienter the Fathers are, the more contrary they are to Popery. Also because those later Fathers are of an infinite length; and that of twenty thousand persons in the Roman Church, scarce one hath any considerable knowledge of them. How is it possible then to end our differences by that means? To fight a Duel, is there need of a Cart-load of swords? What other sword do we need but that of the word of God, which God puts in our hand? A sword before which the Devil trembleth; a sword that gives sure blows, so that one needs not after look for another weapon. To that sword indeed belongs that which David said of Goliaths sword, There is none like it.

If a Reader, that hath yet some liberty of judgment left, will here open his eyes, it will be easy for him to discern what opinion the Cardinal had of Christian Religion, and whether he spake of it in earnest, or only to serve the time, and follow the stream. In the fifty sixth chapter of the first Book he compares these two Propositions; the one, that the Church is founded upon the person of St. Peter; the other, that it is founded upon the faith or confession which St. Peter made; which confession is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And see how he compares them: he saith, that the first is original and perpetual, but the other is accessory and temporal: The one consigned from the beginning, the other brought in upon occasion. With him this maxim [that the person of St. Peter, and by consequence that of the Pope is the foundation of the Church] is such a maxim and ground as is perpetual, original, and from the beginning. But this other maxim, or this saith, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, with him, is not the foundation of the faith, but accessorily, and for a time, and is brought in but occasionally. After that, can we believe that this Prelate did believe the Gospel? And what remaineth more for his followers to do, but to put on a Turban, if it be once lawful in the Christian Church to maintain that St. Peter and the Pope are the original and perpetual foundation of the Church, but that this faith [that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God] is the foundation of the Church, only ad tempus, and upon occasion, and not for perpetuity?

That this is no wrongful imputation, it is easy to show; for this is the summary of his Discourse, That the Church is grounded causally, not formally upon that confession of St. Peter, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God, that is, (as himself expounds it) that St. Peters confession was the cause why Jesus Christ chose him for the foundation, which is clearly saying that this confession is not at all the foundation of the Church. As when the virtue of a Gentleman is the cause why the King giveth him an Office of Admiral or Governor, that virtue is not the Admiralty, or the Government: Likewise if the confession of St. Peter is the cause for which Christ made him the foundation of his Church, it follows that this confession is not the foundation. The same he showeth, by saying that this confession is not the foundation of the Church formally, that is, really. Also by making in the same place that proposition [The confession of Peter is the foundation of the Church] like unto this: The faith of Peter hath walked upon the waters, which is an improper and figurate proposition, and a false one too, if it be taken literally. In this especially the impiety is manifest, that this confession, Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, is true properly at all times, and before that Peter believed in Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Church. But the Cardinals sense is, that it began to be the foundation of the Church when Peter pronounced it; and will not admit it to be the foundation of the Church for any other cause, but that Peter pronouncing that sentence, thereby incited Jesus Christ to make him the foundation of the Church.

That which follows is no better, in the beginning of the ninth chapter, where he disputeth about the elect and predestinate unto salvation, he makes St. Paul to say, that God hath marked his elect with his seal. St. Paul saith indeed, that God hath sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts; And that having believed we were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise: And he forbids us to grieve the holy Spirit, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption. So the Apostle calls the inward testimony which the Holy Ghost secretly bears in our hearts that we are God's children. But the Cardinal abolisheth (as far as in him lieth) that Seal and inward testimony of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the faithful, saying, that God hath marked his elect, not in them, but in himself: As if one said that a shepherd hath marked his sheep not in them, but in himself, so that the sheep are not marked, but the shepherd. By so doing he maketh the whole comfort of the Faithful to fade away, opposing the Apostle who puts that seal in our hearts, and saith that the Spirit beareth witness unto our spirit, and that it is we that are sealed, not God. But Monsieur du Perron measuring other men's consciences by his own, and not feeling in himself that inward testimony, striveth to blot it out in others; he denieth it to be in the faithful, and will have it to be in God only.

Thus when the Lord Cardinal declares his opinion that one should rather suffer a King, yea and Jesus himself to be killed, then to reveal a confession. And when he maintaineth, that by the Books of Moses one cannot prove the immortality of the soul, which yet is so clearly, and so often proved there. When he makes two kinds of redemption of our souls, the one original, the other applicative. When he saith that the Sacraments of the Old Testament were vain Monuments and Cenotaphes, as if God had given vain things unto his Church, like unto empty and imaginary graves, whose inscription is false. When to make Holy Scripture ridiculous, he makes a collection of those things which seem to him absurd, and to make it more absurd, imputes to it those things which are not found in it, as that Gen. 2, it is said, that within the Garden of Eden were both Nile and Euphrates, which are above two thousand Leagues asunder; but there is no such thing there; for the second chapter of Genesis speaks indeed of Euphrates, but of Nile not at all. Also when he saith that in the ninth of Ecclesiastes Solomon affirmeth, that the dead have no reward [par de la] yonder, meaning, it seems, beyond this life, as if the souls were mortal. In all these (I say) he layeth open the secrets of his thoughts, even that he made very little account of the holy Scripture, and of the mysteries of Christian Religion; and that he was not well persuaded of the immortality of the soul.

This appears also in that when he alledgeth Scripture, among many passages that have some color, he brings other texts which seem to be alleged merely to make sport. To prove Lent, which is a fast of forty six days, he employeth Scripture, saying, that God made the waters of the flood to rain forty days, and forty nights: That the people of Israel were forty years in exile in the wilderness: That in the ancient Law the chastening of these that were beaten with rods, did not exceed forty blows: Which are goodly and convincing proofs. So he defends the authority of the Church by these words of the Canticles We have a little sister that hath no breasts. With the like subtlety he proveth the primacy of St. Peter, Matth. 17. where Jesus Christ biddeth Peter to pay the tribute for himself and for him. Of the like ingenious vein was his proof by the Quatrains of Pibrac, which say, Adore sitting after the Grecians rule; that the Apostles, though they were sitting at the table, yet did adore the Host.

I doubt also, whether the Sorbon and other Doctors of the Roman Church will approve of several things in this last book of his, and in that of the Eucharist. As when he saith, that after the consecration God preserveth the bread in the universal latitude of its being. And his confession, whereby he acknowledgeth, that the denying of the cup to the people diminisheth the signification of the Sacrament. And this new doctrine, whereby he makes two redemptions of our souls, the one original, the other applicative; making two payments of the same debt, the one original, the other applicative. Likewise I make a great question whether the other Romish Doctors will like of his doubting whether Purgatory be a real or a Metaphorical fire, which is only the horror of conscience. Or of his saying in his Letter to M. Casaubon that the invocation of Saints is not necessary to every particular man; that is, that every particular person may very well be without praying to the Saints, and to the Virgin Mary, and can be saved without that. Of the same sort is his solution of the words of the Canon of the Mass, where the Priest prays for the dead, Qui dormiunt in somno pacis, that sleep in a peaceable sleep, and by consequence prayeth not for the souls tormented in a fire. The Cardinals answer is, that the souls which are burning in Purgatory are sleeping, not in respect of themselves, but in respect of the Church, as if a man could wake in respect of himself, but sleep in respect of others.

For these and the like causes, I suppose that the Faculty, and the Doctors appointed to examine Books that are put to the press, would not grant any approbation to this Book of the Cardinal. For what may the reason be, that a thousand frivolous books come out every day with the approbation of the Faculty on the Front, and this only Book so important, and so long expected, hath got none?

The allegation of Fathers is that main work of the Cardinal, for which he hath bent all his sinews, and searched all sorts of Books with extreme diligence. If ever any man was nimble in giving the slip, and turning passages from their true sense, Monsieur Du Perron gets the prize in that craft. By an ingenious dexterity he takes the words of respect and honor given to the Bishop of Rome for words of subjection. The counsels which Popes have given unto their friends, he alledgeth as Laws and Ordinances; and the several recourses of oppressed persons to the Popes, he brings as so many appeals. And the brotherly help which some Bishop of Rome hath given to the afflicted, as the act of a Judge and a Sovereign. The ordinances made within the Roman Patriarchate he takes as Laws given to the whole Roman Empire; and the orders made for the Bishops of the Roman Empire as Laws given to the Churches of the whole world. He takes precedence or primacy, and the succession to St. Peter in the Bishopric of the City of Rome for the succession in the Apostleship, and in the Government of the Universal Church. The Intercession of Saints he takes for the Invocation; the body Sacramental for the Natural: The Sacrifice of thanksgiving for the sacrifice of Redemption: The free and voluntary observations for necessary rules; and the extraordinary examples for ordinary Laws. Where he cannot encounter our proofs, he gives a turn about, and altereth the State of the question; and after he hath misrepresented our belief, he comes in great state to thunder upon it with a multitude of authorities of Fathers.

But yet sometimes he will fall out with those Fathers which he hath called to help, doing like the Chinesi, who after they have called upon their Demons, if the success doth not answer their requests, they beat and dash to the ground their Images. He saith that the Fathers, translating these words, Thou art Peter, and upon that stone I will build my Church, and applying them to the faith or confession of St. Peter, turn them from their true sense, to employ them against the Arians, and thereupon accuseth Austin of inadvertence. He disputes against the six hundred and thirty Bishops that defined in the Council of Chalcedone, that the Bishop of Constantinople must be equal to that of Rome in all things. He blameth two hundred Bishops of Africa, among whom were those two great men, Austin Bishop of Rome, and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, for writing Letters to Celestin Bishop of Rome, to forbid him to send Legates into Africa, or take cognizance of the causes already judged by them, and desire him that he bring not the pride of the world into the Church. Many times, under pretence of excusing the Fathers, he accuseth them; saying, that they have not spoken according to their sense, and that they have dissembled for fear of being understood by the Catechumen, and that the mysteries should not lie open unto the Infidels. He saith, that to learn the belief of the Fathers, we must not seek it in their Books, where they dispute against the Heretics or Infidels. He speaks of Austin's treatises upon John with contempt, saying, that they are but popular Sermons, and that in them he doth not declare his sense. But the true reason of his exception against those Treatises is, that they are clear against the eating of the Lord's body, with the mouth of the body. For the same reason he speaks of the Dialogues of Theodoret, as of books where he hid his sense for fear of being understood by the Catechumen. If we produce some very express Texts of the Fathers, M. du Perron declineth them, saying, that the Fathers wrest and turn aside the Scripture, and play with it. And that they have mediate, collateral, and accessory meditations, which are the echo and the resounding of the literal sense to recreate the spirits of the Readers, with the sacred mirth and ingenious invention of allusions and Allegorical applications.

