The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 6. Whether the Societies of Heretics, and Schismatics, or Idolatrous Christians, must be called Churches. Answer to the Cardinal.

THe Question is, Whether the Societies of Idolatrous, or Heretic, or Schismatical Christians, ought to be called Churches? and, Whether when by Heresies or Schisms the Church is torn in pieces, every piece can, or ought to keep the name of Church? About that, the 57. Chapter of the Cardinals first Book is spent. For my part, I hold that Question to be useless, because it is but a dispute abou • a word: We have true Controversies enough, without forging imaginary Controversies. To take the word in the sense that our adversaries take it, for the whole Society of the truly faithful, it is certain, that the Societies of Heretics, separated from that body, are not the Church. But if by the Church, we understand the whole body of those that profess Christianity, there is no doubt but that the Societies of Heretics are Churches, and parts of that Universal Church. It appeareth to me, that our adversaries admitting the Baptism of those whom they call Heretics, acknowledge them to be Christian Churches; for the Sacraments of the Christian Church, are not to be found out of the Christian Church. So the ten Tribes of Israel are often called by the Prophets, the people of God, because they kept the Circumcision, and were of Jacob's posterity. M. du Perron, chap. 61. speaks of Christian Heretics: Now there are no Christians out of the Christian Church. The Apostle writing to the Galatians, calls them the Church, in the beginning of his Epistle, although they erred in an important point of the faith, retaining the Circumcision, and putting a necessity upon the observation of the Ceremonies of the Law: For that it was a vice of the body of the Church, not of some particular persons, it appears, in that the Apostle speaks to the body of the Church without distinction, chap. 1. 6. & 3. 1. & 5. 7. & 9. Cardinal du Perron, although he denies that it was the opinion of the whole Church, yet acknowledgeth that S. Paul confuteth that doctrine, as if all the Galatians had embraced it. Thus the Spirit of God writes to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. 3. which nevertheless he calls poor, blind and naked. A man sick of the plague, is nevertheless a true man: As health is not the form or the essence of a man, so purity in the faith is not the essence of the universal visible Church. Her essence or essential form consisteth in the collection in one body under the profession of Christianity.

CHAP. 7. How this Proposition must be understood: That out of the Church there is no Salvation.

THe Cardinal is continually urging this Proposition, that there is no salvation out of the Church; And that he hath not God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. It imports then to know in what sense, and how far that Proposition is true.

I say then, that if by the word Church, you understand the Church or Assembly of the elect, or predestinated unto salvation, it is clear and questionless that out of the Church so understood there is no salvation: For whosoever is none of the elect, is of necessity a reprobate.

If by the Church, you understand some particular Church, as the Greek, the Roman, the English, it is certain that out of such a Church a man may be saved. For example, if the Roman Church were as pure in the faith as it is corrupt, yet a faithful man could be saved in any other particular Church of the like purity.

But if by the Church, one understands the whole body of those that profess themselves to be Christians, or the whole body of the Orthodox Churches united in communion; it is certain that out of the Communion of the Church taken in that sense a man may be saved. For if one were unjustly excommunicated from that Church, and should die during that excommunication, he should not be therefore excluded from salvation. For God is not subject to men's vices, nor obliged to comply with the unjust passions of Pastors handling the keys unrighteously, or abusing them ignorantly. Such a man having the Church for his Stepmother, shall nevertheless have God for his Father.

It may also happen that a Pagan or a Jew being prisoner, or living in a country where there is no Christians, will come by reading, or conference, or inspiration from God, to acknowledge the truth of Christian Religion, and make a resolution to profess it at the next opportunity, and as soon as he shall have his freedom: if Death prevent such a man before he can openly join with the Communion of the Church, I make no doubt but that he may be saved, believing in Jesus Christ, though he never did aggregate himself to the Communion of the Church. For our Savior's words can never be false, Whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ, hath eternal life, Joh. 6. The thief crucified with Jesus, and converted when he was near death, was a Pagan before, or of no religion; we cannot tell that ever he was a Member of the visible Church, yet he was saved.

In this sense then that Proposition may be true, That out of the visible Church there is no Salvation. Who so by profaneness or error in the foundation of the faith doth separate himself from the Communion of the universal visible Church, and renounceth the Communion of the faithful, to live according to his fancy, and to be no more a Member of the Church, that man cannot be saved. Of such men the Apostle Jude speaketh ver. 18, 19. where he calls those mockers and sensual men that separate themselves; And the Apostle to the Hebrews, chap. 10. v. 25. forbids us to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. In this sense Cyprian in his book of the Unity of the Church, saith, He hath not God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. For he speaks of Schismatics, who out of pride despise the Communion of the Orthodox Church, and are authors of dissention and division in the Church.

But in our days, this Proposition, That out of the Church there is no salvation, is taken otherwise. For thereby they mean that out of the Roman Church, and out of the Popes subjection none can be saved. One particular Church the furthest gone in the way of perdition, condemneth all other Churches to eternal perdition.

Of that question this is an appurtenance: Whether Heretics and Schismatics can be saved? Those are called Heretics, who by some error in the faith have separated themselves from the Orthodox Church. Those are called Schismatics, not Heretics, that separate themselves from the Orthodox Church for some causes that concern not the faith. As the Donatists made a schism from the Orthodox Church of Africa for the ordination of Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, pretending that he had been created Bishop by Bishops that had delivered the holy Scriptures unto the persecutors. But Satan for fear that the Schism should heal up, added to it presently some difference in the doctrine, moving a quarrel about rebaptizing of Heretics.

In this question it is better to say too little then too much: For a godly, wise man will abstain from making a rash judgment of the salvation of others, remembering the sentence of Jesus Christ, Judge not that you be not judged. He will ponder the causes of the separation, and distinguish the persons. For there be some errors in light things, not fundamental in Religion, upon which a separation may happen, by the pride and pertinency of some Pastors, even of them that are Orthodox: As the error of the Quartadecimani, who celebrated the feast of Easter precisely upon the fourteenth day of the Moon of March; for which cause Victor Bishop of Rome separated himself from their Communion; Wherein although the error was on their side, yet the schism was on Victors side, and he was more guilty then they. To pronounce that the people which is no cause of the schism, is damned eternally for such an error, is a rash part, and a bold judgment of the salvation of others. For no doubt but that such separations commonly happen by the ambition of the Pastors that lead the people, who groan under that yoke, and desire concord, grieving for the separation. Yea it may happen that both the Churches that forsake their mutual communion are both in the wrong. It may happen also, that the party that hath the truth on his side, is cause of the schism, by the harshness, or ambition, or want of charity of them that govern. As when two Brothers are quarrelling, they are Brothers nevertheless: So it is possible that two dissenting Churches will be nevertheless Members of the same body, in God's account, whose wisdom is not obnoxious to our violence. But men prone to think well of their own righteousness, and having little charity for their Brethren, will pronounce all that keep not communion with them, excommunicate Heretics and Schismatics, and assign their quarter in hell; whereas they should have a tender care to take heed to make up the least breach, by bearing with the weak. I would then put a great difference between the Authors of Schism, who are Satan's Incendiaries, and the makers of the breach; and the simple people that cannot resist the authority of the Pastors of that Church in which they are born and bred, and have a real inclination to concord.

I could wish also that a man should not be pronounced an Heretic, that is ignorant of some Article of Faith by a simple and negative Ignorance, such as is that of Infants; not by an obstinate ignorance, which armeth itself with reasons against the Truth. Thus the Apostles were at first ignorant of the Resurrection, and were not Heretics for that.

I wish also that an Error be not presently called an Heresy, when it is about a light thing, not about the Fundamentals of Faith. It was with some severity that the Luciferians were listed among the Heretics, because they would not receive to Episcopacy those that had held the same degree among the Heretics; also for the traduction of the soul.

But above all, M. du Perrons judgment seems to me rash and bold, in the fourth Chapter of the third Observation; where he saith, that there are some points, of which if the Church should bate one syllable, she should cease to be the true Church of Christ, and would remain the Synagogue of Satan. Among which points he ranketh the doctrine of the Baptism of Heretics. Whereby he condemneth the whole African Church in Agrippines and Cyprians Age, and calls it the Synagogue of Satan, and inwraps good Cyprian in the same condemnation. For they did not receive the Baptism of Heretics, no more then the Donatists that came since, and have followed them in that point: For which cause Steven Bishop of Rome called Cyprian (who was far better then he) a false Christ, a false Prophet, and a deceitful workman. As on the other side, Cyprian Epist. 74. calls Steven proud, ignorant, lover of Heretics, Enemy to Christians.

M. du Perron beats incessantly upon the necessity of Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, maintaining that out of that Communion, there is no Salvation. But he forgets to resolve a difficulty, Whether an Orthodox Church living in another Hemisphere then ours, and for want of Navigation, not so much as knowing that there is a Roman Church, must be deprived of Salvation; the defect not coming from her, but from the nature of the place, and the remoteness of the situation?

CHAP. 8. Whether the True Church be always in Sight? State of the Question.

IT is not a point disputed, Whether the Church of the Elect be Visible; for it is a thing confessed of all, that the Elect are not discernible with the eye. The question is, Whether the Church to which we must join, that we may be saved, be always exposed to our eye?

We are also agreed upon this, That they that belong to that true Church, see and know that it is the true Church. Also that such as are not of that Church, as Pagans, Jews, and Heretics; see indeed that Society of men which is called the Church, but see not that it is the true Church. These are the words of Bellarmine, chap. 15. of the third Book of the Church, One may see a Society which is the Church, but one seeth not that it is the true Church. Cardinal du Perron saith the same, Chap. 19. To Heretics and Schismatics, the Church, though never so eminent, hath always been obscure and hidden; not for want of light and eminency of her own, but by reason of their darkness and blindness.

So there is two ways of seeing the Church, The one to see her only as she is a Society of men; the other to see that she is the true Church. Thus the Jews saw Jesus Christ, but did not see that he was the Christ, the Redeemer. In the first way many Pagans, Jews and Heretics see the Church; but none but those that are of the Church, or have knowledge enough to join with it, see that it is the true Church. So far we are agreed.

The question between us is, Whether the true, pure, and Orthodox Church be always exposed to those men's sight that are without the verge of the Church, and whether they can see her at least as a Society of men, for without that they could not aggregate themselves to her?

Our Adversaries maintain, That the true Church is always in sight, and visible to them that are without. We on the contrary hold that the true Orthodox Church never was exposed to the sight of all the men of the world, there being always many Nations that never heard of Christ, nor of Christian Church; And such hard and contrary times coming sometimes upon the Church, that the Church seemeth to vanish and be dissipated, or extinct by persecutions; of which I will bring some examples in the following Chapter.

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.

THe Word of God affords us many examples of this. Was the Church of God exposed to the sight of Infidels, when the people of Israel was in Egypt, serving the Idols of the Egyptians? For God by his Prophet Ezekiel, Chap. 20. upbraids them, that when by his Prophets he exhorted them to forsake the Idols of Egypt, where they lived, none of them would obey or leave her abominations.

Was the Church Visible to the Infidels in the time of the Kings, Ahas and Manasseh, when those Idolatrous Kings shut up the Temple of God, and Idols were set up in all the Towns of Judah? and when the High Priest Uriah set up an Altar after the Pagan manner within the Temple, which was the only Temple in the world consecrated unto the true God?

M. du Perron. Chap. 88. saith for answer, that Manasseh came to repentance: But what is that to our purpose? That King indeed repented towards the end of his days; but the fifty two years of his reign are a sufficient time to make a long interruption in the visibility of the Church. He saith also, that although there had not been any assembling in the Synagogues at that time, and although all public exercise of God's service had been suspended, yet the Massacres of the faithful did not suffer the true Religion to be unknown and invisible.

This answer is a plain shift: For here the question is not of the Visibility of Religion, which may remain in some particulars, but of the Visibility of the Church; which Visibility ceaseth when there is no more Assemblies.

Was the Church exposed to the sight of them that are without, in the time marked, 2 Chron. 15.3. For a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. Where it cannot be said, that by Israel the ten Tribes are understood: For it follows in the Text, But when they in their trouble did turn unto the Lord God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them. This conversion never was in the ten Tribes since their revolt.

Was the Church Visible in the time of Daniel, when the only Temple dedicated to the ordinary service of God was destroyed, and the Jews captive in Babylon, bowed the knee before the Idol set up by Nebuchadnezzar, all but Daniel and his three friends! Dan. 3.6, 7.

And although in all those times the Church had been visible to the neighbouring Nations, yet she was not visible to the Chinesi, Americans, Sarmates, &c. And here our Adversaries ought to determine how far, and to how many Nations the Church was visible.

A very express example to this purpose is the time that the Lord Jesus lived on earth. There was then no other Visible Church in the world but the Jewish Church, nor any succession of Chairs, but that of the Priests and Scribes; yet they conspire against Jesus Christ, and make a Council, in which they decree, that whosoever should confess Jesus to be the Christ, should be cast out of the Synagogue; That is, excommunicated, Joh. 9.22. which sentence is the worst of all doctrines. Where was at that time that true Church always visible and eminent in purity? For our Adversaries hold, that then the Jewish Church had yet her full authority and purity, alleging for that Mat. 23.2, 3. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair. All therefore that they bid you observe, that observe and do. To say with M. du Perron, that the Jewish Church was then near her period, and that her Lease was well-nigh expired, is confessing that at least some years had past without a visible Church.

Wherefore the Cardinal seeing that he could not deny, that the state of the visible Church under the Old Testament was often interrupted, saith, It follows not, if that happened to the Jewish Church, that the same can happen to the Christian Church, which hath great privileges above the Jewish. In the same manner (saith he) as there is three periods of man's generation; The first, in which man liveth only with the life of Plants; the second, in which he liveth with an Animal life; and the third in which he liveth with a Reasonable life. And that it doth not follow, if under the two first states the soul is corruptible, that under the third it must be so too. But he is mistaken in his Philosophy: For it is most false, that there is a time or period in which a man liveth only with a plants life; for in that time he is not yet a man. That is said of the embryo, not of man, who never is a man till he have a reasonable soul. But the Church is always a Church, and is one and the same body from Adam unto the last day. If the Roman Church had promises of visibility and perpetuity as express as the Church of Israel, she would brag of them with great ostentation. God speaks thus, 2 Chron. 33.4. In Jerusalem shall my Name be forever. And 1 King. 9.3. I have hallowed this house to put my Name there forever. And Psal. 132.14. Zion is my rest forever, here will I dwell, for I have desired it. And yet God hath put away that people from his Covenant, because these promises were to be understood conditionally, if that people would adhere unto God, and to his service. But the Roman Church hath no promise in the Word of God to ground her perpetuity upon it: Nor hath the very Christian Church in general any promise to be always eminent and visible to them that are without; but Scripture teacheth us the contrary.

In the beginning of the preaching of the Apostles, when she was enclosed in Jerusalem, she was not visible to the Sarmates, Spaniards and Moors.

Shall the Christian Church be visible in the time mentioned, Revel. 13.3. where it is said, That all the world shall wonder after the Beast? Or in the time marked by the Lord Jesus Christ, Luk. 18. Do you think that when the Son of man cometh he shall find faith in the Earth? The Roman Church that investeth herself with the Title of Universal; was she visible to the Americans before the Navigations of the Spaniards and Portughese? And when it is said, Revel. 12. that wings were given to the woman (which is the Church) that she might fly into the Wilderness, where she might be hid for a time; was that Church then eminent and visible unto the Infidels? Do not our Adversaries say, that the Antichrist shall abolish the continual Sacrifice, that is, (as they understand it) the Mass? At that time then the Roman Church shall be no more: For they hold that a Church cannot be without a Sacrifice; at least at that time she shall have no visible and no eminent state.

And since God commandeth his Church, Revel. 18. to come out of Babylon, may we not thence gather that the Church shall be for a time hid in Babylon?

And who doubts, but that the Church may come to be so dispersed for a season by persecutions, that she may even be unseen to some of the faithful, until God gather them again?

CHAP. 10. Places of the Fathers upon that Subject.

THe Ancients are full of passages to that purpose. Austin, who sometimes to favor his cause against the Donatists, will have the true Church always eminent in multitude and splendor, in some other places is speaking otherwise. In the 80. Epistle to Hosychius speaking of the last times, The Church (saith he) shall not then appear, the impious persecutors exercising their violence beyond measure. And in the 45. Epistle to Vincentius, The Church sometimes is obscured, and is as it were covered with clouds by the multitude of scandals. He adds indeed, That at that time Ecclesia in firmissimis suis eminet; the Church is eminent in those that are most firm in the faith. But the faith of particular persons showeth indeed the Religion, but shows not the Church, when no Congregations are seen. In the same place speaking of the time of Constantius, he saith, that at that time the Catholics were of small number, compared to the Heretics. And in the 119. Epistle, Chap. 6. The Church being yet in that mortal condition of the flesh, is by reason of that mutability signified by the Moon in the Scriptures. And soon after, The Church looks obscure in the time of her Peregrination.

Ambrose in the 4. of the Hexameron, Chap. 2. The Church seemeth to fail like the Moon, but she faileth not; She can be obscured, but she cannot fail.

Tertullian in his Exhortation to Chastity, Chap. 7. Where three are, though they be Laymen, there the Church is; for everyone liveth by his faith.

Hilary in his Book against Auxentius, You are taken with the love of walls; You reverence the Church of God amiss, in the roofs and buildings: you propound the name of peace amiss under that color; Mountains, and Lakes, and Prisons, and Boggs are unto me more safe. And that none say, that he speaks there of the only Church of Milan, he saith in the same place, that in the East it is a rare thing to find a Catholic Bishop or people.

CHAP. 11. Testimonies and Reasons of the Adversaries for the perpetual Visibility of the Church.

AGainst this our Adversaries bestir all their strength. M. du Perron in Chap. 2. opposeth it with many texts, Isai. 2.2. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains; And all the hills shall flow unto her. [For so he alledgeth that Text.] But that Text promiseth not a visibility, and perpetual eminency to the Church, and at all times. It is a prediction of a time, when at the preaching of the Gospel, many Nations shall be converted: which happened in the time of the Apostles and their Disciples. This is made plain by the following words; For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He speaks of a time, when the Word of God must be carried from Judea and Jerusalem to the Gentiles, which came not to pass but in the Apostles time.

The same answer will serve for two other Texts which he brings; The one out of Isa. 60.3. The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and Kings to the brightness of thy rising. The other is out of chap. 61.9. Their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people. These Texts promise a time when the Church shall be much exalted in the sight of the Nations, but speak not of visibility and perpetual splendor.

To these Texts he adds two of the New Testament. The first of Mat. 5.14. You are the light of the world. A City that is set on a hill cannot be hid. By the City Austin understands the Church. Basil in his abridged definitions in the 277. Interrogation holds that thereby good works must be understood, because it is added, that men may see your good works. But the true exposition is that of Jerome in the second Dialogue against the Pelagians, and of Chrysostom in the Homily upon this place; Who say, that by the City set on a hill the Apostles are understood, whom Jesus Christ calls also the light of the world, and because both their persons and preaching were to be set forth in the sight of all Narions. Thus God said to the Prophet, Jer. 1.18. Behold I have made thee this day a defensed City. Yet suppose that this City set upon a mountain be the Church; What can be gathered from it, but that the Church shall be eminent and visible as long as it is set upon a hill? But this Text doth not say that it must always stand there. The Church of God is in a moving and wayfaring condition. God hath often removed her from one place to another.

The second Text which he alledgeth out of the New Testament, is, Mat. 18.17. Tell it unto the Church; But if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. This we may call playing with the word of God. The question is, whether the Church, which is called Catholic or Universal, be visible? Is it anything to this purpose to bring a Text where, by the word Church the Pastors of a particular congregation are understood? For that Text speaks of differences and offenses between two Brothers, which to appease the universal Church is not convocated. Besides, they that are commanded by the Text to make their address unto the Church when they have received some wrong from their neighbors, belong unto the Church: But here the question is, whether the Church be always visible to them that are without?

M. du Perron was not ashamed to allege Psalm 19.4. He hath put her tabernacle in the Sun, to prove that God hath made his Church visible and eminent. But that Text is falsified, which is thus, according to the Hebrew truth. In them (that is in the heavens) he hath set a tabernacle for the Sun. A man that hath recourse to such proofs, shows himself conscious of a great weakness of his cause.

Having so ill alleged Scripture, he brings in the Fathers to no better purpose. Cyprian in his book of the Unity of the Church, saith, That the Church clad with the Suns light, spreads her beams over all the world. He speaks of the Orthodox Church of his time, which was of a large extent: But he saith not that it should be so forever. Also he alledgeth Chrysostom in the fourth Homily upon Isaiah, and makes him say that it is more easy to put out the Suns light, then to obscure the Church. But that Text is falsely interpreted: For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Chrysostom signifieth to be, put out and utterly abolished, not to be obscured. This falsification is notorious.

Out of the same Chrysostom, in the same place he alledgeth this, The Sun is not so manifest, nor his light, as the actions of the Church. Yea to them that are of the Church, and have eyes to see. But as for them that are out of the Church, and are blind in their understanding, M. du Perron hath confessed before, that the Church is to them invisible.

Of Saint Austin, whom M. du Perron makes his main ground, as one that giveth often multitude for a mark of the true Church, we will speak hereafter, and show that it is a deceitful mark.

Here one may ask, How then shall it be possible for the ignorant to be saved, if the Church sometimes be out of sight? For how shall they join with a Church which doth not appear? That Objection hath the like force against our Adversaries: For they acknowledge that there is, and ever was in the world a multitude of Nations that know neither Christ nor Christian Church, which therefore cannot aggregate themselves unto the Church, since they do not see her. That Objection then doth not strike at us, but at God, who knoweth the ways to bring to salvation those that belong to his election.

CHAP. 12. Answer to that Question made to us; Shew us where your Church was before Luther, remounting from Luther to the Apostles?

OUr ears are even tired with that stale Objection: Shew us where your Religion was, and your Church before Luther and Calvin?

This is not a question of Divinity, but of History: A question not to be resolved but by the search of all the Books of Ecclesiastical History for they space of fifteen hundred years: which Books being Greek and Latin, and of an endless prolixity; if by that search we must attain to salvation, I know not who can be saved; seeing that even among the Doctors, scarce one of an hundred hath a mediocrity in that knowledge, and such as think themselves learned in it, do not agree among themselves.

In that Objection, mockery and fraudulent injustice are evident. Mockery, in that they will have us to answer presently, and in few words, a question that needs above twenty years to frame an answer to it. And truly our Adversaries might with good reason laugh at us, if we would have them to prove to us in few words, that their Religion was believed in several countries, and in all ages from the Apostles till now.

Fraud also and injustice is evident in this, that to take us off from examining their doctrine by Scripture, they will cast us upon endless histories, where they know that the people can see nothing, and into a dark labyrinth that hath no way to come out.

And how unjust are they to exact that of our people, which God doth not require of us? and to which themselves do not oblige the people of the Roman Church? For God doth not oblige us to be learned in histories, that we may be saved; but he obligeth us to know, and to follow the rules of faith and manners contained in his Word. He will not ask us in the day of Judgment, whether we have believed as the Roman Church, or the French, or the German believed before Luther? But we shall be judged according to the Gospel; as Saint Paul saith, Rom. 2.16.

Neither do they oblige their people to know the whole succession of chairs, and the whole thread of Histories of several countries since the Apostles. And there is none, I say not only of the people of the Roman Church, but even of the Doctors, that can affirm without rashness and untruth, that in the list of the Bishops of Rome, or of Milan, or of Lions, &c. none of them hath changed anything in the doctrine of his predecessor. All that is mere darkness unto the people, and the Doctors of the Roman Church never examine their people upon that.

In our respect especially that question is both absurd and unjust; for it presupposeth that the Orthodox Church must be visible to us in all ages. Now we have proved that the Church sometimes seems to be extinct, and hath not always a visible eminency.

And to make the injustice of their dealing superlative, they present that question to us by the wrong end: For common sense teacheth us, that in the search of Histories one must begin with the most ancient, but they would have us to begin by Luther, and so remount to the Apostles, as if one began the History of the Jews at Herod, and from thence should come to the Maccabees, from thence to David, and from David to Abraham: For they avoid speaking of the time of the Apostles, because they know that their ReligiOn was not then in being. Also because they know that the example of the Apostles is a rule and a law for the following ages. And seeing that our Religion is conformable unto that of the Apostles, the perceive that if one began that way, the search of the History of the following ages would be superfluous, since all the following ages ought to be ruled by that first age.

There then we must stop them, and since they will handle Controversies in the Historical way, let us begin by the first and the most ancient, and let us see which of the two Churches is most conformable to that of the Apostles; Whether it be that Church which calls upon the Saints; that worshippeth Images and Relicks; that pretends really to Sacrifice the Body of Jesus Christ in the Mass; that calls the Virgin Mary the Queen of Heaven; that celebrates the Service in a tongue unknown to the people; that believeth a fire of Purgatory; that depriveth the people from the Cup in the Communion; that saith the Bishop of Rome is Successor to St. Peter, not only in the Bishopric of the City of Rome, but also in the Apostleship, and in the Primacy over the Universal Church, having the power of Canonizing Saints; releasing of Vows and Oaths; dispensing against the Apostle; giving Indulgences to the dead, and drawing souls out of Purgatory; gathering the over-plus of the Satisfactions of Saints into the treasure of the Church, and converting it into a payment for others; and having the power to dispose of the Life and Crown of Kings, &c.

Or whether that Church which believeth none of these things, and rejecting those Traditions, keeps herself to Scripture only, be the Church conformable unto that of the Apostles? The Sun is not more clear then it is evident, that not only no trace of those things is found in the writings of the Apostles, but that even many ages after the Apostles, one man shall not be found that had a Religion any whit like the Religion of the Roman Church of our days. Which our Adversaries do sufficiently acknowledge, when they say, That the Pope and the Roman Church can change that which the Apostles have constituted, as Cardinal du Perron maintaineth, and with him all the Romish Doctors of our age, as we have proved, and will hereafter prove more accurately.

The Reader may observe in that question another evident mockery, full of insultation: For a thief that hath robbed a man of his cloak, should add mockery to his theft, if he asked him, Where is your cloak now? So the Pope who hath for many ages used his utmost endeavor to abolish the Church in the West by bloody persecutions, is now asking, where that Church was, which he thought he had extinguished?

It were easy for us to show, that before Luther, there was in France, in Germany, and in other places, divers Churches of our belief, which our Adversaries charged with odious names, calling them Waldenses, Albigenses, Picards, and the like; (in the same manner as they call us now Huguenots, ) and calumniously ascribing impious doctrines unto them. The sudden change happened in Luther's time, shown that Europe was full of people that knew the Truth, and sighed for Reformation, groaning under their captivity.