All this will be justified by the reading of this book: I could have wisht to have had to do with a living adversary, and would have been like Bees that never sting dead bodies. But the writings, and the reputation of this famous Prelate live after him, and give to the ignorant or malicious matter of triumph, and to the infirm occasion of stumbling. Wherefore I thought that I owed this labor unto the Church of God. In which labor to follow the steps of the Cardinal, I was put to search the writings of the Fathers of the first five Ages: Not to derogate in any wise to the perfection of the Holy Scripture, which alone can, and ought to decide the questions about faith, and in things necessary to salvation is so clear, that it needs no interpretation; but to pluck off from our Adversaries that vizard of Antiquity, and to show that our Religion is the prime and perpetual, and hath the Ancients on her side; Also to defend the honor of the Fathers, which are put to the rack to make them depose against the truth, and speak contrary to their intention; Then to find out the spring of errors, and the occasions of Popery, how Satan from small occasions, by the lapse of time, hath made great evils to arise, and from the abuse of words hath brought forth errors in the faith, and changed the voluntary observations of some men into necessary and general Laws.

In this book, I have followed not the order of the Chapters of M. du Perron, but the nature of things, and the order of times, both to give more perspicuity and proportion to my work, and to exempt myself from repeating the same things fifty times over as M. du Perron does. I have sometimes exceeded the limits of my present subject, which is to answer the Cardinals book against his Majesty of Great Britain, especially in the question of the Sacrament of Penitence, and in that of the real presence, wherein I examine many passages of the Cardinals book of the Eucharist against Monsieur du Plessis.

To be a Suitor for the equity of the Readers, I could allege my sickness of two and twenty months, which hath brought me to the brink of the grave, in which nevertheless I have followed this work: also the interruption of several journeys, many afflictions wherewith God hath visited me, the business of my calling, which requires a whole man, and my want of those helps and conveniencies, which this Lord Cardinal had in great plenty. But truth affords a great advantage, and God makes hard things easy, when in our labor for his cause we have no other end but his glory. By the mouth of children he establisheth his praise, and makes his strength perfect in our weakness. He will make the labor of his servants fruitful, and will dissipate the clouds of error by the brightness of his Gospel. Or if the hardness of this Age hinders the fruit of our labor, though we have here sowed upon stones, yet we shall reap in heaven. And God will bring a time in which the edge of his word, which seems now to grow blunt by the hardness of hearts, will recover its strength and virtue. To him be glory forever, Amen.

A Pattern of Falsifications and depravations of passages alleged by the L. Cardinal Du Perron, in his Book against the King of Great Britain.

The Reader shall find more of these observed in the Table in the end of this Book.

THE L. Cardinal Du Perron in the sixth Chap. of his fifth Book, where he is gathering the absurdities which he finds in the holy Scripture, in the 1099. Page of the first Edition, saith that in the second ch. of Genesis it is affirmed, that within the Garden of Eden there was among other Rivers that of Nile, and that of Euphrates, which are above a thousand leagues asunder. But there is no mention of Nile in all that Chapter. It is easy for one to make Scripture to say absurd things, when he falsifieth it.

In the same Chapter, pag, 1101. he imposeth on St. John that he saith in the fifteenth ch. he that cometh after me, was made before me; of which there is not one word in the whole Chapter. There is indeed in the first chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he was before me, or he was preferred before me, not he was made before me.

St. Paul, Gal. 2.6. saith, comparing himself with the most eminent among the Apostles, They that are eminent have brought nothing to me, otherwise, Those that seemed to be somewhat added nothing unto me. The Cardinal in his 56. ch. p. 526. to persuade that St. Paul compareth himself with the most excellent Apostles, not in authority, but only in learning, translateth, They that seemed to be something have taught me nothing. The vulgar version hath contulerunt, not docuerunt.

Deut. 18. v. 18. God saith, I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee; which words are expounded by St. Steven, Acts 7.37. as said of Jesus Christ. But the Cardinal in the second chap. of his third book, to authorize by that text the Pastors of the Church, that the people may have recourse unto them rather then to the Law of God, hath translated, the Lord will raise you Prophets, you shall hear them; putting the plural, Prophets, instead of the singular, a Prophet, that he may transport to the Pastors of the Roman Church that which is said of Jesus Christ alone.

M. Du Perron in his fifth book, chap. 18. of the fourth Instance pag. 990. to prove that the Saints departed know our hearts, alledgeth, 1 Cor. 14.25. where he makes St. Paul to say, that by the gift of prophesy the secrets of the hearts are manifested. Which is a text falsified both in the words and the sense; for these words, by the gift of prophecy, are of the Cardinals addition. And as for the sense, St. Paul speaks not of knowing the hearts by prophecy, but he speaks of the manifestation of the heart made by a confession, which giveth glory to God before the Congregation, as it appeareth by the following words, Thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

And that which is more intolerable, is that a little after, pag. 992. he alledgeth the same text quite otherwise, and falsifies it another way, in these words, When a man prophecieth, they that come in are confounded, because the secrets of their hearts are manifested. There is no such thing in the text of St. Paul. And observe that he sets down the text in a different letter, as an allegation of the very words of the Apostle.

In the Page before, which is 991. to prove that the Saints departed hear our Prayers, he brings in a text of 1 Cor. 13. in these words, Now I know in part, but when that which is perfect is come, I shall know as I am known. Where St. Paul speaks not of the knowledge which he should have of our Prayers after this life, or of things that are done here in Earth, as M. Du Perron understands it, but of the full knowledge which he should have of God in the life to come. Now least that the Reader should perceive that this is the sense of St. Paul 's words, he hath beheaded the text, having suppressed the precedent words, then we shall see face to face; now I know in part, &c. Where it is clear that he speaks of the sight of the face of God, not of the knowledge which the Saints have of them that are in the World, as M. Du Perron will have it.

In the same place to prove that the Angels offer our Prayers unto God, and by consequence know them, he alledgeth, Rev. 8.3. as if it were said there, that the Angels offer the prayers of the faithful unto God: But there it is spoken of one Angel only, offering incense with the prayers of the Saints. The Cardinal hath put Angels instead of an Angel, lest we should come to think that this Angel is our Lord Jesus Christ.

Page 992. to prove that after this life the thoughts of the heart shall be manifested of the one to the other, that is, that the thoughts of the living shall be manifested to the Saints departed, he alledgeth, 1 Cor. 4.5. in these words, Judge of nothing before the time, until that the Lord hath enlightened the hiding places of darkness, and manifested the thoughts of the hearts; That text is falsified; for this is the right one, Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise of God. M. Du Perron hath cut off these words, until the Lord come; and these also, and then shall every man have praise of God, because these words show, that there St. Paul speaks of the day of Judgment, in which the Lord Jesus Christ shall come, and things hidden shall be brought to light, and praise shall be given to everyone according to his works. And by consequent it is not spoken there of the knowledge which the Saints of Paradise have of the thoughts of men living upon Earth.

In his fifth book chap. 2. of the fourth instance pag. 964. to prove that we must adress our Prayers to the Saints departed he alledgeth, Gen. 20.7. in these words, Address thyself unto Abraham and he shall pray for thee. These words Address thyself unto Abraham are of the Cardinals addition. Note also that Abraham was then living, wherefore though this text were not falsified, it were of no force for the invocation of the Saints departed.

It is written, Joshua 7.6. that Joshua rent his clothes and fell to the earth upon his face before the Ark of the Lord. M. Du Perron in the third book of the Eucharist against Mr. Du Plessis in the eleventh chapter, to prove the adoration of the Sacrament, alledgeth that text, but corrupts it, saying, that Joshua and all the people worshipped the Ark.

In the 56. chap. of the third book, pag. 526. to prove the primacy of Peter he alledgeth a passage of St. Ambrose, of the fourth ch. of the book of the Incarnation, in these words, This (meaning Peter) when he had heard, But you, who do you say that I am? presently not forgetting his place, he made the Primacy. It is an excellent passage of St. Ambrose, which M. Du Perron hath clipt to turn it to a contrary sense. These are the true words of Ambrose, Petrus non immemor sui, primatum egit. Primatum utique confessionis non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis; that is, Peter not forgetting his place made the primacy; the primacy indeed in the confession, not in honor; the primacy in the faith, not in order. Ambrose acknowledgeth in St. Peter a prioity or primacy in making his confession of Faith, not in honor or order. Wherefore M Du Perron cuts these words away, Primatum confessionis non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis.

In the same chapter, page 527. to prove that Peter answered Jesus Christ, Thou art the Christ the son of the living God, because that past the capacicy of the other Apostles, he alleged Cyrillus of Jerusalem in the eleventh Catechesis, in these words, All the other Apostles being silent (for that doctrine was above their strength) Peter, &c. But there is in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for that doctrine was above human reach, not that doctrine was above their strength.

In the same 56. chapter in the last line of the 531. page he saith, that Chrysostom in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Galatians, reads, Cephas, James and John. Let the Reader see the place, he shall find that Chrysostom reads James, Cephas and John, putting James before Peter.

In the same chapter, page 533. he alledgeth for St. Peters Primacy a passage of St. Austin, in the second book of Baptism against the Donatists, where Austin alledgeth Cyprian in these words, as M. Du Perron relates them. You see what St. Cyprian saith, that the holy Apostle Peter, in whom so great a grace of the primacy did shine, being rebuked by St. Paul, answered not that he had the primacy, and would not be corrected by new men and posterior unto himself. So does this Cardinal allege that passage. But the Latin of Cyprian is much different from it. These be the words, Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus, speaks thus of Peter, for saith he, neither Peter whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he founded his Church, when Paul disputed with him about the Circumcision, assumed anything to himself insolently after that, or did appropriate anything to himself arrogantly, to say, that he had the primacy, and that new men come after him were to obey him. In that passage St. Cyprian clearly saith, tha if St. Peter had assumed unto himself the primacy, or pretended that St. Paul ought to obey him, he should have spoken arrogantly and insolently. But M. Du Perron hath pared away these words that displease him, Peter assumed nothing insolently, neither did he appropriate anything to himself to say that he had the primacy. We will show hereafter that St. Cyprian makes St. Peters primacy to last but two years, that is, until our Savior's Resurrection, and saith, that after the Lord's Resurrection all the Apostles were equal in honor and power. Neither is this all the falsification of this passage; for M. du Perron interprets the word posteris posteriours, instead of, come since, as Cyprian meaneth, as it appeareth by the word novellis, which goeth before posteris. But the Cardinal would give it such an exposition as would bear an inference, that St. Paul was posterior both in order and power unto St. Peter.