At this time also the Church of Ethiopia, containing seventeen great Provinces, agreeth with us in the Fundamental points of the Faith, although she observe many small superstitions: For she is not subject unto the Pope, knoweth neither his Indulgences, for his Laws; believeth neither Purgatory nor Transubstantiation, maketh no Adoration of the Host in the Holy Communion, nor any elevation for worship: Celebrates the divine Service in the native language; Communicates under both kinds; worshippeth no Images: Hath no private Communion; hath but one Table or Altar in every Church; hath married Priests; Baptizeth men-children forty days after they are born, and women-children threescore days after, thereby showing, that they believe not Baptism to be absolutely necessary unto salvation: as may be seen in the History of Francis Alvarez a Portughese Monk, who hath lived there six years. For M. du Perrons imputation to those Churches, that they are Eutychian, is a calumny. It is true, that they are subject unto the Patriarch of Alexandria who is an Eutychian, but that subjection is not in the Doctrine, but only in that the said Patriarch hath the right of the nomination of the Abuna, or first Prelate of the Ethiopians, when the See is vacant.

It is certain, that the Greek Church, more ancient then the Roman, and from whom the Roman Church hath received Christianity, draws much nearer to our Religion then the Roman; seeing that she doth not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome; despiseth both his Laws and indulgences; believeth no Purgatory, and no Transubstantion; giveth the cup to the people; hath the Divine Service in the ancient Greek tongue; and hath married Priests.

But the search of Histories decideth no Controversies. We are ruled by no History but by that of the Apostles time; for they have given Laws for the following ages. Wherefore whensoever our Adversaries ask us where our Religion was before Luther? we must ask them, where their Religion was in the time of the Apostles? for there both they and we ought to begin.

CHAP. 13. Whether the Church can Err?

THe Roman Church boasteth that she cannot err. And in the question, whether the Church can err, she bears herself as an infallible Judge. So that she is Judge in her own cause, and an infallible Judge of her infallibility.

By the Roman Church, which they will have to be an infallible judge, the people is not understood, but the Prelates that govern the people. This is arrogant language: For so the will of man, which ought to be ruled by the Word of God, is become the Rule itself; and Scripture is become of little necessity, if it be so, that the Pastors our leaders cannot swerve out of the way; and no other duty will lie upon us but to follow them, and stand to their verdict.

The Apostles had the gift of not erring; yet none of them durst ever say, I cannot err: That was the language of the Jews, when they conspired against the Prophets sent by God: And under that false confidence, hardening themselves in evil, they would say, The Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor the Word from the Prophet: But God giveth them the lie upon that, and telleth them, Ezek. 7.26. The Law shall perish from the Priest, and the counsel from the Prophet, or the Antient.

Against that Doctrine of pride, Scripture doth furnish us with many examples. The Church of the Old Testament was idolatrous in Egypt, as may be seen, Ezek. 20.7, 8. Aaron the High Priest set up an Altar to the Golden Calf, and dedicated an holy day to it, Exod. 32. Whereupon Moses chides him, and saith, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? Austin saith that Aaron was the cause of all the evil. Uriah another High Priest set up a Pagan Altar within the Temple of God, 2 Kings 16.10, 11. Under King Ahaz the Temple of God was shut up, and the sacred service ceased for a time, 2 Chron. 29.7. King Manasseh built Altars to Baalim in the House of God, the only Temple in the world dedicated to God's service, and made Sacrifices unto false God's in the two Courts of the Temple, 2 Chron. 33.4, 5. In which Temple how many abominations and idolatries were committed, is to seen, Ezek. 8.

2 Chron. 15.3. It is said, Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without law. Which cannot be understood of the ten Tribes, as we have proved; for those ten Tribes never had a lawful Priest.

Did not the Church err in the time of Isaiah, who upbraideth the people of the Jews, that his watchmen were blind, and were all ignorant? Isai. 50.10. Or in the time of Jeremiah, who thus rebuketh the Church of his time, The Prophets prophesy falsely, and the Priests bear rule by their means, Jer. 5.31. And Ch. 2. verse. 8. The Priests said not, Where is the Lord? And they that handle the Law knew me not. And v. 26. Their Priests and their Prophets say to a stock, Thou art my Father, which is the language of Idolaters. The same Prophet upbraideth Judah, then the only people of God, that they had as many God's as Towns, Jer. 11.13.

Did not the Church err in Malachi's time, who speaks thus to the Priests that taught the people, Ye are departed out of the way, you have cause many to stumble at the Law, and have corrupted the Covenant of Levi? Mal. 2.8.

The Priests and Scribes that held the ordinary Chairs in the Church, were enemies of Jesus Christ, and decreed that whosoever should confess him to be the Christ, should be excommunicated, Joh. 9.12. And Caiaphas the High Priest pronounced that Jesus Christ was a blasphemer, Mat. 26.

If then that Church, which was the only Church in the world where God was served, is fallen into error; is it credible, that when there are many contrary Churches, any of those Churches ought to presume that she can never err?

Yet our Adversaries defend that arrogant Doctrine with some Texts of Scripture, which they oppose unto experience, and to the examples attested by Scripture, to make the Word of God to fight against itself.

They allege in the first place the Prophet, Mal. 2.7. The Priests lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall keep the Law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. They should have added the followings words, where God accuseth the Priests to have erred and seduced the people; But you are departed out of the way, and you have caused many to stumble at the Law: The abuse lieth in this, that of a Commandment they have made a Promise. As if I took the words of the Law, Thou shalt not kill, for a Prophesy that there shall be no murder in the world. God saith, The Priests lips shall keep knowledge, to command them to keep knowledge; not to promise them that they shall always keep it.

They fence themselves with Christ's words, Matth. 23.2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, &c. To which they add, that Caiaphas the High Priest for that year prophesied, that Jesus Christ should die for the Nation, Joh. 11. as if Prophesy had been inseparably annexed unto the Priesthood; or as if Caiaphas could not teach false Doctrine.

All that is studying to deceive ones self: For Jesus Christ Matth. 15. accuseth the Scribes and Pharisees of transgressing the Commandment of God by their Traditions. And Matth. 16. he warneth his Disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, that is, (as himself expounds it) of their Doctrine. And Matth. 5. he repurgeth the Law of the false constructions and rules which the Doctors of that time had pinned upon it. And Caiaphas is he that pronounced in judgment, bearing the authority of High Priest assisted by the Priests and Scribes, that Jesus Christ was a blasphemer.

Wherefore when Jesus Christ commanded that all should be done that the Scribes and Pharisees should teach, he meant all that they should teach conformably to the Law and the Word of God, as it is specified, Deut. 17.11. where the version of the Roman Church is express to this purpose; thus rendering that Text, Thou shalt do all they shall teach thee according to the Law. Chrysostom Hom. 72. upon Matthew understands it so. And Hilary 24. Canon of the Comment upon Matthew.

As for Caiaphas, he prophesied by the will of God; not because he could not err, but that the quality of the person might give more weight to that Prophesy whereby Jesus Christ is justified by his enemies, and the fruit of his death is expounded.

It is to no purpose, to say, that God promiseth his Apostles, Joh. 14.26. to send them the Comforter that would teach them all truth. For all that is promised to the Apostles, doth not belong to the Roman Church: Yet it may be said, that God teacheth still the Roman Church, and all the Heretical Churches in all truth: For God speaks to them in his Word, but they resist his teaching, and choose rather to adhere unto falsehood.

It is no more to the purpose to allege these words, Tell the Church, Matth. 18.17. For there it is not spoken of the Universal Church, but of the Pastors of a particular Church; nor of the judgment of the Doctrine, but of the reparation of wrongs done to a particular person. Note also that St. Peter is one of those to whom Jesus Christ said, Tell it unto the Church. By these words then St. Peter is subjected unto the judgment of the Church. Above all, the presupposition of our Adversaries in this place is intolerable, pronouncing that by the Church, the Roman only be understood. Why the Roman rather then the Greek or the African?

M. du Perron heaps up many texts of Scripture, to prove that the Church is exempted from a possibility of erring; but they are of no use to this purpose: For some of them speak of the Church of the Elect, as that Text, Cant. 4.7. Thou art all fair my Love, there is no spot in thee. Did that Prelate believe that the Roman Church hath no spot in her manners? Such is also the text of Isaiah 52.1. Henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. And this Matth. 16.18. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church.

Pope Gregory the 1. expounding the 7. Penitential Psalm, expounds this text of the Church of the Elect, not of the Church of Rome. These are his words, He upon whom the Church is built, evidently shown, that the holy Church which is composed of Saints that shall abide forever, shall never be overcome by any persecutions, when he said that the gates Hell of shall not prevail against her.

Some other texts which the Cardinal brings, speak of the duty of the Church, not of her infallible purity; as when she is called the Pillar and stay of Truth, 1 Tim. 3. because she is appointed for the defense of the Truth. In the same sense heretical Churches are pillars and stays of untruth; but thence it follows not, that they can never be converted unto the true Faith.

Or they are texts that speak of every faithful man, not of the Universal Church, as this, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. What communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Hereby the Apostle exhorteth every faithful man to separate himself from the world, and from the uncleanness and allurements of Satan. Or if this belongs also to the Universal Church, it is an Exhortation, not a Declaration, or a Promise of an infallible purity. Of the like nature is the text of 2 Joh. 10. If any bring not this Doctrine,—do not bid him God speed.

Or they are texts that speak especially of the Town of Jerusalem, not of the Christian Church; as that which is said, Isai. 1.26. Thou shalt be called the City of Righteousness, the faithful City.

Or they are texts alleged without any color of reason, as this, Hos. 2.20. I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness. Ergo, the Church cannot err: And that Church is the Roman. Such proofs have neither strength, nor the show of it.

The texts of the Fathers, which the Cardinal brings to the same end, serve only to raise the bulk of his Book. They say only that the Catholic Church, by which they mean the Orthodox, is separate from that of the Heretics: a thing that no man denieth. But the question is, Whether to the Church, which at this present is pure, it may not happen hereafter to fall into some error?

The fore-warnings which the Word of God gives us of the corruptions that will creep into the Christian Church, are stronger then any reason for the infallibility of the same; and experience hath confirmed them. Our Savior Jesus, Luke 18.8. saith to us, When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? The Apostle Paul, 2 Tim. 4.3, 4. foretells that a time shall come, when men will not endure sound doctrine; — And shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. And 1 Tim. 4.1. That in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of Devils. Of which doctrines he doth specify two; the prohibition of marriage, and the abstinence of meats, which God hath made for man's use. The same Apostle 2 Thes. 2. foretells that the Son of perdition, who is the Antichrist, and calls himself God, and boasteth of miracles, shall place his seat and his domination in the Temple of God. We read Rev. 13.3. that all the world wondered after the beast: & v. 7. that the Beast makes war with the Saints, and overcometh them. And power was given her over all people, and tongue, and Nation: So that all that dwell on the earth shall worship her. Where shall at that time be that visible Church which cannot err? Do not our Adversaries say, that the Antichrist shall abolish all outward service, and all public exercise of Christianity? And that one may not think that this so horrible corruption shall not come to pass but towards the end of the world; The Apostle in the fore-alleged place, 2 Thes. 2. declareth, that even in his time the mystery of iniquity did already work, and that Satan was laying the plot of that work; for already they began to speak of preeminences, and the Church had many Diotrephes. Already they said, I am of Cephas, and I am of Paul: Already they were disputing of the service of Angels and abstinence of meats, out of humility, and for exercise, Col. 2. And the Apostles were put to fight against Justification by Works. Jerome upon Habak. 1. speaks thus of the Antichrist; He shall gather all Nations, and draw all people's to his error; yet the same, when afterwards they shall see him killed by the Spirit of the mouth of Christ, shall comprehend that all that was foretold of him was true. After the Council of Rimini under the Empire of Constantius, Arianism was preached over all the Churches: Insomuch that Jerome in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, saith, that the whole world did groan, and wondered to see itself turned Arian. Liberius Bishop of Rome, with three or four more with him, held for the true faith; but soon after he was overcome, and subscribed to Arianism.

It is most considerable, that the Jesuits Ribera and Viegas, who have written upon the Revelation, and Bellarmine himself in the third Book de Pontifice, and many others, by the great harlot called Babylon, clad with scarlet, sitting upon seven hills, that ruleth over the Nations, that shall seduce Kings and people, which is mentioned in the 13, 17, & 18. chapters of the Revelation, understand the City of Rome. It is also to be noted, how in chap. 17. it is said, that the same great harlot shall seduce Kings, and make Nations drunk: And that in chap. 18. the last ruin of that Babylon is described, after which ruin, she shall be built no more again: Things which cannot be attributed to the Pagan Rome, which seduced not Kings but extermined them. Neither was Rome ever razed under the Paganism, nor ruined with a final ruin.

What? may one say, Dare you affirm, that the universal Councils representing the Church of the whole world, can err in the faith?

I answer, that there hath been no universal Council since the Apostles time, in the sense that the word universal is taken, namely, for a Council convocated out of the Church of all the world. The Councils which are called Universal, are so called, because they were convocated out of the universal Roman Empire by the authority of the Emperors: Out of which Empire there hath been always a a great number of Christian Churches. Not that I would say that the Councils of Nicaea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon have errred: But it is one thing to say that they have not erred, and another thing to say that they could not err. The universal Councils which the Pope assembleth in these last ages, are Councils of the universal Papal Monarchy. The other Churches have no part in it, but to be condemned, unheard.

The Doctors of the Roman Church believe not that the universal Councils cannot err, since they oppose with so much violence the first Council of Constantinople, and that of Chalcedon, for rising (as they speak) against the Bishop of Rome, and despising his authority. We shall see hereafter the invectives of Cardinal du Perron against that so famous and authentical Council of Chalcedon, where there were six hundred and thirty Bishops. Bellarmine in his Preface upon his Books de Pontifice, saith that those two Councils have earnestly assaulted the Primacy of the Pope of Rome. The Jesuit Cotton makes the same complaint against these two Councils in the Preface of his Institution.