In the last line of the 54. chapter, page 520. he alledgeth Pope Leo the I. in the 62. Epistle to the Emperor Martianus, and makes that Pope speak thus, None of the Patriarchal Sees, but that of Rome, shall remain stable and unmoved. That passage is altogether falsified. There is in the Latin, Nec praeter illam petram quam Dominus in fundamento posuit, stabilis erit ulla constructio, that is, Besides that stone which the Lord hath laid for a foundation, no other structure shall be stable.

Irenaeus in the third book chap. 3. speaking of the Church of the City of Rome, saith, Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam; This the Cardinal translateth (44. ch. of the first book, page 354. and in many other places) To the Roman Church by reason of a more powerful principality, it is necessary that every Church consent, interpreting convenire ad Ecclesiam, consent to the Church, instead of flocking to the Church, and resorting to it from several places. The sense of that passage is, that all the Churches of the Roman Empire resorted to the Church of the City of Rome, because the Sovereign power of the Emperor and of the Senate resided there. As it is said in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because that those that had business resorted to the Metropolitan Church. Irenaeus speaks not of the primacy of the Church, but of the Sovereign power of the Empire. And whosoever understands Latin, knoweth that convenire ad Ecclesiam signifieth not to concur or consent with the Church in doctrine, but to resort to the Church, and come to it from several places.

In the 30. chap. of the first book, towards the end of the 175. page, and in the begininng of the 176. M. Du Perron saith, that when Augustus and the following Emperors established or restored the Office of Praefectus Urbicus of Rome, they gave him power to judge of the appeals from all the Provinces of the Roman World, as the Interpreter of Notitia Imperii Romani doth acknowledge it: And in the margin he cites the fourth chapter of the Comment of Pancirolus upon Notitia Imperii. The passage of Pancirolus which the Cardinal citeth is in these words, Cui [paerfecto Urbico] omnem imperii potestatem Augustus concesserat, non tantum in urbe, sed et extra. That is, To whom the Emperor Augustus had granted the whole power of the Empire, not only in the Town but also without. I cannot wonder enough at the ill Faith of this Prelat, in corrupting the passages of Authors; how he hath suppressed the following words, which limit the power of that Praefectus to a hundred miles about the City of Rome. This is the whole passage. Augustus had given to the Prefect of the City the whole power of the Empire, not only within the City, but also without, a hundredth miles about the City of Rome. This Cardinal being overprest with a multitude of authorities of the Ancients, which limit the power of the Bishop of Rome within the same limits as those of the Praefectura, or civil Jurisdiction of the Prefect of the City of Rome, will have that prefect of the City to have been the Judge of all the causes of the Empire. As if one would have the Lieutenant Civil of Paris to receive the Appeals of all the causes of France.

Thus in the same chapter, page 177. Gregory Nazianzen calls Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that which presideth over all, that is, over all the Empire; but the Cardinal translateth that which presideth over all the Word.

In the 32. chap. pag. 199. he alledgeth the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, which gives order that the customs observed of old in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, be maintained; namely that the Church of Alexandria have the power of all things, because this also is ordinary to the Bishop of Rome. To the end of that Canon the Cardinal soweth a tail of his own, and will have the Reader to supply these words, over all the Church; as if that Canon said, that the custom of the Bishop of Rome was to have power over all the World, which is an intolerable license. That was a fit place to bring some example of the power of the Bishop of Rome out of the Roman Empire; But it is more then he could do, either there, or anywhere else.

In the same chap. pag. 198. he alledgeth the second book of Evagrius, ch. 4. making him say, that the Pope was the head of all the Churches: Of which not one word is found in the whole chapter. As for the Greek Acts of the Councils which he alledgeth there in the margin, we will show in the right place that all these are full of falsifications.

In the same page he alledgeth the first Action of the Council of Chalcedon in these words, Hereby it appeareth that all primacy and principal honor was always deferred unto the Bishop of Rome. That version of the Cardinal is false. It is thus according to the Greek By the things done, and by the disposition of everyone, we perceive that before all things the preeminences and excellency of honor is kept according to the Canons, to the Archbishop most beloved of God of the ancient Rome. The Cardinal hath omitted these words, according to the Canons, which show that the honor then deferred unto the Bishop of Rome, was founded upon the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions, not upon the Word of God; and hath turned the word preeminences or prerogatives into all primacy. The falsification is very bold in adding the word all; for every Patriarch had his preeminence and primacy, but not, all primacy.

In the 25. ch. of the first book, page 109. the Cardinal employs the testimony of St. Basil to defend the Popes authority. Basil in the tenth Epistle complains of the pride of the Western men, of whom Damasus Bishop of Rome and Ambrose Bishop of Milan were the chief. If the wrath of God (saith he) continueth upon us, what help can we receive from the pride of the Western men, who knew not the truth, and have not the patience to learn it? and being forestalled with false opinions, do now the things which they have done in the business of Marcellus, contending against those that announce the truth, and strengthening heresy by themselves? The Cardinal in the 109. page alledgeth that text, and to darken the perspicuity of it, he translateth the brow of the Western men, instead of the pride and arrogancy of the Western men. And to sweeten the hardness of that passage, he alledgeth the 77. Epistle of the same Basil, which he affirmeth to be written to the Western men, that is, to Damasus Bishop of Rome and to his fellow Bishops, to whom Basil speaketh thus, We are ready to stand to your judgment, if those that falsely accuse us can abide to stand face to face with us in the presence of your veneration. If M. Du Perron must be credited, these are words of submission, whereby Basil subjecteth himself to the judgment of the Western men, that is, of Damasus Bishop of Rome and his colleagues. This is a notorious imposture; for that Epistle is not written to Damasus, nor to his colleagues, but to the Bishops of the Isles of the Mediterranean Sea, whom he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , maritime men and Islanders, and saith that they are severed from the Continent, which cannot be applied to Italy, which is a Continent. And the more submission Basil useth speaking with those Islanders, the more is that passage against M. Du Perron, since that honor is deferred to others then the Bishop of Rome.

Hence another falsification is discovered, ch. 33. pag. 233. where he alledgeth these words out of the same Epistle, as spoken to the Western men, that is, to the Bishop of Rome; Whether you hold yourselves heads of the Universal Church, the head cannot say to the feet. You are not necessary to me. For these words are spoken to the Maritime Bishops or Islanders. But Monsieur Du Perron hath writ in his margin Basil. ad transmarinos Epist. 77. thinking that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth transmarinos, whereas it signifieth maritimos, as also in the same Epistle they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Islanders, and severed from the Continent. The words of the same Epistle are express to this purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Lord hath separated the Islands from the continent with the Sea, but hath tied the Islanders with those of the Continent by charity. This passage then is so far from helping towards the primacy of the Prelate of Rome, that it rather destroys it, since that title of Head is deferred to others then the Roman Bishop, according to the custom of the Ancients to be liberal in titles of deference even to those to whom they did not owe any subjection.

In the 42. ch. of the 3. book he corrupts a Text of Theodoret two ways, taking the Council of Constantinople for that of Rome, and the Emperor Theodosius for the Emperor Gratian, as I show in my fifth book in the tenth chapter.

In the 25. chapter of the first book, pag. 119. & 120. he saith against truth that Prosper Aquitanicus, and Marcellinus Comes put the death of the Emperess Eudoxia many years after the death of Chrysostom.

In the 52. ch. towards the end of the page 458. he saith, that the Fathers of the Milevitan Council referred the final judgment of Celestius unto the Pope. Which I prove to be false in my sixth book, in the third chapter.

In the same chapter, pag. 461. to prove that the Pope had power to summon to appear before him all that are accused, he alledgeth the words of Innocent the I. Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle, which is the 96. among the Epistles of St. Austin, where Innocent speaking of Pelagius (as M. Du Perron relates it) speaks thus, He must not expect to be summoned by us, but he must come to us that he may be absolved. These words But he must come to us, are of the Cardinals addition. There is in the Latin, Non à nobis accersi sed ipse potius debet festinare ut possit absolvi.

In the same chapter, page 478. to prove that in Austin's time the Bishop of Rome had the power to send Bands of Soldiers into Africa to get his commandments executed, he alledgeth an Epistle of Austin which is newly coined, as I will show in the right place.

The Bishops assembled in the sixth Council of Carthage, writ long Letters to Celestin Bishop of Rome, warning him that he should send no more Legates into Africa, nor receive Appeals from Africa, nor judge causes already judged in Africa, nor bring the fumous pride of this world into the Church of Christ, which makes profession of humility. There is in the Latin, Executores Clericos vestros quibusque petentibus nolite mittere, nolite concedere, ne fumosum typhum saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi quae lucem simplicitatis, & humilitatis diem, Deum videre cupientibus praefert, videamur inducere. That is, Send not your Clerks to be your Agents at the request of any that will desire you: Do not grant it to them, that it may not seem that we will introduce the fumous pride of this world into the Church of Christ, which bears the light of simplicity, and the Sunshine of humility, before those that desire to see God. But the Cardinal to elude that illustrious Text, translateth fumosum typhum saeculi, the fumous whirlwind of this world, taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth pride and tumour; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a whirlwind; herein showing himself little skilled in the Greek tongue: That typhus in that place signifieth pride, not a whirlwind, it appeareth hence, that in the same line it is opposed unto humility.

Liberatus, Deacon, in the fifth chapter of his Breviary, saith, that the Emperor Theodosius by his Letters Patent written to the Bishops, called the Council of Ephesus. And he relates after, how the Council assembled. Which being met, the same Liberatus a little after, relates how Cyrillus and his friends called the Bishops of the Council. His words were, Cyrillus cum suishabens vices sedis Apostolicae, Concilio evocato ducentorum Episcoporum, Nestorium vocaverunt. That is, Cyrillus with his [friends or Clergy] holding the place of the Apostolical See, having called (or caused to come to him) a Council of two hundred Bishops, called Nestorius. But Cardinal du Perron to make the world believe that this Council had been called by the Pope, hath translated Concilio evocato having convocated a Council instead of having called to him the Council. That it should be so understood, Liberatus shows it, saying, that he called the Bishops of the Council, the Council being already assembled by the convocation made by the Emperors command.

In the ninth chapter of the fourth observation, pag. 741. he alledgeth for St. Peters primacy these words of Cyprian in the 71. Epistle, Peter answered not Paul that rebuked him that he had the primacy. This passage is falsified; these be the true words, Nec Petrus vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere: that is, Peter attributed nothing to himself insolently, nor assumed anything arrogantly, to say that he had the primacy. That passage saith, that if Peter had attributed unto himself the primacy, he should have spoken arrogantly and insolently: Wherefore the Cardinal hath erlipsed these words, arrogantly and insolently.

In the second Observation, 2. chap. pag. 640. he falsifieth Socrates, making him say, that the Council of Nice denounced excommunication unto the Quarta decimani of Asia. But Socrates saith, that it was Victor Bishop of Rome, that denounced that excommunication, not the Council of Nice. See Socrates in the fifth book, chap. 21.

In the 35. chap. of the first book, pag. 283. to prove that Hosius Bishop of Cordova did preside in the Council of Nice in quality of Legat of Pope Sylvester, Monsieur du Perron alledgeth Photios in the Book of the Councils addrest unto Michael King of the Bulgars, and brings these words; With Vito and Vincentius was joined Osius Bishop of Cordova. An horrible Licence of falsifying; for in that book of Photios the clean contrary is found: Of which book we have an extract, treating of the seven Oecumenical Councils from the beginning of the first Tome of the Councils. These are the very words of Photios; The first Oecumenical and holy Council hath been celebrated at Nice in Bithynia, where three hundred and eighteen holy Bishops undertook the judgment of the truth. Alexander did preside in it, who held the See of Constantinople, and Sylvester and Julius illustrious and famous Bishops of the Roman Church. Nevertheless neither of these were there in person, but they would that Bito and Vincentius should be there in their names. Of Hosius he speaks not at all, and puts Alexander Bishop of Constantinople before that of Rome.

In the fifth book, in the Treatise of the Invocation of Saints, 20. ch. page 1057. the Cardinal alledgeth a text of Theodoret against himself, thus, That vice [of serving Angels] hath continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia, and therefore the Synod assembled at Laodicea, the Metropolitan City of Phrygia, prohibited by a Canon praying to Angels: and to this day Oratories to St. Michael are seen among them. But the Cardinal hath taken away that word of St. Michael, for fear of wrapping the Roman Church in that condemnation; for that Church hath Oratories of St. Michael as well as those Heretics. He hath then put Oratories only, without speaking of St. Michael.

In the 19. chap. of the same Treatise, pag. 1009. he makes Eusebius to say in the 13. book of the Evangelical preparation, that Plato hath said, that virtuous dead men must be honored, and their Monuments venerated and adored. That is false, and Eusebius in the alleged place doth not speak of it at all.

In the Controversy of the Prayer for the dead, ch. 10. pag. 948. he alledgeth Josephus in the third Book of the war of the Jews, ch. 25. in these words,

No such thing shall be found in Josephus, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, there is an order among us, that they that have killed themselves be hid without burial until sun-set.

One of the boldest falsifications in Cardinal du Perrons book, is in the third chap. of the same Treatise, pag. 984. in a passage of the 8. Book of Origen's against Celsus. To defend the invocation of Saints and Angels, he goeth about to prove, by Origen, that the Angels and blessed Spirits pray for us: A thing which we deny not. In vain doth he labor to prove that which is not controverted. But the question is, whether Angels and Saints must be invocated, and whether they must be prayed to that they would pray for us. Origen then speaking of persons that fear God and pray to him, saith that an infinity of sacred powers (so he calls Angels) join themselves to their prayers, not being called upon or invocated. Which is an excellent passage; but M. du Perron corrupts it, and translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 voluntarily, whereas it signifieth, not being called upon by Prayer or Invocation.

The Author of the Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans, attributed to Ambrose, upon the first ch. saith.

Monsieur du Perron translates this word Suffragator, a giver of advice or attestation against the nature of the word, and the authors intention. For they that employ Colonels or Governors to speak to the King, do it that they may intercede for them, not that they may give advice or attestation to the King. And Ambrose speaks of intercessors to God, not of persons that give advice or attestation to God; for God to know us needs not the attestation of any.

In the 73. chap. of the first book, page 588. M. du Perron alledgeth a passage of Chrysostom, out of the third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians, where he makes Chrysostom to say, It is not in vain that the Apostles have left a tradition, that sacrifice should be offered for the dead. That passage is false; for Chrysostom saith thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , It is not in vain that the Apostles have made that Law that in the formidable mysteries a commemoration be made of them that are departed. This word Sacrifice, and the word Tradition are added by M. du Perron.

In the third Observation, chapter 20. page 703. & 704. he falsifieth the tenth Canon of the Council of Ancyra, translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have been received, whereas it signifieth having undertaken, or having obliged themselves. The Latins would say, qui in se receperunt.

Page 1084. Where he speaketh of unknown Language, he alledgeth a passage of Jerome in the preface of the second book upon the Epistle to the Galatians, whereby he would prove that the Divine Service was celebrated among the Galatians in a Language not understood, because their Service was in Greek, and their vulgar tongue was like unto that of the Gauls of Triers. The Cardinal makes Jerome speak thus, The tongue of the Galatians was like that of the Gauls of Triers. But he fraudulently clips the words of Jerome, which say that the Galatians had also the use of the Greek tongue, vulgar in all the East. This is the true passage, Galatas excepto Sermon Graeco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam eandem habere linguam quam Treviros. That the Galatians, besides the Greek tongue which all the East speaks, have a proper tongue, the same as that of the Gauls of Triers.

In the second Observation, chapter 5. pag. 651. he proveth secret confession by Saint Cyprian, whose words he thus alledgeth, They that do penance, cannot come to the Communion, unless the hand be laid upon them by the Priest or by the Clergy. There is in the Latin, ab Episcopo & Clero, by the Bishop and the Clergy. But M. du Perron hath put the Priest for the Bishop, and or for and, because the laying on of hands by the Priest and by the Clergy cannot be applied to the secret Confession, but to the public penance.

In the same page he falsifyeth two passages of Basil, who in the short Rules, in the 229. Rule saith, Confession of sins must be made before them that can heal it. But Monsieur du Perron, to exclude all other confession, but that which is made unto the Priest, addeth this word, only, and thus sets down that passage, Confession of sins can be made only before them that can heal it.

To the same purpose in the same place is alleged another place of S. Basil out of the 288. question in these words, Sins must be revealed only to those to whom the dispensation of mysteries is committed. But the word only, is of the Cardinals addition.

To the same purpose again he corrupts a passage of Leo in the Epistle to the Bishops of Campania, which is the 80. He makes Leo to say, It is enough that the sins of Consciences be shown unto the Priest by a secret confession. He hath put Priest for Priests; sacerdoti pro sacerdotibus: because the confession made to many Priests availeth nothing to prove Auricular Confession.

In the third ch. of the second Observation in the end of the 648. page where he disputes of Auricular Confession, he alledgeth a place of Chrysostom, in the 30. Homily to the people of Antioch, in these words, It is enough for thee to confess thy sin to God alone, not to thy servant that upbraideth thee with it. Item, Do not constrain thyself to come to a Stage before a great multitude of witnesses. But he suppresseth the following words, Against me the sin is committed, To me alone tell it in private, which are express words against the confession made unto the Priest.

In the fifth chapter of the same Observation, page 650. he alledgeth these words of Ambrose, for the secret confession, out of the sixteenth chapter of the first Book of penitence; If any having secret crimes, makes nevertheless a serious penance, how shall he receive there [a hundredth fold] if the communion be not restored to him again? Here Monsieur du Perron stayeth and suppresseth the following words which show that Ambrose is speaking of a public confession. I will (saith Ambrose) that the guilty hope for pardon; Let him ask for it with weeping. Let him ask it with groaning. Let him ask it with the tears of the people, &c. Such dealing indeed is abusing the Reader, and unworthily clipping the sense of the Fathers.

Ambrose in the ninth chapter concerning those that are initiated in the mysteries, saith, The Lord Jesus himself crieth, This is my body. Before the heavenly blessing, another kind is named; After the consecration, the body of Christ is signified or represented. There is in the Latin, Ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Monsiur du Perron in the eight hundred seventy ninth page corrupts this place, translating it thus, Before the blessing of the heavenly words it is named another kind; After the consecration it is called the body of Christ. See the third chapter of the eleventh Controversy of the seventh book of this present Work, where I speak of this more at large.

In the fifth chapter of the Treatise of the Sacrifice, page 925. the Cardinal alledgeth the twenty ninth Canon of the Council of Carthage in these words, If in the afternoon some recommendations must be made of the dead, whether they be Bishops or Clerks or others, Let them be made by prayers only, if it be found that those that make it be no more fasting, reserving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation. These last words, reserving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation, are added by M. du Perron, and are not found in that twenty ninth Canon.

See in this work, chap. 4. of the eleventh Controversy of the seventh book, a notorious corruption of an excellent place of Theodoret.

And in the seventh chapter the corruption of the Canon Hoc est, by omission of the word as.

St. Austin chap. 12. of the book against Adimantus hath these words, Non enim dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he was giving the sign of his body. Cardinal du Perron in the fourth book, and the fourth chapter pag. 871. will have these words supplied, according to you, as though Austin had said, The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when (according to you (O Manicheans) he gave the sign of his body. Of which enormous license in corrupting passages of the true sense of this place, see the eleventh Controversy of the seventh book, chap. 8. of this work.

In the sixteenth chapter of the same book, page 907. he alledgeth a place of Cyrillus of Alexandria, but with three corruptions of his own. That place of Cyrillus is found in the defense of the eleventh Anathematismus, inserted in the first Tome of the Councils, and is set down in these words; Dost thou pronounce that in our Sacrament we eat a man? And dost thou in an ungodly manner urge the understanding of those that have believed into gross thoughts? Dost thou attempt to handle with human thoughts, those things which are not received but only with a pure and not far-fetched faith? The Lord Cardinal altogether corrupteth this text, translating it thus; Do not pronounce that our mystery is an anthropophagy, or eating of man's flesh, irreligiously engaging the spirits of the believers into fallacious reasonings, and submitting to human argumentations those things which are admitted by the only and not inquisitive faith. He translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fallacious reasonings: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not a reasoning, but a thought. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not fallacious, but vain and easily wearing away. He had heard of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he hath mistaken the one one for the other. And he translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a faith not inquisitive, whereas it signifieth a faith not far-fetched. And he omitteth the word of only faith, in which lieth all the strength of that place.