The Pope Paschal in the Decretal Significasti de Electione, Tit. 6. declares that the Roman Church is not subject to the Councils, and maintains that Councils depend upon the authority of the Roman Church. And Pope Gelasius in the Tome of the bond of Anathema, quarreling with the Council of Carthage, saith, The Apostolical See alone makes void that which a Synodal Assembly would usurp against the order. Finally, Doctor Andradius, who was present at the Council of Trent, declareth that Those err not, that say that the Popes can sometimes dispence frem the Laws of Saint Paul, and from the four first Councils, which are the Councils of greatest authority.

CHAP. 14. That the Roman Church hath erred, and erreth.

BUt because all that our Adversaries preach of the infallible purity of the Church tends to no other end but to invest the Popes and the Roman Church with an infallible perfection, it will be expedient to show by invincible proofs that the Roman Church erreth, and hath erred. We shall not produce the errors or impieties of particular Doctors, although their Writings be published with approbation; nor the errors and heresies of Popes, wherewith we might fill a great Volume. I will content myself to produce the errors approved not only by the Popes, but also by their Councils: For there principally our Adversaries place infallibility, when the Pope speaks in a Council, and that Council is approved by the Pope. Also the public Laws unanimously received over the whole Roman Church.

1. In the year of our Lord, 787. a Council was assembled at Nicaea, which the Roman Church approveth, and reckoneth among the Universal Councils; And it is called by our Adversaries the seventh universal Council: there sat the Legates of Pope Adrian, who not only approved that Council, but writ a book purposely for the defense thereof.

If then that Council hath erred, it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome hath erred. Let us see then what was done in that Council. 1. In the seventh Action, that Council commands the adoration of Images upon pain of anathema, in these words: We hold that the Images of the glorious Angels, and of all Saints must be adored and saluted: But as for him that hath not the will so to do, but staggereth, and is doubtful about the adoration of the venerable images, this holy and venerable Synod doth anathematize him.

2. In the fourth Action of the same Synod these words are found: Images are of equal worth with the Gospels and the venerable Cross. And in the same place, Major est imago quam oratio, The image is greater then the word, or the prayer.

3. In the fifth Action there is a manifest error, whereby (that there may be a ground for making images of Angels) the Council declareth that Angels are corporal. The Church (say these Fathers) holds that the Angels are not at all without bodies, but that they have a delicate body made of air or fire.

4. That same Council to prove the adoration of Images, corrupts the Scripture with an horrible license. These Fathers allege that it is said in the second chapter of the Canticles, Shew me thy face, and let me hear thy voice. Also that God created man after his image and likeness, Gen. 2. Also that Abraham adored the Hittites, Gen. 24. That Moses adored Jethro his Father-in-law, Exod. 18. And that none having lighted the candle sets it under a bushel, Luke 18.16. Whence they infer that we must worship images. And these goodly allegations are approved by Pope Adrian in the fore-mentioned Book.

And that the world might know what adoration was commanded in that Council; In the fourth Action those are condemned, which said that images must only be venerated without adoration. All they that confess that they venerate images, and yet deny them adoration, are reproved as hypocrites.

5. In the year 869. a Council was held at Constantinople, which our Adversaries call the eight Universal Council: Baronius in the year 869. of his Annals, §. 19. saith, that the Popes were wont in their reception to swear the approbation of that Council. The third Canon of that Council is in these word: We decree, that the sacred image of Jesus Christ, be adored with the same honor as the Book of the holy Gospels. And a little after: It is convenient by reason of the honor which is referred unto principal things, that derivative images be honored and adored as the Book of the holy Gospels, and the figure of the precious Cross.

6. In the year of our Lord, 891. Formosus obtained the Roman Pontificat against the oath which he had taken in the hands of Pope John the ninth, that he would never receive the Papal degree though he were elected to it. From which oath Marinus that succeeded John, dispensed with the said Formosus, giving him leave to be perjured.

To that Formosus, who was five years Pope, Stephen the seventh succeeded, who called a Council, wherein it was judged, that a man that hath received the Papacy contrary to his oath, is no lawful Pope, and that he could not be dispensed from his oath: Whereupon the said Stephen caused the body of Formosus to be digged out, cut off his fingers, those wherewith Bishops used to consecrate, and caused him to be sordidly interred as an unlawful Pope.

But as soon as that Stephen was dead, his Successor Romanus, made void all that his Predecessor Stephen had done. And soon after, John the X. held a Council at Ravenna, which reversed the judgment of the precedent Council against Formosus, and restored his memory to his former honor.

That John being dead, his Successor Sergius the III. condemned Formosus again, declared him an unlawful Pope, thrust his body out of the grave, caused him to be executed ignominiously, as if he had been alive, and then cast him into the river.

The question was of the necessity of keeping an oath, and whether the Pope can dispence with an oath made to God? Upon that question, you have divers and contrary Councils, where the Pope did preside, which conclude contrary things, and condemn and reverse the decisions one of another. Sure then there was error in one of the parties; for two contradicting opinions cannot be true together. And note that the worst opinion prevailed in the end. For yet at this day the Pope dispenseth from oaths, that is, he takes on him the power of declaring that a man is not bound to be faithful unto God.

7. In the year of our Lord, 1059. Pope Nicolas the II. assembled a Council against Berengarius, where it was declared and pronounced, that the bread and wine which is put upon the altar after the consecration, is not only the Sacrament, but also the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that not only the Sacrament, but the body of the Lord is sensually and in truth, handled by the hands of the Priests; broken and bruised by the teeth of the faithful.

The Roman Church of this time believeth that no more: She saith indeed, that the species under which the body of the Lord is, are sensibly and truly broken and bruised; But she believeth not that the body of the Lord, be sensibly and truly broken and bruised by the teeth of the faithful: For note that the Council makes two things, sensibly, and truly broken; the Sacrament, and the Lord's body. Neither doth the Roman Church believe that the bread after the consecration, be the body of Christ.

8. In the year of our Lord, 1076. Pope Gregory the VII. called a Council to Rome, where among many articles, these three points have been resolved and determined.

That there is no other name under heaven, but that of the Pope.

That no Book is canonical without the Popes authority.

And that all Kings must kiss the Popes feet.

The first Point attributes unto the Pope, that which is attributed unto Jesus Christ alone, exclusively to all others, Acts 4.12.

The second declareth, that the Gospels and the Books of the Prophets and Apostles, are not to be received, unless the Pope approve them by his authority: And yet these sacred Books had already their full authority before there was any Pope or Bishop of Rome. The Books of Moses and of the Prophets were authentical long before the Apostles.

Of the third, the pride is detestable; for it attributes unto the Pope an honor which Jesus Christ and his Apostles never asked or looked for: But they have been subject unto Emperors, and have paid them tribute, and have appeared before their judicial Seat: Neither did they ever give their feet to any man to kiss.

9. In the year 1215. Pope Innocent the III. assembled a Council at Rome in the Lateran Church, and made it as great and solemn as he could, because at that time those whom the Roman Church nicknamed Waldenses and Albigenses, did multiply; Also because they were to consult how to recover the holy Land taken by the Saracens. In that Council the third speaks thus; If the Temporal Lord care not to satisfy within the year, let it be made known to the sovereign Prelate, that from that time he declare his subjects absolved from his subjection, and expose his country to be seized upon by Catholics, that they may extermine heretics.

In that decision of the Council, there are four most pernicious errors.

The first is an usurpation of the Pope, approved by the Council, whereby he disposeth of the temporals of Princes, as if the disposition of them belonged unto him; and divests them of their Lands and dominions, without the authority of God's word, and without any example of the Ancient Church.

The second error is, that it makes Ecclesiastical censures, which are spiritual corrections, to become temporal punishments: as if a Priest to lay a penance upon a sinner, would cut his purse, or rob him of his cloak, or put him out of his house.

The third error is, that this Canon absolveth Subjects from the oath of allegiance, which they have sworn to their natural Prince, and teacheth them to be perfidious and dis-loyal with a good conscience, though against the Word of God, which saith, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths, Mat. 5.33. though it were to thine own hurt, Psal. 15.4. And against the rules and examples of the Apostles, who have commanded Christians to pay tribute, and to be subject to Princes and higher powers, although Princes were Pagans and persecutors in those days, Rom. 13.1, 2. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14.

The fourth error is, that in the same chapter, the Pope and the Council preach murder and massacre, and set on the people to extermine those whom they call heretics: which not only is against the Law of God, but against that of Nations: For even Pagan Princes never permitted their subjects to fall upon their Fellow-Citizens, and massacre them. These are not the ways to plant the Gospel; which prepareth us to sufferings, and to be persecuted, not to persecute. If that exhortation to slaughter is ill beseeming any man, much more a Pastor of the Church, who ought to teach to render good for evil, and to love them that hate us.

10. As for recovering the Holy Land, at the end of that Council there is a Papal Bull; but with approbation of the Council, the language whereof makes ones hair stand up, so horrible is the impiety of it. There a Commandment is made to all that belonged to Croisada, to meet in Sicily, or the neighbouring places, in July to begin that journey; To persuade the people to undertake that voyage, the Pope by the Councils authority speaks thus; To all that will bear that labor in their own persons, and at their charges, We grant full Remission of those sins, of which they shall have Contrition and Repentance; and in the Retribution of the Righteous, we promise them in Paradise an augmentation of Eternal Salvation. What was that Pope, and what that Council, that could promise to Soldiers a degree of glory in Paradise, above the common sort? especially seeing that the Pope and the Prelates were not themselves sure that they should never go into Hell? But let us hear the rest: But to them that will not go in that voyage in their own persons, but only shall send fit men according to their means, we give full Remission of their sins. To those poor souls an equal degree is not promised: They were to content themselves with the remission of all their sins; and for all reward, they had no more but eternal life.

11. But here is the extremity of impiety. The same Bull with approbation of the Council denounceth to all that will refuse, and not care for this Commandment, that they shall answer him in the last day of judgment before the terrible Judge: As if the Pope must then be an Assessor of the Judge; or as if he must condemn sinners in the day of Judgment. Thou Earth-worm, who turnest up against Heaven, Is that the style of the Apostles? Is that the Apostolical humility?

12. In the year of our Lord 1300. Boniface the VIII. instituted the Jubilee every hundredth year, in which they that come to Rome for the great Pardons, should get full, more full, and most full remission of sins. That liberality is fetched from the treasure of the Church, wherein the Pope layeth up the over-plus of the Satisfactions of Jesus Christ and the Saints, of which treasure the Pope is the keeper and the steward; converting them into a payment for those that visit the Roman stations. Wherefore the Citizens of Rome and Inhabitants of the neighbouring places have a great advantage above others; for they have the full remission of their sins at their door, and get it without pain and cost. But they that live three or four hundred leagues from Rome, and have neither Horse nor money, are deprived of those spiritual graces.

The following Popes moved with a fatherly compassion to the people, have shortened that term, and brought the Jubilee first to every fiftieth year, then to every twentieth year; and there is hope that shortly they will bring it to every thirteenth year: For it cannot be said, what a mass of wealth that Jubilee brings to the Pope, and to the Inhabitants of Rome, by the offerings and the sojourning of strangers that flock to Rome from all parts. It is the most famous and the most lucrative fair of Babylon.

The invention of the Jubilee is spick and span new, there being no trace of it in all Antiquity; whereby the Popes of this time accuse the High Priests of the Old Testament, and the Apostles and their Successors for many ages, to have neglected the over-plus of the Satisfactions of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, and the Apostles themselves, and not to have gathered it into the Churches Treasury, but suffered it to be lost by their ill husbandry.

The Satisfaction of Jesus Christ being sufficient for the sins of the whole world, it is an outrage offered to him, when to his sufferings other satisfactions are added; as those of Saints and Monks, to satisfy the justice of God for the pain due to our sins. By this means they will have God to take two payments for one debt. What need of a second payment when the first is sufficient? But their second payment is insufficient, seeing that no man can satisfy for the sins of another; and we learn of the Apostle, Gal. 6.5. that every man shall bear his own burden. Besides, those Saints and Monks whose satisfactions the Pope will apply unto others, were sinners, and had need that Christ should satisfy for them, so far they were from satisfying for others, and for those for whom Jesus Christ hath fully satisfied. Then those Saints were above measure rewarded for their labors, when God raised them up unto his Eternal Glory, yea though it were granted that their works were meritorious: For if God hath rewarded them above their merits, can one and the same work be meritorious for him that hath done it, and satisfactory for another? As if one and the same sum of money served to buy a house, which is a thousand times better then the money, and together to pay the ransom of another.

Certainly the Pope who layeth up in his treasure the super-abounding satisfactions of the Saints, and hath constituted himself the keeper and dispenser of them, ought to make his power to appear, and produce his Commission. He ought to show when, and where God hath entrusted him with that distribution, and tell us what assurance we may have, that God accepteth as a payment for us the fastings and whippings of St. Dominick, and of Katherine of Siena, whom the Pope hath made Saints; who whip themselves with an Iron chain for the ease of the souls in Purgatory, One hath need to be of very easy belief, to believe that God will be paid with such light coin: For those be the things which the Pope joins to the sufferings of the Son of God, to make the total of the satisfaction for the pains due to the sins of those that get these pardons.

I pass by the palpable Error, whereby it is pretended that the Saints have suffered more pains then their sins deserved, since there is no man, be he never so holy, but stands in need that God forgive him his sins; No man but deserveth eternal death, if God would deal with him according to the rigor of his justice.