In the precedent page he translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are presupposed, whereas it signifieth are taken or received, as the Latin copies translate. As also Acts 27.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having taken, that is, eaten nothing, and in v. 36. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they took meat.

The number of the places which the Cardinal depraveth, for want of sufficient skill in the Greek tongue, is numberless. Some of many we shall bring here.

Pag 279. going about to correct Sozomenus, he translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 venerable, which signifieth hoary or gray-haired.

Pag. 126. he translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reverencing, whereas it signifies cogitantem, thinking and imagining.

In the same page he translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 discretion, whereas it signifieth trial or examination.

Pag. 961. In the second instance he interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a bathing tub, or a cistern, taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereof the first signifieth the washing liquor, the second a cistern or bathing tub.

Pag. 137. he translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 representing, whereas it signifies troubling or importuning.

Pag. 317. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he expounds convocating, whereas it signifies summoning, or desiring to come. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he takes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he doth fraudulently to persuade that Damasus did convocate the Council; whereas Theodoret, whom he alledgeth, saith only that Damasus invited and desired the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome to the Council; but that the said Bishops would not come. It was an invitation without convocation.

In the first chapter of the Treatise of the Sacrifice, pag. 910 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifies non amplius polluent, they shall defile no more, he translates, they shall smoke no more, which is a great ignorance in the Greek tongue.

In chap. 49. of the first book p. 428. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he translates studious, taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies expetitus, & quod studiose expetitur, that which is desired or sought for with care. Whence is derived 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 desired by everyone, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 worthy to be desired and sought for.

In chap. 34. book 1. pag. 247. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he translates should decree; whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to suggest, counsel, or represent. Besides, the place which he alleged is clipt, to persuade that Anthimus Patriarch of Constantinople was subject to the Bishop of Rome. It is taken out of the fifth Council of Constantinople, held under Menas, in the fourth Action; The words are, that Anthimus using fraudulent words, promised to do whatsoever the High Priest of the great Apostolical See would suggest unto him. M. du Perron hath cut off the head of that place suppressing these words, using fraudulent words, least it should be seen that Anthimus did not hold himself subject to the Bishop of Rome. And instead of suggesting, he hath put decreeing, to make the world believe that Anthimus was subject to the Decrees and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop.

The third Canon of the Council of Nice is this, The great Synod hath altogether forbidden [or declared] that it be not permitted, neither to a Bishop, nor to a Priest, nor to a Deacon, nor to any other of the Clergy to have an associated woman, but only his Mother, or his Sister, or his Aunt, or only the persons that are past suspicion. That Council by associate women understands certain women which Priests kept at their home, under color, of friendship, or service: Which was subject to sinister interpretation. As now to be a Priests maid, is an ill name. The Grecians called those she associates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; And the women so associated were also called Agapets and strange women. This we show in this book by several testimonies in the seventh chapter of the Controversy of the Celibate. Cardinal du Perron in the twentieth chapter of the third observation, pag. 706. understanding not the meaning of that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or feigning that he understands it not, will have that word to signify a married woman, saying that the Council of Nice reckoning the women which are allowed to lodge in Bishops houses, as the Mother, the Sister, and the Aunt, excludes the Wife out of that number, pretending that the Council forbids Bishops and Priests to marry. I prove in the seventh chapter forealledged, that M. du Perron did not understand the significaiion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that he corrupts the Canon of the Council of Nice, putting a doctrine upon the Council contrary to their sense.

In the same chapter page 708. of the Cardinals book, a Canon of the Council of Gangra is falsified. The Canon is such, If any make a difference about a married Priest, as if one ought not to be partaker of the oblation when he doth the service, let him be anathema or accursed. There is in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a married Priest, not of a Priest that hath been married, as M. du Perron will have it translated. I show in the seventh chapter of the Treatise of the Celibate, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth one that is married, not one that hath been.

The like ignorance of his in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I show in XI. Controversy of the VII. Book, chap. 4. And another ignorance of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his nineteenth chapter; M. du Perron makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify then, whereas it signifies altogether. Many the like falsifications and depravations we represent in this Work. They shall be found marked in the Table at the end, in the word falsication, and in the word Ignorance.

I desire also the Reader to take notice that I abstained from examining the places alleged to no purpose, and nothing to our Controversies, which make two parts of three at the least of those places which M. du Perron alledgeth in his Book.

The Confession of three POPES.

ONuphrius Panuinius an Augustinian Monk in the life of Marcellus the II. hath these words, Marcellus after a long silence in dinner time, remembered the words which Pope Adrian the fourth had sometimes spoken, There is no man more to be pitied then the Bishop of Rome, and no condition more unfortunate then his. And a little after, the same Marcel continuing his discourse, struck the Table with his hand, saying, I see not how they that hold this most high place, can be saved.

Aeneas Sylvius, otherwise called Pope Pius the second, in his sixty sixth Epistle to John Peregral, saith The Roman Court gives nothing without money, yea the imposition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost are sold, and the remission of sins is bestowed upon none but such as have money. The same in his Epistle to Martin Mayer which is the one hundred eighty eighth, speaking of the state of the Christian Church of the first ages, saith, Everyone at that time lived for himself, and little respect was given to the Roman Church.

THE CONTENTS.

BOOK I. Treating of the Church and of her Marks, and of the authority of holy Scripture, and of Traditions.
• Chap. 1. OF the nature of the question of the Church. Page 1
• Chap. 2. Of the word Church, and the diverse significations of the same. Page 3
• Chap. 3. That there is a Church of elect or predestinate. Page 6
• Chap. 4. Reasons of the Adversaries against the Church of the Elect. Page 7
• Chap. 5. Reasons of Cardinal Du Perron against the Church of the Elect, in the ninth ch. of his book. Page 8
• Chap. 6. Whether the societies of Heretics and Scismaticks or Idolatrous Christians, ought to be called Churches. Answer to Cardinal Du Perron. Page 12
• Chap. 7. How that Proposition must be understood, that out of the Church there is no Salvation. Page 13
• Chap. 8. Whether the true Church be always in sight. State of the question. Page 15
• Chap. 9. That the Church to which we must join that we may be saved, is not always eminent and exposed to every ones sight. Answer to the Cardinal. Page 16
• Chap. 10. Places of Fathers upon that Subject. Page 18
• Chap. 11. Passages and reasons of the Adversaries for the perpetual visibility of the Church. ib.
• Chap. 12. Answer to that question made to us, Shew us where your Church was before Luther, remounting from Luther to the Apostles. Page 20
• Chap. 13. Whether the Church can err. Page 22
• Chap. 14. That the Roman Church hath erred, and erreth. Page 26
• Chap. 15. Of the Antiquities of the Roman Church. A Treatise wherein it is shown that the ceremonies of the Roman Church are descended from the ancient Heretics, and that the Pagans and Jews have contributed towards them. Page 38
• Chap. 16. Reasons why Cardinal Du Perron, making little account of the three first ages, confines himsel to the time of the three first Councils. And that he sets down unjust rules and such as himself observeth not. Page 54
• Chap. 17. Of the authority of the Church. And whether she must have more authority with us then the holy Scripture. Opinions of the Parties. Page 55
• Chap. 18. Proofs that the Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures is above the Church, and ought to be of greater authority with us then the Church. Page 58
• Chap. 19. Reasons of our Adversaries to the contrary. Page 60
• Chap. 20. Examination of the places of the Ancients which M. Du Perron objecteth to this purpose. Page 63
• Chap. 21. Of the Authority of the Church to interpret Scripture infallibly. Page 64
• Chap. 22. Seven differences between our interpretations of Scripture and those of the Roman Church. Page 67
• Chap. 23. Examination of the reasons which Cardinal Du Perron brings in the fifth chapter for the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture infallibly. Page 69
• Chap. 24. Of the authority of the Church to alter that which God hath commanded in Scripture. Confutation of the Cardinal. Page 70
• Chap. 25. Which and of what nature must the marks of the Church be. Page 72
• Chap. 26. Of the true mark to discern the true Church. Page 73
• Chap. 27. Testimonies of the Fathers. Confutation of the Cardinals answer. Page 75
• Chap. 28. Reasons of the Cardinal and others, to prove that the true doctrine and conformity to the Word of God is no mark of the true Church. Page 76
• Chap. 29. That the word Catholic cannot be a mark of the true Church. Page 79
• Chap. 30. Of the word Catholic, and in what sense the Church is called Catholic by the Ancients. That Cardinal Du Perron hath not at all understood what Catholic signifies, nor the sense of Vincentius Lirinensis. Page 80
• Chap. 31. Of holiness in doctrine. Page 84
• Chap. 32. Of the succession of Chairs. Whether it be a mark of the true Church. And what that succession is of which the Fathers speak. Page 85
• Chap. 33. What the succession was, and what the calling of those who in our Fathers time took in hand the reformation of Popery. Page 89
• Chap. 34. That in the time of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and in the ages next to the Apostles, many have preached the Word of God in the Church without succession and without ordinary calling. Page 90
• Chap. 35. A difference to be observed between the Office of Pastor of the Church, and the means to enter into it. Page 92
• Chap. 36. That the Popes have a false title, and without any Word of God to the succession of St. Peter in the charge of Head of the Universal Church, and that such a charge is not grounded in God's Ordinance. Page 95
• Chap. 37. Of the succession of Popes and Cardinals. By what ways the Popedom useth to be obtained. Of Schisms. And that the Popes have no lawful succession. Page 97
• Chap. 38. Of the ways whereby Cardinals and other Prelates come to their charges. Page 109
• Chap. 39. Of the perpetual duration which M. Du Perron calls indefectibility. Page 110
• Chap. 40. Of the multitude and great number. And that the multitude is not a mark of the true Church. Page 111
• Chap. 41. Examination of the proofs which M. Du Perron brings to prove that the true Church had always the greatest number. Page 113
• Chap. 42. Of Miracles. Page 114
• Chap. 43. Of Union in the visible Church. Page 116
• Chap. 44. Whether the Universal Church must be called Roman. Page 117
• Chap. 45. Of Antiquity, whether it be a mark of the true Church. Page 118
• Chap. 46. Of the Fathers and ancient Doctors, and of their authority. Page 120
• Chap. 47. That our Adversaries condemn the Fathers, and by consequent cannot have them for Judges. Page 122
• Chap. 48. That the Roman Church opposeth herself to the consent of ancient Doctors. Page 126
• Chap. 49. Doctrines in which the Roman Church rejecteth every Father in particular. Page 133
• Chap. 50. How far the ancient Church was from the belief which is now received in the Roman Church. Observations upon the 18. ch. of the first book of Card. Du Perron. Page 143
• Chap. 51. Of the pretended power and authority of the Church to add unto Scripture. And of the unwritten Traditions. And why the Pope not only equalleth them unto, but preferreth them before the holy Scripture. Page 148
• Chap. 52. That the holy Scripture containeth the whole doctrine necessary to Salvation. Examination of the Cardinals answers. Page 152
• Chap. 53. Testimonies of Fathers of the sufficiency of Scripture against unwritten Traditions. Page 153
• Chap. 54. The Cardinals reasons for Traditions against the perfection of Scripture. And first of the Traditions which he calls Mosaical and Patriarchal. Page 159
• Chap. 55. Texts of the New Testament which Cardinal Du Perron brings for the Traditions not contained in the Scripture. Page 161
• Chap. 56. Doctrines held in the Christian Church, which the Cardinal saith not to be contained in Scripture. Page 163
• Chap. 57. Of the Traditions which the Fathers allow. Page 164
• Chap. 58. Of the prohibition of reading holy Scripture. Shifts of Cardinal Du Perron. Page 167
• Chap. 59. Defense of the purity and truth of Scripture against the Cardinals accusations and falsifications. Page 174
• Chap. 60. Of Canonical and Apocryphal books. Proofs by God's Word that Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, &c. are not Canonical. Page 177
• Chap. 61. Untruth and errors in the Apocryphal books. Page 178
• Chap. 62. That the Cardinal attributes weak objections to us and defends that which we do not impugn. Page 191
• Chap. 63. That we reject not the Apocrypha because they are contrary to us. And that they are rather favorable to us. ibid.
• Chap. 64. Belief of the ancient Greek Church about the Canonical books. Page 193
• Chap. 65. Belief of the Fathers of the Latin or Western Church about the Canonical books; and that the Cardinal doth not truly represent it. Page 196
• Chap. 66. Confutation of the Cardinals shifts. Page 199
• Chap. 67. Of Austin 's opinion concerning the canonical books, and of the canon of the III. Council of Carthage, upon which the Cardinal grounds himself. Page 204
• Chap. 68. Of the canon of the holy Scriptures defined by Pope Innocent the I. And of the Decretal Epistle of that Innocent to Exuperius. Page 207
• Chap. 69. That the Popes have put their Canons and Decrees not only in the same rank as Canoincal Scriptures, but above. Page 208

BOOK. II. Wherein is treated of St. Peters Primacy, and of his abode at Rome.
• Chap. 1. THat the Government of the Universal Church, cannot and must not be Monarchical. State of the question. page 211
• Chap. 2. That St. Peter had no jurisdiction over the other Apostles, and was not Monarch of the Universal Church. Answer to the Cardinal. page 214
• Chap. 3. Testimonies of Fathers upon this Subject. An excellent place of St. Ambrose falsified by the Cardinal. And a text of the Apostle falsified likewise. page 216
• Chap. 4. Examination of the text of Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, &c. Shifts of the Cardinal. page 218
• Chap. 5. Six reasons of the Cardinal to prove, that by this stone the Person of Peter is understood. page 222
• Chap. 6. Other proofs brought by the Cardinal out of Scripture. page 223
• Chap. 7. Of Cyprians opinion about Peters Primacy. That the Cardinal hath not understood it, and how all the Apostles have been Heads of the Universal Churc • . page 225
• Chap. 8. Of St. Peters being at Rome. Examinations of the Cardinals reasons. page 226
• Chap. 9. The Cardinals falsifications about this matter. page 234
• Advertisement to the Reader. page 237

BOOK III. Which is the first part of the History of Papacy. Wherein so much of the History of the Antient Christian Church is deduced from the beginning unto the year 300. of Christ, as will prove that then the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Universal Church.
• Chap. 1. THat in the first age the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged the Head of the Universal Church. page 239
• Chap. 2. That the Bishop of Rome in the second age was not acknowledged Head of the Universal Church. Vindication of Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea against the Cardinals false accusations page 241
• Chap. 3. That in the third age the Bishops of Rome were not acknowledged Heads of the Universal Church. page 246
• Chap. 4. That the Cardinal would not make use of the authority of the Decretals to prove the Popes Primacy in the three first ages. And of the authority of the said Decretals. page 252
• Chap. 5. The first cause why M. Du Perron would not make use of the Decretal Epistles of the Bishops of Rome of the three first ages; even because in many places they are contrary to the Roman Church of this time. page 253
• Chap. 6. Other causes why the Cardinal would make no use of the Decretals of the three first ages. Of the barbarousness of those Decretals, and how Scripture is profaned in them. page 255
• Chap. 7. Evident untruths in the Decretals of the three first ages. The gross ignorance in History, of him that coined them. page 257
• Chap. 8. That many of our Adversaries have acknowledged the untruth of those Decretals. page 260
• Chap. 9. Of the Popes motives for causing these false Decretals to be forged; and when and by whom they were forged. page 261

BOOK IV. Proving by the History of the Bishops of Rome from the year 300. of the Lord till two years after the death of Constantine the Emperor, which is the year of our Lord 340. That in all that age the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Universal Church.
• Chap. 1. OF the idolatry of Marcellinus Bishop of Rome, and of the Council of Sinuessa. page 265
• Chap. 2 Of the Judges given by Constantine to Cecilianus and to the Donatists. And of the Council of Arles. page 266
• Chap. 3. Of the deliverance and establishment of the Church under Constantine. page 267
• Chap. 4. Of the diversity of the Churches in observing the day of Easter. page 268
• Chap. 5. Of the convocation of the Council of Nice; Answer to the Cardinal. page 269
• Chap. 6. That the Bishop of Rome did not preside in the Council of Nice. Confutation of the Cardinals assertion that Hosius was Legat of the Roman Church in that Council. page 270
• Chap. 7. Of the Canon of Nice which sets limits to the Roman Bishopric. And of the suburbicary Churches. Absurdity of the Cardinals interpretation. page 272
• Chap. 8. Of the convocation of the Council of Tyr. page 275
• Chap. 9. Death of Sylvester Bishop of Rome. How little his authority was. ibid.
• Chap. 10. Baptism and death of Constantine. ibid.
• Chap. 11. How poor and weak and few are the proofs which Cardinal Du Perron brings out of the three first ages, till the year of Christ 340. to defend the Popes Primacy. page 276
• Chap. 12. How our Adversaries being destitute of true proofs of the Popes primacy in the time that followed next to the three first ages, have forged false Epistles and supposititious Decrees. page 280
• Chap. 13. Of Constantine's donation and the untruth of if. page 282
• Chap. 14. Of the Baptism of Constantine mentioned in the same Donation. page 286

BOOK V. Proving by the Ecclesiastical History from the year of our Lord 340. unto the year 400. that then the Bishop of Rome would begin to exalt himself, but missed of his attempt. And what hindrances he met with.
• Chap. 1. OF the persecutions happened to Athanasius. And how Julius Bishop of Rome would make himself Judge of his cause. Of the convocating, sitting, and success of the Council of Serdica. page 289
• Chap. 2. Three points which the Cardinal finds in this History to establish the Popes primacy. And the falsifications which he accumulateth in this matter. page 292
• Chap. 3. Of the Council of Serdica. page 297
• Chap. 4. Of the convocating of the Council of Serdica. How much the Cardinal is mistaken in it. page 300
• Chap. 5. Of the Presidency in the Council of Serdica. page 301
• Chap. 6. Of Liberius Bishop of Rome, and of the Schism after his death. ibid.
• Chap. 7. Of the Fathers famous in that time, Hosius, Athanasius, Meletius, Gregory, Nazianzen. page 302
• Chap. 8. Of Damasus Bishop of Rome, and of Basil Archbishop of Cesarea. Ignorance of the Cardinal in the Greek tongue. page 303
• Chap. 9. Of Peter Bishop of Alexandria, and of his retreat to Rome, and of Gregory Nazianzen Patriarch of Constantinople. page 305
• Chap. 10. Of the convocating of the first Council of Constantinople, which is the second Universal Council. How the Cardinal hath falsified the Epistle of the Oriental Bishops to Damasus Bishop of Rome. page 306
• Chap. 11. Of the invitation and request of Damasus Bishop of Rome, whereby he desired the Bishops assembled in Council at Constantinople to transport themselves to Rome, and come to the Council which Damasus held there; and of the small authority which the Council of Rome had in comparison of that of Constantinople. The Cardinals Faults. page 307
• Chap. 12. Remarkable passages in the Council of Constantinople. page 308
• Chap. 13. Of Jerome, and of the title of Pontifex left by the Emperor Gratian. page 309
• Chap. 14. Of the abolition of the Penitentiary Priest by Nectarius. page 311
• Chap. 15. Of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, and of John Chrysostom. ibid.
• Chap. 16. Of Ambrose Bishop of Milan, and that in his time the Church of Milan was not subject unto the Bishop of Rome. page 312
• Chap. 17. Contention of Paulinus and Flavianus competitours of the Patriarchat of Antioch. page 316
• Chap. 18. Observations upon the History of the four first ages. And how the Cardinal hath found nothing in it for his purpose. ibid.