13. Other actions and laws of the same Pope Boniface the VIII. show by what spirit he was led: Especially the Extravagant Unam Sanctam, De Majoritate & Obedientia, wherein the Pope attributes to himself the power over the spiritual and the temporal of all the world. Which he proveth by texts of Scripture rarely applied. We are taught (saith he) by the words of the Gospel, that unto the power of the Church two Swords are belonging, the Spiritual and the Temporal: For the Apostles having said, Here be two Swords, that is, here in the Church; the Lord did not answer the Apostles, It is too much; but, It is enough. Certainly he that denieth the Temporal Sword to be in St. Peters power, doth not regard well the Word of the Lord, who said, Put up thy sword into the scabbard. And a little after, to prove that the temporal of Princes is subject unto the Pope. He allegeth God's Word unto Jer. 1.10. See I have this day set thee over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms. And he will have that Prophesy to be fulfilled in the Ecclesiastical, that is, in the Papal power, which he saith cannot be judged by any, because St. Paul said, 1 Cor. 2. The spiritual man judgeth of all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Finally he concludes thus; Whosoever then resisteth that power ordained by God, resisteth the Ordinance of God, unless he will make two principles with the Manicheans; which we judge to be false and heretical, seeing that Moses testifies that in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. Wherefore we declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is of necessity of Salvation to be subject to the Roman Prelate. That venerable Pope hath found a proof of his primacy in the first words of the Bible, God in the beginning made Heaven and Earth. These are Laws and Papal Ordinances, pronounced with all the forms, and inserted into the body of the Pontificial decrees; Which to excuse from Error, one must want both conscience and common sense.

14. In the year of Lord 1414. a Council was held at Constance to reform the Church in capite & membris, as it was agreed in the precedent Council of Pisa. In that Council, convocated by the authority of Pope John XXIII. three contending Popes were deposed, this John XXIII. for one, for threescore and eleven crimes; among others for publicly and notoriously denying the immortality of the soul, and maintaining that there was neither Paradise nor Hell.

15. To that Council John Hus and Jerome of Prague were invited to defend their cause: and because they made difficulty to come, a safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismond was given them, and faith was sworn unto them that no harm should be done unto them. But after some form of Disputation, they were seized on and burnt alive: And because the Emperor made a scruple to break his faith, the Council declared unto him, that he was not bound to keep faith unto Heretics: For which purpose a Canon was made in this form; This holy Council declareth that the safe conduct given to Heretics, or defamed for heresy, by the Emperor, Kings, and other secular Princes, thinking thereby to turn them from their Errors, with what bond soever they be bound, brings no prejudice to the Catholic Faith, or to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Neither can put any hindrance, but that it may be lawful for a competent and Ecclesiastical Judge, notwithstanding the foresaid safe conduct, to make inquisition of the Errors of such persons, and duly to proceed against them as much as justice shall require, if they obstinately refuse to renounce their Errors; although they be come to the place of judgment, trusting to that safe conduct. Declaring that he that made that promise, remains not obliged by it, after he hath done that which lieth in him. Note that the safe conduct was granted to these two men by the advice of the Council.

Here is perjury and disloyalty authorized by an Article of a Council; conformably to the Decretal of Pope Innocent the III. in the second Book of the Decretals, Titulo chap. 24. Sicut nostris, the Inscription whereof is, An Oath taken against the profit of the Church bindeth not. Where by the profit of the Church, he meaneth the rights and temporal profits of a Bishop.

16. The same Council in the XV. Session makes an enumeration of the Errors of John Hus: The 19. Error for which he is condemned, is for saying, that the Popes and the Bishops pardons avail nothing, unless God pardon. That Council declareth that the Popes pardons serve a sinner, although God hath not pardoned him, which is putting the Pope above God, since he pardoneth those that have offended God, without God's pardon, and since the Popes pardons are in force, though God approve them not.

17. The same Council in the XX. Session depriveth Frederick Duke of Austria of all his goods, and devesteth him of all his Dominions, because he had usurped or wasted some part of the Patrimony of the Church about Trent. So the Prelates of that Council declare themselves Temporal Lord's of all the estates of the earth, and that they may dispose of them at their pleasure: which is a pernicious Error, authorized by many new Councils; for the ancient Councils speak quite otherwise.

18. The same Council takes away from the people the Communion of the cup. That order is found in the XIII. Session, where these Fathers confess that Jesus Christ hath instituted the Eucharist under two kinds, and that the ancient Church did so administer it unto the people. Yet hear how these Fathers speak of those that would have the people to enjoy the Communion of the Cup; Some presume rashly to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament under the two kinds of Bread and Wine. What? Is it a rash presumption to obey Jesus Christ? to follow, his example? and to desire to enjoy that which the Son of God hath given us? They add that although Jesus Christ did after Supper institute the Sacrament under the two kinds, yet the custom of giving to the people one kind only, which is the bread, must be held for a law, and those that say the contrary, must be driven away as Heretics, and grievously punished by the Inquisitors of heretical perversity. Can one more directly condemn Jesus Christ, and contradict his Word?

19. In the year 1423. Martin the V. held a Council at Siena, where the same Indulgence was granted to them that would fall upon the Heretics, as to them that go to defend the Holy Land. Thus remission of sins and salvation, is proposed as a reward of cruelty and popular fury. As if the Pope said, Because thou art a murderer, and a wicked man, thou shalt have eternal life.

20. To the Acts of that Council are inserted the instructions which the same Martin V. gives to his Ambassadors sent to the Emperor of Constantinople, wherein he gives these titles to himself, The most holy and the most hear [or happy,] who hath the heavenly government, who is Lord in Earth, Successor of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the Master of the Universe, the Father of Kings, the Light of the World, the Sovereign Pontife Martin, commands his Ambassador, &c. It wanted no more, but to call himself Creator of Heaven and Earth. Soon after he commends the fidelity of that Ambassador, the Cardinal of St. Angelo, who (saith he) is come not to do his own will, but the will of the Lord Pope that sent him. Which are the words of the Son of God speaking of the obedience which he yielded unto his Father, Joh. 6.38.

These impieties might be ascribed to Martins arrogancy, and not reckoned among the Errors of the Church of Rome, but that these things are inserted in a Council where the Pope presided, and that they were done in the Council.

21. That which follows is no better. In the year 1440. the Council of Florence assembled by the authority of Pope Eugenius the IV. defineth and declareth in the last Session, that the Roman Church can add to the Symbole, and that the Pope hath the primacy over all the world.

22. And now we are upon Primacy, the last Lateran Council, which begun under Julius the II. in the year 1511. and lasted 8. years, in my opinion carrieth the primacy for impiety, above all other Councils of the Roman Church, yea above all Assemblies that ever were.

In the first Session, the Popes Officers take the Oath of allegiance and fidelity to him, having touched the holy Scriptures, which were laid at his feet, as it were to signify that the holy Scripture is subject unto him. In the same Session the Pope is called Prince of all the world, not inferior in authority to Saint Peter. In the same place Boniface the VIII. is commended, and set forth as an example, for depriving Philip le Bel of the Kingdom of France.

In the second Session the Pope is called a High Priest, and a King, that must be adored by all people, and most like unto God.

In the V. Session the Council speaks thus of Pope Leo the X. before his face; Weep not thou Daughter of Zion; for behold the Lyon of the Tribe of Judah, the root of David, behold God hath raised thee a Savior, &c. O thou Beatissime [or most blessed] Leo, we wait on thee for our Savior: We have hoped that thou shouldst come to be our Deliverer.

In the IX. Session, the Council by the mouth of Puccius, Clark of the Chamber, speaks thus unto the Pope, The aspect of thy divine Majesty, the bright splendor whereof dazzleth our infirm eyes. And a little after, The Royal race of the Roman Pontife. And in the same place, In thee alone, the true and lawful Vicar of Christ, and of God, this sentence of the Prophet ought to be fulfilled again: All the Kings of the Earth shall worship him, and all Nations shall serve him. Which is a prophesy that concerns Jesus Christ, which that Council applieth unto the Pope. Here is more of the same vein. We are not ignorant, that to thee alone the Lord hath given all power in Heaven and Earth. Then the Universal Church is personated, thus speaking unto the Pope; Am I not, O my sweetest Bridegroom, thine only and well-beloved, which now may exclaim, Look not upon me, because I am black! Cant. 1.6.

If these impieties were in some Decrees or Epistles of the Popes, one might bring the ordinary excuse, that Popes may err as men, but not as Popes: But being pronounced in a Council, which our Adversaries call Universal, the Acts whereof have been carefully reveiwed by persons appointed thereunto, and approved by the Pope himself, as it appeareth in the very beginning of the Council; they may serve as an evident proof that the Roman Church can err, since it is the voice of an Assembly representing the whole Roman Church.

23. In the same Council, in the III. Session held in the year 1512. the Kingdom of France is put under interdict: which is a custom received in the Roman Church for many ages, and often put in practice by the Popes; where the impiety is horrible, and tyranny is raised to the highest degree. For when the Pope puts a Country under interdict, he makes divine service to cease in it, but only in some privileged places, in favor of those that adhere not to the Sovereign Prince, for whose sake the interdict is put upon the Land; He silenceth all the bells of the Kingdom: He shuts up the burying places, and hinders burials in holy ground: He exposeth the Country to the invasion of the first Conqueror; whence wars and desolations arise, and great blood-shed. All that die under the interdict, die out of the Communion of the Church of Rome, and by consequent are deemed to be eternally damned. England under King John, hath been six years and a half in that case, in which time, above six hundred thousand persons died. Of late date, Paul the V. having put the Commonwealth of Venice under interdict, was advised to put up his sword into its scabbard.

Those interdicts were always thundered out for some disagreement between Kings and Popes, by reason of investitures and collations of benefices, and other temporal rights which the Popes pretend over Kingdoms: Or becuse of some invasion of the Popes upon the territories of Kings and Princes. Against which, if a King defends himself, the Pope puts his Kingdom in interdict; and the Kings Subjects that had no hand in the quarrel suffer for it.

I ask then whether the Roman Church did not err, when in full Council, the Pope put the Kingdom of France in interdict? Is it not a great error to believe that the Pope can send all the French into perdition, make divine service to cease in such a great country, and prohibit burials? All that for civil causes. Wherefore the Clergy of France opposed the judgment of the Pope and the Universal Council. And the good King, Lewis the XII. assembled a Council at Pisa against the Pope, and beat him in a battle near Ravenna; which beating wrought this effect, that the King was sued to and received with as many spiritual graces as he was pleased to have, and that the Kingdom of France was reconciled unto his Holiness.

24. Here is more work of that Council: In the end of it you have a thundering Bull against Luther, who then began to preach: There thirty nine heresies are reckoned; the seventh whereof is, That the best penitence of all is a new life: Which yet is an excellent sentence of the Spirit of God, Rev. 2.4.

25. The six and twentieth heresy of Luther, mentioned in that Bull, is this assertion, It is certain, that it is not at all in the power of the Church and the Pope, to make Articles of faith. If this be an heresy, we may expect other Articles of faith from the Pope; and Christian Religion is not yet perfected, since other Articles of the Christian faith may be added, such as we know not, and such as the Apostles have never taught either by Word or Writing.

Finally, the Council of Trent came, which having begun in the year of our Lord, 1545. lasted eighteen years. Of which, if one would examine the doctrine, and show that it is contrary unto the word of God, he must go through all our controversies; I will produce but some passages of it.

26. In the fourth Session, it is decreed and declared, that unwritten Traditions must be received pari pietatis affectu & reverentiâ, with the same affection of piety and reverence, as the holy Scripture: That is, That the invocation of Saints, the distinction of meats, the adoration of relics, the Popes power to give, and to take away Kingdoms, to fetch souls out of Purgatory, and to canonize Saints, the honor yielded unto images, the divine service in an unknown tongue, the consecration of Agnus Dei 's, and of blessed beads, and such unwritten traditions, must be received with the like piety, faith, and reverence, as the Law of God, and the doctrine of our redemption in Jesus Christ, contained in the holy Scriptures.

27. The same Council cannot be excused of error, for declaring and pronouncing in the fifth Session, that the concupiscence forbidden in the Law is no sin, although the Apostle Rom. 7.7. call it so: So that with those Fathers it is no sin to transgress the Law of God; And by their Doctrine the Apostle spake amiss, when he said, that coveting forbidden in the Law is sin. These be the words of the Council; This holy Synod declares, that the Catholic Church never meant that this coveting, which sometimes the Apostle calls sin, is truly and properly sin in the regenerate. Upon this account, if a regenerate man covets his neighbors wife, he sinneth not, and so one may transgress the Law of God without sin. And the Apostle (if we believe them) spake neither truly nor properly, when he called concupiscence a sin: Note that the Apostle speaks of the concupiscence which he felt in himself, which he calls sin, and which he saith to be forbidden by the Law.

28. The same Council cannot be excused of error, when it decreed, that the Latin vulgar version of the Bible should be the only authentical, thereby authorizing a thousand depravations of the true original Text, which are Hebrew and Greeek. This is freely confessed by the most learned of our adversaries: as Sixtus Senensis, who speaks thus; Our vulgar Edition, which is said to be of Saint Jerome, is in many things remote from the truth of the Greek Text. And truly two the most learned Hebricians that the Roman Church ever had, Santes Pagninus a Monk of Luca, and Arias Montanus a Spaniard of Sevil, have translated the Bible, and made excellent versions, conformable to the French [and English] versions of our Churches, and have altogether forsaken the Vulgar version of the Church of Rome. Yea, since the time of the Council of Trent, several Popes have caused that Vulgar version to be revised, and have altered many things in it. Whence comes the diversity which is seen in the Bibles of our Adversaries.

Isidorus Clarius, a Monk of Montcassin hath revised that Vulgar version approved by the Council of Trent: To which he hath prefixed a Preface, where he saith, that although he hath winked at many faults of that version for fear offending the Church, yet he hath corrected about eight thousand places.

Andradius in the fourth book of the defense of the Tridentine saith, I will show (saith he) that some very inconsiderately have thought that more faith must be given to the Latin edition then to the Hebrew Books. He addeth that in the watchings [that is, in the labors] of the Latin Interpreter some traces of human infirmity are found.