BOOK VI. Proving by the Papal History from the year of the Lord 400. unto the Council of Chalcedon, which is the IV. Universal Council, held in the year 451. That in all that time the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged the Head of the Universal Church.
• Chap. 1. NArration of that which happened to John Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople. Page 319
• Chap. 2. Of the power of the Patriarchs of the fifth age. Page 323
• Chap. 3. Of the Milevitan Council, and of the prohibition there made to appeal unto Rome. The Cardinals answers are examined. Page 324
• Chap. 4. Of the Schism happened at Rome between Boniface and Eulatius. Page 327
• Chap. 5. Of the Council of Carthage called the sixth. Of the appeals from Africa to Rome. The remonstrances of the Bishops of Africa to the Bishop of Rome upon that subject. Confutation of the 40. chapter of the Cardinals first book. Page 328
• Chap. 6. Examination of the LII. chap. of the Cardinals first book about the above-mentioned Epistle of the 6. Council of Africa, written by the Fathers of the Council to Celestinus Bishop of Rome, concerning the appeals from Africa to Rome. Page 331
• Chap. 7. Notes upon the XLVIII. and XLIX. Chapters of the first book of Cardinal du Perron. His ignorance in Greek. Page 337
• Chap. 8. Of St. Austin Bishop of Bona in Africa. Whether he did acknowledge the Bishop of Rome head of the Universal Church. And what was in his time the order and dignity of Patriarchs and Apostolic Sees. Page 338
• Chap. 9. Of the Epistles of the Bishops of Africa (of whom Austin was one) to Innocent the first Bishop of Rome. And that our Cardinal labors without ground to turn them to his advantage. Page 341
• Chap. 10. A place of Austin's 162. Epistle examined. Page 344
• Chap. 11. Of Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople. Of the convocating of the first Council of Ephesus, which was the third Universal. And that the Emperors by their own single Authority convocated the Councils. Page 346
• Chap. 12. Of the assembling of the first Council of Ephesus. The Cardinals falsifications. ibid.
• Chap. 13. That none but the Emperor could or ought to convocate an Universal Council: And that the Bishop of Rome did not meddle with that. Page 348
• Chap. 14. Of the Patriarchs that were present in the first Council of Ephesus. And of the strife between Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and John Patriarch of Antioch. Page 349
• Chap. 15. Of the order of sitting in the first Council of Ephesus. And in what quality Cyrillus did preside in it. How Monsieur du Perron corrupteth that History. Page 350
• Chap. 16. Some incidencies happened in the first Council of Ephesus, or by occasion of the same, conducing to this question. Page 352
• Chap. 17. Occasion of the second Council of Ephesus, and by whom it was convocated. Page 353
• Chap. 18. Of the things happened in the 2. Council of Ephesus, and who presided in it. Page 354
• Chap. 19. Of the appeal of Flavianus and of Theodoret Bishop of Cyr to Leo Bishop of Rome; And of the appeals in general. That the Cardinal did not understand the nature of those appeals. Page 355
• Chap. 20. Of the excommunication that Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria fulminated against Leo Bishop of Rome; and of other censures pronounced against the Bishop of Rome. Page 360
• Chap. 21. Of the Letters, and of the Law of Valentinian the 3. And of the Law of the Emperor Leo, contrary to that of Valentinian. Page 361
• Chap. 22. Of the ordination of the Patriarch of Antioch by that of Constantinople. Page 364
• Chap. 23. Of the assembling of the Council of Chalcedon, which is the 4. universal Council. ibid
• Chap. 24. Who presided in the Council of Chalcedon. Page 365
• Chap. 25. Of that which past in the Council of Chalcedon, and of the Canons made in the same about the order of the Patriarchs, and the Ecclesiastial Policy. Page 366
• Chap. 26. Of the 28th. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the protestation which the Legates of Leo Bishop of Rome made against it, and how they offered to falsify a Canon of the Council of Nice. Page 368
• Chap. 27. Answer to the nullities which M. Du Perron brings against this canon of Chalcedon. Page 370
• Chap. 28. Confutation of the exposition which M. du Perron giveth to the canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Page 372
• Chap. 29. Of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon, and of the little credit which ought to be given to the Tomes of the Councils, both Greek and Latin. Page 373
• Chap. 30. Answer to the examples which Cardinal du Perron brings in the 34. ch. to prove that notwithstanding this Canon of Chalcedon, the Bishops of Constantinople have been subject to the Bishop of Rome. Page 374
• Chap. 31. A Summary Answer to the examples, posterior to the 4. Universal Council brought by the Cardinal in his 34. Chapter. Page 376
• Chap. 32. A multitude of falsifications of Cardinal du Perron. Page 382