The Jesuit Salmeron in the third Prolegomen, endeavors to excuse that Decree of the Council of Trent, speaking thus; The holy Synod would oblige us to embrace that Latin Edition, and follow it in all things, yet not absolutely, but upon condition that it be cleansed and repurged from the vices and errors which are crept into it. And he wisheth that a sedulous care may be taken about it; Which nevertheless was not done.

29. Who can excuse that version which to establish the adoration of the creatures, saith, Heb. 11.21. that Jacob adored the top of his staff? And Psal. 98.5. Adore his footstool: whereas for the first, there is in the Original, that Jacob worshipped on the top of his Staff; And for the second, Worship towards his footstool.

Thus in the sixteenth verse of the fifteenth chapter of Ecclesiasticus, which our Adversaries put among the Canonical Books, whereas the Greek Original saith, Everyone shall find according to his works, the Latin Vulgar version of the Roman Church, to defend merits, saith, everyone shall find according to the merit of his works.

To prove the perpetual visibility of the Church, they commonly allege the nineteen Psalm, v. 5. where there is according to the Vulgar version, he hath put his tabernacle in the Sun; But there is in the Hebrew, He hath set in them (that is, in the heavens) a tabernacle for the Sun, which true allegation, Sixtus Senensis sincerely acknowledgeth.

Genes. 3.15. God saith, that the seed of the woman (which is Jesus Christ) shall bruise the Serpents head: Instead of that, the vulgar version approved by the Council of Trent, saith, The woman shall bruise the Serpents head: to attribute unto the Virgin Mary, that which belongs unto Jesus Christ.

We read, 1 Cor. 11.24. that our Savior said, This is my body which is broken for you. The vulgar version translateth, This is my body which shall be delivered for you. That one may perceive that the Lord spake of his Sacramental body, which was broken, when he spake the word, not of his natural body which is not broken in the Eucharist.

The remnants of Esther are held for Canonical by our Adversaries. Towards the end of the fourth chapter, there is a prayer of Mordecai, in which he gives a reason, why he would not kiss Haman's feet; viz. for fear of putting a man above God, and adoring another besides God. Those words have been taken out of the vulgar version, because they are contrary to the custom of kissing the Popes feet.

Saint Peter saith, Acts 2.24. That God hath raised up Jesus from the dead, having loosed the pains of death. The vulgar version saith, the pains of Hell. A corruption employed to prove the local descent of the Lord into hell.

Eccles. 49.17. There is according to the vulgar version, The bones of Joseph have been visited, and they have prophesied after death. A place used for the adoration of relics. But that Text is not found in the Greek, which is the original.

The Apostle, Heb. 13.16. saith, To do good and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well-pleased. The vulgar version to defend merits, saith, for one merits with God by such sacrifices.

One might bring a thousand such faults, which the Council of Trent hath authorized, by establishing the only vulgar version, and rejecting all other translations.

30. The same Council approveth excommunications to find goods lost, but will have none to use that way but the Bishop. A great abuse of the keys; for they are given to the Church to censure or reconcile sinners, not to find an horse or an ass strayed.

31. The same Council of Trent hath devised a crafty by way to prohibit the reading of Scripture unto the people: For of that prohibition there is no mention in the Council: But in that Council, some Prelates and Doctors in good number were named and appointed to make an Index or list of books, the reading whereof must be prohibited. Now the very first of those prohibited Books, is the holy Scripture; of which they say, in the fourth of those rules they have set before that Index; That the reading of the Bible in the language of the Country, being indifferently permitted, brings more harm then benefit.

32. The traffick of holy things so expressly forbidden in the word of God, might be taken for a corruption in manners, not for an error, but that it is established by Laws and public order. There is a Book made purposely for that by the Popes authority, with this title, The tax of the Apostolical Chancery, and Roman Penitentiary; Where the absolutions of all sorts of crimes, and the dispensations are taxed at a certain rate. In the thirty sixth leaf this is found; The absolution for him that hath carnally known his Mother, or his Sister, or his Gossip, costs five groats. And in the thirty eight leaf, The absolution for him that hath killed his Father or his Mother, costs five groats or seven: But if he that was killed was a Clergy-man, the murderer is obliged to visit in person the Apostolic See. But the absolutions of offenses committed against the Pope, cost three times more. For in the thirty seventh leaf, The absolution for him that hath falsified the Apostolical letters, costs seventeen or eighteen groats. And these absolutions extend even to the dead. In the thirty seventh leaf, For a dead man excommunicated, for whom his kindred supplicate, the letter of absolution is sold for one ducat nine pence: These are the ancient taxes, but now they are grown a hundred times dearer.

In the twenty third leaf these words are found, The dispensation of contracting [marriage] in the spiritual kindred, costs 60. Groats. Nevertheless (saith the Datary) I have expedited one for 30 Groats, but by favor. The same judgment is in the second Degree, for which one must compound with the Datary for a very great sum, sometimes of three hundred, and sometimes of six hundred groats, according to the quality of the persons. And note diligently that such graces are not given to the poor; because they have not wherewith to pay, therefore they cannot be comforted.

And that none may be ignorant of this abuse, hear the verdict of Pope Pius II. otherwise Aeneas Sylvius, Epist. 66. to John Peregal. The Roman Court gives nothing without money; yea the imposition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the Remission of sins, are bestowed upon none but such as have money.

To show that the Doctrine of the Roman Church is directly contrary to the Word of God, and to follow all the particulars, would be a long work. Some of them I will set down here.

33. God saith in his Law, Deut. 4.15, 16. Take good heed unto yourselves — lest you corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven Image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female. In which Text it is spoken of the Images whereby God is represented. The Roman Church doth the clean contrary to that command, making Images of the Trinity, and representing God in stone and picture.

34. God saith in his Law, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but the Pope permiteth whoredom at Rome, and sets up brothel-houses.

35. The Apostle saith, 1 Tim. 3.2. A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife,— having his children in subjection with all gravity. And 1 Cor. 7.2. Let every man have his own wife. And v. 9. If they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. But the Roman Church suffers not a Bishop to have a wife: and if a Monk burn with incontinence, he is not suffered to marry.

36. God saith, 2 Chron. 6.30. That God only knoweth the hearts of the children of men. But the Roman Church holds that the Saints know our hearts.

37. Jesus Christ, Matth. 18.18. saith to his Disciples, Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. But the Pope looseth under the earth, and fetcheth souls out of Purgatory.

38. God in his Law commands us to love and serve him with all our heart, and with all our strength. But the Roman Church teacheth, that a man can do more then the Law of God commandeth, even works of Supererogation; and by consequent that he can serve God above all his strength; which is both absurd and impossible.

39. God saith in his Law, Six days shalt thou labor. But the Pope prohibits to labor six days, prescribing many holy days upon the week days, in which one must not work.

40. Numb. 30.4. A daughters vow without her fathers consent is declared void. But in the Roman Church, children enter into Monasteries against their fathers will.

41. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.27. saith, If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feast, — whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. Where St. Paul forbiddeth distinction of meats: and in the same Epistle, Chap. 14. v. 19. he forbids speaking and praying in the Church in an unknown language, saying, In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, — then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. All that against the ordinary practice of the Roman Church.

42. The Bull de Coena Domini, which is an Excommunication which the Pope thunders out every year upon Thursday before Easter in the place of St. Peter, is one of the most palpable abuses of the Roman Church. By that Bull the Pope Excommunicates all those that have committed any of the cases reserved to the Pope, of which the Pope only can give the absolution, excepting only upon the point of death. Of which cases an enumeration is made in that Bull. These crimes are not sodomy, nor incest, nor perjury, nor blasphemy against God, nor parricide. But to appeal from the Pope to the future Council: To plunder the lands of the Church; to raise tenths or taxes upon the Clergy; to carry arms to Heretics; to molest those that go to Rome to get pardons, to stop the victuallers that carry provision to the Papal Court: Of these so enormous crimes, none but the Pope can give absolution; except only in the point of death: But as for the crimes committed directly against the Law of God, Bishops and Priests will commonly give the absolution: For to violate the Law of God is not held such an enormous crime, as to imbezel the profits of his Holiness.

43. The Oath which Bishops take in their Consecration, is one of the most express marks of the Mystery of Iniquity: For although the charge of a Bishop be to feed his flock with heavenly food, which is the pure Doctrine of the Gospel; yet in that Oath there is not one word concerning God, or his Word, or the true Doctrine; only the Bishop swears allegiance and fealty to the Pope; promiseth to defend the life, honor, and rights of the Pope; to receive his Legates honourably, and to persecute the Heretics: To visit once in three years the threshold of the Apostles at Rome, that he may give an account of his actions: Not to sell or alienate any part of the Patrimony belonging to his Bishopric without the Popes advice. In effect it is an Oath, not of a Pastor of the Church, but of a Vassal to his Liege Lord, and of a Prince subject to the temporal Monarchy of the Pope.

44. The Mass only will afford multitude of examples of contradiction to the Word of God. 1. Jesus Christ instituting his Holy Supper, spake in a language understood of them before whom he spake. But the Priest in the Mass speaks in an unknown tongue. 2. Jesus Christ giveth the Communion to all the assistants; but the Priest often drinks and eats alone. 3. Christ saith, Drink ye all of this; but in the Roman Church the Priest drinks alone. 4. Christ offereth nothing to God; but the Priest in the Mass pretends to make an offering unto God of his Son. 5. Jesus Christ made no elevation of the Host; as also the Apostles deferred no adoration to it: but in the Roman Church the Priest lifts up the Host, and causeth it to be adored. 6. Christ sacrificed not, and made no mention of sacrifice; but in the Mass they pretend to sacrifice the Body of Jesus Christ. 7. Christ had no bones of the Saints under the Table, and did not pray by their merits, as it is done in the Mass. 8. The Gospel tells us that Jesus Christ took bread, and brake it, and gave it; but the Priest in the Mass, saith that he breaketh no bread, and that he giveth no bread. 9. Christ giving the bread, said that it was his body. But the Roman Church teacheth, that the bread is not the body of Christ, but that it is transubstantiated into the body of Christ. 10. Christ saith that it was the fruit of the Vine which he drunk; but the Priest denies it to be the fruit of the Vine.

45. One might observe a thousand of the like oppositions, which are all comprehended and inwrapt in one; namely in that impiety whereby our Adversaries maintain that the Pope can dispense against the Apostle, and alter the Commandments of God contained in the Scriptures: Of which we have already produced many examples, and will hereafter produce more.

I might here lay up a great heap of Rome's immundicities, able to make the Readers heart to ache; but these few proofs drawn out of the most authentical rules of the Roman Church, will be a pattern more then sufficient, to show to any man that is not resolved to lose himself, and that seeks instruction, that the Roman Church can err.

CHAP. 15. OF THE ANTIQUITY 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 the Jews have contributed towards them.

IT is certain, that truth is more ancient then falsehood, since falsehood is a corruption of truth. Nevertheless every ancient Doctrine is not therefore true: For Untruth is almost from the beginning of the world, and is but few hours or days later then Truth. Wherefore in matter of Salvation every Doctrine must be accounted new which is not from the beginning, and hath not God for Author, although it boast of Antiquity, and make a show of many Ages; Yea, I say, that the more an untruth is ancient, the more pernicious it is, because it is more deeply rooted.

The Roman Church boasteth of antiquity, which we do not gainsay; but freely acknowledge that a good part of her Errors hath been of a very long continuance: For the Roman Religion is patched up with several rags of ancient Heresies. It is a Pandora of Errors, and a coat to which every old Error hath sowed up its piece. If each of them would take again what they have brought, she would stand more naked then Horace his Crow. Of that the proofs are numberless: Some of many I have here gathered.

CHAP. 16. Reasons why Cardinal du Perron, making little account of the three first ages, confines himself to the time of the four first Councils. And that he sets down unjust rules, and such as himself observeth not.

OVer all the book of Cardinal du Perron, against his Majesty of great Britain, he makes very little use of God's Word, as of a tool which doth not fit his hand. But he takes the Fathers of the time of the four first Councils for his Judges; The first whereof, which is the Council of Nice, was held in the year of our Lord, 325. and the last, which is that of Chalcedon, was held 126. after. Within these limits he confines himself, making little account of the time before. He brings for his reasons, the rarity of the writers of that time, and that they had no occasion to write of such matters, or that the books were lost. Yet have we many Authors more ancient then the Council of Nice; Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius; To which I add Eusebius and Athanasius, who were present at the first Council. From whose writings we may learn, what was the belief of the Church of their time, as much as from any else that lived since. But the true cause is, that in the antienter Authors no mention is found of those chief points, about which we dispute against the Roman Church, as the Primacy of the Pope over all the world, the invocation of Saints, the service of images, and many the like things, the seeds whereof were sown, and the occasions did rise many years after.

The Cardinal alledgeth another reason why he restrains himself to the time of the four first Councils; That his Majesty of Great Britain, hath taken the Fathers of that age for his Judges: Which is an untruth, for the King never chose other Judges then the Word of God; And in his search of Antiquity, he never meant to exclude or undervalue the Fathers, that writ before the sitting of these four Councils. For these are his words, The King with the Anglican Church admitting the first four Oecumenical Councils, showeth enough that he includes not the State of the true and lawful Church within one age or two, but goes much beyond that. By these words, his Majesty shows evidently, that he confines not himself within the space of 126. years, which is the time of the four first Councils, reckoning from the first to the last.

For example, we find that the first Father that called upon the Saints departed, was Gregory Nazianzen, about the year of our Lord 370. Before him, no mention is found of the invocation of Saints; But all the Fathers antienter then he, say unanimously, that none but God alone must be invocated. Shall we think that the Cardinal hath sufficiently proved, that the ancient Church hath prayed to the Saints, because in the fourth age (in which those four Councils began) some examples are found of that invocation? Yet to that the Cardinal, in the fore-alleged place, declareth himself not to be obliged; And saith, that to offer to bind him to search the ages before, is harsh and unjust dealing; For he holds, that if something be found to have been universally observed by the Church, in one of the four first ages, it must be presupposed, that the same thing was observend in all the other ages, so that there be no proof to the contrary.

The Reader may here observe, that M. du Perron not only acknowledgeth that some doctrines are held by the Roman Church, which have no precedent in the three first ages; but also that he sets Laws which he breaks all over his book, fixing bounds to himself, within which he doth not keep. For he maintains many doctrines, of which not only no mention is made in the Doctors of the first ages, but which also are condemned by those Doctors; Such is the exclusion of the people from the cup, the service of images, the invocation of Saints, the fire of Purgatory immediately after death, the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, and over their crowns, praying to God when one understands not himself, and many other things.

Besides, to show that a doctrine hath been received in the ancient Church, The Cardinal will have no more required, but to show that it was universally received in one of the four first ages. Now this he doth not show; for all the proofs which he brings about the principal controversies, and chiefly about the dignity of the Roman Church, and the power of the Pope, are enclosed within the compass of the Roman Empire; and serve only to show that the Roman Church and her Bishop, had some preeminence above the Churches & Bishops of the Roman Empire, but not over those Churches that were without the Roman Empire; for with them the Bishop of Rome had no communication, neither did he for many ages pretend any preeminence over them. And truly the Cardinal, as nimble as he is to invent things that are not, and magnify small things, could never in all his book produce any one appeal from the Church of Persia, or Ethiopia, or Assyria to Rome, nor any law given in that time by the Church of Rome to the Churches of all the world.

CHAP. 17. Of the authority of the Church, And whether she must have more authority with us then the holy Scripture. Opinion of the parties.

THis dispute is an especial spot of these last times, in which the spirit of blasphemy, which before did but whisper in corners, hath made bold to get into the pulpit, and set forth his impiety in public. For who so shall look neerhand into the nature of that question, whether the Church must have more authority with us then Scripture, shall acknowledge, that the plain issue of the question is, Whether of the two is the greatest and most to be believed, God or men?

Indeed the Roman Church acknowledgeth that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, and that they are the Word of God. But in that she saith that Scripture cannot be Judge of the doubts about faith, that the Church giveth authority to Scripture, and that Scripture hath neither strength nor authority, but so far as the Church declareth it: In that (I say) she overthrows the authority of Scripture, whilst she feigneth to establish it. For the way to shake a certain truth, is to ground it upon uncertain proofs. The way to bring in Atheism without noise, is to ground the divine Oracles upon human testimonies, and to command that credit be given to the Word of God; because the Pope and the Roman Church have commanded it. He that proveth clear things by obscure proofs, doth like him that showeth the full Moon with his finger, or that believeth that the Sun is bright, because his neighbor told him so. By this means men are esteemed more credible then God, and if God will have servants and some persons that believe his Word, he must be obliged for it to the Pope.

To bring down the Authority of Scripture and raise that of the Church (that is their own) they charge Scripture with imperfection, saying, that all that is necessary to salvation is not contained therein; and thereupon setting up another [but unwritten] Word of God, which is found in the mouth of the Church, that is, in their own mouth.

They call the Church a speaking Judge, but the Scripture a dumb rule; and yet not a whole rule, but a piece and a part of one. They accuse Scripture of obscurity, and wish that it were more obscure yet, that it might have less strength to condemn them. Whereupon they bear themselves as infallible Interpreters of Scripture, thereby making themselves Law-givers under the title of Interpreters.

The Cardinal in the seventh Chapter of the second observation of the second Book, maintains, that one must not have recourse to the age of the Apostles, that is, to the example and doctrine of the Apostles to repurge the Church. Bellarmine saith that Scripture is a piece of a rule, and that it was not written to rule our faith, but only for a wholesome counsel, equalizing the authority of Scripture, bearing witness to herself, to the authority of the Alcoran of Mahomet.

The Jesuit Bail in the first Treatise of the Catechism, saith, that without the authority of the Church he would believe the Gospel of St. Matthew no more then Titus Livius. Charron in his third Verity, saith, that he that is instructed by Scripture is no Christian; and many times over-pronounceth this maxim, that the Church and the Scripture are Judges, but the Church principally, and with great preeminence. The Jesuit Salmeron, in the 13. Tome, 8. Dispute. upon St. Paul's Epistles, giveth to the Scripture a nose of wax. Gregorius de Valentia in the 4. Book of the Analysis, 3. Chap. calls the Scripture a rock of offense. And always these Doctors by the Church understand the Roman, not the Greek, more ancient then the Roman, nor the Syrian, more ancient then the Greek; And by the Roman Church they understand the Pope, in whom alone all that authority resideth. For (if we stand to their judgment) that man should be very wide of the truth, that would take the word Church in this question, in the same sense as in the Symbole. They have given to that word a new signification.

After they have so vilified Scripture, it was easy for them to forbid the reading of it. Yet because it would be a thing of ill savor, if in the public service the Scripture should have no place, they read a few texts of it, but in a tongue which the people understand not. By these means they shelter themselves against Scripture, and take an order that their doctrine may not be Judged by the Word of God, for they have made themselves Judges of the Word of God.

For our part, we reverence the authority of the Church which teacheth us according to the Word of God, and receive with respect those that speak in God's name; Of whom the Lord Jesus saith, He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. We know also that though they have no power to add or change anything in the doctrine, yet the Pastors of the Church being assembled, can make Laws concerning Ecclesiastical policy, use reprehensions, censures, and excommunications against vices, and declare the doctrines, which Scripture hath condemned, erroneous.

But five things ought to be observed, about the limitation of that authority.

I. That this authority belongs to none but the Orthodox Church, which retains the true ground of the faith, and by consequent that one hath need to know well which is the Orthodox Church, that teacheth the true doctrine, before he attributes any authority to her.

II. That this authority is subject unto the Word of God, and that no man ought to presume beyond that which is written, 1 Cor. 4.

III. That the authority of the Church in the Apostles time, is far greater then that of other ages. For these holy lights had the continual assistance of God's Spirit, and are still sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel.

IV. That we have no law, and no order established by the Universal Church, but the laws and rules that were established by the Apostles, who governed the Universal Church, and did represent it. But all the Ecclesiastical laws made since [that are worth keeping] were made by Councils assembled, not out of the Universal Church, but out of the universal Roman Empire.

V. That although the Church of the whole world were met together, yet it can never have so much authority as the holy Scripture, since it is subject unto Scripture, that is, unto God, speaking by his Prophets and Apostles, as St. Paul saith, Rom. 3. that the oracles of God were committed unto the Jews. The Orthodox Church is a witness unto Scripture; and subjecting herself to the authority of Scripture, doth not presume to give her authority; For by Scripture we understand not the paper and the characters, but the divine doctrine contained in it.

That none may think that we impose upon our Adversaries that which they believe not, or that others among them speak with more respect of Scripture then Cardinal du Perron doth, it is expedient to hear what their other Doctors say of it.

Bellarmine in the 3. Book of the unwritten word, Chap. 9. saith, God ought to have provided a Judge for the Church; Now that Judge cannot be Scripture. And soon after, It appeareth that Scripture is not a Judge.

Lindanus in his Panoplia, In the Index of the Chapters of the 5. Book. The Church hath not been limited to the Scriptures by the will of God, but to the living and perpetual testimony of the Holy Ghost.

The Jesuit Costerus, in the first Chapter of his Manual Christ would not have his Church to depend upon writings in paper.

In the same place speaking of the Traditions of the Roman Church, and calling them a more excellent kind of Scripture, he saith, The excellency of that Scripture exceeds much the holy Scriptures which the Apostles have left us in parchment.

Salmeron in the first Prolegomen, Although the authority of the Church and of Scripture be from God, yet the authority of the Church is more ancient and of more worth, seeing that Scripture was made for the Church. If that reason hold, the authority of the people shall be above the laws and edicts of Kings, for those laws were made for the people.

And in the second Prolegomen, It is no wonder if Scripture be subject to the Church of God, which hath the Spirit. By that means the Law of God is subject unto men.

The Jesuit Serarius in the tenth Prolegomen. qu. 2. Scripture is deaf to hear causes, and stupid to examine them, and is a most unfit Vicar of God (the Judge) to pronounce a sentence properly so called.

Gregorius de Valentia Jesuit, in the 4. Book of the Analysis, Chap. 4. Scripture by a secret judgment of God is as a rock of offense and a temptation to the feet of the unwise, that those that will ground themselves upon it alone, may most easily stumble at it, & go out of the way.

Stapleton in the 2. book of the authority of Scripture, Chap. 11. I have said and say, that Scripture in itself is not so much the rule of faith, as the faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture.

So a course is taken that God's subjects shall rule his Law, and that God shall become subject unto men. It is Charron 's doctrine in his 3. Verity, 2. chap. We acknowledge the Church to have, in our regard, more authority then Scripture. Yea Scripture cannot be the last rule and the sovereign Judge of doctrine.

Truly the Roman Church must needs be acknowledged to have more authority then Scripture, that is, then God speaking by his Prophets and Apostles, if it be so that she have power to change that which God hath commanded in the Scripture, as M. du Perron will tell us hereafter.

By the way observe how little these men understand what they say. For Bellarmine in the fore-alleged place, saith that God ought to have provided a Judge for his Church; And yet our Adversaries will have the Church to be Judge. And the same men that ground the authotity of Scripture upon that of the Church, will allege Scripture, when they are asked upon what ground the authority of the Church is founded.

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.

I. THat unto which the Church is subject, is of greater authority then the Church: and the Laws of a Sovereign Prince, are above the men subject unto hi Laws. Now the Church is subject unto the Word of God, contained in the holy Scriptures, for they contain the laws of the Sovereign God. Then they have more authority then the Church which is subject to these Laws. Should that man have been suffered in Moses his time, that would have said that the people of Israel was above the Law of God given by Moses? or that the Priests and Levites gave authority to that Law, whereas that Law did establish the Priests and gave them authority?

II. The authority of God commanding, is always greater then the authority of men to whom God gives commandments in his Word. If God in Scripture gave authority to the Church above Scripture, he would give her also authority above herself. For it is God that speaks in the holy Scriptures.

III. If we do not believe God speaking in the Scriptures, but because the Church commands it, men should be more credible then God.

IV. That which is subject to error, and is guided by Pastors subject to be led away by evil affections of pride, covetousness and hatred, must needs have less authority then that which is exempt from those vices. Now we have proved before, that the Church is subject to these inconveniences, and that she can err. And the Pastors may be led away by perverse affections. She must then have less authority then Scripture which is exempt from all that.

V. If the authority of the Church be grounded upon Scripture, it is certain, that the authority of Scripture is greater then that of the Church; For it is Scripture that saith, Tell it unto the Church. If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Pagan and a Publican: And without the authority of Scripture we should not so much as know that there must be a Church in the world. Our adversaries go about to prove the authority of the Roman Church by texts of Scripture; They do then acknowledge that Scripture hath more authority then their Church.

VI. The same is evident, in that the holy Scripture commands the Church and giveth her Laws. But the Church doth not command Scripture; only she declareth that such a book is Scripture, and is a witness and keeper of his truth. And by making that declaration, she doth nothing but what she is bound to do. Thereby she makes profession of the obedience which she oweth unto Scripture. Now to command, is a thing of far greater worth and authority then to be a witness only.

VII. The Apostle St. Paul, Eph. 2.20. foundeth the Church upon the Prophets and Apostles. You are built (saith he) upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. He means not that the Church is built upon the persons of the Apostles and Prophets, who were dead, or mortal, but upon their doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures.

VIII. If this proposition be well examined, that the authority of the Church over Us, is greater then that of Sccipture, it will be found void of common sense; For this word Us signifieth no other thing but the Church: So the sense of that proposition will be, That the authority of the Church over the Church, is of greater authority then that of Scripture. And if by that word Us the people only be understood, then that proposition is false in respect of the Pastors.

IX. Every Judge between two parties, must be acknowledged by both the parties. Now Scripture is acknowledged both by us and by our Adversaries to be the true word of God; But we acknowledge not the Roman Church to be the true Church. Wherefore the Roman Church cannot be Judge of our controversies: Otherwise she should be both Judge and Party, and should be Judge in her own cause.

X. There is but one holy Scripture, but there be many dissenting Churches, which should be made friends before we can know which must judge us, if so be that the Church must be our Judge: For the Greek and the Syrian will pretend to be Judges as well as the Roman, as being more ancient.

XI. If the Roman Church be not grounded upon the Word of God contained in the Scriptures, our Adversaries must produce some other ground, and divine proof upon which it is grounded; which they can never do.

XII. We desire also to know whether in the Controversy concerning the authority of the Church, or in the question, whether the Church be Judge, the Church must be Judge; and whether she be Judge of her own duty, and of the Laws to which God hath subjected her. Shall the Church judge without erring, whether the Church can err? Also we should be told before, whether the Pope be subject unto Scripture? for if he be subject to Scripture, he is not a Sovereign Judge in the points of Faith; and the power of altering that which God commandeth in Scripture is falsely attributed unto him; if he be not subject to Scripture, he is then above God, and exempted from his obedience.

XIII. But what Decrees of the Church can be brought which give authority to Scripture? Shall they bring the Canons of the Councils? But Scripture had her full authority before these Councils. And if these Canons give authority to the holy Scripture, then these Canons are the holy Scripture with more reason then that which we call so: For that which makes a thing to be holy and authentical, hath need to be more holy and authentical. Why then are they not inserted in the holy Scripture? But that is altogether impossible, seeing that the Canons of the Councils which define what Books of Scripture must be Canonical, are contrary to one another: For the Canons of the Councils of Laodicea, and Carthage, and Trent, dissent about the Catalogue of the Canonical Books.