BOOK. VII. Wherein divers Controversies are examined, handled by Cardinal du Perron in his second, third, fourth, and fifth Book.
• First Controversy. Of the Invocation of Saints.
  • Chap. 1. STate and distribution of the question. Page 387
  • Chap. 2. That the glorified Saints know not all that is done in earth, and know not the hearts and thoughts of men. Confutation of the Cardinal. Page 388
  • Chap. 3. The opinion of the Fathers about this point. Page 391
  • Chap. 4. Examination of the Texts and Reasons which the Cardinal brings to prove that the Saints know all things, see our thoughts, and hear our prayers: His foul dealing is laid open. Page 396
  • Chap. 5. What assurance the Roman Church hath, that the Saints whom they call upon, are true Saints. Page 399
  • Chap. 6. Whether Saints and Angels ought to be worshipped. Page 402
  • Chap. 7. What was the opinion of the three first Ages, and till the midst of the fourth, about the invocation of Saints and Angels. Page 406
  • Chap. 8. Vindication of Origen upon the point of Invocation of one only God, against the accusations of Cardinal du Perron. Page 410
  • Chap. 9. A place of Origen's 8. book against Celsus falsified by Cardinal du Perron. Page 414
  • Chap. 10. Reasons why Jerome said, that the Fathers writing against the Pagans, often write against their own sense. Page 415
  • Chap. 11. Of the opinion of those that condemn not Invocation of Saints, but think it unnecessary. Page 418
  • Chap. 12. Opinion of the Fathers about invocation of Saints, from the year of the Lord 365. unto the fourth Council. Page 419
  • Chap. 13. What honor is due to Angels and deceased Saints, and of the worship of Dulia and Latria. Page 429
  • Chap. 14. Of the Legends of Saints. Page 433
  • Chap. 15. Of the Psalter attributed to St. Bonaventure. Page 434
• Second Controversy. Of Images.
  • 1. Chap. OF God's Images. Page 436
  • 2. Chap. Of the Images of Saints. Page 438
  • 3. Chap. Reasons of the Adversaries for the adoration of Images. Page 448
  • 4. Chap. That the excuses and reasons which our adversaries bring for the defense of their Images, are the same which the Pagans alleged against the ancient Christians. Page 449
  • 5. Chap. When the Images of Saints were first brought into the Latin or Occidental Church, and of the progress of that abuse. Page 451
  • 6. Chap. Of the origin and progress of Images in the Greek & Oriental Churches. Page 452
• Third Controversy. In answer to the third instance of the 4. Book of Cardinal du Perron. Of Prayer for the Dead.
  • 1. Chap. OF prayer for the dead, and of Purgatory. What Scripture saith of it. And of the Purgatory of the Primitive Church. Page 455
  • 2. Chap. Of Indulgences given unto the dead, and generally of Indulgences. 46 •
• Fourth Controversy. Of the Celibate of Clerks and Monks.
  • 1. Chap. A Comparison of continent Virginity with Matrimony. That many Prophets and Apostles were married. Examination of the Cardinals shifts. Page 469
  • 2. Chap. That the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7. obligeth incontinent Clerks to marry: Confutation of the Cardinals reasons. Page 472
  • 3. Chap. Another Text of the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 4. against the prohibition of marrying; examination of the Cardinals answers. Page 475
  • 4. Chap. Another Text of the same Epistle, 3. chap. Page 477
  • 5. Chap. Vindication of the assertion of his Majesty of Great Britain, that Canonists teach that Fornication is more tolerable in the Ministers of the Church then lawful Matrimony. Page 479
  • 6. Chap. Answer to the reasons and testimonies which the Cardinal brings against the marriage of Clerks. Page 480
  • 7. Chap. What was the belief of the ancient Church about the marriage of the Ministers of the Church. The reasons and allegations of Cardinal du Perron are examined, and some of his falsifications observed. Page 483
  • 8. Chap. Examples of Clerks married, both Ancient and Modern. Page 492
  • 9. Chap. Confession of the Adversaries. Page 494
  • 10. Chap. Of the disorders happened by the Celibate. Also of the Carthusians, and of St. Francis, and his rule. Page 496
  • 11. Chap. Of affected austerity. Reasons whereby the Cardinal maintaineth professed slovenliness. The origin of Monks. Page 499
• Fifth Controversy. Of Fasting.
  • Chap. 1. THat in the question of Fasting, and of Lent, M. du Perron doth not touch the state of the question, but discourseth about things not controverted. Page 505.
  • Chap. 2. That as sobriety and fasting are recommended in the word of God, so distinction of meats is condemned by the same. Page 507
  • Chap. 3. Of the custom of the ancient Church about distinction of meats. Page 508
  • Chap. 4. Of ordinary Fasts upon week days, practiced in the ancient Church, and of Saturday Fast. Page 513
  • Chap. 5. Of the Fasts of Saturday, and the Lord's day. Page 514
  • Chap. 6. Examination of the Proofs, whereby Cardinal du Perron goeth about to prove that Lent is of Divine institution. Page 515
  • Chap. 7. That Cardinal du Perron was ignorant of the origin of Lent, and in what sense that word was taken in the Antient Church. Diversity of ancient customs in this matter. Page 516
  • Chap. 8. How the discipline of fasting in the Roman Church is full of absurdity and abuse. Page 521
• Sixth Controversy. Auricular Confession.
  • 1. Chap. FOur sorts of Confession in our Churches. Answer to the Cardidinal. Page 523
  • 2. Chap. That the testimonies of the Fathers which Cardinal du Perron objecteth to us to establish the auricular Confession are to no purpose. Some falsifications observed. Page 526.
  • 3. Chap. Of the Penitentiary Priest abolished by Nectarius. How Cardinal du Perron altereth, and corrupteth that History. How he disguiseth and concealeth the doctrine of Chrysostom about confession. Page 528
  • 4. Chap. Why Cardinal du Perron contradicteth the Councils of Trent and Florence, making confession not to be part of the Sacrament of Penitence. That Penitence cannot be called a Sacrament. Page 533
  • 5. Chap. What we find amiss in the auricular confession of the Roman Church. Page 537
  • 6. Chap. Examination of the 6. and 7. Chapters of the second observation, wherein Cardinal du Perron treats of the secret of confession, and of the danger thereby created unto the life of Kings. Page 542
• Seventh Controversy. Of the Authority and power of the Pastors of the Church to pardon sins. And of Sacramental absolution.
  • 1. Chap. HOw negligently M. du Perron treats of Sacramental absolution. A summary answer to that he saith of that subject. Many Falsifycations are observed. Page 550
  • 2. Chap. What is that pardon of sins which the Pastors of the Church grant, and how far their power to forgive sins extends. And of the power of the keys. Page 556
  • 3. Chap. That the Pastors of the Church cannot blot out sins before God. And cannot by pardoning sins exempt sinners from God's judgment. That unto God alone, as the only judge of souls and consciences, it belongeth to forgive sins. And that the absolution of the Priests of the Roman Church is void and of no virtue. Page 559
  • 4. Chap. Proof of our doctrine by the ancient Fathers; and even by the Roman Church. Page 566
  • 5. Chap. Of the abuse of the Keys, and of Absolution, both that which is called Sacramental, and that which is given without the Sacrament. Page 573
• Eighth Controversy. Of Penitential satisfaction, where also is spoken of satisfaction in general.
  • 1. Chap. DOctrine of the Roman Church about penitential satisfaction. Page 585
  • 2. Chap. Of the word of satisfaction, State of the Question. Page 590
  • 3. Chap. That the holy Scripture makes Christ, and the merit of his death to be the ground of the remission of sins, as his death being the only ransom and propitiation for our sins. And that the Roman Church feigning to acknowledge the sufficiency and perfection of that satisfaction, debaseth and weakens it with all her power. Page 593
  • 4. Chap. This Maxim of the Roman Church is examined, that God having forgiven the whole fault, doth not always forgive the whole pain. Page 595
  • 5. Chap. Proofs of our adversaries, whereby they pretend to prove that God after all the fault is forgiven, inflicteth the satisfactory pain. Page 598
  • 6. Chap. That the satisfactions of the Roman Church derogate from Christ's satisfaction, and are injurious against God's Justce. 602. Page 602
  • 7. Chap. Causes why we especially reject the satisfactions of the pretended Sacrament of Penitence. Page 610
  • 8. Chap. Reasons of the Adversaries for human satisfactions. Of the application of the merit of Christ. And of human merits. Page 612
  • 9. Chap. That none can satisfy God's Justice for another. Page 621
  • 10. Chap. Answer to the Invectives of our adversaries upon this matter. And of their reproach to this Author, that he is a Friars Son. Page 625
  • 11. Chap. What tyranny the Popes have exercised over England for some Ages under color of absolution ann satisfaction. And from what horrible bondage England was delivered by the light of the Gospel. Page 629
  • 12. Chap. In what sense the word of Penitence is taken in Scripture, and in the Fathers. Page 658
  • 13. Chap. In what sense the words of Penitence and Satisfaction are taken in the writings of the Fathers, and that the Penitence of the Ancient Church is much different from the Penitencies of the Rhman Church. Page 660
• Ninth Controversy. Of the Necessity of Baptism.
  • 1. Chap. CArdinal du Perron 's Reasons for the absolute necessity of Baptism. Examination of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon that point. How they abuse this Text, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Page 664
  • 2. Chap. Sense of the forealledged Text, Joh. 3.5. How unworthily and unjustly the Cardinal dealeth with Calvin. A notable ignorance of the Cardinal. Page 671
  • 3. Chap. How contemptible Baptism is in the Roman Church, and miserably disgraced. Page 673
  • 4. Chap. The doctrine of our Churches, about the virtue and efficacy of Baptism. Page 674
  • 5. Chap. How the Romanists after they have disgraced Baptism, exalt it with improper praises. Page 675
• Tenth Controversy. Of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
  • 1. Chap. STate of the Question, how M. du Perron doth not touch it, but wanders about useless discourse. Page 680
  • 2. Chap. That the Sacrifice of the Mass was not instituted by Christ. And of the fruit and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Page 681
  • 3. Chap. Examination of the Cardinals reasons, to prove that the Fathers call the Eucharist a Sacrifice in a proper, not in a Metaphorical sense. Page 684
  • 4. Chap. That the Fathers call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, because it is the commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ's death. Page 686
  • 5. Chap. Examination of the Cardinals shifts. Page 690
  • 6. Chap. Other reasons for which the Fathers called the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice. Page 692
• Eleventh Controversy. Of the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: And of Transubstantiation.
  • 1. Chap. OF the first Institution of the holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Page 694
  • 2. Chap. That the doctrine of the real presence, and of transubstantiation, is repugnant to Christ's institution. The Cardinals reasons are examined. Page 696
  • 3. Chap. Of the sense of the 6. chap. of John, and of the spiritual manducation of the body of Christ, and how many absurdities and inconveniencies follow the oral manducation of Christ's flesh taught in the Roman Church. Page 705
  • 4. Chap. How and in what sense the Fathers alleged by the Cardinal call the Sacrament the body of Christ, and say that Christ's body is made in the Eucharist, and that we eat his flesh in it. Answer to the Cardinals depravations. Page 710
  • 5. Chap. That the Fathers did not believe transubstantiation, but believed that the substance of bread and wine remaineth after the consecration. Page 723
  • 6. Chap. What is the signification of the word Sacrament. And in what sense the Fathers call the Eucharist the body of Christ. Page 731
  • 7. Chap. That the Fathers not only call that which we receive in the Eucharist, sign, figure, symbol, type, and antitype; but also teach that the words of the Lord are Sacramental, that is, in these words the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. Page 732
  • 8. Chap. Some passages of Austin, wherein he teacheth that Christ's words. This is my body, and except you eat my flesh, &c. are figurative. The Cardinals answers are examined. Page 737
  • 9. Chap. Examination of Cardinal du Perron 's answer, whereby he endeavors to give reasons why the Fathers call the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, signs, figures, types, and symbols of the body and blood of Christ, even after the consecration. Page 743
  • 10. Chap. Some passages of the Councils upon this subject. Page 745
  • 11. Chap. That the Fathers did not believe accidents without subject in the Eucharist. Page 748
  • 12. Chap. That the Fathers not only speak of a Spiritual manducation, which is not done with the mouth, but also understand Christ's words, John. 6. of a Spiritual manducation. Page 751
  • 13. Chap. That the Fathers believed not that the wicked and unbelievers, or hypocrites could eat the Lord's body. Page 754
  • 14. Chap. Confutation of two shifts, which the Cardinal useth upon all occasions. Page 755
  • 15. Chap. Showing how the Fathers say, that the Fathers of the Old Testament ate the same meat which we eat in the Eucharist. Page 760
  • 16. Chap. That the Fathers believed not that the body of Christ is really present under the element of bread, but that he is in heaven only, not in earth. Page 764
  • 17. Chap. That the Fathers acknowledge the same participation of the body and blood of the Lord in Baptism, and in the preaching of the word as in the Lord's Supper. Page 767
  • 18. Chap. After what manner the Christian Church of the first Ages celebrated the Lord's Supper. How the ancient Customs show evidently that they believed not the real presence. Page 768
  • 19. Chap. Proofs of the customs represented in the chapter before. Page 771
  • 20. Chap. Of the adoration of the Sacrament. Weakness of the Cardinals proofs. How he falsifieth Scripture. Examination of his allegations. Page 776
  • 21. Chap. That in the first ages of the Christian Church the Sacrament was not worshipped. The Cardinals allegations and proofs are examined. Page 778
  • 22. Chap. The Cardinals allegations out of the Fathers are examined, beginning at his allegations out of the Catecheses of Gregory of Nyssa. Page 783
  • 23. Chap. Answer to the other allegations of the same chapter. Page 786
  • 24. Chap. Answer to the authorities and reasons brought by Cardinal du Perron in the 14, 15. and 16. chapters. Page 788
  • 25. Chap. How the Cardinal sends the Reader to a larger Book of his of the Eucharist. That the beginning of that Book showeth what one should think of the rest. Page 792
• Twelfth Controversy.
  • Of the Communion in one kind. And of the power which Cardinal du Perron ascribeth unto the Church, that is, to the Pope, to dispense from the commandment of Christ. Page 793
• Thirteenth Controversy. Of private Masses.
  • Chap. 1. OF Private Masses. And the shameful traffick of the same. page 801
  • Chap. 2. That Masses without communicants and assistants, said to the intention of a private man that prayeth for them, are repugnant unto the Word of God. page 803
  • Chap. 3. That the ancient Church did not know private or particular Masses, and did not celebrate the holy Sacrament without communicants and assistants, to the intention of a particular person. page 805
• Fourteenth Controversy. The Antibarbarous. OR, Of unknown Language: Both in the prayers of private persons, and in the public Service. Where also the principal clauses of the Mass are represented, which might offend the people if they understood them.
  • Chap. 1. THat false Religions love obscurity, but true Religion brings her doctrine to light, and keeps nothing hidden. page 810
  • Chap. 2. Two differences between us and the Roman Church about unknown Language. page 813
  • Chap. 3. Of Prayers of particular persons in a tongue unknown to the very persons that pray. page 814
  • Chap. 4. That in the Ancient Church every man prayed in his own Tongue. page 816
  • Chap. 5. That the public Service in a Languge not understood, is contrary to the Word of God and to reason. page 817
  • Chap. 6. The same is proved by the example of the Church of the Old Testament. page 822
  • Chap. 7. That the ancient Christian Church over all the World used an intelligible tongue in the public Service. page 823
  • Chap. 8. Two causes that move the Pope and his Clergy to maintain the celebration of Mass and of the ordinary Service in the Latin tongue. page 828
  • Chap. 9. A third cause why they will not have the Mass to be understood by the people. Some clauses of the Mass which would offend the people if they were understood. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Examination of the reasons of our Adversaries; Of Card. Du Perron especially. page 836
  • Chap. 11. Examination of the proofs which the Cardinal brings out of Antiquity for the Service in a strange tongue. page 841
  • Chap. 12. How Latin was brought into the Divine Service in France and Spain. page 843
  • Chap. 13. Of England and Germany, and how the Roman Service and the Latin tongue were received in those Countries. page 846
  • Chap. 14. Of Africa, and how the Service in the Latin Tongue came to it. page 849
  • The Authors Thanksgiving to GOD for the finishing of this Work. page 851.

BOOK I. OF THE ANSWER TO Cardinal du Perron, TREATING Of the Church, and of her Marks, of the Authority of the Holy Scripture, and of Traditions.