XIV. Should that man have been suffered in the Church of Israel, who had said that the High Priest had more authority then the Law of God? and that the authority of the Law was grounded upon that of the High Priest? whereas the authority of the High Priest was grounded upon the Law of God, whereby he had been established in his charge. Without question such a man should have been stoned, unless he had been held for a mad man. If then the authority of the Law did not depend from the lawful High Priests, is it like that in our days it depends from the Roman Popes, whose Office is but imaginary, and invented by men?

XV. Now if the authority of the Church be brought in question, must the Church herself be Judge in that cause? Or if that cause be judged by Scripture, shall then Scripture be Judge of the Church?

XVI. And though it were granted that the authority of the Church is greater over us then that of Scripture, yet it must be presupposed that such an authority is not proper, but to a Church which is not heretical, and retains the true doctrine. Now one cannot know whether a Church have the true doctrine conformable unto God's Word, but by examining her Doctrine by the Word of God contained in the holy Scripture. And so we must still return to Scripture, and acknowledge it for the Judge of the Church, before we can ascribe any authority to the Church.

St. Austin is very express upon that question. In the XI. Book against Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5. The Holy Scripture is set up in a certain high seat, to which every faithful and pious understanding must serve. And in the Book of the Unity of the Church, chap. 2. We must seek the Church in the words of Christ, who is the Truth, who knows very well his own body: And a little after, I will have the Church shown to me, not by human Precepts, but by divine Oracles. And chap. 3. Ergo in Scriptures Canonicis quaeramus Ecclesiam, Let us then seek the Church in the Canonical Scriptures. Let M. du Perron expound Austin as he will, saying, that Austin will have us to learn of Scripture, that the Church must be always eminent and in greater number; For always this remains, that St. Austin will have those marks of eminency and multitude to be learned out of Scripture, and by consequent that we must address ourselves to Scripture before we know the Church, and that Scripture in that point is Judge of the Church. And if in one point, why not also in other points. Basil in the 80. Epistle to Eustathius, Let the divinely inspired Scripture judge us. Clemens Alexandrinus in the third of the Stromates, In the search of things we make use of Scripture to judge. And Austin 18. chapter of Grace and Free-will, Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Johannes, Let the Apostle John sit Judge between us.

CHAP. 19. Reasons of our Adversaries to the contrary.

NOw let us see what reasons our Adversaries can have to set man above God, and make the authority of the Word of God to depend from the authority of men.

1. They say that without the authority of the Church, one should not know that this is the Scripture, and that such and such Books are Canonical; Whence they conclude that the Church hath more authority then Scripture.

I could make an argument like that, and with better reason, saying, that without the authority of holy Scripture, one should not know that there is a Church in the world, and that by the Scripture one discerneth which Church is the best, and therefore that Scripture hath more authority. But to answer directly, I maintain that it is not by the authority of the Church, that one knows that this is Scripture, but by the testimony of the Church. The Church neither ordaineth nor commandeth, nor maketh that these Books be the holy Scripture, but only testifieth and declareth that these Books are the holy Scripture. The Churches authority doth not make us become bound to receive Scripture, since herself is bound to receive it. It doth not belong to subjects to ordain what Laws they must obey. And all that the Councils declare upon that, is but a profession, and a declaration of their obedience, and an acknowledgement of the perfection of the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures.

That by this declaration the Church cannot pretend any authority above Scripture, it appeareth, because heretical Churches make the same Declaration, and bear the like testimony unto Scripture: Yea it may happen that he who hath received the holy Scripture from the Church, will by that Scripture justly reprove the Errors of that very Church. As if one hath shown me the Kings Edicts, it doth not follow that he is above those Edicts. Likewise if the Church testify unto me that this is Scripture, it doth not follow that the Church is above the Scripture; else the Stationers should be above all the Laws of the Kingdom.

Besides, the testimony of the Church is not to be received, unless she be pure in the faith. Now whether she be pure in the Faith, one cannot know but by the holy Scripture, which in that question is not only a Witness, but a Judge and speaks with authority.

I say more, That the testimony which a Church pure in the faith delivereth to an ignorant person, that such Books are Divine and Canonical, is in regard of that ignorant person a doubtful and weak testimony, because he knows not whether that Church be Orthodox and worthy to be credited. He shall never have a certain belief that these Books are Divine, until by the hearing or reading of the Doctrine contained in them, God illuminate his understanding, and touch his heart. For the trust which we ought to have in the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, is an effect of God's Spirit, and cannot be grounded upon the only testimony of men. It is by Faith that we believe Scripture: Now the Church doth not give that Faith, but it is an effect of God Spirit.

As the Samaritans, Joh. 4. having believed with a light belief to a woman's testimony, who had told them that Jesus was the Christ, having since heard Jesus Christ himself, said to the woman, It is no more for thy word that we believe, but ourselves have heard and known that this is truly the Christ the Savior of the world; So it happens that an ignorant man who hath received Scripture by the probable testimony of the Church where he liveth, when afterwards he hath got instruction by Scripture, doth not ground himself upon the testimony of men, but is himself touched with the effectual power of that Word, and is instructed by experience.

It is an Error to say, that one cannot prove by Scripture, that Scripture is holy and divine: For as the Sun is seen by his own light, and needs no other witness; Likewise the Word of God, more piercing then any two-edged sword, makes the faithful that have received it, sufficiently to feel that it is a divine Word; neither is there any need of any other proof, or to have it authorized by men. Besides, one part of Scripture is confirmed by the other. The New Testament allegeth the Old, and the Old foretells the New. Moses and Elias appear to Jesus Christ in the Mountain. Peter bears testimony to the Epistles of Paul.

Then the same reason may be retorted against our Adversaries; and we may say that the Church cannot bear testimony to herself that she is the true Church; and that another witness, and that infallible, must be had, and some other then herself must give her authority. Now that other, without doubt, is God speaking in his Word.

Our Adversaries insist, and say, that such and such Books are not Canonical, but by the authority of the Church. But we have said already, that the Churches declaration that such and such Books must be held for the Rule and Canon of the Faith, doth not make those Books to be sacred and divine, and to be the Rule of Faith. And that by such a Declaration the Church giveth no authority to Scripture, but professeth her subjection to Scripture.

By the way, we must know that the knowledge that such and such Books are Canonical, is not a Proposition of Divinity, but of History: For to be Canonical, signifies not to be holy or divine, but to have been received in the Church as Divine, and as a Canon or rule of Faith. Wherefore some Books have been Canonical at one time, and not at another; some are received as Canonical in some Churches, not in another. But before any Council had made a Canon or Catalogue of the holy Scriptures, these Books were divine, and of Sovereign authority.

But let us hear their further Objections. That which is more ancient (say they) hath more authority. Now the Church is more ancient then Scripture; Ergo, It hath more authority then Scripture. Of this argument both the Propositions are false: It is false, that whatsoever is more ancient, hath more authority: The people is more ancient then either the Laws, or the Kings that govern the People; and yet the People is subject to the Law and the King. Now Scripture is the Law of the Church. Likewise that the Church is more ancient then Scripture, is a Proposition liable to exceptions: For that which Scripture saith of the Nature of God, of his Counsels, of the works of Creation, and of the Election of the faithful, is more ancient then the Church.

This Objection they press very much. That which speaks not, cannot be a Judge: Now Scripture speaks not; It is a dumb Rule saith the Jesuit Arnoux. Then there is need of a speaking Judge, and that Judge is the Church, that is, the Pope and his Prelates. The Jesuit Salmeron goes so far, as to say that Scripture is like dumb men, or like Jack-Puddings and Players who make themselves to be understood with signs; so horrible a hatred have these men conceived against the holy Scripture.

Indeed Paper and Ink speak not; but it is enough that God hath spoken, and pronounced the things contained in that Book, and inspired those that have written it. It is enough, that it is a rule according to which they that are called Judges must speak: Thus Isai. 8.20. sends the Church to the Law, and to the Testimony, and if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. It would be a Capital crime, if the authority of the Kings Edicts should be despised, because the Paper upon which the Edicts are written doth not speak. By speaking thus, they perceive not that by the same reason they reject the Councils, the Fathers, and the Decrees of the Popes, who are dead long since, and declare that they will not have them for Judges: For the Tomes of the Councils, and the Fathers, and the Roman Decree speak no more then the Paper and Ink of Scripture. And if the Word Judge displeaseth our Adversaries, at least they should not take from Scripture the title of a perfect Rule to rule our Faith, which is the title that Chrysostom giveth to Scripture in the 13. Homily upon the 2. Epistle to the Corinthians, where he calls it, an exact balance, a square and a rule of all things. But that doth not suit with our Adversaries humor; for Bellarmine saith, that the proper and principal end of Scripture was not to be the Rule of Faith. And Stapleton; Scripture is not so much the Rule of Faith, as the Faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture. And Charron in the 3. verity, The Scripture is not, and cannot be the last Rule and the Sovereign Judge of the Doctrine.

They add, that the Church is sooner known then Scripture; and that which is more known, must have more authority. By that reason we should honor men more then God, because we know them sooner, and more clearly then God. Besides, it is false, that the Church is sooner known with a distinct knowledge then Scripture, with such a knowledge as makes one truly know which is the true Church. Without knowing the doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures, one may see the Church as a society of men. But thereby one cannot know whether it be the true and Orthodox Church: For so much cannot be known, but after one hath been instituted in the Doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures.

But, say they, the Church hath changed some Laws contained in the Scripture, as the prohibition of eating blood and strangled things, Act. 15. I answer, that this Law ought to be kept, but that Scripture teacheth us that it was altered. That alteration is found 1 Cor. 10.27. which was written since that order made Act. 15. for the Apostle Paul speaks thus, If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. Now it might easily happen that on the tables of the Infidels some blood was served, or some strangled thing. Should the Church which is subject unto God, and to his Laws, have authority to abolish God's Laws? Must the Laws depend from the authority of Subjects? By this means the Church shall have no other laws but such as she will like and authorize.

One of the ordinariest reasons which our Adversaries use, to depress the dignity of holy Scripture, and bring it under unwritten Tradition, is to say, that God hath commanded the Prophets and Apostles to speak and preach, not to write. If the Priests had as carefully perused Scripture as they do their Missal, they would not speak so; for they should have found Exod. 17.14. that God said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in a Book. And Deut. 17.18. God will have the King of Israel to keep a copy of the Book of the Law. God himself writ his ten Commandments with his finger in the stone. And Isai. 30.8. God saith to his Prophet, Now go, write it before them in a Table, and note it in a Book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever. And Jer. 36.2. Take thee a Roll of a Book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee. The same Commandment is given to Hab. 2.2. Write the Vision. And to St. John, Rev. 1.11. What thou seest write in a Book. The Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16. saith, that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Now the Inspiration of God is stronger then a Commandment; for Commandments strike the cars, but Inspiration changeth the heart: Many disobey the Commandment of God; but one cannot have a will to resist his Inspiration when it is once come. When God inspires one to speak and to write, not only he commands him to speak or to write, but also he speaks and writes by him: His Inspirations are not only imperative, but operative. Wherefore Austin in the first Book of the consent of Evangelists in the 7. chap. saith, that Whatsoever God would have us to read of his deeds and sayings, he commanded them to write it, as if they had been his own hands.

Finally, they go about to prove the authority of the Church above Scripture, because the Church can add to Scripture, and give Laws not contained in Scripture. This they call Traditions, and the unwritten word. Of which Traditions (with God's help) we will treat hereafter.

CHAP. 20. Examination of the places of the Ancients which M. du Perron objecteth to this purpose.

BEing beaten out of all their reasons, they have recourse (as it is their manner) to the Fathers. For it can hardly be but that in such an infinite number of Books of the Ancients something may be found, which they may draw to their advantage.

They say that the Fathers confute by the authority of the Church those Heretics that rejected some part of Scripture, and that Tertullian in the Book of Prescriptions would convince them by the authority of the Apostolical Churches; That St. Austin against the Epistle of the Foundation, disputeth thus against the Manicheans; It is necessary for me to believe that Book if I believe the Gospel, since the authority of the Catholic Church commendeth both the one and the other Scripture.

We answer, that against those that reject Scripture or part of it, we must indeed, out of necessity make use of some other proof or authority then that of Scripture, which they reject. So when we dispute against Pagans that reject all the holy Scripture, we employ human reason to endeavor to make them receive the Scripture. But hence it follows not, that we give authority to human reason over the Scripture.

Secondly, we must consider that Tertullian lived about an hundred and twenty years after the Apostles, when it was easy enough to prove, that all the Churches founded by the Apostles, had always kept the same Doctrine; but now after so many ages and revolutions, that argument hath no more place. Already in Austin's time the Orthodox Churches dissented about the number of the Canonical Books, as he testifieth in the 8. chapter of the 2. Book of the Christian Doctrine, where he adviseth the faithful Reader to receive those Books for Canonical, which most Churches receive; and where the Churches do not agree, to follow those which have the greater authority.

They object also this place of Austin against Cresconius in the 1. Book, ch. 33. The truth of Scripture is kept by us when we do that which the Universal Church liketh; which the very authority of Scripture doth recommend. But it is clear, that this text sets Scripture above the Church, since it groundeth the authority of the Church upon Scripture. Besides, in that place Austin doth not speak of matters necessary to salvation, but of some customs of an indifferent nature, wherein we willingly yield to the authority of a Church which is Orthodox and sound in the Faith. But that soundness in the faith is not known but by Scripture. And it is very considerable, that by the Universal Church Austin meant the Churches of Asia, Africa,